What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Lotta questions on ADS B Privacy here on VAF--lately

donaziza

Well Known Member
ADS-B PRIVACY INCHES FORWARD
ANONYMOUS MODE ALLOWED FOR VFR FLIGHT PLANS
August 1, 2019 By Mike Collins
An AOPA petition to expand pilots? ability to use certain Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) Out equipment in anonymous mode has resulted in the FAA clarifying that what AOPA sought actually is what the agency intended when it wrote the ADS-B requirements.

The Federal Aviation Administration is one of the many government agencies that have influence over general aviation. Photo by David Tulis.
The Federal Aviation Administration is one of the many government agencies that have influence over general aviation. Photo by David Tulis.
In November 2018, Rune Duke, AOPA senior director of airspace and air traffic, petitioned the FAA for an exemption from 14 CFR 91.227(d)(8) and (11). He asked that pilots of aircraft equipped with 978 MHz Universal Access Transceiver (UAT) ADS-B systems be allowed to operate utilizing their UATs? anonymous mode when (1) the pilot has filed a VFR flight plan; (2) the pilot has not requested air traffic control services; and (3) the operation is outside of 14 CFR 91.225 ADS-B rule airspace. This was because Paragraph 4-5-7(c)(3) of the Aeronautical Information Manual states that a UAT?s anonymous mode can only be used ?when the operator has not filed a flight plan and is not requesting ATC services??excluding aircraft on VFR flight plans, he said.

A UAT is one of the two ADS-B datalink technologies established by the FAA in the United States, where the agency will require ADS-B Out for flights after Jan. 1, 2020, generally in airspace where a transponder is required today (the other is the 1090 MHz Mode S Extended Squitter transponder). In the anonymous mode, a UAT creates a randomized address that does not match the actual, unique International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) code assigned to that aircraft, protecting the privacy of the aircraft operator. ADS-B broadcasts an aircraft?s ICAO code and call sign, which can be captured by anyone with a suitable receiver and then used to determine who owns and operates the aircraft.
AOPA had been told in June that this concern would be resolved through clarification in the Aeronautical Information Manual. ?In pushing the issue we were able to achieve our goal and ensure pilots can fly on a VFR flight plan and utilize anonymous mode, while also ensuring this capability is available in rule airspace,? Duke said. ?I was told by air traffic that the petition request was probably the fastest path to an answer, as legal interpretations must go through several levels of external oversight right now and are delayed. I am happy to see that we were able to get a good answer for pilots.?

The FAA response noted that a pilot conducting a VFR operation may file a VFR flight plan to obtain search and rescue protection. ?When a pilot files a VFR flight plan, he or she does not receive ATC services unless he or she requests flight following. Therefore, a pilot conducting a VFR operation may file a VFR flight plan without requesting ATC services?. It appears that the FAA intended to allow persons conducting VFR operations, including those on a VFR flight plan, to use the anonymity mode so long as they did not request ATC services (i.e., flight following).?

The AIM provisions clarifying UAT anonymous mode operations will be published on Jan. 30, 2020. The FAA also noted that it will consider revising 14 CFR 91.227(d)(8) and (11) in the future to eliminate any confusion regarding whether anonymous mode can be used while on a VFR flight plan.

1090ES privacy
Privacy options are moving more slowly for aircraft equipped with 1090 MHz Extended Squitter for ADS-B Out. AOPA has been actively engaged in collaborative conversations with the FAA, the National Business Aviation Association, and other industry partners to find an anonymity solution for operators using 1090 MHz ADS-B systems, as well as those utilizing air traffic services, Duke said. The FAA has proposed a concept called ?rolling ICAO codes,? in which a participating aircraft would emit randomly assigned ICAO codes that are periodically changed; combined with an anonymous call sign, aircraft would be harder to track. The idea has also been called ?private ICAO addresses.?

?This is a promising approach to increasing anonymity for general aviation operators, but we are still waiting for the FAA to take the necessary steps to begin a demonstration effort,? he said.

The next step in the process is for the FAA to publish a request for proposals from the third-party providers that would be involved?but this has not happened, he added. ?I understand we can expect an update at the next Equip 2020 meeting on Sept. 11. However, the FAA can't give us much of a timeline, as they are still conducting internal reviews,? Duke said.

