We looked at this issue recently in UAV Swarm....

But this proposal, as well as many others, involve broadcasting the route of all planes in clear text. Surely, that is a bad idea.

So I've rethought my Swarm protocol to "obscure" the actual location, and instead use general locations with more accurate locations provided as needed.

I wondered if anyone had any thoughts on how a location-obscured protocol could be functional?

for example:
1. Broadcast rough location and route.
2. Identify possible congestion based on rough locations
3. Attempt to resolve congestion in "safe mode".
4. If still congested - determine friend or foe.
5. if friend, negotiate Cipher and send more accurate location - if foe, then increase location obfuscation - raise pilot alert.

Friend or foe may be also be able or disabled - maneuverable or less maneuverable.
FOF may be resolved passively, by comparing route adjustments, if a plane increases its proximity to "your" projection, that plane is a problem for you, and should be avoided.

Other ideas: Smaller planes send more accurate location.

Any other ideas?
Is obfuscation important?

Views: 199

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I'd say obfuscation is unimportant -- any widely accepted system is going to need FAA support, and probably an FAA mandate to work. Some of what you are proposing is similar to ADS-B and FAA's "NextGen" architecture for airspace. These assume that each aircraft is uniquely identifiable.

The real problem for UAVs and manned aircraft alike is "non-cooperating" targets -- aircraft without transponders or radios (they aren't mandated outside of controlled airspace) who are depending on "see and be seen" for separation. By definition, no active-participation strategy is going to account for these, and any practical system has to.

So, I'd guess that a lightweight aircraft detection system is a more effective strategy for keeping out of each other's way. (Perhaps sound detection? One could argue that aircraft noise is proportional to weight, and passive sound location wouldn't weigh much.)
What about gliders and electrical aircraft ?

And considering how many hundreds of billions FAA is plowing into UAT and 1090 ES, I hardly think they will endorse yet another standard.
I'd think one strategy for non-cooperating craft is to make the transponders cheap enough that everyone and everything could easily participate.
What good is a standard if it doesn't solve the problems.

If UAV can help with crime, firefighting, and farming, but aren't allowed because the FAA's billion dollar dog don't hunt - that isn't a standard - as by definition - a standard applies to everyone.

Reply to Discussion


© 2019   Created by Chris Anderson.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service