Radio Ham calls planes overhead

[uk94]

Inverness Courier December 21, 2001

Chat with jet pilots earns a £3000 fine

A POSTAL worker who chatted to transatlantic jet pilots using a radio transceiver at his Inverness home was fined a total of £3000 on Monday.

Depute fiscal Michael Poggi told Inverness Sheriff Court that Duncan MacRae (46), 18 Scorguie Court, used a £350 mail order transceiver to speak with pilots, initially on the same frequency as Scottish air traffic control at Prestwick.

On one occasion when he had made contact with pilots flying at high altitude in the Hebridean air traffic control sector, MacRae suggested they flipped to a different channel for a chat.

Mr Poggi said: “An investigations officer from the Radio Communications Agency visited Inverness on 21st July following up a report from Prestwick controllers about an unauthorised transmission on the national air frequencies channel.
“There was concern that these calls could be dangerous. It is the potential for blocking out any further communications from Prestwick that is at the heart of this offence.”
“The officer was able to speak to the person making the calls to pilots and get his address.”

The investigator and a colleague called at MacRae’s Scorguie home and discovered the transceiver.

MacRae admitted installing and unlawfully using the equipment to transmit messages to pilots between 9th May and 21st July and a further charge of using a radio scanning device to receive messages for which he did not have authorisation.

Defence solicitor Marc Dickson likened MacRae’s hobby to trainspotting.

Mr Dickson said: “He has always had an interest in the flight paths and patterns of aeroplanes.
“He would listen to pilots conversations for a period, then suggest they might like to move to an unofficial channel which pilots use to talk among themselves.
“He was never abusive or unpleasant.”

Mr Dickson said that MacRae, a single man who has worked for the Post Office for 11 years, did not try to hide what he was doing as he bought the equipment mail order using his own name and address.

Mr Poggi told Sheriff Kenneth Forbes that penalties for the offences range from substantial fines to up to two years in prison.

Mr Dickson said: “He did not appreciate the seriousness but realises that your lordship must send out a strong message to the public.”

Sentencing MacRae, Sheriff Forbes said: “These are unusual charges, the particular mischief is the act of making contact.
“You were oblivious to the seriousness of the situation and the potential risk.”

[email protected]

[bagpuss lives]

People who transmit unlawfully on the airband should be shot.

In fact no that's an awful thing to say........

They should be hung, drawn and very slowly quartered.

This chap wanted to chat on a private frequency, presumably 123.45 or suchlike? Doesn't matter. No excuse if he was "harmless" or not.

When will the government see sense and limit the sale of transmitters to those who hold a licence? Scanners and the like are fine.

But something really should be done about transmitters before something really bad happens.

In this day and age we can't afford to take any chances <img src="frown.gif" border="0">

[Scottie]

Couldn't agree more with your postings.

This is a pretty flippant comment but we complain when journo's get facts wrong about pilots and as a radio ham myself and ATPL holder this gets under my collar!

To describe this bloke as a Radio Ham is incorrect. He held no transmitting licence from the Radio Communications Agency (like us 'hams do having passed two C&G exams involving radio theory, electronics, laws regarding transmitter apparratus and a 12wpm morse test).

As a Radio Ham I've never spoken to aircraft, except in my job, but I have bounced VHF signals off incoming meteor streams (don't ask why :) ) and talked to other fellow hams around the world!

Calling this guy a "radio ham" is a bit like calling a Microsoft Flight Sim pilot a "pilot".

Don't tar us with the same brush!

Off soapbox :) <img src="wink.gif" border="0"> :) <img src="wink.gif" border="0">

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Hear hear, Scottie. I too am a radio amateur and despise the way journalists use the term "radio ham" for every miscreant who abuses the air waves. However, I have often communicated with aircraft legitimately using my amateur radio gear - but only with properly authorised pilots who were using their amateur licences "aeronautical mobile". This is a licence category available in many countries but not, to my knowledge, in the UK.

[Bev Bevan]

HD and "ping jockey" Scottie - you took the words right of my mouth <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

[ 24 December 2001: Message edited by: Bev Bevan ]</p>

[Check 6]

I agree, the media the the US also frequently label anyone with a radio a "ham."

There have been numerous incidents in the US of some criminal with a 2-way aviation band radio transmitting false ATC instructions to aircraft, but fortunately no accidents, yet.

I too am an Amateur Radio Operator, and frequently operate "aeronautical mobile" from a Learjet on SSB on long boring flights.

Happy New Year to all.

[PA38]

I could go and sit in my (club) Warrior and chat on 123.45 to any passing aircraft!!!

But could not sit in my front room with a hand held and do the same???

I will dig out my licence and read the small print (does it have to be fixed in an aircraft?) if it does how do microlights and handhelds get round it?

