The good thing about Flarm is that the system degrades relatively gracefully, so you don't have 100 aircraft or 100 paragliders in the exact same spot, and what that means is that additional ready-to-use devices increase the noise level for the radio channel, which essentially causes the system's range to drop, but you'll always have the local, nearby signals—those will dominate and they'll come through. Podz
-Glidz, the Lu-Glidz podcast. Stories from the cosmos of paragliding. Today with Urban Meter, and I'm Lucian Haas.
A little riddle first: what is inside more and more variometers, doesn't make a beep, but could potentially save lives? It's the collision warning system Flarm. It was developed about 20 years ago for sailplanes. Meanwhile, Flarm can now be found in or on all types of aircraft that primarily fly by sight. From small drones and model aircraft to sports planes and rescue helicopters, and also the instruments of paragliders. For this reason, I'm letting this 133rd episode of Podz-Glidz stray a bit from the norm. Because my guest isn't a paraglider himself, but in what he does, he is constantly involved with the paragliding scene as well.
The Swiss Urban Meter is one of the founders and the current head of Flarm. In this rather technical podcast, he tells the story of the collision avoidance technology of the same name—how a small crowdfunding project became a kind of safety standard in aviation. It also covers questions about how Flarm works and where its limits lie, whether safety technology should be determined by a monopolist, and what the future means for Flarm with new tracking standards like ADS-B.
If you enjoy this podcast, please support my work on it by becoming a patron.
Urban, have you actually ever flown a paraglider? To be honest, no. Not even once.
Not even gone for a tandem flight, for example? Haven't even gone yet; I actually always wanted to do that, but somehow life got in the way and that's why it hasn't happened yet. Life got in the way.
What is it about your life that you say gets in the way of things like that? What are the important areas in your life? What
In terms of what comes between flying, it's mainly family planning. I had a little daughter in 2021, and since then, the priorities have been reshuffled. It's also the case that my partner first says, hey, you shouldn't necessarily do risky hobbies now when the kids are still small. I completely understand that. That's why I try to hold back a bit, even though I'm actually very rooted in aviation. And I'd also like to start flying again once the family planning is a bit more stable.
Paragliders do, but if you say you've never flown, they still make up a large part, or at least a non-negligible part, of your customer base at Flam,
Or? In terms of volume, that's probably even the largest part of our customers, but commercially, it's a negligible part. And of course, we see our task primarily in general aviation towards professional, commercially operated aircraft, such as rescue helicopters for example. Ultimately, we have to operate in the entire aviation environment. We actually want to offer a solution for everything that flies. That ranges from the very small drones and model aircraft for the hobby sector to Airbus helicopters and commercially operating aircraft, such as the PC-12. Have
do you have figures or are there estimates on how many paragliders—let's just take the German-speaking region for now, so Germany, Austria, Switzerland—are out there with equipment, meaning Varius, that also actually have a flame functionality? Is it 10 percent, is it 80 percent?
I can't say for sure because I don't know the numbers. It's the same with paragliders; you don't have an official aircraft register. I could guess that in Switzerland, surely more than half are equipped, while in Germany, Austria, Italy, and France, it would be a bit less.
Now, for your sake as the managing director of Flam and all that, who's always happy because he can make money. But if you put that aside, would you find it sensible for all aircraft, including all paragliders, to be equipped with Flam?
would be? I don't think the question is what I would find sensible. Rather, it's what the individual pilots find. If there is a benefit for Flam, then I think we have to see if it's possible, if there are attractive products, and if it might be supported by the regulator, like it is now in Switzerland with these subsidies. Ultimately, the benefit is mostly large for the rest of aviation if paragliders make themselves visible. And that is always a bit of the asymmetry in the whole situation that makes it difficult. The paraglider himself... he can't actually actively control where he crashes into something, he's simply too slow to have any influence there. That's why the interest lies primarily with the other participants, with the rescue helicopters, sailplane pilots, Cessna pilots.
I think it makes sense if we have a high coverage rate. I also think it's always healthy if the coverage rate isn't 100%, simply because the situational awareness or risk awareness among the pilots is then better.
You should always actively monitor the airspace and be aware of the limitations of the technology.
At the beginning, paragliders weren't really on Flam's radar, so to speak. Tell me a bit of the story—how did it originally happen back in the early 2000s, how did you guys get to the Flam project at all? What was the motivation for it to be created, for this technology to be developed?
