Swisscom Tests Smart Airspace Management for Drones Based on their LTE Network and FLARM

For the drone revolution to happen, applications first need to scale to be profitable, requiring a high level of automation. The largest obstacle for automation is the management of airspace: Allowing all manned and unmanned participant fair, efficient and safe access to airspace while maximizing capacity at low cost.

Traditional Air Traffic Control (ATC) struggles to provide this, with many of their processes being controlled by human operators. Clearly, new concepts are needed to achieve the scalability and automation that we need.

During the annual Innovation Week in summer 2018, Swisscom demonstrated a proof of concept that addresses the need for improving flight awareness in the lower airspace. The focus was on interoperability between legacy and new aircraft communication technologies. By aggregating multiple methods of connectivity, a much more detailed coverage of the airspace can be achieved. This concept can be seen as a supplement to the U-Space project recently announced by Skyguide, Switzerland’s Air Navigation Service Provider (ANSP).

The following systems were incorporated into the solution:

  • FLARM, the leading traffic awareness and collision avoidance technology for General Aviation, light aircraft and UAVs. Over 35,000 manned aircraft and many UAVs are already equipped with FLARM and the number is rapidly increasing. The new FLARM eID standard was developed specifically for the needs of commercial UAV operators, allowing secure tracking and identification of UAVs.
  • ADS-B, a system used by large commercial airliners to make aircraft visible to ATC with high accuracy.
  • Swisscom’s LTE cellular network for connecting UAVs to U-Space and other infrastructure services, like ground receiver networks for FLARM and ADS-B.

Combining these data sources, a more complete picture of the airspace can be obtained and presented to the drone operator and U-Space service providers. The solution was successfully demonstrated to remotely detect a conflict provoked by an intruding aircraft, leading to automatic evasive action by the drone.

For more details, contact or

Learning Series: Basel Flight School

Pierre Troendle (left) and Thomas Wittwer (right) preparing for the proficiency check.

Basel Flight School is located at the tripoint between Germany, Switzerland and France, at Basel international airport. The school was founded in 1967 and was one of the first flight schools to equip its fleet with a FLARM collision avoidance system. All aircraft, a variety of Piper and Tecnam training airplanes, were equipped almost 10 years ago – except for one. For a variety of reasons, the oldest airplane, an almost 40 years old Piper Turbo Arrow, was not equipped. Regrettably, this exact airplane was involved in a mid-air collision in January 2018. It collided over southern Germany with an EC-135 helicopter from the German air ambulance operator DRF Luftrettung. The instructor and student in the Piper as well as the crew in the helicopter died in the crash.

The EC-135 helicopter, like many helicopters in Germany, was equipped with FLARM. That did unfortunately not help in this case, since this Piper did not have FLARM, as mentioned above. Would it also have been equipped, it would almost certainly have avoided the disaster. Thomas Wittwer, Chief Flying Instructor at Basel Flight School, says that today he makes sure that all aircraft that he flies have an operating FLARM system. We met Thomas at the flight school during a rainy morning in March, while preparing a proficiency check with his student Pierre Troendle in his own Partenavia P.68 twin.

Thomas, why did you install FLARM in your aircraft fleet?

I have been flying many different aircraft types for over 30 years and have over 12.000 flight hours, most of which as an instructor. During my carrier, I have had three serious airprox incidents. The closest was around five years ago when I was flying an airplane in Germany that didn’t have FLARM. Close to a glider site, coming from nowhere, a glider crossed just in front of us at the same altitude. He passed from right to left and obviously didn’t see us either. We passed just a few meters behind him.

The second time, we were descending while another airplane was below us and descending as well. We were both flying the same track. We could not see him since he was below us. We were descending faster, and we noticed him just before crossing his altitude not many seconds behind him.

The third time was in a military training aircraft. Suddenly, the student says to me: “Look, the sky is on fire”. It took a few seconds until I realized that two Tornado fighter jets were coming straight at us at high speed. I quickly banked the aircraft to increase the chance that they see us, which they did about 2 seconds before impact. Both started turning and one passed to our left and one to our right.