Should avoid calling on 121.5 though <img src="eek.gif" border="0">

[Bigears]

PA38, you could chat on 123.45 to any passing aircraft, however, I remember that some years ago that frequency was allocated to a ground station who got peeved (understandably) with pilot pals chatting away to each other.

Ground stations would, however, get extremely peeved if you started calling aircraft and requesting a chat (even if you subsequently changed to another frequency). There is also the problem that no-one (unless they personally knew you) would know what your real motives were.

Chatting is for the pub afterwards! <img src="tongue.gif" border="0">

[Ontheairwaves]

Well i don't see why he should be hung drawn and quartered....a stern warning should have been enough.....have any of you above ever flown across the Atlantic and listened to the non stop chatter on the HF freq????
If you did you would realise that this "ham" guy is not alone and granted going across the pond it's pilot to pilot but it is the same thing in the end.
You even get the lads from DAL playing the Beach Boys.....now really is that what we call "professionals".....let's sort out our back yard before we jump off onto a guy who's just doing the same thing.
I agree if the transciever is illegal in the UK then do him on those charges.....but lads come on if the boys going across the Atlantic are having a granny chat and yr man could hear them then who is showing the worse example......

[Bigears]

Ontheairwaves, All good points, but unfortunately 'I understand' he was on an operational ATC frequency and the controller could not hear him- only the aircraft.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Ontheairwaves. HF isn't quite the same as a hectic terminal area VHF frequency (I've used both in the course of my career). I've experienced someone giving instructions to aircraft I was directing into Heathrow and it was far from funny.

[Ontheairwaves]

I agree in a busy terminal area yes they should not have any say in aircraft movement.
But if the pilots are to "chat" back to him then surely the guy would be encouraged to "chat" even more....
The pilots who spoke with him should also have received a warning not to engage in idle chit/chat on the airwaves especially if it is in a busy terminal enviroment....
There is more than 1 party at fault....also if ATC were able to hear him did they not try and stop him from chatting????
Yes it's not a cut/dry scenario but leads to wonder why there weren't others in the dock too.

[NextLeftAndCallGround]

Sorry - and I know this is going to upset Ontheairwaves - but ATC frequencies are there for use by those who know what they're doing and have a need to communicate on them. Yes, when it's quiet R/T can become more chatty - I guess it shouldn't but that just human nature - but when it's busy or a pilot has a problem to sort out everyone lnows the rules and sticks to them.

Don't get confused between ATC frequencies and those used by airlines for company communications - they may be in the same frequency band but they're a world apart and very different rules prevail.

Our Scottish postman is guilty of many things - including stupidity. What posesses anyone to think that chatting to pilots on a radio he picked up at a car boot sale is OK - if it was, surely everyone would be doing it, or was he the only one smart enough to think of it!

This man was stupid and his little knowledge was enough to put many innocent peoples lives at risk. We have laws to protect the innocent and, as the lawyers say, ignorance is no excuse.

What bothers me is that there are people like Ontheairwaves who see nothing wrong with using a radio in this way. His comments about use of HF
on transatlantic flights strike me as a similar case of a little knowledge being a bad thing.

It really is time that these idiots were sorted out once and for all. niteflite01's not wrong.

[Steep Approach]

Must agree strongly with Niteflite .It was Thanks to a genuine Radio Amateur who managed to record some of the 'interferers' transmissions and help get a solid case for conviction.

The person in question was calling aircraft on an operational frequency and asking them to change frequencies to 123.45. Once the Pilots realised what was going on they quickly changed back. His stupid actions could have resulted in a vital genuine ATC transmission being missed.

This person should have received the strongest punishment possible and be made an example of . There should also be some action taken to prevent the sale of airband tranceivers to the general public before something occurs with a more tragic outcome

[bagpuss lives]

Y'know I really can't understand it.........

Would the police allow their radio equipment to be sold over the counter to Joe Public?

The fire brigade?

Ambulance service?

I realise that you can't get a "private ambulance drivers licence" or whatever but surely the underlying principle is just the same?

To buy a transceiver for the airband you should - you MUST have a licence to operate it.

No excuses, no "Ahhhh but he only wanted to chat to pilots on a non-operational frequency and was harmless blah blah", no arguement and no easy punishment.

We've had a few problems at EGCC with absolture scum-sucking idiots Tx'ing on Tower and App so I know only too well how horrific it is when it happens - how worrying.

How anyone can stick up for this loser beats me <img src="confused.gif" border="0"> <img src="confused.gif" border="0"> <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Nextleft and niteflight.. you're dead right. Full marks.

