Re: [Drip] ADSB

[Robert Moskowitz <[e-mail]>]

On 7/12/23 09:54, Alexandre Petrescu wrote:
>
>
> 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.

And it is the characteristics of ADS-B capacity that has ruled it out 
for use by UAS.  End of discussion.


>
> 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
>>
>

-- 
Standard Robert Moskowitz
Owner
HTT Consulting
C:248-219-2059
F:248-968-2824
E:[e-mail]

There's no limit to what can be accomplished if it doesn't matter who 
gets the credit