?Work must be expedited on the long-term solution: encryption of ADS-B data,? he added. ?It is understood that to facilitate privacy, anonymity must be initiated at the source?the aircraft?as the many privately operated ground receiver networks do not rely on an FAA data stream to feed their tracking websites. Encryption at the source will allow an automated solution that will reduce the workload for operators and the agency, and this solution could become a global standard.?
 
To clarify & correct me if I'm wrong...

The FAA still receives your aircraft ICAO in the ADS-B OUT datastream.
They know who you are, but the rebroadcast transmits a randomly assigned ICAO & anonymous tail# to protect your privacy from other aircraft that are receiving ADS-B IN.
 
Last edited:
They know who you are, but the rebroadcast transmits a randomly assigned ICAO & anonymous tail# to protect your privacy from other aircraft that are receiving ADS-B IN.

I hope they use an obvious anonymous tail number (N1ANON, etc) if this is the case, rather than randomizing it. When using the received data for traffic identification purposes, I?d rather know it?s being anonymized - or not see it at all as is currently the case with TIS-B targets - than see one normal-looking tail number while hearing a different one on the radio. Seems it would leave people always wondering where that mystery target is.
 
To clarify & correct me if I'm wrong...

The FAA still receives your aircraft ICAO in the ADS-B OUT datastream.
They know who you are, but the rebroadcast transmits a randomly assigned ICAO & anonymous tail# to protect your privacy from other aircraft that are receiving ADS-B IN.

No that?s not how it works. The ADSB-out from an anonymous UAT is randomized at the source, not in a rebroadcast. Otherwise pilots receiving adsb-in both directly and from a ground station would mistakenly think there were two airplanes.
 
I hope they use an obvious anonymous tail number (N1ANON, etc) if this is the case, rather than randomizing it. When using the received data for traffic identification purposes, I?d rather know it?s being anonymized - or not see it at all as is currently the case with TIS-B targets - than see one normal-looking tail number while hearing a different one on the radio. Seems it would leave people always wondering where that mystery target is.

I agree. I see some anonymous reported as NONE, or is empty
 
No that?s not how it works. The ADSB-out from an anonymous UAT is randomized at the source, not in a rebroadcast. Otherwise pilots receiving adsb-in both directly and from a ground station would mistakenly think there were two airplanes.

Yep. Makes sense.
 
The popular Garmin GDL-82 broadcasts the aircraft's real ICAO code and N-number at start-up, for about 4 seconds. It then switches to a random ICAO code and drops the N-number, eventually replacing the N-number with "VFR".

There are variations between ADS-B manufacturers, but all seem to follow the general pattern of NOT being anonymous at start, meaning anyone with a receiver can log the real ICAO code, the location, and the new code, meaning the aircraft is easily identified.

I'm told it can be corrected with a software change. Given the manufacturer advertised "anonymous", I bought "anonymous", and it's not actually "anonymous", I'd like to think my favorite vendor will field the update.

Example startup log here:

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showpost.php?p=1330537&postcount=155
 
Last edited:
Regardless of all the anonymizing, if you're operating from/to a controlled airport you'll be given a discrete code on first ATC contact and that will de-anonymize your entire flight even if you were anonymous on arrival or switch to anonymous once you're outside the zone on departure.
 
The popular Garmin GDL-82 broadcasts the aircraft's real ICAO code and N-number at start-up, for about 4 seconds. It then switches to a random ICAO code and drops the N-number, eventually replacing the N-number with "VFR".

There are variations between ADS-B manufacturers, but all seem to follow the general pattern of NOT being anonymous at start, meaning anyone with a receiver can log the real ICAO code, the location, and the new code, meaning the aircraft is easily identified.

I'm told it can be corrected with a software change. Given the manufacturer advertised "anonymous", I bought "anonymous", and it's not actually "anonymous", I'd like to think my favorite vendor will field the update.

