Nigel,
How do they propose to get over the congestion on
1090Mhz? It is my understanding that that is why
the FAA came up with 978Mhz for ADSB for small aircraft in the lower levels.
Thousands of drones will make the problem far
worse than 100 or so aircraft in say the LA basin.
Mike
At 09:18 AM 3/8/2016, you wrote:
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_004C_01D1791B.83340F40"
Content-Language: en-us
As previously reported there are some big
players pushing the cost of ADS-B, or TABS (
TrafficAdvisoryBroadcastSystem) down to an
estimated $500 US. Google have identified that
for their drone technology to take hold everyone
that flies needs to be fitted with a TABS device
and are spending millions developing this. The
FAA are favouring this approach and discussions
are happening here about the same thing. Drones
will be a billion dollar industry if they can
achieve BVLOS ( BeyondVisualLineOfSight). There
is already a company here selling a TABS unit (
Enigma in Melbourne) There is another company
also developing a glider,hangglider, Ultralight,
Balloon TABS device also looking at the sub $1k
mark. All these devices will have a Bluetooth
output for displaying live traffic on your MFD
or PDA device. These are also APPROVED under the
TABS or C199 TSO so everyone gets to make a
device that has the capacity to design and have approved.
Can I also add that some of these big players in
the drone scene are talking about the
possibility of funding these devices ( I have
been to 2 meetings where this has been
discussed), maybe even making them available for
free to current registered aircraft that are not
fitted with TABS or ADS-B. Commercially it makes
sense, say there are 14,000 aircraft needing
fitment here in Australia, at say $1k a TABS
unit thatâs only $14m Drone delivery could
open up $100m or more in work possibly a good
investment for them and in reality a drop in the
ocean on their bank account, maybe a daysâ
worth of google advertising. Boeing and Airbus
are also actively looking at commercial use
outside of their military market again big
dollars to be made but everyone is restricted by BVLOS restriction.
If I was FLARM I would be looking at making a
TABS unit with a TSOâd C199 ADS-B unit PLUS
legacy compatibility with its existing FLARM
system instead of the half a unit powerflarm
which has flarm but ADS-B in only, great for
gliding but itâs just not going to be fitted
in every power plane just to do FLARM.
Also one note and I have mentioned it before,
TABS devices will respond to TCAS interrogations
as well so that TCAS aircraft that already have
screens displaying TCAS traffic will see you.
<http://www.avweb.com/blogs/insider/AEA-Google-to-the-Rescue-on-ADS-B-223824-1.html>http://www.avweb.com/blogs/insider/AEA-Google-to-the-Rescue-on-ADS-B-223824-1.html
http://www.avweb.com/blogs/insider/AEA-Google-to-the-Rescue-on-ADS-B-223824-1.html
Nigel Andrews
Andrews Electronic Design Pty Ltd
The information contained in the above e-mail
message or messages (which includes any
attachments) is confidential and may be legally
privileged. It is intended only for the use of
the person or entity to which it is addressed.
If you are not the addressee any form of
disclosure, copying, modification, distribution
or any action taken or omitted in reliance on
the information is unauthorised. If you received
this communication in error, please notify the
sender immediately and delete it from your computer system network.
From: Aus-soaring
[mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.base64.com.au] On Behalf Of Mike Borgelt
Sent: Tuesday, 8 March 2016 8:05 AM
To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Update from Flarm on Unsolicited Email Circulation
Richard,
I think Mark Newton already explained how the
code and protocols are different things. He just
told you again. As a supposed IT professional
you know this so please stop with the bullshit.
Nobody is asking Flarm to share the internal
code that makes the device work. The first
implementation of Flarm did not encrypt the
transmission protocol. They in fact published it
themselves. Only when a credible competitor,
making an inter operable system appeared did
they encrypt the transmissions. They've now done
it in such a way that the key keeps changing to
make breaking the encryption near impossible.
There is no good reason to do this except for
commercial advantage. It in fact introduces complexity and risk.
As for varios and Flarms - apples and oranges.
Are you really that silly? Again the source code
for the firmware in our varios is irrelevant
anyway. Deciding what the thing should do and
how is the hard part. I see our audios have
been explicitly emulated in at least two other
products and several other features also.
When it comes to interacting with other devices
such as PNAs etc we publish the messaging
protocol which is why XCSoar reads it and also
sends MacCready, bugs and ballast to the
B600/B800. We even used the CAI 302 input
protocol to make things easier for developers.
As for hunting down the originator of that
email, ROTFLMAO, "please don't throw me in the
briar patch". Sure would be fun seeing the
internal communications between the Flarm guys
regarding the decision to encrypt, subpoenaed.
Let alone the unwanted attention the case may
attract from various competition law regulators in Europe and other places.
Flarm is a nice proof of concept demonstration
that got out of hand. It has significant
limitations but for the purpose it was designed
(avoiding head on collisions in the Alps) it was a great advance.
