New case against flight tracking

[Pinecone]

just a minor way I know someone was injured by this information. A guys ex girlfriend had a restraining order on him. Every time he flew she’d get the alert and call the police and claim he was circling above her, stalking her. He eventually gave up and sold the plane.

Hmm, but the ADSB track would show that he was not circling her house. Unless he was.

 

[Salty]

Hmm, but the ADSB track would show that he was not circling her house. Unless he was.

I repeat. The cops still have to interview him when the complaint is made. She didn’t tell the cops she was using adsb, she would just call them when she got the alert and claim he was circling her house. The guy had to show them every time that he was not.

 

[TCABM]

Hmm, but the ADSB track would show that he was not circling her house. Unless he was.

* substitute aircraft for he and that becomes a more precise statement. LE should still need some probable cause to connect the pilot to the aircraft.

 

[TCABM]

That's not substantially different from photo-based radar used for traffic tickets. The responsibility lies with the owner/registrant of the vehicle until proven otherwise.

Except that’s not standard across the 50 states.

Red light running: Safety camera laws

Red light running: Safety camera laws

www.iihs.org

 

[flyingron]

But they're painted right on the side.

Not likely to see it on my plane. I've got small (non ADIZ) numbers.

 

[flyingron]

That is a completely different issue that has nothing to do with ADS-B. The N Number registry is public information because that is required by law. Your issue is with Congress, who published the CFR.

It's not required by law, it's just not prohibited (like airman data which is SUPPOSED to be covered by the privacy act that the FAA just decides to ignore).

 

[flyingron]

Communications Act of 1934 gives US citizens the right to receive any transmission over the RF spectrum.

Alas, that also is not true. Specific parts of the RF spectrum have indeed been regulated by law subsequently (notably the ECPA).

 

[flyingron]

Here is food for thought. We had Mode C transponders and later Mode S transponders without all of this public access to aircraft tracking. Why did adding GPS position to the data require a change in accessibility?

MODE C or MODE S to get a position requires you to use active radar... you know, a spinning antenna that can send the interrogation and figure out where the reply is coming from (and suppress the false returns that come from that system). Getting the identity and position from UAT or mode S ES just requires a passive receiver.

 

[denverpilot]

I do not have Nate's level of verbosity, but I did find we had similar viewpoints very often, especially around cybersecurity. I have not talked seen him online, or heard any updates in a few years. I hope he is doing better.

Tim

I’m lurking. And doing “okay-ish”. lol

 

[denverpilot]

MODE C or MODE S to get a position requires you to use active radar... you know, a spinning antenna that can send the interrogation and figure out where the reply is coming from (and suppress the false returns that come from that system). Getting the identity and position from UAT or mode S ES just requires a passive receiver.

Technically not true. The spinny part anyway.

The system that triggers regular Mode C transponders in the KASE valley, determines aircraft position by time domain to multiple fixed receiver sites and has no moving antenna parts.

A single transmitter site triggers the aircraft transponder. Then the other sites receive and a computer calculates the time difference to each receiver to determine aircraft location.

Pretty nifty stuff.

 

[dans2992]

Technically not true. The spinny part anyway.

The system that triggers regular Mode C transponders in the KASE valley, determines aircraft position by time domain to multiple fixed receiver sites and has no moving antenna parts.

A single transmitter site triggers the aircraft transponder. Then the other sites receive and a computer calculates the time difference to each receiver to determine aircraft location.

Pretty nifty stuff.

This can (and is) done with amateur receivers working together by ADSBexchange, FlightAware, and other sites.

 

[flyingron]

Technically not true. The spinny part anyway.

The system that triggers regular Mode C transponders in the KASE valley, determines aircraft position by time domain to multiple fixed receiver sites and has no moving antenna parts.

A single transmitter site triggers the aircraft transponder. Then the other sites receive and a computer calculates the time difference to each receiver to determine aircraft location.

Pretty nifty stuff.

That means that every mode C (and S) plane out there will respond to the interrogation at once? How is that resolved? I understand how you could do it with mode S.

 

[denverpilot]

That means that every mode C (and S) plane out there will respond to the interrogation at once? How is that resolved? I understand how you could do it with mode S.