I think I have had enough luck not to want to risk anything like this again. Since I started using FLARM, I haven’t had any similar incidents.

What has been your experience using FLARM?

It has saved me four times, where I didn’t see the other aircraft before I got the FLARM collision warning. I never fly without FLARM anymore. For example for today’s flight, Pierre doesn’t yet have FLARM installed in his aircraft, so I’m bringing the PowerFLARM Portable with me. Pierre has been interested in installing FLARM for a while, so this is also a great opportunity for him to try it out.

Pierre Troendle setting up the PowerFLARM Portable for the flight.

What do your students and instructors say about FLARM?

If you ask any instructor with a few years in the business, they have all had at least one serious airprox. The problem is that we generally don’t talk about these incidents. That’s of course not good from a safety perspective. Most instructors that I know love FLARM once they have used it.

And many students are shocked by the number of aircraft out there that cannot be seen otherwise. Many are not in contact with ATS so there is no way of being alerted of an impending collision without a collision avoidance system. Luckily, most aircraft in Switzerland and Germany carry FLARM. For other aircraft, PowerFLARM, which we now have, can also receive and warn about transponder and ADS-B Out equipped aircraft.

Are there any challenges using FLARM?

I think the most important one is training. Airline pilots receive both theoretical and simulator training about TCAS. Many GA pilots however have no FLARM training. The system just sits there. First, it’s important to realize that it’s a collision avoidance system and not a map you should constantly be looking at. Second, you need a strategy what to do when you get a collision warning. You should first try to visually acquire the other aircraft. But many people don’t realize that if you cannot see the other aircraft, you still have to do something! The risk is otherwise high that you will collide. From this perspective, I like the LED FLARM displays, because they focus on the collision warnings and don’t steal instrument time.

Another thing is to ensure that the antenna installation is done properly. FLARM uses low power to reduce frequency congestion, and thus doesn’t suffer from the same problems as the 1090 MHz frequency. However, this also makes the antenna installation important. We currently use the internal antennas and have sufficient range in most directions. Some of the aircraft however have limited range is some directions, so we will soon start installing the external AV-75 antennas on the aircraft.

What do you recommend as a resolution when receiving a collision warning?

Either make a 90 degree turn (left or right) or change altitude, based on the circumstances. And realize that you have to act immediately. When you receive the first collision warning, you have no more than 18 seconds to the collision, minus the time you spend looking for the aircraft.

Are there any disadvantages with FLARM?

The only one I can think of is that not all aircraft have FLARM. It should be mandatory for all light aircraft. Many more lives could be saved if everyone had FLARM. We are halfway there in Europe and even more so in Switzerland. But the last percentile is always the most difficult.

Why do you think FLARM has become so prominent in the last years?

First, there are more aircraft today than a few years ago. But what I think is even more important is that airspace has become much more complex, so VFR pilots have to rely on moving map systems to a greater extent. Nobody wants an airspace infringement and subsequent fine. This leads to pilots looking down instead of out the window. This of course increases the risk of a mid-air collision.

What would you say to other flight schools and flying clubs that don’t yet have FLARM?

What are you waiting for? FLARM is proven to have saved many lives. The system is not expensive. There is simply no excuse today not to have FLARM. And make sure that all students and members receive some basic FLARM training, so they know what to do when they receive a collision warning. Your club members and students will thank you.

Thank you very much for the chat. And have a nice flight!

Thank you, I’m sure we will.

ADS-B and other means of surveillance implementation status in Europe, as seen from SESAR

Below condensed excerpts from a May 2018 report covering 56 pages by the European Commission’s SESAR project. We will comment on the findings later as they may be surprisingly disappointing for many GA pilots regarding the purpose, effectiveness and maturity of the ADS-B framework, namely in the context of airliners.


In environments with dense traffic, such as Europe or the continental US, ADS-B has faced challenges. Thus, the term ‘the execution of an ADS-B recovery plan’.