That was in 2004, that's when we started. I was one of the three founders of Flam, there from the very beginning. However, it wasn't my idea, I can admit that openly. It was a buddy of mine, Urs Rothacher, who had been working with GPS for a long time; he knew the technology inside and out. And what happened in the early 2000s was that GPS accuracy increased massively. Some people might still remember there was something called Selective Availability. The Americans intentionally made GPS poor so it wouldn't be usable for military applications. And that part suddenly dropped away. And with that, the possibility to do something like Flam was naturally there.
And since we were all active as glider pilots as founders, the benefit was actually obvious because there were, just in Switzerland alone, annual collisions with fatalities, and in a dense network like gliding. I mean, you quickly get to know the people who die there, and it's just an unpleasant situation. So the benefit, or the demand for it, was obvious; the technical feasibility was there. I think the big question, the big nut to crack, was how to get this out in a volume where it makes sense. Because you have these network effects. A single Flam is just as useful. Exactly, nothing at all. You need a large enough population for the thing to develop its utility.
And what we did was a kind of crowdfunding. The term didn't exist back then. I actually co-founded it, but... there probably wasn't a crowdfunding platform then either. No, there wasn't. I mean, Kickstarter was developed sometime in the 2010s. But the principle was exactly the same. There was an association, which was founded with a few enthusiasts who joined. They then gave a little bit of money to finance the development. Then there was a meeting with a vote, because we're Swiss, we do things via direct democracy. It was decided then that we would move forward. The association members paid a bit more money and then received the first FLAM device relatively cheaply. That's how we delivered about 400, 450 devices in Switzerland by the end of 2004.
You
you were still a student back then. Did you do that as a hobby, like? Did
did you do that as a
Did you work on it as a hobby project, or how should one imagine that? I
I wasn't exactly a student. I was a doctoral student, and in Switzerland at least, you're in an employment relationship. You earn a bit of money too, but of course, what you're saying is true. It was a hobby project in a sense. My university co-financed the project by having me not always work 100 percent for the university. However, in a scientific environment, it's also difficult to work 100 percent—everyone who has done a Ph.D. knows that.
And how did this community project, let's say, eventually become a company? Was it planned from the start that it would lead to that? Or is it something that basically emerges from the grassroots, grows toward the top, and you eventually say, okay, for this to continue properly, we need to give it a corporate structure?
Actually, that was the consequence of success. And it wasn't clear at all. At the beginning, we were completely blown away by how much traction it gained, especially internationally. So Germany, Austria—they saw it and thought, oh my god, this is great, we need this too. And then we had very good partners with whom we still do business today. They took the ball and ran with it, they pushed it into the field, and then suddenly they ordered thousands of Flarn devices. And at some point, the question arises: yeah, how do you do that? In a non-profit setup, that's more demanding than in a company. And that's why a company was founded two years later. But essentially, we were victims of our own success.
None of us started with Flarn thinking, "Oh, you know what, a great startup, we're going to make billions or something like that." It was born purely out of purpose and then became very successful.
And you started here. When did the first paragliders come along, or the first devices that could then be used by paragliders themselves? That
It was relatively fast. I don't know the exact year. I'd guess three or four years later. The Swiss company Flytech contacted us; they wanted to do something. And there was also the first paraglider, the Flytech 6030, with a so-called passive FLARM module. So, it only transmits. It makes you visible to glider pilots and motor aircraft, but it doesn't do much else. And we were able to realize that relatively cheaply, also with the help of subsidies.
Let's talk a bit about the technology behind Flam, or just explain how Flam basically works. A position is captured and then broadcast again. But that's not all.
Yeah, yeah. People always focus on how well Flam works. I'm focusing a bit on the technology, but Flam actually has two—or rather, in its basic function regarding traffic safety, it actually has two levels. One is situational awareness. That means you can see where other people are. And the other is collision warning. So, the device continuously compares flight paths with each other. For example, you might be heading somewhere near the Aletsch Glacier. You receive 50 other Flam signals. Each of these data packets contains a Flam module. That's a flight path, a future one. The devices compare them against each other, and if a convergence or a conflict is detected anywhere, the pilot is alerted. That sounds simple, but the magic part is that you don't trigger too many alarms.
So, it's easy to just have the siren go off when something is nearby. But it's much harder to do something so selective that it's useful for the pilots without becoming intrusive. Because otherwise, it just gets switched off. And I think that was the big innovation for us.