Great point. Never thought about it. Ha. No clue how the Germans that made it dealt with that.

The replies would be time spaced by distance from the transmit antenna — perhaps they cheat a little knowing rarely are two aircraft equidistant down valley?

(But that’s not true since inbounds and outbounds pass on opposite sides of the valley.)

Definitely predated widespread use of Mode S. It’s been up there a long time. Hmm.

Trying to remember the semi-scientific made up term the company that made it, called it.

 

[Bob Noel]

That means that every mode C (and S) plane out there will respond to the interrogation at once? How is that resolved? I understand how you could do it with mode S.

Take into account propagation delays. I presume the systems have a really good clock and sync'd.

 

[John Collins]

That means that every mode C (and S) plane out there will respond to the interrogation at once? How is that resolved? I understand how you could do it with mode S.

All Mode C transponders at the same distance from the interrogator will get the interrogation signal at the same time on 1030 MHz. After a 3 uSec delay, each transponder will start the transmission of the reply on 1090 MHz. Each nanosecond of time difference represents one foot of additional distance from the receiver. Precision to the nearest 0.2 NM is what the surveillance requirement is with ADS-B, so that is to the nearest 1.2 microsecond. So although aircraft at the same distance from the interrogator will generate a reply at the same time, the distance to each of the multilateration receivers will be different when the aircraft are not at the same position. The multilateration receivers are going to be able to see aircraft responding to the same interrogation because of the very precise time differences they use to determine the position. My understanding is that ASDEX ground position radar uses similar technology, because the round trip time for a transponder query to reply is too imprecise. The 3 microsecond delay alone between the end of the interrogation and the beginning of the reply is more than a half mile in position, so precise timing is used to triangulate the position of the aircraft on the ground.

 

[Tarheelpilot]

I would be happy if all the posters would stop calling adsb “voluntary” transmissions.

I know there will never be full agreement on these topics but just stop with the voluntary b.s.

 

[pfarber]

Not wrong at all. No right is absolute. The exercise of every right is balanced against the common good, even those rights protected by the Constitution. The classic example is shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater. Or restricting gun carry at the Super Bowl.

What your example showed is that balance is required. Any medical benefit gained by the Nazi experiments was far outweighed by the horrific immorality of their actions.

I don't think the same conclusion applies to this topic, where the harm is mostly theoretical. Unless someone can provide an IRL example of negative consequences from flight tracking, the argument against it so far boils down to "I just don't like it."

there is no law or federal prohibition from yelling 'fire' in a theater.

And while people always default to the Nazi's bad-uummmkay? The US government gave native Americans blankets infected with smallpox, and African Americans were injected with syphilis to name a few things our government has done.

 

[ateamer]

there is no law or federal prohibition from yelling 'fire' in a theater.

And while people always default to the Nazi's bad-uummmkay? The US government gave native Americans blankets infected with smallpox, and African Americans were injected with syphilis to name a few things our government has done.

Neither is true. There is no verified factual account of the blankets legend. In the Tuskegee Experiement, no one was injected with syphilis. People who had syphilis were not treated, but no one was given the disease.

 

[Shepherd]

Neither is true. There is no verified factual account of the blankets legend. In the Tuskegee Experiement, no one was injected with syphilis. People who had syphilis were not treated, but no one was given the disease.

Au contraire:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_Syphilis_Study
https://www.cdc.gov/tuskegee/timeline.htm
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/hist...-about-the-tuskegee-syphilis-study-180983568/

And we like to test biological weapons on Americans:
https://theconversation.com/the-us-...he-public-were-infected-ticks-used-too-120638

 

[ateamer]

Au contraire:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_Syphilis_Study
https://www.cdc.gov/tuskegee/timeline.htm
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/hist...-about-the-tuskegee-syphilis-study-180983568/

And we like to test biological weapons on Americans:
https://theconversation.com/the-us-...he-public-were-infected-ticks-used-too-120638

Those articles support my statement that the Tuskegee Experiment did not inject syphilis into the patients. They already had it and the doctors did not treat them.