OpenFLARM project
Joined: Apr 2016
Posts: 221
Likes: 0
From: localhost
Distractions are an important point.
Ideally, if everyone has ADS-B you would see, during your scan that there is someone ahead, similar altitude and heading your way. So you take some avoiding action and try and get visual.
What actually happens at the moment is, there isn't a mandatory requirement in EASA land so not everyone has the device and there is a lot of complacence around that - just because YOU have ADS-B in Class G doesn't mean everyone else does and doesn't mean the magic tablet is gonna always get you out of a sticky situation. So, we end up with more heads down in the cockpit. The other problem is what happens if everyone has ADS-B? Well, in some areas you're going to end up with a big yellow blob on your screen - fat lot of good for anyone! As the Dutch found out at Schipol when they made Mode S mandatory, more isn't always better in the context of radar clutter
Drones? There needs to be some kind of proper certification for them and training. I don't like to be a spoilsport but it is stating to get silly the no. of drone related airprox. All it's going to take is for one to get ingested, then the large lithium "bomb" will go bang and you'll have an engine failure/fire/dismembering of turbine.
Ideally, if everyone has ADS-B you would see, during your scan that there is someone ahead, similar altitude and heading your way. So you take some avoiding action and try and get visual.
What actually happens at the moment is, there isn't a mandatory requirement in EASA land so not everyone has the device and there is a lot of complacence around that - just because YOU have ADS-B in Class G doesn't mean everyone else does and doesn't mean the magic tablet is gonna always get you out of a sticky situation. So, we end up with more heads down in the cockpit. The other problem is what happens if everyone has ADS-B? Well, in some areas you're going to end up with a big yellow blob on your screen - fat lot of good for anyone! As the Dutch found out at Schipol when they made Mode S mandatory, more isn't always better in the context of radar clutter
Drones? There needs to be some kind of proper certification for them and training. I don't like to be a spoilsport but it is stating to get silly the no. of drone related airprox. All it's going to take is for one to get ingested, then the large lithium "bomb" will go bang and you'll have an engine failure/fire/dismembering of turbine.
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,434
Likes: 0
From: Scotland
No. That is not what I mean.
No doubt the tech is there if you are prepared to pay through the nose for the commercial varieties. No doubt the military have got something that would do the job, probably called radar or some such.
I mean a box that will detect any GPS receiver, including iPads, smart phones, tablets of all flavours etc. And with the capability to squelch out the ground based morons texting each other or car satnavs. Without the need for a transponder, certified dedicated kit etc. And certainly not at some stupid price.
No doubt the tech is there if you are prepared to pay through the nose for the commercial varieties. No doubt the military have got something that would do the job, probably called radar or some such.
I mean a box that will detect any GPS receiver, including iPads, smart phones, tablets of all flavours etc. And with the capability to squelch out the ground based morons texting each other or car satnavs. Without the need for a transponder, certified dedicated kit etc. And certainly not at some stupid price.
Joined: Apr 2016
Posts: 221
Likes: 0
From: localhost
I mean a box that will detect any GPS receiver, including iPads, smart phones, tablets of all flavours etc. And with the capability to squelch out the ground based morons texting each other or car satnavs. Without the need for a transponder, certified dedicated kit etc. And certainly not at some stupid price.
There are a couple of "open" protocols - P3I and OpenFlarm that broadcast your position on an unregulated frequency - essentially an unregulated "version" of ADS-B. But that leads to a load more individual protocols as has been pointed out previously...
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 350
Likes: 0
From: Scotland
I still think a cheaper ADS-B in/out system is probably the answer. However, what if the pilot and/or passenger had a smartphone with internal GPS switched on. Would it be possible and accurate enough to give collision warning to/from other similarly equipped aircraft through the 3G or 4G networks? I doubt it but just a thought!
Thread Starter
Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
From: UK
That is pretty much what OpenFLARM is, for £50. Ok it can't pick up any "GPS receivers" but it does make you visible on Sky Demon to anyone else who has one as well as showing you FLARM contacts and other traffic in certain areas.