The flight path is sent along with it. Does that mean, okay, I'm sending where this device will probably be in the next second, the next five seconds, or the next half minute? That's a huge difference in what you'd be sending. So what does Flamm basically send? In principle,
it's not that difficult. So you send along a state vector. Where is the plane? Where is it moving? What are the second derivatives of that? The whole thing is a consequence of data processing, of course, within the device, where you try to filter it somewhat, extract new information, and maybe do a bit of flight path adjustment. Because you know, for example, that a glider behaves slightly differently than a Cessna. A glider likes to circle, which a Cessna doesn't really like to do. And these things are factored in. But ultimately, of course, your confidence in how good the prediction is decreases the further you go into the future. With an airliner, you can easily calculate a minute ahead.
You'll be 98 percent correct, or even more. And with a glider, that doesn't work anymore. The device tries to take that into account by adaptively choosing the horizon, depending on the situation.
If I have a flight device in my vario now, how often does my vario basically send my position? Or does it also indicate my further flight path, which, of course, doesn't proceed as quickly with a paraglider as it does with a glider?
Usually, it's once per second. That's what allows for a decent level of responsiveness. And in certain situations, there are other things like high-dynamic rolls. Then you try to transmit a bit more frequently, or the spectrum is relatively heavily loaded. In that case, you'll reduce the rate a bit. Is there
Are there differences in the flame? Between a flame built into a sailplane and the one I use as a paraglider? Does a sailplane flame, for example, transmit more frequently, or is that technically always...
the same? Essentially, the same technology is inside. So the devices differ mainly in their form factor. Logically, you have a hang glider device, which is portable with a battery and a variometer and moving map. And then you have a highly certified, highly complex thing in an Airbus helicopter that consists of ten different components. So that's the big difference. The FLARM logic itself inside is very similar.
Well, all Flamm devices transmit on the same frequency. If now many aircraft are in the same area, meaning the same airspace, circling relatively close to each other and all transmitting, how can you prevent them from interfering with each other?
That is actually a problem. At some point, you'll simply hit a physical limit. However, that is also a situation we are observing. And so far, it doesn't seem to be a major hindrance in practice. The good thing about Flamm is that the system degrades relatively gracefully. So, you don't have 100 aircraft, 100 paragliders, exactly in the same location. What that means is that further, distant devices increase the noise floor, the noise level for the radio channel. And that leads to the system's range essentially decreasing. But you will always have the local, nearby signals dominating, and those will get through.
That's the advantage of Flamm as a decentralized solution compared to anything running on your server system, where if you have a capacity problem, you have a capacity problem for all users. But to bring up something else, I mean, this is an open frequency spectrum and that is always a bit suspicious, at least in professional aviation—it's not protected and anyone can, I mean, your garage door opener works on the same frequency and can, in principle, also spam the band. However, there is relatively strong regulation in that area, despite everything. So your devices, they have to behave well, they have to leave enough space in the frequency range for all devices, and I think you can simply say that after 20 years, it works excellently.
How far does a Flam signal reach in terms of transmission range? What's the usual distance, how far can it be seen in kilometers—5, 20?
The signal is relatively weak; it's 10 to 25 milliwatts in Europe, and you have to see that in comparison to a transponder, which has a transmitter of 100 watts or more, so it's clearly a weak signal. Now, it depends extremely on the installations, on the quality of the antennas—for example, with ground receivers that have excellent setups and extremely sensitive receivers, we see a range of 50 to 100 kilometers. But that's not what you can expect in the air; there, you're probably looking at a realistic range of 5 to 15 kilometers.
The SISO signal is a very good transmitter, it's a very good transmitter, it's a very good transmitter, it's a very good transmitter, it's a very good transmitter, it's a very good transmitter, it's a very good transmitter, it's a very good transmitter, it's a very good transmitter, it's a very good transmitter, but if I understood you correctly earlier, if many are in the air and then at some point they start transmitting some kind of noise floor, basically background noise on the data, then you say the local pilots are so close that the signal strength is so great I can still detect it, so I see who is around me, while the distant ones basically disappear into the noise. Isn't that also true for the ground stations, that the more there actually are in the air, the more noise there is, and the ground stations then... can't track the individual devices as well anymore, at least if they are further away?
