Re: [Drip] ADSB

[Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Le 12/07/2023 à 12:45, Carsten Bormann a écrit :
> On 2023-07-12, at 11:52, Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> why not 400m
> 
> This is not a domain where we get to invent boundaries.

I agree.

But each domain to its own competencies.

If the air flight domain invents incompatible imperial-metric boundaries 
among continents that does not mean that the communication protocol 
operation should do the same.

If they want to limit the kinds of flying devices that are allowed to 
carry a certain type of radio equipment then they should express the 
limitation based on radio equipment characteristics.

It's the same with weight: if they want to limit the devices who can 
carry an ADS-B device to the heavier ones ('birds') then it is the same 
problem: ounces and grams, are not converted easily.

For example, if I want to put a starlink user equipment on a drone I 
hope I will not get limited by some altitude limit; I am ready to look 
at the radio communication limits but not the altitude limit.  The 
altitude limit is for those who build mechanical matters to respect 
mechanical limits like altitudes.

Maybe they want to say that a drone UAS which carries ADS-B must not 
interfere with others.  That's a radio communication requirement, easy 
to understand.

Alex

> 
> (Also, generally speaking, of course we should have a strong bias to using SI units, but in a domain where regulation is widely based on furlongs per fortnight, we’ll have to adapt.)
> 
> Grüße, Carsten
>