With the CAA’s consultation closing on 22 September, ping978EC provides a useful case study in what operators should demand from electronic-conspicuity hardware: clear specifications, installation evidence and a credible choice of suppliers.
Research checked: 17 September 2026. This is a document-based market and engineering assessment. We have not independently bench-tested or flown the products discussed.
The UK’s electronic-conspicuity debate is approaching a practical deadline. The CAA’s consultation on a proposed national mandate closes on 22 September 2026, and it is asking for evidence about cost, equipment availability and implementation. For drone operators, that raises a purchasing question: how many suitable systems can they actually procure, integrate and support? CAA consultation
uAvionix’s ping978EC is a useful starting point. The company has published a product and supporting documentation aimed directly at UK operations beyond visual line of sight, or BVLOS. Independent manufacturers are also developing relevant equipment. Establishing how closely those products match the same requirement takes more work than comparing an ADS-B label.
Our assessment is that operators have a clearly documented option in ping978EC and a credible emerging candidate in Aerobits’ TR-3U. The public evidence reviewed does not establish a broad selection of interchangeable UK solutions. It also does not establish a monopoly.
Why this question matters now
The recent developments form a useful sequence. uAvionix launched ping978EC on 19 March 2026. Aerobits described its TR-3 series, including a UAT-capable model, on 19 June. The CAA opened its mandate consultation on 14 July and issued further explanations on 3 September. uAvionix launch, Aerobits announcement, CAA update
That gives operators an opportunity to bring actual integration costs, procurement experience and evidence gaps into the policy discussion. The CAA’s September clarification says the proposal specifies performance requirements rather than particular manufacturers. It also says no final decisions have been made. CAA clarification, pages 2–4
Supplier choice therefore belongs in the discussion. An open specification becomes useful to buyers when multiple products can demonstrate that they meet it, with sufficient documentation and support to make switching feasible.
What operators need to distinguish
Electronic conspicuity means making aircraft electronically detectable. ADS-B broadcasts information such as position; ADS-B Out transmits it, while ADS-B In receives traffic messages. UAT is the system used for ADS-B on 978 MHz.
In the guidance, UAS means unmanned aircraft system and VLOS means visual line of sight. The Specific Category covers operations beyond the simpler Open Category limits; the BVLOS applications discussed here need operational authorisation.
The proposed national mandate: CAP3268 includes civil BVLOS UAS in its proposed scope below FL100 in UK sovereign airspace. FL100 is approximately 10,000 feet on the standard pressure setting. It proposes 978 MHz UAT transmission and reception on both 978 and 1090 MHz for those UAS. VLOS drone operations are excluded; state and military operations have separate treatment. The consultation is not an instruction for every drone owner to buy a transmitter today. CAP3268, Chapter 4
The current Atypical Air Environment route: CAP3040’s Third Edition policy concept, dated 27 November 2025, describes 978 MHz transmission and dual-frequency reception for its particular BVLOS application context. Equipment details form part of the operational-authorisation application. Fitting a radio does not grant that authorisation. CAP3040, pages 10–11
The current spectrum conditions: CAP1391’s supplementary amendment addresses 978 MHz use by Specific Category BVLOS UAS, temporary self-assigned addressing and the Ofcom licensing route. These conditions need checking alongside the intended operation. CAP1391 supplementary amendment, Appendix E
The practical starting point is the operator’s intended approval route and installation. A future proposal, a manufacturer declaration and an approved operation are different pieces of evidence.
What ping978EC brings to the shortlist
uAvionix describes ping978EC as a 978 MHz UAT transmitter with reception on both 978 and 1090 MHz, integrated positioning and a barometric sensor. Its published price at this check was US$2,200. That is a listed device price; a UK operator needs a regional quotation covering tax, accessories, installation and support. Manufacturer product page
The supporting paperwork deserves as much attention as the specification. The manufacturer’s Statement of Compliance, Revision B, describes temporary non-ICAO addressing and is intended to support an operator’s application. It also records qualifications and DO-282B deviations. Buyers should review those details with their integrator and the relevant approval process, rather than treating the document’s title as an unconditional certification. Statement of Compliance
This makes ping978EC a documented candidate worth evaluating for the stated use case. Our review of that documentation does not establish its installed performance on a particular aircraft.
How much independent choice is visible?
The table below compares the role of each product in the buying decision. It is not a performance ranking.
| Product | What the manufacturer documents | What it means for supplier choice |
|---|---|---|
| uAvionix ping978EC | 978 MHz Out, 978/1090 MHz In and UK-focused temporary-address documentation. | A directly relevant candidate with an application evidence package. Installation suitability still needs establishing. |
| Aerobits TR-3U | ADS-B, UAT and GNSS; UAT reception, with transmission in some configurations. | A credible independent candidate. The June announcement alone does not establish the full UK-specific configuration or compliance evidence. |
| Sorair AirBeacon | A DJI Dock integration of ping978EC. | Adds an integration option while retaining the same underlying transceiver supplier. |
| Sagetech MXS | A transponder with 1090 MHz ADS-B In/Out. | An independent avionics product, with a different transmit specification from 978 MHz UAT Out. |
| Aerobits TT-SU2 / EVAL-TT-SU2 | Reception on 1090 and 978 MHz. | Relevant receiving hardware; it does not provide the required UAT transmission function. |
Sources: uAvionix, Aerobits TR-3U, Sorair’s own description, Sagetech MXS, Aerobits receiver documentation.