Yes, exactly, so that's a limitation inherent in the physical...
is, you can't get around that, exactly. Now, as far as I know, the flamsignals are also encrypted, why?
There are several reasons for the encryption. One thing is that as a user, it gives you a certain level of legal protection against use by third parties or improper use. It's not that we're lawyers who have studied specific court rulings, but it's like this: if you misuse the signals in Europe, you're generally committing a crime, and there's a certain level of protection for pilots' privacy, which is a big deal, especially in Europe. The other thing is that it improves certain properties of the radio transmission—meaning you don't focus on the signals as much because the data basically looks like noise. So, if you toggle a single bit later, it changes the entire radio packet; that means you can detect certain transmission errors much more easily when you use this encryption.
It's not like the encryption is incredibly good in the sense that, I mean, the details are essentially known out there.
But Flam has also had the encryption—well, the data they use—over the years. And they've basically redone and readjusted it time and again. And there were always these accusations, like, they're only doing that to somehow secure their monopoly or something. Is that the case? That we want to secure the monopoly? Yes, and that's why your...
...you constantly change your encryption or change it annually and stuff like that. I have to say, I find that argument always a bit frustrating because we're always trying to explain why we do things, but then the critics write these articles. They don't read them or they don't refer to them. You know, once you have the idea that we're the bad monopolists, you can't really get it out of them. No, what we do, we do it with the safety of general aviation in mind and really only that. So we're also trying to behave correctly. We ultimately have more than a dozen licensees who use our technology and build their own devices into it. And that seems to be working perfectly.
Out
the anti-collision system, when FLAM first started, as the basic idea behind it, has actually grown more and more over time. And especially in recent years, or it was reinforced in recent years, it was set for live tracking. Then this Open Glider Network came along, which wasn't pampered by you, but is also its own community project. And they say, okay, we receive FLAM signals, among other things, derive positions from them, and then pass these positions on to servers. And with that, you can, however you want, have them illustrated somewhere. Have you seen this trend with FLAM? Did you somehow foresee that FLAM could eventually be used for this in massive numbers?
No, not at all. Honestly, I completely, completely slept on it. But I have to say, I think what's happening with O-Gain is great. I think it's great.
I think what's happening with O-Gain is great.
The three main parties involved, they do a really great job. I mean, you always have to say, these are enthusiasts who do this in their free time and then spend money with Azure or Amazon to run this server. So, I think ultimately for the community, it's a great thing. There are so many applications built on top of it. Not least with paragliders, the safety aspect is relatively high. Not least with paragliders, the safety aspect is relatively high. With O-Gain. But that we would have foreseen that, no, I think I have to honestly answer that with no. Now
Did you recently switch the transmission protocol again and also fundamentally change a few things? Since then, it hasn't been working very well with this O-Gain, because many O-Gain receivers simply can't interpret the new data format correctly. Where is the mistake there?
Well, that's a, how should I put it, a mix of circumstances. So the new protocol has been in the planning stages for quite a long time. I think we've communicated sufficiently as to why we're doing this. Ultimately, it's about the fact that there was an expiration date for the Flamenger devices. With software, you always have to update it every 12 to 15 months. For many users, that was a thorn in their side. I don't think that was a problem for the original population of gliders. Because once a year you take your aircraft into the workshop, and you can update the device then. But right now, with paragliders, with drones, and in commercial aviation, it just becomes more and more problematic the longer it goes on.
And to remove that, we had to adjust the protocol. There is now dynamic versioning, let's call it, which still allows for innovations. So you can change it, you can expand the system in the future. But you can still... you can still fly with software that is relatively old. And I believe those are legitimate reasons; you can read up on that with us. Now, why didn't that work quite as well with Ogen? We contacted Ogen around mid-January and provided them with the data to switch the protocol. And I believe they handled that very seriously. But you also have to see that the network isn't being operated particularly professionally.
As I said, these are... there are also many enthusiasts who have set up a receiver somewhere in the flight field. And there are simply very old and very neglected devices there, so to speak. I believe that's a temporary situation. So, of course, we are monitoring this intensively. And the population is being updated successively now. I think we'll be ready by the summer and will have updated the majority of the devices. But there will still be a few old... Raspberry Pis somewhere in a basement that are just lost. That's just how it is.
