![Portable ADS-B seen as a solution for drone right of way issue. [Image: uAvionix.]](https://avbrief.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/uAvionix-skyEcho.jpg "uAvionix-skyEcho")
As we reported last week, uAvionix is asking all pilots to comment on Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that would give drones right of way over crewed aircraft in certain limited circumstances. The company has developed a portable “electronic conspicuity” (EC) device called SkyEcho that is essentially a portable ADS-B In/Out device that will act as a “drone repellent” in the low-level airspace where such conflicts could occur. uAvionix has created a Pilot Awareness Portal to explain how the relatively inexpensive device (less than $1,000) works and could meet FAA requirements for aircraft that don’t have ADS-B installed to maintain right of way over drones.
As part of the NPRM, the FAA mentions portable electronic conspicuity devices as a possible solution for gliders, balloons, seaplanes, backcountry planes, and other aircraft that operate below 400 feet in airspace where drones are allowed but do not have ADS-B installed. Drones will use ADS-B as part of their sense and avoid systems to prevent collisions, but unless the target aircraft are emitting a signal they won’t be able to see them. Therefore it will be up to the human pilot of the other aircraft to stay out of the way of the drones. uAvionix has even drafted a sample letter (copied below) to make it easy for pilots to comment.
I have uavionix ads-b in/out, no issue with equipment or support.
Uavionix presents the appearance of a self-serving market creation push for their devices thru advocacy that indirectly advances UAS priority ahead of manned flight. I have commented on manned flight safety/priority as such at the NPRM and recommend same to others here to influence beyond our merry band.
I fully support legalizing the portable devices and the UAS industry providing no cost “conspicuousity” devices to enhance safety, but NOT as a substitute for UAS compliance with onboard see/avoid as every other airspace user is required.
I am NOT pleased with uavionics weighing into the NPRM as a “public service” in light of their appearance of a conflict of interest.
“Drone Repellent” – catchy phrase. I wonder if it would work for exactly that purpose, ground-based drone repellent for those folks who don’t want the drones flying over their house. I’m guessing we’ll be reading about that very soon…
Just sign here and you’ll receive a free SkyEcho….
Sponsored by UAS industry venture capital…
Slippery slope to mandating conspicuity to all manned flight.
Sounds like a great product! Exactly what we need! Let’s form a line to get our free drone repellent gadgets, all costs of which shall be completely underwritten by the commercial drone operators!
Sorry, the solution is to reject the NPRM requiring crewed aircraft to give way to drones.
I commented on the NPRM as well. UAS should never, EVER have the right of way over ANY manned aircraft at ANY altitude.
Is this even an issue if you have ADSB out and operate out of any paved airport in the US? UAS are supposed to have the capability to deconflict with ADSB equipped aircraft at all times, so the “right of way” issue should not exist.
This also impacts people flying aircraft that have never had electrical systems, and as I understand it ultralight pilots as well. Then there are floatplanes and agricultural pilots who do quite a lot of low alititude flight away from airports and may or may not have ADSB.
Hmm… I wonder how those who are working to integrate autonomous commercial trucking are planning to manage sense-and-avoid on our nation’s interstate highway system. And I wonder how well the driving public would react to a mandate to equip all their vehicles with a $1000 gizmo, just so they could continue to use roads that have always been free. Now imagine what the reaction would be to a proposal to allow those autonomous pizza-delivery ‘bots to use city streets, not just sidewalks.
The onus should always rest on the newcomer, especially if it is in furtherance of a commercial activity, and I said so in my strongly worded NPRM response. Uavionix is shamefully working the wrong side of the problem.
“” … a mandate to equip all their vehicles with a $1000 gizmo, just so they could continue to use roads that have always been free….””
Funny you mention that. Precedence already set. Mandated Cable/Satellite TV — pushed by the industry with a minor fee (Hey, what’s a mere $3000 per year for passive home entertainment) so that viewers could watch TV and other entertainment withOUT having to be bombarded with incessant Commercials. Now, you are raked thru the coals for appeasement fees AND COMMERCIALS (Many more than OTA TV) and have to pay to watch Free OTA TV as well (unless you have an auto digital decrypter in your head).
In a word, Yes, it is coming. No free lunch. Have to feed the government and its minions in every possible way.
I have argued for some time that ads-b out for aircraft not equipped with engine-driven generator/alternator would increase safety. Having flown such an airplane for decades, I can attest that ads-b IN has helped me see numerous aircraft I would otherwise be unable to see, but I remain invisible to them. Buzz words and advertising hype aside, I think UAvionics’ proposal represents a set up in aviation safety.
I presume that is a typo, and you meant, “… a step up in aviation safety”, John. And no doubt you are right. But it’s a huge step down in privacy.
“Safety” has long been a stalking horse for assaults on individual freedom and privacy. I fly with my landing light, running lights, strobe, and rotating beacon on at all times. I am quite visible and audible to anything within a mile radius.
But I will not fly with any electronic box broadcasting my tailnumber, because it is so easily used to look up my name and address. And yes, that means I must file an ADAPT form whenever I want to visit (or leave) friends who live on a residential airpark inside a Class B. But that’s a damn-sight better than having any moron with cellphone knowing that I’m not at home, and exactly where that home is.
Piggybacking a feature that all drones should have, onto the ADSB mandate for aircraft, is the wrong answer Uavionix.
Some guy wants to make money by flying drones. I’ve got to spend 1000 bucks to accommodate his business. Huh. It’s a funny ol’ life these days.