Joined: Apr 2017
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
From: Germany
OpenFLARM and Pilotaware
Dear all,
it´s very interesting to read this and this discussion seems to reveal more details than the actual OpenFLARM homepage. I´m a Pilotaware user flying a Mooney and I´d be very interested in having the FLARM reception inegrated to PAW. Till now I understood that FLARM reception may technically be possible but illegal. Could anybody connected to the OpenFLARM project indicate why their method of reception is legal and how it technically works? I guess if this is with good reasoning and given the fact that OpenFLARM is really "open", PAW developers could probably use the same method to integrate this into PAW.
Not that I would not apprechiate the effort that OpenFLARM developers invest, but I´ll not put two non-certified devices into my plane and in my view PAW is already noticable steps ahead...
Again: I´m just a user with no connection to any of the providers/developers. I´m just happy with what PAW does already and the only thing I´m missing there is FLARM reception. I actually don´t care much about the lack of FLARM Tx since it´ll in any case be me to divert to avoid a collision. Thus it´s far more important that I know where the glider is then vice versa...
Thanks
it´s very interesting to read this and this discussion seems to reveal more details than the actual OpenFLARM homepage. I´m a Pilotaware user flying a Mooney and I´d be very interested in having the FLARM reception inegrated to PAW. Till now I understood that FLARM reception may technically be possible but illegal. Could anybody connected to the OpenFLARM project indicate why their method of reception is legal and how it technically works? I guess if this is with good reasoning and given the fact that OpenFLARM is really "open", PAW developers could probably use the same method to integrate this into PAW.
Not that I would not apprechiate the effort that OpenFLARM developers invest, but I´ll not put two non-certified devices into my plane and in my view PAW is already noticable steps ahead...
Again: I´m just a user with no connection to any of the providers/developers. I´m just happy with what PAW does already and the only thing I´m missing there is FLARM reception. I actually don´t care much about the lack of FLARM Tx since it´ll in any case be me to divert to avoid a collision. Thus it´s far more important that I know where the glider is then vice versa...
Thanks
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,434
Likes: 0
From: Scotland
Joined: Apr 2016
Posts: 221
Likes: 0
From: localhost
Technically, if you are breaking any encryption that means you are gaining unauthorised access to data/a system which is illegal under the Computer Misuse Act.
I don't know whether FLARM data is actually encrypted but it is certainly not in a standard format hence, why we have OpenFLARM.
I don't know whether FLARM data is actually encrypted but it is certainly not in a standard format hence, why we have OpenFLARM.
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 395
Likes: 18
From: anywhere
I doubt that. There are hundreds of receivers across Europe, I've never heard of anyone being prosecuted & it's not some underground network either, they are very open about who they are & where they are.
All of which is irrelevant, if you want to receive Flarm on a PAW, hook it up to a Flarm unit. It cannot possibly be illegal to use a Flarm to receive Flarm signals.
All of which is irrelevant, if you want to receive Flarm on a PAW, hook it up to a Flarm unit. It cannot possibly be illegal to use a Flarm to receive Flarm signals.
Joined: Apr 2016
Posts: 221
Likes: 0
From: localhost
Joined: Apr 2017
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
From: Germany
I may not have made myself clear: Of course I could link a pricey original Flarmmouse to my PAW but with OPENflarm not being a licensed genuine Flarm product, claiming to be legally receiving and using Flarm information, I thought there would be a way without paying the fortune to Flarm...
Joined: Apr 2017
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
From: Bavaria
best wishes to the OpenFLARM-team
Anyway, my best wishes are with the team not to stall but to make further progress. It would be fine to listen to FLARM traffic and talk the own position (ADS-B-out via transponder, if necessary).
I would be happy if I could get a PCB and materials list to fire up my soldering iron ;-)
Richard
I would be happy if I could get a PCB and materials list to fire up my soldering iron ;-)
Richard