Couldn't you just include something in the Flam protocol where you say, okay, in addition to the very, very regular or at least once-per-second Flam position signal plus where the device is moving, which you send like that, you just say we have a kind of legacy position signal where you say we only send that every five seconds. But it's according to a very simple protocol that anyone can easily read. And these live tracking servers would be well served by that, because they don't have to do collision avoidance. They don't actually need live tracking that runs at least at one-second intervals.
Yes, I have to admit, the reaction from the hang gliding community surprised me a bit too. I didn't expect it that much. I also wasn't aware that this is a safety-relevant tool for you. However, I also have to say, yeah, it's more of an add-on. It's not a professional service where someone is watching it 24/7.
I think what's happening now is relatively healthy. People are waking up and seeing that we need to update our old receivers. It's also the case that Ogen provides an image that updates automatically. So from that perspective, it probably won't be the last thing. It will be an update. I mean, we're talking about new protocols in the European sky. ADSL as one, but also UAT or 1090 or whatever else comes next. Remote ID is still just one. I think we want to keep these networks current and we want to streamline this update in the future. Therefore, I actually think that while it might be painful now, it's definitely the right step forward into the future.
To get back to the point about being a monopolist. There are also, let's say, competing initiatives like the OCAP project, which aims to develop a kind of open-source collision avoidance system. This is also because they say, yes, this—how do they put it—this monopoly by Flam should actually be broken up. It can't be that a company like Flam basically dominates this market worldwide. And if Flam then suddenly changes something, the rest of the community suddenly suffers. If they can't follow suit directly, it creates a domino effect and there's basically no coordination involved. Do you see such projects as a danger to your company?
So no, not really. And you know, it's also like, we don't do this just for fun. We feel like we're contributing to the safety of general aviation. And if Flam is no longer the necessary system, then we'll do something else. We have some very talented people with us; we're not religious about it. But as for the accusation that we're a monopolist, I have to say, that's just simply not true. I mean, even in the paraglider sector, there are alternative protocols, for example FANET, and there's ADS-B, there's ADSL, there's various Pilot-Aware in the UK. So there's a range of competing products.
And calling Flam a monopoly, I just find that a bit naive. Another thing is, even if it were a monopoly, that's not inherently problematic. You just have this network component—the stuff has to work together somehow. That means it has to speak the same language. That means you also have the advantages of a company keeping its finger on the pulse and making sure the stuff works together. For example, you have to make sure the devices don't use the same radio addresses, otherwise you'll have a huge mess in the air and on the ground. So, there are advantages there.
There isn't really any abuse either, because you can always ask for all our licenses and they are satisfied across the board. So, from our perspective, we provide this technology—of course, there are other opinions, but from our point of view, we provide it at very reasonable conditions. So, for a paraglider that sends out a Flam signal, the license costs, for example, 10 francs. And I would say that paying something like that probably isn't completely absurd. In return, you get the quality, and you also get, for example, the transition that just happened with the radio protocol; our software handles that automatically, and you don't have to worry about it.
Let's look a bit into the future. You just used the term ADSL. It comes up in the context of there being more and more drones in our airspace. There are terms like U-Space—creating airspace structures for drones, or regulations on how it should work. Where it also says, okay, everyone moving in these airspaces has to identify themselves electronically somehow. And one of the techniques for that, which could also become relevant for paraglider pilots, is ADSL. I've now read that you at Flam are also involved in the development of ADSL. Explain in simple terms, what is actually the difference between Flam and ADSL?
So, I have to go back a bit. EASA contacted us at the end of 2021 and said, "Hey, we have this new project called ADSL and we actually want you involved." And you know what? If you don't participate, we'll just do it without you. So, we basically joined with a gun to our heads. The plan is actually to have a protocol—an open protocol. That should please all the critics. What? But it's hardware-compatible with Flam. So Flam has a certain radio chip on it that can do certain things. And the idea was to design ADSL so that it runs on these devices. So that you could take an older Flam device, install some software update, and it would then broadcast ADSL.
But regarding what ADSL does, is it actually technically identical? I mean, what does identical mean? Identical in terms of functionality? So, once we have ADSL, we wouldn't need Flam anymore? Are you basically digging your own grave by collaborating on ADSL?
I don't think so, but who knows. I mean, who knows. I think there are different timelines here. One thing is, people focus way too much on these small technical details. Ultimately, you have a radio protocol where some bits and bytes are shoved in. And basically, it's always the same stuff. Or somehow you have to encode your position, and where you're flying to, and maybe an identity. There aren't that many ways to do that. And ADSL does it again in a different, slightly different way. But essentially, it's comparable to what Flam does.