TR-3U changes the questions we should ask. Its announcement gives us a reason to investigate an independent alternative. We still need to establish the exact orderable configuration, dual-band reception, temporary-address behaviour, applicable standards and supporting evidence before describing it as a substitute.
We did not verify a second independent product meeting that complete combination in this bounded public-document review. That finding describes the evidence available to this article; it cannot prove that no such product exists.
Compare the cost of a working installation
The purchase price is only the first entry in the budget. We would compare:
Hardware + mounting and power + software integration + verification + support and spares + the cost of a future supplier change.
A procurement comparison should include antenna placement, wiring, connectors, input-power behaviour, aircraft mass, traffic-data interfaces and firmware compatibility. It should also identify who investigates a fault when the radio, aircraft and ground software come from different suppliers.
For a fleet, ask what happens when the chosen unit becomes unavailable. Can another device use the same mounting, electrical supply and data interface? What must be retested or resubmitted? How long can the fleet operate from its spares holding?
These are ways to measure dependence without making claims about a supplier’s intentions. A well-supported incumbent can be a sensible purchase, while a choice of independently supported implementations can improve the buyer’s resilience.
Use the RF calculation to expose assumptions
THL’s RF Link Budget Calculator can help explain how transmit power, antenna gain, feed losses and distance affect estimated received power. For an ADS-B example, replace the calculator’s demonstration values with the applicable equipment data. Its initial antenna gains and receiver threshold are not ADS-B recommendations.
Show a worked 978 MHz example
Using the manufacturer’s nominal 20 W RF transmit figure, an illustrative 10 km unobstructed path, 0 dBi antennas at both ends and zero cable or additional losses:
- Frequency: 0.978 GHz.
- Transmit power: 43.01 dBm.
- Free-space path loss: 112.25 dB.
- Estimated received power: −69.24 dBm.
The calculation uses FSPL = 20 log10(4πdf/c), with SI units. The result is idealised and is not a measured detection range. No link margin is stated because a receiver threshold has not been specified. Add the real receiver specification and installation losses for a meaningful comparison.
To reproduce the received-power result: enter the frequency, distance, power and gains above. Open Adjust losses & see details, set the Site A feed loss, Site B feed loss and additional loss allowance to 0 dB, and leave the noise check off. The calculator requires a sensitivity value; retaining its example −75 dBm lets you display the power result, but the resulting margin and verdict are not evidence for this example. Use your actual receiver specification for any threshold comparison. The headline rounds received power to −69.2 dBm; open How the signal calculation works for the arithmetic. The separate Fresnel form’s existing obstruction inputs do not describe this illustrative airborne path.
ADS-B uses bursts: RF transmit power is not the same as average electrical consumption. Use the manufacturer’s average and peak input requirements when sizing the power supply and energy budget. ping978EC datasheet
An airborne installation also needs evidence across aircraft attitudes and flight geometry. Body shielding, antenna patterns, interference and message reception matter. A free-space number alone cannot establish surveillance performance or a detect-and-avoid safety case.
THL’s Fresnel Zone Calculator can illustrate obstruction clearance for a selected path. It checks the geometry entered; it does not validate a changing airborne route.
Being electronically visible is one part of detection
Electronic conspicuity can contribute traffic information from compatible, transmitting aircraft. A receiver cannot infer that the surrounding airspace is empty simply because it receives no messages.
That distinction connects this subject to THL’s Multi-Sensor UAS Detection Testbed: a research concept exploring RF observation, acoustic cueing and visual confirmation. Such a project needs to measure what each source detects, misses and confuses. It should not be presented as an approved detect-and-avoid system.
Buying an EC device, building a traffic display and demonstrating a dependable detection capability are separate engineering tasks.
Six questions to ask before committing
- Which exact model, firmware and configuration is being offered? Get a dated specification and delivery quotation.
- What is the evidence for the intended UK use case? Request the compliance statement, its limitations and relevant installation instructions.
- What does the complete installation weigh and consume? Include mounting, antennas, cabling, conversion losses and peak electrical demand.
- How does traffic reach the person or system using it? Establish interfaces, latency, stale-data indication and behaviour when positioning or communications fail.
- How will the installed system be verified? Agree the test conditions, acceptance criteria and records before buying.
- What happens when equipment or support changes? Check warranty, repair arrangements, spares, firmware support and the work needed to substitute another supplier.
The Hardware Ledger assessment
ping978EC deserves consideration because its manufacturer has addressed a specific UK requirement and published useful supporting evidence. Aerobits’ TR-3U deserves follow-up because its announced capabilities may widen independent choice. Their suitability must be assessed against the same operation and evidence requirements.
The immediate market question is how many suppliers can deliver a documented, supportable installation for that use case. A shortlist should record unanswered questions as carefully as confirmed specifications.
Before 22 September, operators with experience of equipment cost, availability or integration can contribute that evidence to the CAA consultation. Better purchasing evidence can improve both the policy discussion and the products that follow it.
Method and update note
This assessment uses the linked regulator publications and manufacturers’ public documentation, checked on 17 September 2026. Manufacturer statements are attributed; no independent performance measurements or market-share data are presented. The comparison covers selected relevant products and is not an exhaustive supplier register. Links are provided for source verification and contain no affiliate tracking.
The next substantive updates should reflect new manufacturer evidence, the CAA’s consultation response or revised technical guidance. The consultation closing does not itself bring a new mandate into force.