Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
User avatar
By TexasUK
#1711987
neilmurg wrote:
ls8pilot wrote:How about some enterprising UK electronics company ... a nice Flarm/ADSB In/(Out) device for us at a reasonable price ?
Hmm, interesting thought (i added a bracket)


I've been saying this for the last year and no-one has listened.

SoftRF has a device called a SkyView that can receive the data from a Skyecho2 and display ADSB targets like it would Flarm ones, but it doesn't appear to add the Flarm info that the Skyecho2 should also be recieving, when you tick the box. I'm hopeful it will be combined at some point. That would give you a simple radar view of both without requiring either Skydemon or the additional Flarm licence.
Of course Skyecho2 doesn't transmit Flarm so you still need a separate device for that, and you are not getting the Flarm collision avoidance, just proximity alarms.
EasyVFR free and a Skyecho2 might be the cheapest option for combined ADSB IN/OUT and Flarm IN, but again I haven't tested it yet.
By Stu B
#1712115
The licence fee the various Apps charge for displaying the FLARM data is not straight profit for the App developer, it is recovering the fee that they in turn have to pay to FLARM for that individual user's device to be permitted to decode the FLARM encryption. So SoftRF would similarly need to charge for such a facility - but if SoftRF does not itself require or support any subscription payment process it might be uneconomic/impractical for them to administer the recovery of the fee FLARM will demand for each FLARM-enabled SoftRF user.
gaznav liked this
User avatar
By gaznav
#1712132
Stu B wrote:The licence fee the various Apps charge for displaying the FLARM data is not straight profit for the App developer, it is recovering the fee that they in turn have to pay to FLARM for that individual user's device to be permitted to decode the FLARM encryption. So SoftRF would similarly need to charge for such a facility - but if SoftRF does not itself require or support any subscription payment process it might be uneconomic/impractical for them to administer the recovery of the fee FLARM will demand for each FLARM-enabled SoftRF user.


I think they believe FLARM won’t go after them... :shock:
User avatar
By TexasUK
#1712276
Not to go off topic, but SoftRF is a proximity awareness device that can uses many protocols, Flarm being one of them, thanks to an opensource Flarm decode bit of software. Which also allows it to broadcast using the Flarm protocol, making you visible to 'original' Flarm users.
While I'm no lawyer, I don't believe it has a licence problem with the way it has been built, and what it provides.
User avatar
By leemoore1966
#1712831
TexasUK wrote:While I'm no lawyer, I don't believe it has a licence problem with the way it has been built, and what it provides.

If you use the softrf device in Europe as it stands, you are breaking the law
The maximum permitted transmit power in the band used by FLARM is 25mW, this device transmits using the Semtech chipset at 4X higher at 100mW
This violates the ETSI (and OFCOM) regulations
User avatar
By TexasUK
#1713062
Well obviously I was referring to the potential of Flarm licencing problems, but if your assertion about power output is correct, then obviously it has to be taken into consideration.

Could you provide links to both the regulations and the power output specs of the device (presumably you are referring to the T-Beam 868MHZ/915MHZ/433MHZ TTGO board) please?
User avatar
By leemoore1966
#1713063
TexasUK wrote:Well obviously I was referring to the potential of Flarm licencing problems, but if your assertion about power output is correct, then obviously it has to be taken into consideration.

Could you provide links to both the regulations and the power output specs of the device (presumably you are referring to the T-Beam 868MHZ/915MHZ/433MHZ TTGO board) please?


The board itself is capable of 20dbm, ETSI regs are 14dbm
Search for Semtech SX1276
Search for the ETSI spec ETSI EN 300 220

In fact I think the software configures the board for 17dbm, which is 50mW so 2X rather than 4X
User avatar
By TexasUK
#1713164
Ok thanks, I've seen the regs provided by ETSI and you are correct about the 25mW limit between 868.000 and 868.600

The only reference to the power set in SoftRF that I can find right now is the statement
'Tx Power
Full - transmit position beacons at rated power (limited by regional regulations) '
Which suggests that he might set power to whatever is needed based on your region. I can't find it in the code right now, but I'll ask if he recognises the requirement and uses the limits.
By Buzz53
#1713227
leemoore1966 wrote:If you use the softrf device in Europe as it stands, you are breaking the law
The maximum permitted transmit power in the band used by FLARM is 25mW, this device transmits using the Semtech chipset at 4X higher at 100mW
This violates the ETSI (and OFCOM) regulations


Both by inspection of the software and by actual measurement, the SoftRF transmits at +14dBm (~25mW) in EU FLARM mode so is fully compliant.
Alan
Boxkite liked this
User avatar
By leemoore1966
#1713259
Buzz53 wrote:Both by inspection of the software and by actual measurement, the SoftRF transmits at +14dBm (~25mW) in EU FLARM mode so is fully compliant.
Alan


Alan, I think you are right.
I was looking in the configuration of the sx1276 which applies 17dBm (50mW).
It looks like it is configured in the TTN setup which is 14dBm (25mW)

Thx
Lee
User avatar
By Tim Dawson
#1713278
If this product receives and decodes flarm encrypted signals without any license to do so from flarm, they are wide open to legal action and probably shouldn’t be taken seriously in any commercial sense.
gaznav liked this
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7