So, EASA is doing something with the whole U-Space thing, and it's pretty complicated and complex. And I believe that in that context, even with open radio protocols, there is a reason for companies like Flam to exist. In principle, I'm not worried about that. But I also can't tell you what the ecosystem will look like in 10 or 20 years. In the period leading up to that, I actually see it as the systems having to be operated together in parallel. It's not like ADSL can replace anything overnight. At least not in the current version.
Is that designed as ADSL? That's an air-to-ground protocol. So it's about making flight vehicles visible to ground infrastructures. That has a few consequences. Long story short, ADSL is not yet suitable for a collision warning system. We will be introducing these modifications successively, and at some point, it will be the case. But you'll still have the problem of having a population of 60,000 Flame devices out there that can't all... can't and certainly don't want ADSL. Because it's still a paid update that the pilots have to do. And at least at this point, they don't see much benefit from it. Unless you actually want to move into drones, airspace, or New Space somewhere.
And if you were to extrapolate now, there are more and more drones, more and more paraglider pilots who will eventually be out there with devices equipped with ADSL, perhaps. And as far as I know, ADSL operates on the same radio frequencies, or is supposed to operate on the same frequencies, as the planes currently use. Won't that frequency band eventually be completely overcrowded, to the point where you actually have to say the different systems are cannibalizing each other?
Yes, I think that is actually a real problem. And I'm afraid that we... By the way, that's also the problem with OCAP. So, now you have new protocols, which might all be very good on their own. But because of the fragmentation of the world, you have increased complexity. That means the costs for the user go up and the benefit isn't necessarily greater. You can see that in the UK, for example. There are different E-Conspurity solutions. There's a mix of ADS-B C90, between UAT, Pilot-Aware. So it's a real mess there, and in the end, that leads to a degradation of flight safety. And that's what I'm actually afraid of. Specifically regarding ADSL, you mentioned the frequencies.
ADSL even uses three different frequencies. And that makes the whole thing a bit unwieldy. We have three different frequencies and four different radio channels. And that's why I actually believe that in order to fully utilize ADSL, it's going to require new hardware. So there will be new products. And it's also going to take quite a while for these products to be on the market and also be adopted by the customers. So, it won't be some kind of instant switch from one day to the next. But, to say something nice, ADSL obviously has huge potential. I mean, suddenly there's a recognized international authority saying, "Hey, you know what? What you're doing with FLARM, this unlicensed frequency, uncertified hardware,"
we think that's good. We want that too. And that is a huge deal. And that hasn't existed until now. Until now, avionics—certified avionics—those were specifications with thousands of pages. And the device has always cost 20,000 euros. And that is definitely off the table now. So if we do this as a community, if we do it right, the future can actually be bright.
Now you just said that maybe new technical devices are also necessary. Varios are also being sold currently. It says there, Farnet Plus, so Farnet and FLARM and ADSL Ready. So you just have to upload an update. Is that perhaps a bit of an overpromise given the current state of ADSL development? I think that
is not particularly overstated. I think it's legitimate to put it that way. But it's also the case that the ADSL world first has to be created. And it's also true that EASA will provide more details at AERO next week. What these devices can do, in principle, if it says ADSL Ready, is transmit ADSL on a frequency. That would make you compatible with this Seras 6005C rule. That means you'd be allowed to fly into a U-Space. That doesn't do anything for you regarding flight safety yet. So you can't receive ADSL signals, nor is there anything like that in the area.
So, it's basically a label. I think it's good that it exists, but it doesn't have any practical relevance yet.
Well, there's also ADSL. I don't know to what extent you're involved in the development regarding, okay, it could also be that something can be done from the smartphone, where you basically have a smartphone app and say, "Okay, I'm turning on my ADSL app," and it then sends the current position via the normal mobile network to the corresponding ground control server. Are you involved in that too, or is that something where you'd say, "Okay, we only take care of ADSL regarding the radio," and this smartphone thing is something else entirely?
So, we are part of this working group, but the working group doesn't meet yet. So development hasn't started. However, I don't see us in a leadership role there either. That's definitely not the case. That's definitely not our core area. I think the big question is how suitable the mobile networks actually are, and I can't tell you that. I hear different statements from experts and idealists. I can also imagine that it varies greatly by location. So, it might work better in Switzerland than, for example, in France right now. I don't know, but it is definitely a good complementary tool. I always see it as a supplement to other existing means.
