It seems bizzare that such an important service has managed to get into such a tight “grip”.
Did the manufacturer market it heavily into areas where a rapid adoption was very likely – gliding?
The protocol was not encrypted in the early years of Flarm. It did require a license back then as well.
In my opinion as Flarm became larger and larger it started to behave as a large company as well :-( Sad, as there support when down with it as well. Someone has published the encryption method. Don’t know if that is still valid, as Flarm has a now yearly mandatory update cyclus, making not updated Flarm useless. I can see possitive points on this yearly updates as well, as it easily allows new feature improvements.
Had some incompatibility between Garmin and Flarm the other day. I asked Flarm which products they have tested, they indicated none fixed panel equipment, only that the protocol was supported, so it should theoritically work. I also asked Garmin which as expected didn’t support Flarm and refered back to them.
The Open Glider Network has done quite some good work on this as well with a ground based tracking network etc. Flarmnet openly disagrees with OGN, and there have been disussion if OGN would be legal (decripting Flarm).
Another strange point is with CS-STAN, is that one product only (Flarm) is allowed to be installed. Which seems strange and a privilege to Flarm. For example for the CS-STAN chapter of LED light products, you can choose whichever product, granted it meets the regulations. Why this one is only limited to Flarm and not to other similair products such as OGN tracker of pilot-aware is a mistery to me.
I was told that if I wanted something else covered under CS-STAN, I should write the document and hand it in. So probably this document was written by someone from the FLARM community, and they are obviously not interested in covering other systems. But it should be possible to do the same for similar systems. Which other products were you thinking of?
Rwy20 wrote:
But it should be possible to do the same for similar systems. Which other products were you thinking of?
Basically any traffic system. We have an own developed product we use for verification and tracking, there are others as well such as the own OGN hardware or Pilot-Aware. They are all good products. Apart from those modern products, also older ZAON systems, Avidyne TAS, Garmin GTS and L3 Skywatch all enable safety and it should be as easy as possible to install these kind of products.
One the companies we team up with for the design innovative products for General Aviation, Selfy is currently working on a small low power radar, which is currently being flight tested. This would also be a product that can enhance safety, and should require the least amount of paperwork possible.
Flarm’s view is detailled in this document:
http://flarm.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/FLARM-System-Design-and-Compatibility.pdf
Back in 07/08 DSX tried to do / had a compatible device but had to stop.
Considering the level of encryption, some will argue it is offuscation rather than encryption.
They apparently were not too warm to OGN initially, but have incorporated some additional flags in the 2015 protocol so I imagine go on with it now.
It was meant for gliders and helicopters in montains initially and was marketed as such (imagine 140 kt head-on conflict with a rock face on one side). The fact that is is also an approved IGC logger (needed for badge, competition and records) also has helped.
Then I got made mandatory is French Alps and in competition in some countries. Then it snow balled.
On top of the collision avoidance, there is also the tactical advantage of seeing what other people are doing and whether they are climbing (cue long forum threads and heated discussion whether it’s good for the sport)
Reportdly, nowadays they make most of their money in the open-mining version of it ( http://www.safe-mine.com/ )
Interesting what considerations there are which they worry about in gliding:
The same privacy concerns can be made for Mode S / ADS-B yet that is moving forward anyway….. so it looks like the competitive gliding market is what is driving their grip on the technology. And if I was making e.g. a certified TAS box I would think twice before incorporating this functionality under license.
They are pretty wide of the mark with this bit:
Since decryption or interception of encrypted communication is illegal in most countries, this also ensures the integrity of the system beyond the technical barriers.
But I guess they can stop competitors if they own the copyright and maybe patents.
There has been some angst recently in the UK when BGA competitions committee decreed all competitors would operate FLARM in its ‘stealth’ mode which significantly degrades the output and traffic warning utility. This was over concerns about giving away competitive advantage about lift etc.. Luckily, due to a big outcry and protest from other communities (I was one as my club has invested in portable FLARM for club aircraft to mitigate against glider risk in local training area) the stupidity of deliberately degrading a collision warning capability was recognised and the competition directive rescinded.
Given that one of FLARM argument for control of the protocol and software is that all device react the same and privacy/stealth/competition flags are honored, it was indeed a mess when they modified the stealth mode in a way no expected and without properly documented it. Part of the problem is that different user group understand «stealth» differently
Peter wrote:
The same privacy concerns can be made for Mode S / ADS-B yet that is moving forward anyway
They are being made, especially in hindsight of companies like FlightRadar, who earn quite a lot on someone elses data. This is a real argument for some pilots to turn off ADS-B data / XPDR where possible. Especially in Germany, many people are concerned about their data and privacy, possibly in CH/AT, too.
However, anybody can receive Mode S / ADS-B with their own hardware, so all you get with FR24 is a web interface over a large area. If you want to see what people are doing within say 100nm of you, you can pick up the signals yourself. And you get a lot more that way e.g. you see stuff which FR24 don’t present, and you can log everything so you can have the data for as long as you want, etc.
So there is no privacy anyway.
And, IMHO, if I was in the law/airspace enforcement business, I would not be getting the data from FR24, whose evidential value is IMHO close to zero 