Example startup log here:

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showpost.php?p=1330537&postcount=155

Dan,
From a practical perspective how far away can an ADSB receiver read your ICAO and location when you start outside your hangar during that four seconds? If it is only a few hundred yards one can also read your tail # as you taxi by. But if the range is further you have a point. I have a GDL-82 installed and I agree that the option to be completely anonymous would be good but I also suspect that no one is receiving and recording my startup. Now when the tower insists on assigning a squawk when I return there goes my anonymity. :)
Steve
 
Dan,
From a practical perspective how far away can an ADSB receiver read your ICAO and location when you start outside your hangar during that four seconds? If it is only a few hundred yards one can also read your tail # as you taxi by. But if the range is further you have a point. I have a GDL-82 installed and I agree that the option to be completely anonymous would be good but I also suspect that no one is receiving and recording my startup. Now when the tower insists on assigning a squawk when I return there goes my anonymity. :)
Steve

Arguably QUITE far away... https://aireon.com/
 
In addition, we have the "Terrestrial ADS-B Network", enthusiasts (apparently with boring lives) who set up receivers and feed the data to Flightaware.

https://flightaware.com/about/datasources/

They will send you a receiver, free, if they determine there isn't enough coverage in your area. There are something like 16 of them already in my area. And yes, they now have UAT filters available.

https://flightaware.com/adsb/flightfeeder/

Anyway, the real issue here is future surveillance, not who logs your ICAO now. As Flightaware is demonstrating, the technology to log you from that first data burst is readily available. and coverage is growing.
 
Last edited:
I don’t think this is the case. Uavionics transmits a randomly generated identifier instead of the icao code in anonymous mode. You are “anonymous”at the point of transmission without second party manipulation of the data stream. The FAA gets the same randomized identifier.


To clarify & correct me if I'm wrong...

The FAA still receives your aircraft ICAO in the ADS-B OUT datastream.
They know who you are, but the rebroadcast transmits a randomly assigned ICAO & anonymous tail# to protect your privacy from other aircraft that are receiving ADS-B IN.
 
...at this time.

The receiver payloads have no capability of receiving 978 transmissions. There simply is/was no economic justification for essentially doubling the receiver complexity just to pick up the niche "market" that is UAT. Particularly since the primary purpose of the Aireon constellation was to provide global coverage (ie over oceans/poles), which isn't going to apply to anyone running UAT (except for maybe some really unusual cases).
 
...at this time.

Dan
I am enjoying the conversation. You and I are in violent agreement. Anonymous should be anonymous. But in my situation I usually leave the anonymous switch off (not always). Flight Aware does show portions of my fights, as boring as they may be, but not all of the flights. I am surprised that they miss portions; but I like having the switch. Do you have data that shows that my start up between hangar rows is being monitored and recorded?
 
Dan
I am enjoying the conversation. You and I are in violent agreement. Anonymous should be anonymous. But in my situation I usually leave the anonymous switch off (not always). Flight Aware does show portions of my fights, as boring as they may be, but not all of the flights. I am surprised that they miss portions; but I like having the switch. Do you have data that shows that my start up between hangar rows is being monitored and recorded?

Assuming your aircraft is UAT-equipped (which I think is a good assumption since you mention the anonymous mode), we simply don't have anywhere near the coverage for UAT that we do for 1090ES, and for the same reason that Aireon doesn't support UAT - there's far, far more to be gained from tracking the latter. Only in about the last six months have we nailed down a modified software package for UAT, and receivers can only receive one frequency, not both.

I'd go so far as to guess that the majority of your flights that show up on FA are by virtue of test hardware we have in our office in Houston. That might explain why tracking is particularly sporadic.

As for picking up transponder emissions immediately after startup, it's very plausible, though dependent on receiver coverage. Receivers pretty much need solid line-of-sight to the source, but if there's one on the airport (a good possibility, though it's probably a 1090ES version), then that's easily covered.

Finally, I'd like to note that our CEO has spent a fair amount of time this year working with the FAA in an attempt to get movement on an anonymizing solution for 1090ES users. I'm not privy to any real details, but I believe it's based on offering designated-anonymous Mode S codes, which will not be directly tied to a tail # (unlike current codes).

As much as our business is based on freely available flight data, we also believe in people's right to opt out, and we will respect blocking requests. (And I can tell you from personal experience that we take blocking very seriously. Bugs relating to possible inadvertent disclosure of blocked-aircraft information are of the "stop what you're doing and fix this right now" priority.)
 
