I take your point re certification but if the application is good for locating potential collision Hazards then it would be worth the manufacturers developing such a unit.
The problem with such a unit is that it wouldn't be a FLARM unit any more and it would cost
at least ten times more. Here is a couple of points, off the top of my head, why FLARM cannot be certified without switching to a completely different technology:
- it does not use an aeronautical frequency but instead a frequency reserved for automatic door openers and key fobs (!!). This is enough to rule out any aeronautical certification, as the frequency is not reserved for such purposes and is not protected from interference.
- it uses a proprietary protocol which the manufacturer refuses to make public, and transmissions are also encrypted, once again with the manufacturer refusing to divulge the encryption key. The reason for this is that they want to maintain a monopoly and only allow third parties to manufacture compatible gear after paying a license fee. Yes, it's 2013 and the Swiss still think that monopolies are the cat's meow, whereas the rest of the Western world does everything in their power to squash them whenever they are formed.
This again rules out certification as the certifying authority won't be able to verify the protocol, not to mention Brussels surely having something to say about EASA actually enforcing a monopoly.
A certifiable unit will have use an aeronautical frequency, just like transponders, and an open, certifiable protocol, such as ADS-B. We already have collision avoidance equipment based on such standards, the problem is they cost at the very least ten times as much as a FLARM, monopoly notwithstanding.
Mandatory FLARM as a collision and obstacle avoidance system is just a chimera: either it's not mandated or it's not FLARM anymore.
P.S. Just for the record, I have FLARM equipment on my glider. I'm not suicidal, just a realist through and through.