Mike
At 10:01 AM 3/7/2016, you wrote:
Mike, thats sounds pretty hypocritical coming from you.
You of all people should be honest in
acknowledging the challenging business economics
that are apparent in serving what is a tiny community.
Flarm have done a great job over the many years
supplying a reliable, life saving product that
cost less than some of your Varios.
Like you Mike, they have every right to protect
their IP and make a living. I donât see you
ou rushing to Open Sourcing your codes.
Open Source has its place, as does Proprietary supply.
Right now, Flarm licence their code and design
to 9 other parties. Those parties add their own
value into the supply chain. As such, its a competitive market.
On 7 Mar 2016, at 10:32 AM, Mike Borgelt
<<mailto:mborg...@borgeltinstruments.com>
mborg...@borgeltinstruments.com> wrote:
At 07:45 PM 3/6/2016, you wrote:
On 6 Mar 2016, at 2:30 PM, Richard Frawley
<<mailto:rjfraw...@gmail.com>rjfraw...@gmail.com> wrote:
<http://flarm.com/statement-by-flarm-technology-about-recent-unsolicited-emails/>http://flarm.com/statement-by-flarm-technology-about-recent-unsolicited-emails/
Smells like bullshit.
<http://flarm.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/FLARM-System-Design-and-Compatibility.pdf>http://flarm.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/FLARM-System-Design-and-Compatibility.pdf
"Encryption of the radio protocol is a
consequence of the requirements for privacy and
security and was thus introduced nearly a decade
ago: It protects the system from abuse but also
from rogue devices implementing the protocol and
system incorrectly or incompletely. The latter
may have serious consequences for users of
proper devices since incorrect data may lead to
undefined behavior on the receiver end. The
encryption applied is an industrial-strength
symmetric cipher, fast enough to be run on all
devices with no performance degradation. Since
decryption or interception of encrypted
communication is illegal in most countries, this
also ensures the integrity of the system beyond
the technical barriers. Furthermore, the
encryption can be enhanced with software updates
if security is compromised.âÃÃÂ
This is a half-baked technical-sounding
justification for a restraint of trade.
So I guess by the Flarm company's thinking ADSB
is illegal as it breaks privacy and security?
There's no encryption and every aircraft is
identified by a unique code. Note that no
individual is identified, just the aircraft,
same as Flarm. Flarm is transmitted a few kilometers, ADSB goes to the horizon.
Let alone the engineering stupidity of
implementing an unnecessary encryption scheme
which adds complexity and failure modes.
Where is Flarm company's evidence that other
devices ever caused a problem? Apart from cutting in to their sales.
I'm aware of only one other Flarm compatible
device having been commercially produced and
that was made by DSX. They claimed to have had
40% of the Italian and Spanish markets before
Flarm started their encryption games and managed
to break the initial Flarm encryption scheme in 3 weeks.
Figure out the rest for yourselves.
Oh, I really like the Flarm response to this:
Let's find the messenger and shoot him.
Mike
Publish the standard, and have independent
auditors judge compliance with the standard to
award a FLARM-compatible Service Mark for
compatible implementations. Devices that
arenâÃÃt ¢t
âÃÃrogueâÃÃâ¬Ã get to advertise
themselves as FLARM(sm), devices that
donâÃÃt, t, donâÃÃt. Comps can
specify that at they wonâÃÃt accept
FLARMs Ms without the servicemark. Then let the
marketâÃÃs desire for or interoperability clean up the raggedy ends.
Using encryption to lock competitors out of the
protocol altogether is going to be incredibly
funny in a few years as soon as FLARM decides to
stop providing software support to the
20,000-odd obsolete devices bought between 2004
and 2010. If you want to keep FLARM
youâÃÃll need to buy another er device
from the same company that just shafted the
device youâÃÃve already bought. t.
- mark
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
<mailto:Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au>Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
Borgelt Instruments - design & manufacture of
quality soaring instrumentation since 1978
<http://www.borgeltinstruments.com/>www.borgeltinstruments.com
tel: 07 4635 5784 overseas: int+61-7-4635 5784
mob: 042835 5784 : int+61-42835 5784
P O Box 4607, Toowoomba East, QLD 4350, Australia
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
<mailto:Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au>Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
<mailto:Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au>Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
Borgelt Instruments - design & manufacture of
quality soaring instrumentation since 1978
<http://www.borgeltinstruments.com/>www.borgeltinstruments.com
tel: 07 4635 5784 overseas: int+61-7-4635 5784
mob: 042835 5784 : int+61-42835 5784
P O Box 4607, Toowoomba East, QLD 4350, Australia
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
Borgelt Instruments - design & manufacture of
quality soaring instrumentation since 1978
www.borgeltinstruments.com
tel: 07 4635 5784 overseas: int+61-7-4635 5784
mob: 042835 5784 : int+61-42835 5784
P O Box 4607, Toowoomba East, QLD 4350, Australia
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