At Osh I spoke with Melissa Rudinger at the AOPA booth regarding the 1090ES anonymous mode. She said that all parties (industry and FAA) felt that the concept of ?rolling ICAO codes? was an inelegant solution and has pretty much been abandoned. This rolling code concept was to involve retrieving a random code from a pool of codes from the FAA then fat fingering it into your transponder each time you wanted to fly anonymously. I think the FAA now realizes the real solution is an encrypted system but that will take years (decades?) to implement.
 
You and I are in violent agreement.

Where's my Like Button?

Do you have data that shows that my start up between hangar rows is being monitored and recorded?

Again, not at this time.

Seriously, this is about the future, not tracking hardware currently in place.

Only in about the last six months have we nailed down a modified software package for UAT, and receivers can only receive one frequency, not both.

A software package for UAT eh? The future arrives sooner than we think.

I'd go so far as to guess that the majority of your flights that show up on FA are by virtue of test hardware we have in our office in Houston. That might explain why tracking is particularly sporadic.

Hmmm, software development and test hardware. All we need now is an economic case to justify hardware deployment...and obviously someone thinks there will be one, sooner or later.

As for picking up transponder emissions immediately after startup, it's very plausible, though dependent on receiver coverage. Receivers pretty much need solid line-of-sight to the source, but if there's one on the airport (a good possibility, though it's probably a 1090ES version), then that's easily covered.

Can you tell us how many Flight Feeder boxes FA sends out in a year? Put another way, what is the current rate of growth for the Flight Feeder network? The growth rate is probably public information, as FA promotes the extent of their coverage.

Finally, I'd like to note that our CEO has spent a fair amount of time this year working with the FAA in an attempt to get movement on an anonymizing solution for 1090ES users. I'm not privy to any real details, but I believe it's based on offering designated-anonymous Mode S codes, which will not be directly tied to a tail # (unlike current codes).

As much as our business is based on freely available flight data, we also believe in people's right to opt out, and we will respect blocking requests. (And I can tell you from personal experience that we take blocking very seriously. Bugs relating to possible inadvertent disclosure of blocked-aircraft information are of the "stop what you're doing and fix this right now" priority.)

Phillip, I really do value your input, and also appreciate your personal position.

We both know the realities of business, even if we sometimes try to ignore it. Your boss may be a great guy with good intentions, but in the end, the almighty dollar drives the decisions. FA is a tracking company selling data. If a private firm or government agency wants to buy UAT tracking, FA will be all over it, and based on what you have told us here, your CEO wants to be ready. No argument from me. I'm all for enterprise, and I expect the tiger to do what tigers do.

This isn't about blocking, a different 1090 option. This is about "anonymous" UAT transmitters which turned out to have a big hole in the burka. It leaves us exposed to ID, via little more than a cheap local receiver connected to the net.

And it's about being a well-treated consumer. The manufacturer advertised anonymous, I bought anonymous, and I think I'm owed an anonymous transmitter, not one which spits out my real ID every time I turn it on.
 
Can you tell us how many Flight Feeder boxes FA sends out in a year? Put another way, what is the current rate of growth for the Flight Feeder network? The growth rate is probably public information, as FA promotes the extent of their coverage.

I'm not sure about the specific growth rate for FlightFeeders; however, I can say that our terrestrial network is currently at around 21k active sites. Last year about this time it was ~16.5k, and the year before that ~13k. So roughly it's about 27% year-over-year.

These numbers include both FlightFeeders (the devices we build and ship out at our own expense) and PiAwares (devices built by hobbyists at their expense). For the purposes of this discussion, I suspect the nuance between the two isn't really relevant, though it's worth noting that enthusiast-built receivers often feed other networks in addition to FA, and some of those networks do not share our respect for privacy/blocking requests.

This isn't about blocking, a different 1090 option. This is about "anonymous" UAT transmitters which turned out to have a big hole in the burka. It leaves us exposed to ID, via little more than a cheap local receiver connected to the net.

And it's about being a well-treated consumer. The manufacturer advertised anonymous, I bought anonymous, and I think I'm owed an anonymous transmitter, not one which spits out my real ID every time I turn it on.

I can't disagree with any of this. I was not aware of this aspect of the UAT "anonymous" mode, and it sure undermines the "anonymous" claim in a big way.