[PA38]

I have some very nice hand held radios ex custom and excise that came still programed!!!!
They cost me £10.00 each and with not too much tweaking they now recive EGCC transmisions in the UHF band 455.55 and 455.65 mhz.
I have disabled the transmit becuase of children and my dead head brother, but it is that easy..
£10.00 and limited knowledge and you can talk to ANYONE, you will never restrict the selling of surplus radios, I even have some nice ex Police ones with the prog chips still in <img src="wink.gif" border="0">

[bagpuss lives]

Wouldn't be ex-police Motorola HT600e's would they by any chance?

True though - at "rallies" (one in Llandudno, big one at Castle Donnington too and many others) you can pick up ex C&E and Police sets relatively cheaply now - chargers and all.

These surplus sets will become even more prolific once TETRA or AIRWAVE or whatever its called these days, gets introduced.

I'm also aware that recently a man in Greater Manchester received a custodial sentence (I think) for transmitting music on one of their divisional PR channels.

So they have problems too. Not really quite as many lives at risk though.

So - 600e's are they? <img src="wink.gif" border="0"> <img src="wink.gif" border="0">

[Steep Approach]

The recordings of the 'Inverness Idiot' are available. Ask your friendly TELS person if they are in his domain.

[PA38]

No such luck niteflight just a brace of very good condition pye pfx's, but my best toy is an Icom IC-U16 with direct entry freq via the keypad.

I don't transmit of course cos I ain't got a licence :)

[Ontheairwaves]

Nextleft
you really haven't read my posts on this subject have you IF so you will see that i have said that he should be prosecuted for what he did BUT and this is/was my other point there were others out there i.e. pilots who were willing to chat to him on a "busy freq" but did nothing to say "hey buddy keep your chatting for the bar".
As for company freqs....yes there is a bit of banter on them....but have you ever flown the atlantic????
Well my son i fly for UA and hear my fellow aviators passing us overhead by 1000ft tell saying stuff like "hey United you're looking good down there" and you have the DAL(Delta Air Lines) guys even playing music or saying "anyone out there for a chat"....now if this is happening between pilots what standard do we show to a guy listening in with on his radio....sure hell he'd love to chat....and if he stumbles on his local freq and gets pilots chatting to him then he can't take all the blame....in my last post i said " there should be others in the dock too"
NEXTLEFT.....i'm not angry merely pointing out my views again.....now do you understand what i'm saying????? DUH...... <img src="confused.gif" border="0"> <img src="tongue.gif" border="0">

[Ontheairwaves]

NEXTLEFT
I'm still waiting for your reply...
I am not an idiot...so please don't refer to me
as being one since you don't know me.
If all you do is ATC then fine but i have over 7,000hrs and about the last 2000 of them have been spent going across the Atlantic from the US to Europe so i guess i'm "qualified" enough to comment on HF chit/chat?????
y'all have a nice day y'hear.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Ontheairwaves. I agree with what you say - it just goes to prove that there's a great deal of very unprofessional conduct by some pilots. It also speaks volumes for the "captains" on those flight decks. These are guys who SHOULD know what they're doing and SHOULD know if they're causing serious problems.. Some loony who buys a cheapo radio and talks to pilots doesn't know what he's doing and doesn't appreciate the extreme danger of his actions. However, all that considered, there is a great deal of difference between chit-chat, etc, on a quiet HF or company VHF frequency and a busy terminal area control frequency. The Atlantic chit-chat is unlikely to cause an incident or, God forbid, an accident but some dope messing with TMA VHF freqs could end up with a 747 in his backyard.. Last night two very busy Heathrow radar frequencies were experiencing interference from what was described as horse-racing or dog-racing commentaries! Such is the state of radio regulation in the UK.

PS 7000 hours eh? I've got over 50,000 as a Heathrow radar controller so eat your heart out! (Meant in fun).

[RATBOY]

Seems that there are a share of either nutty or common sense challenged people in all parts of the world that are either that way the time or become so when presented with a radio transmitter.

Many times this problem occurs unintentionally too due to technical faults. recall Cleveland Center in US had fits with several enroute frequencies as did Canadians. After lots and lots of detective work and some hours on the flight check aircraft found a piece of medical equipment in a hospital in Canada was the cause. Recall a case where an ILS was messed up and it turned out to be an arc welder in a sheetmetal shop under the approach path.

This problem could be greatly reduced with some of the digital technologies coming out, but how long will it take to get everyone to equip?

