Internet ATC Data Feeds (Was Safe Air Travel...?) [Archive]

speedbirdzerozeroone

9th May 2005, 00:03

Excuse the nature of this contentious thread but I would like some watertight reasons for why the current legislation even stands…..

Over recent days I’ve been trying to find out if there are any good ways of charting (in real time) air traffic movements over the internet. Whilst I have been led to believe that it is illegal to publish live UK ATC feeds on the net, I have been listening to various stations in America…..

http://www.liveatc.net/feedindex.php

….whilst at the same time viewing aircraft movements online with a live feed from the passive secondary surveillance radar software from;

http://www.passur.com/index.html

………now although PASSUR is delayed by x mins for ‘security’ reasons I am really in doubt as to the need for this (simple arithmetic negates that hurdle!)

If we assume that we have an a/c approaching to land / takeoff at ‘abc’ airport:

1. Anyone can track its decent/climb profile with an air band scanner.
2. Anyone can stand under its approach/takeoff path
3. Anyone can learn R/T procedure
a. To the extent of identifying the a/c (livery/type) by sight…

(We spotters pride ourselves in it!)

I’m ‘all for’ safer air travel, yet all a/c in the immediate vicinity of landing / takeoff have a prolonged ‘window of vulnerability.’ For this reason (and the basic 3 above!) surely live internet feeds wouldn’t matter a jot to some b*****d intent on an ‘act’ to endanger an a/c of his choice from the ground.

I appreciate this is an incredibly delicate subject and I feel very uneasy posting it, but illegal or lagged feeds really seem like a token gesture and make a not jot of difference to the security of an inbound/outbound a/c.

What am I missing and what valid reasons substantiate not posting an online live ATC feed in all developed countries?

001 (…the greatest patriot this side of The English Channel!)

rodan

9th May 2005, 14:23

Quite aside from any security implications, which I'm sure someone better qualified than I to discuss them will outline (although the case against a radar feed in particular should be fairly obvious), why is it the job of pilots and ATCOs to provide entertainment to anyone who feels like listening in?

If I may play devil's advocate for a moment, how would an office worker feel about someone placing a microphone in their place of work and broadcasting their discussions with work colleagues and telephone conversations across the internet?

I'm sure there are many controllers who would revel in broadcasting to an attentive audience :} , but I'm equally sure there are many of us who wouldn't want to come home at the end of a hard shift to find enthusiasts casting a critical eye over their day's performance on internet bulletin boards.

Flobadob

9th May 2005, 14:38

001,

I thought you spotter boys had to see the aircraft for 'real' to log it in your book?

The main reason we would not be happy with ATC radar (delayed or not) on the net are mainly due to security reasons. There are plonkers out there who 'get off' on trying to push out hoax instructions to pilots. The less ammo we give them, the less chance of a disaster. While we respect your right to enjoy your hobby, some things are best left just as there are. The Wireless Telegraphy Act also comes into play here.

As for what the Yanks do on the Net is up to them, they of all people should be ultra sensitive to this information being freely available in light of 9/11

speedbirdzerozeroone

9th May 2005, 14:39

…and you became interested in Air Traffic movements; how exactly?

Forgive me if I’m wrong but shy ATCO’s have no place in the industry and would be foolish to think that only pilots are listening. (“occupational hazard, I’m afraid rodan”)

…..and please do enlighten the group as to the ‘obvious’ safety issues of a live radar feed? (“It was rather the original question….”)

001

Flobadob

9th May 2005, 14:55

…and you became interested in Air Traffic movements; how exactly?

Answer -I was too blind to fly the damn things!! As for being shy I don't know a single shy controller!

Anyway, I am still unsure why you would want to look at a radar picture and listen in on a scanner unless you were sad or up to no good.

If you want to see live radar, get in contact with local airport PR people or the Community Relations Officer at your local RAF station. They are usually willing to help spotters enjoy themselves and I'm sure a visit to your friendly ATC tower could be arranged.

rodan

9th May 2005, 15:16

…and you became interested in Air Traffic movements; how exactly?
I became interested in ATC through visiting towers during flying training. I'm not sure what that has to do with the price of cheese.

Forgive me if I’m wrong but shy ATCO’s have no place in the industry and would be foolish to think that only pilots are listening. (“occupational hazard, I’m afraid rodan”)
Of course spotters are listening in anyway, but by the nature of VHF, they need to be relatively close by to hear the ground station and their numbers are few in comparison to a potential internet audience. What they are doing is illegal, but no-one minds as long as they don't publish what they hear. To expand my analogy, they are the equivalent of passers-by overhearing your conversation in an office. Internet broadcast would be something entirely different.