I'm not sure whether we make use of that initial burst of identifying data or not - I don't work directly with the ADS-B program, I just make shiny things on the website. But to your point, it doesn't matter a whole lot whether we do or not - the data is out there, and even if FA as a company takes a principled stand on this, it doesn't stop someone else from just doing what we won't.
 
I'm not sure about the specific growth rate for FlightFeeders; however, I can say that our terrestrial network is currently at around 21k active sites. Last year about this time it was ~16.5k, and the year before that ~13k. So roughly it's about 27% year-over-year.

The miracle of compounding....3.5K more, followed by 4.5K more. Not hard to predict where this is going.

It's about the future.

Thanks Phillip.
 
A simple way to render the startup burst unusable would be to install a BNC 12vdc coaxial relay inline with the antenna, in the off position the ads-b unit would be connected to a dummy load, in the on position it would connect to the antenna.
The relay could be actuated for example, by the strobe power.
 
And The Plot Thickens

ADS-B CHANGES DON?T GO FAR ENOUGH
AOPA HIGHLIGHTS PRIVACY GAPS
August 8, 2019
By Mike Collins
AOPA appreciates the FAA?s recent resolution of some Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast operational concerns but says the FAA has a long way to go, especially regarding privacy.

Most 978-MHz universal access transceivers, like the uAvionix skyBeacon being installed above, offer pilots an ADS-B anonymous mode during certain flight operations, but no privacy options exist for 1090-MHz Extended Squitter ADS-B hardware. Photo by Mike Collins.
Most 978-MHz universal access transceivers, like the uAvionix skyBeacon being installed above, offer pilots an ADS-B anonymous mode during certain flight operations, but no privacy options exist for 1090-MHz Extended Squitter ADS-B hardware. Photo by Mike Collins.
The association filed comments Aug. 7 with the U.S. Department of Transportation regarding Docket Number FAA?2019?0562, ?Revision to Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS?B) Out Equipment and Use Requirements.? The interim final rule authorizes the non-lead aircraft in formations to turn off their transponders and ADS-B, and makes other changes to regulatory requirements that all ADS-B-equipped aircraft ?must transmit at all times,? including an exception for sensitive operations conducted by federal, state, and local security and law enforcement agencies. ADS-B uses GPS satellites instead of ground-based radar to determine aircraft location, and is a key technology behind the FAA?s Next Generation Air Transportation System. The FAA has mandated ADS-B Out for flights after Jan. 1, 2020, in airspace where a transponder is required today.

Although AOPA is pleased to see the issue of formation flights addressed in the interim final rule, the association?s comments go on to say that the rule does not go far enough to address several other privacy concerns shared by the general aviation community, and discussed in the collaborative Equip 2020 government/industry venue.
Another recent effort clarified that pilots of aircraft equipped with 978 MHz Universal Access Transceiver (UAT) ADS-B systems can use their UATs? anonymous mode when the pilot has filed a VFR flight plan and is not requesting air traffic services. Paragraph 4-5-7(c)(3) of the Aeronautical Information Manual currently states that a UAT?s anonymous mode can only be used ?when the operator has not filed a flight plan and is not requesting ATC services.?

Many pilots are concerned about privacy in the context of ADS-B data, and 1090 MHz Extended Squitter ADS-B systems currently don?t offer any anonymity, said Rune Duke, AOPA senior director of airspace and air traffic. He cited the results of a recent Aviation eBrief poll that indicated half of respondents are concerned about their privacy because their identification is being transmitted over ADS-B.

?We regularly hear from pilots who have privacy concerns about ADS-B. This is a good opportunity to have your voice heard and share your concerns directly with the FAA,? Duke said, encouraging pilots to comment.

Comments to the docket will be accepted until Sept. 16, 2019. Interested pilots and aircraft owners are encouraged to review the docket and comment online.

The privacy problem is exacerbated by websites that allow the tracking of aircraft equipped with ADS-B Out, including those squawking the 1200 VFR transponder code, using their own ground stations and bypassing traditional FAA controls over radar data, Duke explained. ?Private aircraft operators have significant concerns that have not been addressed in this rule nor satisfactorily resolved by the FAA. We regularly hear from pilots that they are delaying or avoiding equipping because of this concern."