[Ontheairwaves]

Heathrow Director
50,000hrs wow nice one there...i have to say being Irish but flying for a US carrier i have to say that the ATC standard is way better in the UK and anywhere else i've been....even in the good ol US.....and not buttering you up but the controllers in LHR are on the money...they tell you to fly a speed and you do it....yeah Chicago/Atlanta are the busiest but man they aren't half as good as y'all.
My problem with NEXTLEFT was that he started his opinion by saying he would upset me...but really he hadn't read my posts...IF he had he'd realise that i was all against this guy if what he was doing was illegal.....i know you can't have a transceiver in Ireland but in the US it's not illegal since you can carry one if you have a comms failure...but that's mainly in the smaller single/twin engine acft.
Yes in a busy TMA the use of such radios should be prohibited with a hefty fine....since alot of lives are at risk.....
I agree with you on the Captains but hey when you're a co-pilot and the Capt is chatting away or looking for someone to chat to i'm generally getting ready to transmit my next waypoint....but yes across the pond it is quieter relatively...than the busy TMA's like Heathrow and Atlanta etc....... <img src="cool.gif" border="0"> <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

[bagpuss lives]

Just further on this one - here's a loosely connected story that proves my point exactly.

Well, sort of anyhow <img src="tongue.gif" border="0">

[URL=http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=017341]

Anyone caught with a transceiver as opposed to a receiver should be punished severely - and if they've used it they should throw 'em in gaol let 'em rot at the very least.

And to think I used to be a rampant left winger! What ever happened to me :)

[ 12 January 2002: Message edited by: niteflite01 ]</p>

[Self Loading Freight]

The trouble with outlawing ownership of transceivers is that these days, the trend is for manufacturers to make broad-band radios that they then program to work only in particular bands. The economics are compelling -- you have much more commonality of production across different lines.

I recently bought a second-hand amateur radio VHF/UHF 5 watt transceiver (being a licenced radio ham, I have a good excuse!). Although the box, the manual and the markings on the rig all said that it could only operate in the ham bands, the previous owner had made an internal change to open it up -- and as a result, it works over a much wider range of frequencies. Including, inter alia, most of the VHF air band.

The modification is very simple and takes around half an hour with a soldering iron, and the details are widely available on the Net.

You can't easily legislate against this, and moreover there's no point. If I transmit out of band I'm committing a crime already, and I could have a legitimate use for the mod in any case (driving a transverter). This is an old radio, there are uncountable thousands of ones just like it out there, and newer ones are if anything easier to modify and more efficient when you have.

The civil air radio communications system is rooted in ideas from before the second world war. It is extraordinarily vulnerable to abuse, by rogue walkie-talkies and in many other much more serious ways.

Legislation will not cure or alleviate this: the only solution is to consider re-engineering the whole system in the light of modern technology and conditions. It's an enormous step to take, but I believe it to be unavoidable and pressing. We'll get off lightly if the problems that prompt such a change are a few nutters trying to talk to Nigel.

R (G6HVY and droopy dipole)

[Iron City]

Self loading Freight has it right, I think. Legislation against and draconian penalties, etc will not work very well to solve the problem of phantom controllers or just nutters that want to talk to aircraft.

Technology could help out with secure voice (and data for that matter) but it would have to be really operationally reliable and "sailor proof" or new aircraft will have to be really redesigned to add a radio operator (and COMSEC custodian and key monitor). And that is just on the aircraft, what will it take on the ground side? Boggles the mind a little.

[Old Macdonald]

Sadly, Niteflite01, transceivers from the public services are on sale as surplus all the time. These are easily reactivated and put on the air. However I know of nobody except radio amateurs who would have any interest in doing this, and they would only be interested in using such equipment within amateur bands. I have done it myself many times. Transceivers for communications within the VHF aeronautical band are on sale at any half decent pilots shop. It would be virtuslly impossible and certainly very expensive in man hours and resources to police any regulation prohibiting their sale to unlicensed users. Anybody who is really determined to speak to aircraft could easily modify other, non type-approved equipment. We must rely, therefore, on the professionalism and expertise of both controllers and pilots not to be fooled by malicious people with transmitters.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

It only needs legislation to prevent the sale of transceivers to people who shouldn't have them. I used to be a member of the shooting fraternity until the loonies messed it all up and there was considerable rigmarole involved in obtaining a firearms certificate in order to own a gun. I see no reason why public service radio gear should not be similarly controlled. A few days a go our three approach frequencies were being interfered with - not necessarily by nutcases with airband gear but it shows how badly policed the radio spectrum is in the UK.

[RiverCity]

I am also an Amateur Radio Operator and I could probably get anything I want from a local radio dealer who, I heard, once sold something legal.

You can't legislate sales; flea markets can sell as much under the table as over it.

You can't legislate ops; I've done my part in catching people who decided to transmit off-band. The law be darned.

All you can do, really, is get the word out that pilots should not answer, respond to, or mention these transmissions (assuming they sound alike each time he fires up the rig) in this location. When you think you aren't being heard, you won't transmit.

[ 20 February 2002: Message edited by: RiverCity ]</p>