And I think, especially for the cost-sensitive world of paragliders, this could be an attractive solution. But the core question in the end with ADSL is, where are these drone areas? And at the moment, in Europe, I don't know, the number of U-Spaces is easily countable on one hand. And the question is whether these areas will develop any aviation relevance for paragliders and hobby pilots in the not-too-distant future. And I think that is a very, very important point. It's a very slow process. So we're talking about five to ten years somewhere around the opening. In Switzerland, the first U-Space will probably be opened at the end of 2024 or much more likely early 2025. And it will be in a control zone near Zurich Airport, where a paraglider is guaranteed to have nothing to lose.
If we eventually have an ADSL app on a smartphone in the future, would the data—the position data being sent out there—also be used on the smartphone at some point? Or would it eventually reach a glider somehow? I mean, would it actually serve for collision avoidance in any way? Or is it really just for position control? Like, is someone basically inside a U-Space or not, something like that? So
I have to speculate a bit here. But the idea, of course, is that this data is exchanged. You can imagine, for example, that a glider also has a mobile link and can receive this data through it. And that
is a very important point.
The other thing we're currently developing with the EASA is an uplink. So you can install ground stations that broadcast a situational awareness picture over 8.68 MHz—I'll just call it the flame frequency for now—to aircraft nearby that show they can receive it. So that's the idea, but these are relatively complex systems we're building here. So I wouldn't assume that this will be ready for prime time as early as next year or that people can install it
can. Rather, it's more like five years, ten years, or even longer. At least in terms of breadth, let's say. Yes, that
is, I mean, I really don't know. I can imagine that if EASA makes progress with the standard development, there will quickly be a few installations. But then it's also a question of radio spectrum usage and how these will synchronize. I mean, you know, I'm a technician and I always see the complexity, and the idealists and optimists judge that to be significantly more attractive than I do.
But that means, and this is my final question, as a paraglider pilot, it wouldn't actually be advisable—it's maybe less of a question, it's almost a statement—it wouldn't be so advisable to say, I'll just wait for this ADSL app and then I'll be visible. Rather, if you want to be visible now, you should definitely also continue to at least consider whether you should acquire a vario with corresponding tracking, meaning tracking plus flare functionality, in some way. So I find
Fahnet is also great otherwise. You know, you don't even have to worry about safety. The thing is really a cool invention. You get so much information delivered to the display. I would definitely get an instrument like that. And it's also the case that it's now available in a wide range of devices. And the cost, I believe, is manageable. But everyone can judge that for themselves. Waiting for the app. I think, for safety reasons, that would be the wrong approach. Because by the time that reaches gliders and motorplanes, in whatever form, I think it will take years. Because they simply have to acquire hardware. And the idea that they have a mobile phone with sufficient mobile coverage in a glider cockpit, I don't think that's true.
Or it's at least sporty. Because you're going to need some special antennas to have reception in the air.
From a safety perspective, it's just stupid if you lose cell service and can't reach each other at the worst possible moment. And I don't think anyone wants that. So, that means you keep
Flam definitely has his justification from your perspective.
Yes, and Funhead and all the systems that are out there.
Wonderful. Urban, thanks for your story about Flam. The history and the technology behind it. And I wish you continued success with your company. Thank you very much, it was a pleasure and I'd love to do it again sometime. You're very welcome.
That was episode number 133 of Podz-Glidz with Urban Mäder. You can find the show notes for this episode, along with some further links, in the Gleitschirm-Blog Lu-Glidz. If you want to hear more episodes like this, you can subscribe to Podz-Glidz not only as a podcast but also as your job catcher of choice. You can also financially support my work as a patron. You can choose your contribution amount completely freely. A commonly chosen contribution amount is 60 euros a year, or about 5 euros a month. But no matter what you give, every amount contributes to ensuring that Podz-Glidz and Lu-Glidz can continue to operate and develop in the service of the paraglider scene in the future. For that, I say thank you.
All the information on how your contribution reaches me can be found on the website of my paraglider blog www.Lu-Glidz.blogspot.com. There, you'll find the "Support" menu item. Lu-Glidz is spelled L U minus G L I D Z. Until next time. Don't fall from the sky. Ciao.