The 978UAT systems? anonymous mode and the concept under development of ?rolling ICAO codes? for 1090ES systems will help to increase anonymity for GA operators, but they are only a short-term solution, Duke noted. ?Work must be expedited on the long-term solution: encryption of ADS-B data,? he wrote to the docket. ?Encryption at the source will allow an automated solution that will reduce the workload for operators and the agency, and this solution could become a global standard.?

Other issues also remain to be addressed?including voluntary ADS-B equipage of aircraft not equipped with an engine-driven electrical system, and harmonizing regulations addressing inoperable transponder and ADS-B systems, he added.

?Further modifications to ADS-B regulations and policy will encourage additional ADS-B equipage, as well as address the privacy concerns of thousands of aviators,? Duke wrote. ?We believe further modifications are in the public?s interest and would provide relief from some current issues by more effectively promoting safety and efficiency in the [National Airspace System].?
 
And the future is... No privacy.

I fail to see the case for a James Bond flipping license plate for ADSB. Flying is a priveledge just like driving. We have an ID plastered on the rear of our car and on the side of our plane. I get the 'I'm an citizen and deserve privacy bit" because I have similar feelings elsewhere but I don't think those feelings apply here.

In my 6 years of ADSB use, i LIKE it when an N number comes up next to a target. It has helped on multiple occations for traffic comunications with a tower or ATC.

I don't find the parallel to Xpdr 1200 to be valid since 1200 was a way to reduce ATC workload by allowing them to ignore those craft from a management standpoint but still see a target. With ADSB, that still remains true. There is no work burden for that identification to move from transmitter to receiver.
 
?Work must be expedited on the long-term solution: encryption of ADS-B data,? he wrote to the docket. ?Encryption at the source will allow an automated solution that will reduce the workload for operators and the agency, and this solution could become a global standard.?
First thought: Encryption will kill the Stratux market, unless the encryption protocol is publicised. But if it's publicised, is there any point of encrypting it in the first place?

Second thought: "global standard." The rest of of the world is going with 1090MHz broadcast to the Aireon satellite network. If it isn't set up to take an encrypted stream, encrypted streams aren't likely to become a global standard.
 
I fail to see the case for a James Bond flipping license plate for ADSB. Flying is a priveledge just like driving. We have an ID plastered on the rear of our car and on the side of our plane. I get the 'I'm an citizen and deserve privacy bit" because I have similar feelings elsewhere but I don't think those feelings apply here.
....
Why is flying not a right? I think the word matters. A lot. Have had this talk with AOPA on several occasions and coincidentally I've noticed a shift in their terminology over the last few years. Maybe others have had similar conversations.
 
Last edited:
Ok, this may be a dumb question, but why not just turn it off if you don?t want to be detected?
 
In addition, we have the "Terrestrial ADS-B Network", enthusiasts (apparently with boring lives) who set up receivers and feed the data to Flightaware.

https://flightaware.com/about/datasources/

They will send you a receiver, free, if they determine there isn't enough coverage in your area. There are something like 16 of them already in my area. And yes, they now have UAT filters available.

https://flightaware.com/adsb/flightfeeder/

Anyway, the real issue here is future surveillance, not who logs your ICAO now. As Flightaware is demonstrating, the technology to log you from that first data burst is readily available. and coverage is growing.

A guy I worked with was one of these early adopters of the FA offering. A normally well reasoned, highly intelligent individual, he quickly got sucked into the conspiracy theory vortex. Every morning he would tell me he uncovered a new "pattern" of covert ops involving aircraft going to/from LAX and the many millitary installations around here. He's retired now, but I'd bet he's spending his days logging every tail number he can sniff out.

Combine this behavior with the "chemtrails" and flat Earth types and you can bet that someone somewhere is watching you with one hand on the speed dial to the feds.
 
Why is flying not a right? I think the word matters. A lot. Have had this talk with AOPA on several occasions and coincidentally I've noticed a shift in their terminology over the last few years. Maybe others have had similar conversations.

If only. I wish I was wrong. I chose the word on purpose because i meant it. In my 50 years in aviation, I have seen zero to change that status. There are many reasons to say it is a privelege. Licence requirements, registration requirements, ability of the government to curtail all execution of activity as needed. Same are driving and that word was pounded into us in training.

From the silly standpoint, one can jump without oversight but low altitudes are unrewarding and high ones are a single trip.
 
