Peter the traffic output for Garmin and other certified devices is ARINC 429.
eurogaguest1980 wrote:
If you don’t buy the FLARM license in SkyDemon, do you not see any of those targets?
There’s no FLARM license for SkyDemon. Maybe there was. I know FLARM had a few paid features which are free today.
You have to pay for FLARM in SkyDemon only if you want to receive it using the SkyEcho 2. Not in a dedicated FLARM installation.
FLARM requires licensing fees, which you probably already have to pay if you have a dedicated installation, and the device you install does the decoding in that case.
Airborne_Again wrote:
A FLARM system is only complete and approved
What is the concept of being “approved” for an uncertified device in an experimental airplane?
Who defines this “complete and approved”, who certifies it and most importantly: What is the consequence of flying with an “unapproved” installation in an experimental aircraft?
Peter the traffic output for Garmin and other certified devices is ARINC 429.
No problem 
It would not be 20 quid though… is the data stream published? Garmin have “security” on their RS232 interconnections, to keep competitors out, but ARINC429 is normally wide open. The board I am working on has 1 x TX and 2 x RX, plus 2 x RS232, 1 x RS422, 1 x RS485. It also has CAN but I am not writing code for that…
It might be hard to get Garmin to tell you the protocol, and if you can’t find something that transmits it, you can’t capture it either. Certain other avionics firms will happily tell you the expected ARINC429 streams. We discussed this many times already, how to get uncertified traffic onto certified displays. Search for ARINC429. If there is money in it, I would be happy to build something.
For a non-cert aircraft, this solution should be completely legal.
A FLARM system is only complete and approved
Is that box TSOd etc?
Malibuflyer wrote:
What is the concept of being “approved” for an uncertified device in an experimental airplane?Who defines this “complete and approved”, who certifies it and most importantly: What is the consequence of flying with an “unapproved” installation in an experimental aircraft?
Well, you have to ask FLARM Technology, but if I’ll venture a guess: Approved by them and consequences of flying with an unapproved installation is that the system does not behave/perform as expected.
Added: Technically using the FLARM software in an installation not done according to the IM is a breach of the license to use the FLARM software.
Dimme wrote:
FLARM requires licensing fees, which you probably already have to pay if you have a dedicated installation, and the device you install does the decoding in that case.
Do you have a source for that? We paid no licensing fees — we bought the FLARM unit and the display from a dealer and that was it.
Technically using the FLARM software in an installation not done according to the IM is a breach of the license to use the FLARM software
That’s hilarious!
Airborne_Again wrote:
Approved by them and consequences of flying with an unapproved installation is that the system does not behave/perform as expected.
If you read the fine print, you will realize that FLARM Inc. doesn’t guarantee any functionality at all. They do not take over responsibility that the device actually shows all/any traffic, they do not take over responsibility that it alerts you when not operational etc. I’m not saying that it should do – but if they not gurantee anything for an “approved” installation, they can’t leave much out for an “unapproved”.
So what they call “approved” is rather a glorified word for “recommended” and has no practical implications if not followed.
btw.: The document in the actual PorwerFlarm documentation only lists that displays as approved primary displays when the Alarm is installed via an EASA Minor Change in a certified aircraft. In this case there can obviously be a binding list of displays/configurations that are allowed.
Airborne_Again wrote:
Technically using the FLARM software in an installation not done according to the IM is a breach of the license to use the FLARM software.
Interesting view but I do not agree – but this might be subject to different national law. At least in German legislation if you buy a PowerFlarm device there is no such thing as a software license agreement that becomes a valid part of the contract.
It’s also a bit weird: Feels like a vacuum cleaner manufacturer using a software license agreement to make you buy only their dust bags.
Malibuflyer wrote:
At least in German legislation if you buy a PowerFlarm device there is no such thing as a software license agreement that becomes a valid part of the contract.
You mean that “shrink-wrap” contracts are not legal in Germany? That would be wonderful!
