4 ms·
> There's really no Constitutional or statutory argument against requiring ADS-B. You could argue it's not a very good one, but it does exist: "This rulemakin
by forward1 3y ago
> There's really no Constitutional or statutory argument against requiring ADS-B.
You could argue it's not a very good one, but it does exist:
"This rulemaking provides an exception to ADS–B requirements, removing the transmission requirement for sensitive operations conducted by Federal, State and local government entities in matters of national defense, homeland security, intelligence and law enforcement."
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-07-18/pdf/2019-15248.pdf https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-07-18/pdf/2019-1...
- pc86 3y agoYeah I probably wasn't clear in that I meant I'm not aware of any legal basis for saying that requiring ADS-B for private/commercial air traffic is wrong. For example operating a 172 is not a constitutional right so tracking you while you do isn't isn't necessarily a violation of any particular right. I think it's wrong that the government exempts themselves from it if they're going to require it of everyone else, but that's so far down my list of grievances with the government it's barely worth thinking about :)