A guy I worked with was one of these early adopters of the FA offering. A normally well reasoned, highly intelligent individual, he quickly got sucked into the conspiracy theory vortex. Every morning he would tell me he uncovered a new "pattern" of covert ops involving aircraft going to/from LAX and the many millitary installations around here. He's retired now, but I'd bet he's spending his days logging every tail number he can sniff out.

Combine this behavior with the "chemtrails" and flat Earth types and you can bet that someone somewhere is watching you with one hand on the speed dial to the feds.


Good story Michael. I personally know a guy like that. Maybe it's the same one :D
 
I fail to see the case for a James Bond flipping license plate for ADSB. Flying is a priveledge just like driving. We have an ID plastered on the rear of our car and on the side of our plane.

But your car isn't constantly broadcasting its position and identification in the clear to anyone with a receiver, nor is it able to be tracked real-time and cross-referenced to your home address by any fool with an internet connection.

I just want cars and airplanes held to the same standard, whatever that standard is.
 
Set aside the societal debate, and possible 1090 revisions. At the fundamental level, consider the ordinary consumer issue. Garmin advertised the GDL-82 as having an anonymous function, not "Anonymous after it broadcasts your ID at startup".
 
But your car isn't constantly broadcasting its position and identification in the clear to anyone with a receiver, nor is it able to be tracked real-time and cross-referenced to your home address by any fool with an internet connection.
Give it time. Google already tracks car movements for traffic monitoring purposes, using the phones everyone carries with them. Dash cam popularity is growing, as is the availability of in-car internet availability. Won't be long before people marry the two and you'll have live video available from a percentage of the driving public. Add license-plate recognition software, and bingo... Cars now tracked live online with video.
 
Set aside the societal debate, and possible 1090 revisions. At the fundamental level, consider the ordinary consumer issue. Garmin advertised the GDL-82 as having an anonymous function, not "Anonymous after it broadcasts your ID at startup".

Garmin's latest GDL 82 software update is alleged to have fixed this issue.
 
Garmin's latest GDL 82 software update is alleged to have fixed this issue.
Yes. Their SB 1974 Rev A reads:
GDL 82 System Software Version 2.01 prevents transmitting the aircraft ICAO address and Flight ID at power-up before entering Anonymous mode.
I'm still running v 2.00 so I'll have to decide whether it's worth the trouble to update my firmware.
 
Garmin's latest GDL 82 software update is alleged to have fixed this issue.

And I have confirmed. I installed one recently and used a SDR with dump978 to dump out the raw data broadcast over the air and as long as you start the transponder on the ramp, it does not broadcast the tail number in anonymous mode.

If you start inside the hangar and it can't get a GPS lock in the first minute, then it starts broadcasting your true ICAO because the ads-b protocol uses the lat/long as a seed for it's pseudo random number. They did this to avoid two aircraft getting the same tail number, which concerned me at first, but looking at the algorithm it does not appear to be deterministic in a way that it can be reversed to your ICAO.

So far I'm really happy with my GDL-82.

Note: The reason why the GDL-82 is truly anonymous and the skybeacon isn't is because the ads-b box must know for sure you are squawking 1200 before it can go anonymous. In the case of the skybeacon, if you aren't getting interrogations on the ground, and immediately, it has no choice but to use your real ICAO until it can confirm you are 1200.

The GDL-82 is in the antenna path and can interrogate the transponder privately over the antenna cable. It can confirm your squawk code with nothing else around and maintain anonymous mode.

Also, the gdl-82 is in my cessna. In my experimental I'll be running an echoUAT. The echo can also be in anonymous mode all of the time because it gets the squawk code over a serial cable. It can also feed ads-b information to my efis.

schu
 
Depending on where your USB dongle is located, you could wait until you are doing an inspection or maintenance in the area of the unit. The update process uses the same Windows GDL install tool software running on a laptop with the USB cable. You download the new unit firmware file on your computer in a folder like in Downloads or Desktop (or wherever you like) and then when in the GLD install tool software you go to the update menu and browse for the downloaded file and select it.