The original variant of 1090ES ADS-B was RTCA DO-260 (also known as version 0); early adopters equipped to that standard in the rushed ADS-B implementation. The original standard was inadequate, and the standard was updated twice to DO-260A (known as version 1) and DO-260B (known as version 2).


EU Regulation (1207/2011, 1028/2014, 2017/386): The last postpones the equipment of ADS-B Out functionality by June 2020 for aircraft with 5.7t MTOW or max TAS > 250 knots.

Since 2010, both US and the EU, have promulgated airborne mandates, which have gone through a series of revisions and postponements to finally converge on the currently applicable scopes (generally medium and heavy commercial traffic in the EU and including GA operating in controlled airspace in the US, several exceptions apply e.g. for state and military aircraft) and deadlines (2020 in both cases). In terms of these mandates, this is referred to as ADS-B Out. ADS-B In is not in the scope of the Regulation. European GA is out of the scope of EU mandate.

Airlines are affected by the misalignment of ADS-B mandates, especially between EU and US. European global airlines must equip their fleet to cope with the US mandate which requires to modify the Multi-Mode Receiver (MMR) by including the WAAS (Wide Area Augmentation System) function. In the US, additionally Selected Availability (SA) Aware MMR`s are required by 2020, and GPS Service Availability Prediction Tool and GPS augmentation WAAS/SBAS by 2025.

Airliner Equipment levels

Many aircraft are not fulfilling the quality requirements defined in the EU Regulation. The retro-fit plans show very few airlines planning to be compliant by 2020. The situation is similar for Regional and Business Aviation: there are no plans to retrofit their fleet, with very few exceptions.

Only around 20% of the EU airliners fleets are compliant with DO-206B, the majority of these are forward-fit on new deliveries. This is in line with the Airbus aircraft equipage rate (21% for A320, 31% for A330/A340). For the long-haul aircraft, 17% of the fleet is equipped, whilst for the short / medium haul aircraft, 21% is compliant with the Regulation. Data shows a consistent equipage level of 20% between mainline carriers and business aviation, with regional carriers falling behind that at 15%.

For the regional fleet, and especially Turboprops, ATR is offering the DO-260B compliance as an option on ATR’s-600 fleet, which is the last certified version. Regarding ATR-500 fleet, a retrofit solution should be certified by end of 2018.

For the long-haul fleet, some airlines are planning to retrofit their aircraft to comply with the Regulation. However, for the medium/short haul fleet, major airlines foresee difficulties to retrofit due to the high number of aircraft needed to be equipped in the short-term.

Technology and Capability

In the short to medium term, Mode S radars offer enhanced performance and substantial RF capacity improvements, whilst multilateration offers a cost-effective alternative to radar with similar performance to ADS-B.

ADS-B as a surveillance technology could not be able to fully replace conventional sensors until all airspace users are equipped and capable.

ADS-B was proven easily eavesdropped and/or spoofed when compared to conventional surveillance sensors. This raises substantial concerns to actors who value operational security or privacy. Technological mitigations are yet to become part of the global standard.

ATC Equipment levels

The current situation on ADS-B receiver installation in Europe is fragmented. Except for isolated areas such as oil rigs in Norway, no country today operates an ADS-B ground infrastructure for enroute surveillance integrated into the ATM system. France and other countries have no ADS-B ground coverage at all. France currently plans to install one single station in the Bordeaux area.

France, Luxembourg and several other countries do not have deployed ADS-B stations at their main airports today. Only a few countries today (mainly Germany and Switzerland) use ADS-B ground infrastructure for airport surveillance on few major airports, integrated into the ATM system.

UK, Belgium, Sweden, Finland and other countries will implement ADS-B ground reception without making operational use of the ADS-B data. In UK, France, Belgium, Italy, Sweden, Finland and other countries, stakeholders may intend to implement ADS-B for validation purposes or for surveillance of airport surface vehicles but there are no plans to integrate ADS-B position in ATC systems and to use it for ATC services.

Radio Spectrum

Radio frequency spectrum is a scarce resource. Management of the spectrum is handled globally by the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) where States are represented. Aviation only has a status as an observer in ITU and is not part of decision making. Aviation is represented by States that often have other priorities to consider.

