3 ms·

ADS-B hardware would have to be certified ($$$$). It's an excellent addition to the current air-traffic situation but the actual protocol is not very robust.

ADS-B hardware would have to be certified ($$$$). It's an excellent addition to the current air-traffic situation but the actual protocol is not very robust. It's pretty easy to jam or overwhelm the system without trying if the software running the transmitter shits a brick. This system is going to become more heavily relied upon since not every airport has a radar (even controlled airports with a tower) and I imagine it will even be used to replace radar systems in some areas eventually. You'll have to get the FCC involved inevitably, but one option might be to lower the TX power until its range is under 2-3 miles line of sight. Enough distance for a 747 to get an alarm and evade, but not enough for it to take down an entire bravo ring if it fails.

zkms 9y ago
> but the actual protocol is not very robust. It's pretty easy to jam or overwhelm the system without trying if the software running the transmitter shits a brick. Yeah that definitely is an issue -- there's no fancy multiple access provisions on 1090MHz. Limited TX power needs to happen anyway for ADS-B to live on those battery-powered UAVs, along with along with implementing the protocol inside an ASIC that monitors/decodes its own RF output (and bricks itself if it's transmitting inappropriately) would likely be enough to avoid accidental disruption. I wonder if there's going to be additional spectrum and RF standards for position reporting systems specifically meant for UAVs.