One thing I found when updating the GDL 82 at the same time as a connected WAAS navigator is that Garmin also added or changed the ADS-B data protocol for linking the two devices so the 82 can get position. So if you use a GNS, GTN, GNX or one of the new 2" navigators for position information you might have to change the communication protocol on that serial port. I don't know if the change is in the GDL 82 or the WAAS Navigator update but I ran into a situation where everything worked fine and then I updated the software on a GTN and position went away. It had to do with "ADS-B -" or "ADS-B +" being selected as the protocol. If the GDL 82 is getting it's own position with a dedicated antenna like the GA 35 that issue doesn't apply. It just works.
 
Last edited:
But your car isn't constantly broadcasting its position and identification in the clear to anyone with a receiver, nor is it able to be tracked real-time and cross-referenced to your home address by any fool with an internet connection.

I just want cars and airplanes held to the same standard, whatever that standard is.

If you travel with a cell phone turned on, in your car, yes it is... and if you have those "safety" features in your car, like OnStar, where it automatically activates if you push a button or your airbags go off, you are transmitting. "Broadcasting" isn't a good use of the term for radio signals being sent out that's commercial. Ask a ham radio op.
 
If you travel with a cell phone turned on, in your car, yes it is... and if you have those "safety" features in your car, like OnStar, where it automatically activates if you push a button or your airbags go off, you are transmitting. "Broadcasting" isn't a good use of the term for radio signals being sent out that's commercial. Ask a ham radio op.

BUT...It is not mandatory to carry a cell phone, It is not mandatory that you have the GPS on your phone turned on, It is not mandatory that you have OnStar, etc.
It is mandatory to have ADS-B to fly in certain airspace. I think this is wherein the difference lies.
 
Last edited:
BUT...It is not mandatory to carry a cell phone, It is not mandatory that you have the GPS on your phone turned on, It is not mandatory that you have OnStar, etc.
It is mandatory to have ADS-B to fly in certain airspace. I think this is wherein the difference lies.

Even more significant: It's MANDATORY to broadcast your identity EVERYWHERE, ALL THE TIME, once you equip; not just in 'rule' airspace.
 
If you travel with a cell phone turned on, in your car, yes it is... and if you have those "safety" features in your car, like OnStar, where it automatically activates if you push a button or your airbags go off, you are transmitting. "Broadcasting" isn't a good use of the term for radio signals being sent out that's commercial. Ask a ham radio op.

There?s still a major difference between Onstar or a cell phone, and ADS-B.

Cellphones and Onstar don?t transmit (fine, I?ll use that word) unencrypted, unambiguous, in-the-clear messages with identification and exact (GPS) position at all times, readable by anyone with a computer, antenna, and $50 USB dongle.
Cell phone numbers and Onstar IDs (and license plate/VIN data, for that matter) are not linked to their owners in a publicly-available, freely-searchable database helpfully provided by the federal government.
Track data and realtime position of every cellphone and Onstar ID is not served up by the government and freely available online to anyone who wants to look at it.

To put it another way, I can?t go online and put in a random cellphone number, find its owner?s home address, and pull up a map showing where that phone is in real time. I can?t do that with a license plate number either. Imagine the trouble that could come of that.

So there is a major difference?namely, in the public availability of ownership and track data.


It would be nice if ADS-B was encrypted; it really boggles my mind that the N-number database is still public. Fixing the latter (making it ?need-to-know? only) would at least solve half the problem and would cost far, far less.
 
Remember, not only can no private citizen use your car's ID to track (both real time and history), *no government agency* is allowed to do this, either, without getting a judge to issue a warrant.
 
So, this is ONE reason I have anonymous mode...
And
Last week, a pilot chipped at me in the pattern that I should turn off anonymous, as he wanted to see all the tail numbers around him...
 
So, this is ONE reason I have anonymous mode...
And
Last week, a pilot chipped at me in the pattern that I should turn off anonymous, as he wanted to see all the tail numbers around him...

And that's about the time I transmit back to him that there is a NORDO in the pattern at his 7 o'clock out the windscreen he ought to be more concerned about than my electronic VFR target visible on the heads-down screen.
 
So, this is ONE reason I have anonymous mode...
And
Last week, a pilot chipped at me in the pattern that I should turn off anonymous, as he wanted to see all the tail numbers around him...

I know my reply. "You should leave the pattern. I "want" it for myself."

I don't know whether to be mad or laugh when people expect their desires to be responded to as if they are commandments from the King.

Larry
 
Last edited:
Back
Top