If this was an ACP consultation dialogue I think we would be getting to the point that it would be regarded as vexatious. Well, luckily this in not an ACP consultation then.
What I find strange (seemingly inconveniently for you) is your claim that you have lots of data for your company's devices in various airframes and mounting positions and yet you have never produced any evidence of the same. When people have asked direct questions about the performance of SE2, the various factors influencing obscuration (e.g antenna design) or some indications of how well they are going to see and be seen, there has been a decided silence from you/uAvionix. Small wonder that people, such as myself, think "what's he trying to hide if he's not prepared to give those answers with the evidence he claims to have and yet the likes of Pilot Aware are extremely open and even provide free applications for all to try and see how their kit is shaping up?" Then, going one step further, the conspiracy theorist in me (usually non-existent) thinks "well, if he doesn't want to reveal the data he has for the performance of his ADSB unit then how will that influence the way business is done in a drone trial?" I expect there is quite a lot of vested interest in the success of the trial.
Of course, all of these inconvenient questions and thoughts could be put to bed quite easily if you/uAvionix were more open about the performance of SE2 and provided the data you already have. Nobody is asking for revelations about secret development that might be in the pipeline but there should be no reason why you wouldn't reveal what is happening with the equipment that is already out on the streets.
SkyEcho is designed and sold primarily as an air/air conspicuity device in compliance with an equipment standard, CAP1391. As such users can expect the devices to be detectable air/air at a range to enable an appropriate warning in a receiving aircraft at a range to assist in achieving visual recognition and manoeuvre, if deemed necessary. This range would typically be between 3 and 5 miles. In a similar way devices should enable detection of ADS-B and FLARM emissions at a similar range. The actual performance and detection range achieved by a carry on device, with no external aerials is obviously heavily dependent on the orientation and positioning in the airframe of the device and clear guidance is given about these factors in the user manual.
Up until now, in the UK, the concept of ground based detection has not been a primary concern for the CAP 1391 concept excepting that formal trials of the Flight Information Display (FID) utilising ADS-B data from transponders and CAP1391 devices has provided comprehensive data to indicate that performance is compatible with robust detection in support of FIS operations within and adjacent to an ATZ.
Clearly, when contemplating being reliant on the ground based detection of such devices within a TMZ, we will need to thoroughly test various combinations of devices and airframes to know whether this category of emitter can be detected and safely integrated into that environment. The trial report and any development of the ACP will include that detail for public consumption.
Please believe me when I say, given my background and career, that I will personally need to be absolutely convinced that detection, sharing and rebroadcasting capabilities are safe and robust for any category of emitter within the trial airspace. More importantly, my view will be just a small contribution to the range of evidence presented to the CAA when approving or otherwise this concept.