The aviation spectrum is attractive to telecommunication service providers. Traditionally, it was sufficient for aviation to claim ‘flight safety’ to protect its spectrum, but during the last 20 years, a strong pressure has emerged from satellite service providers, mobile phone industry, broadcast companies etc., demanding access to aviation spectrum. The argument used against aviation is that the reserved spectrum is underutilized because of expected new systems not in operation and low spectrum efficiency due to old and obsolete technologies. The aeronautical band 960-1215 MHz is coming under increasing pressure to allow channel sharing with non-aviation services that by design are not compatible with the aeronautical applications incumbent in the band.

Radio channel saturation largely became a function of traffic density. Both TCAS and ADS-B use random channel access. The practical effect is that when the channel becomes saturated, the operational range of ADS-B in that location is substantially reduced.

Saturation of the 1090MHz channel is a regular occurrence in European airspace. The progressive rollout of the more spectrum efficient Mode S radars in lieu of old Mode A/C units alleviates this issue, but the freed capacity is being taken up by ADS-B with its rigid band usage character. TCAS is a significant contributor to channel congestion and can amount to 50% of radio traffic in a dense environment.

There exists a concrete risk of band oversaturation in the transitionary period when all aircraft are expected to both broadcast ADS-B and reply to Mode S interrogations on the same channel.


The position can be sourced from the aircraft’s inertial platform, i.e. does not need to come from GNSS. Such position quality will start to degrade after some time and the accuracy will be downgraded.

If surveillance is to make itself largely dependent upon GNSS by replacing ground-based surveillance sensors (radar, multilateration) with ADS-B, the shared dependency will lead to a significant common point of failure, since ATC is no longer able to determine aircraft positions. In the absence of an independent positioning source, both the aircraft crew and the ground ATC have effectively become blind. The consensus in the ATM community is that a robust, fully GNSS independent positioning and timing solution of some form will be necessary to provide some level of sustained operational capacity.

GNSS is a relatively fragile system; its weak received power makes it easy to interfere with, obstruct and spoof. Multiple cases of each have been demonstrated in the recent years and the number of interference events has been showing a sharply rising trend.

DO-260B ADS-B uses GNSS as its primary positioning source. The only two operational constellations in existence today being military systems each owned, operated and fully controlled by the US and Russia, and the relative vulnerability of GNSS to interference and spoofing raised unresolved questions of state liability and approval. US GPS and Russian GLONASS are provided realistically on an as-is basis with an expression of commitment from the respective federal administrations. This raises a dilemma concerning the role of national authorizations or approvals of these foreign-power controlled systems for use in the provision of safety of life services such as ATC.

FLARM and uAvionix Collaborate to Create Electronic Conspicuity Solutions for Manned and Unmanned Aircraft

FLARM Technology and uAvionix today announced a partnership to collaborate on Electronic Conspicuity (EC) and Detect and Avoid (DAA) solutions for manned and unmanned aircraft. uAvionix specializes in ADS-B, Secondary Surveillance Radar (SSR) transponders, and GNSS position sources for manned and unmanned aircraft. FLARM specializes in situational awareness and active DAA solutions for General Aviation and unmanned aircraft. Both companies offer products for installation and portable use together with modern display systems such as Electronic Flight Bag (EFB) applications.

The companies plan to incorporate their respective technologies into one another’s products and to develop and sell interoperable solutions for these markets across the world. The companies also plan to collaborate on UAS remote identification standards and solutions. FLARM’s Open eID Standard, the first electronic identification standard published globally, is being trialled in Europe for DAA and remote identification purposes, a key enabler for UTM frameworks like U-Space. uAvionix’ DroneAware system is being tested as a component of the NASA UTM TCL3 demonstrations as well as three of the UAS Integration Pilot Programs in the US.

“As the airspace becomes more and more crowded, it is increasingly important to integrate existing electronic conspicuity solutions into interoperable platforms. ADS-B and FLARM are the two dominating GNSS-based solutions in use today” said Christian Ramsey, President uAvionix.

“Combining Detect and Avoid and remote ID solutions for both manned and unmanned traffic will enable the safe and efficient integration of all traffic in the same airspace and keep the responsibility where it should be: with the pilot,” said Daniel Hoffmann, General Manager FLARM Technology.

FLARM instrumental in many accident investigations

FLARM does not only save lives in the sky but has also been instrumental in many accident investigations. FLARM devices not only save the own flown track, but also the first and last received positions of other aircraft. The purpose of this is to enable range analyses of installations, but our forensic team can also use this information to assist with Search and Rescue (SAR) and to establish the flown track during an investigation. Often, data from several aircraft can be combined to establish the track flown, and/or where the aircraft crashed.

This article in Luzerner Zeitung (in German) published today explains how FLARM is currently supporting the Swiss Accident Investigation Board with establishing the final minutes of a Socata TB-10 accident on Saturday.

Commercial BVLOS Drone Service uses FLARM for Traffic Avoidance

Swiss Post, the Insel hospital group, and drone manufacturer Matternet have started a commercial BVLOS drone transport service in the Swiss capital city of Berne. The drones are connecting the Insel university hospital and Tiefenau hospital, located 4 km (2.5 miles) apart, carrying lab samples and urgently needed medication. The route is located entirely inside the controlled airspace around the city’s airport.

“When lab samples need to be transported as quickly as possible from A to B, every minute counts”, says Uwe E. Jocham, Insel’s CEO. The lab samples are currently transported by courier. For urgent cases, Insel uses a taxi.

All drones are equipped with our FLARM traffic information and collision warning system. Our technology is standard in most aircraft operating in European airspace and allows both manned and unmanned aircraft to see and stay well clear of each other at any time. In addition, it enables the drones to be identified and tracked at all times, a key requirement of U-Space for the safe and efficient integration of drones into airspace shared with manned aviation.

In the near future, Swiss Post together with medical laboratory Zentrallabor ZLZ and Matternet will start another commercial BVLOS drone transport service above Zurich, Switzerland’s largest city. The service will connect ZLZ’s main medical laboratory with the Hirslanden Im Park hospital. The routing crosses the lake of Zurich and is partially in uncontrolled airspace.

The Swiss Civil Aviation Authority FOCA has been involved in the project, has inspected the drone and its safety components, defined the legal conditions for flying it, and granted approval for the flights in Berne and Zurich.

FlarmNet is undergoing maintenance

FlarmNet, where pilots can register their FLARM devices to be identifiable by other pilots, is currently undergoing maintenance. The improved FlarmNet will be released shortly.

New customer portal available

We have recently released the new and long-awaited customer portal. It can be found after logging in to under “My Account”, which you can find at the top of the page. The customer portal will be your centerpoint for all things FLARM related. If you have recently e.g. updated your obstacle database, you might have noticed that you no longer receive an email with the files. Instead, license files are downloaded directly from the Order Completed page and are also made accessible from the customer portal.

Under the new tab “Devices” under “My Account”, you can find all devices, for which you have previously purchased a feature license (including an obstacle database). Licenses for a device are only shown for the user that purchased the license. If a license for your device was purchased by a dealer/installer, you will not see the license.

You can download purchased license files by clicking the links in the right column. If you don’t have the latest obstacle database for a certain device, there is a link to add it to the cart. If the device has never had an obstacle database, a link will instead take you to the webshop.

New devices are added to this list as soon as you purchase a license. Devices can also be added manually by clicking the “Add device” button at the bottom of the page.

Under the “Orders” tab you can see a list of all your orders. We have added a button for each order, with which you can download a ZIP file with all licenses for that order.

One last new feature: On the product pages in the webshop, you can now select a device that you own, so you don’t have to enter the data manually. This is especially useful if you purchase several licenses for one device, or if you have several devices from which you want to purchase the obstacle database update. The list does not show devices for which you already own the license in question (or it’s already in the car).

We will continuously improve the customer portal and add new features.