…..and please do enlighten the group as to the ‘obvious’ safety issues of a live radar feed? (“It was rather the original question….”)
Certainly. Just one example, but it should be enough on it's own - many criminals would love to know when police aircraft are airbourne and where they are at a given moment. This info is not necessarily apparent from listening to R/T frequencies (which they do).

speedbirdzerozeroone

9th May 2005, 15:17

Not aimed at you Flobadob!! (you posted while I was replying!)

(and Wittering are always too busy besides....)

Thanks Flobadob for a worthy answer which is a little closer to the mark and I can fully appreciate the reasons you give.

But, anyone in the industry worth their salt is surely aware that all you need is:

1. an RPG
2. a Timetable

….not having live INTERNET feeds (as a security measure) is as much good as chocolate underpants. I think the Americans have realised this but we Brits do like to think that if we close our eyes, no one else will notice the cracks. The cause has no bearing on the effect where this legislation is concerned.

001 ( and yes 001 is very sad, for many reasons!)

**I DONT ENDORSE SUCH ACTIONS WHATSOEVER BUT JUST STATING THE UNPALATABLE TRUTH OF THE MATTER**

…some chav having stolen an old escort xr3 in slough at 1.30am will probably have other things on his mind than speedbird 174 climbing out of KJFK (supposedly using a wireless broadband connection on his stolen laptop?…..but thanks for the thought; how entertaining! Ps: a noisy twin squirrel and the 4 panda cars giving chase rather put a damper on any hint of covert a/c ops.!)

001

PIGDOG

9th May 2005, 15:29

Rodan says it's illegal to listen in? I thought it was only illegal to pass on information that you have heard (while listening in).

Waiting for clarification...:confused:

speedbirdzerozeroone

9th May 2005, 15:34

Yeah, like it's illegal to record off the radio as well....

...but then we are all law abiding puritans aren't we.....rodan?

QED

001

Jerricho

9th May 2005, 15:38

I draw your attention to this thread (http://www.pprune.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=149591) . This is a classic example of hearing somthing and hitting the "major drama button". I once read a story that made the Daily Mail regarding a go-around that somebody heard over a scanner and told the press.........I was the controller involved and it was nothing like what actually happened, but it made some sensational reading.

I don't think it's a matter of trying to keep secret what we do, it just that it can very easily be mis-interpreted and used for all manner of things (damn press), and unfortunately as controllers, we're not in a position to defend/tell our side.

rodan

9th May 2005, 15:40

…some chav having stolen an old escort xr3 in slough at 1.30am will probably have other things on his mind than speedbird 174 climbing out of KJFK (supposedly using a wireless broadband connection on his stolen laptop?…..but thanks for the thought; how entertaining! Ps: a noisy twin squirrel and the 4 panda cars giving chase rather put a damper on any hint of covert a/c ops.!)

It's easy to ridicule by creating such a narrow definition of police activity. Well done.

PIGDOG, your answer is contained here (http://www.ofcom.org.uk/radiocomms/ifi/enforcement/ofw156x?a=87101)

PIGDOG

9th May 2005, 15:53

Thanks Rodan, I got it.

"This means that it is also illegal to tell a third party what has been heard."

I was close, but essentially way off!!
:O

But doesn't that, technically, put a student pilot without an RT licence on the wrong side of the law?

speedbirdzerozeroone

9th May 2005, 17:29

Bygones rodan…..

I don’t have any bones with the fine work of the aerial police units so forget that and remember this…..

….the information fed to RML / PASSUR for online broadcast includes only: a/c type, height, speed and heading of that civilian air traffic entering / departing only major civilian airports.

1) Any of these fields can be withheld by the web host. (i.e. company / destination, etc as they currently are….)
a. But a quick look at the departure timetable and the addition of a time lag to the equation quickly puts you in the picture for tomorrow’s schedule of departures for said airport.

2) Key squawk codes can be withheld from the online map….(I’m sure if a kittyhawk flight flew into KJFK then it would never be published…and rightly so!)

3) All the ‘secure’ air traffic is treated differently:
a. I’m not expecting RAF stations, only the major hubs.
b. I’m sure Police traffic wouldn’t be published as it would also be considered ‘too sensitive.’

A muse:

……. once upon a time the late Victorians waved red flags in front of pioneering motor cars to ensure they stayed within the law (rather than advocating seat belts and speed restrictions)….

…..once up on a time, the second Elizabethans favoured lagged radar ATC feeds on the net (rather than restricting access to the land under approach / takeoff paths and equipping EVERY a/c with chaff flares) But then by the late Charles III period, no one really cared anymore and air traffic centres realised they could make serious money from selling this data online to tour operators and business without compromising the safety of a/c any further than was ‘already the case……’

ILS 119.5

9th May 2005, 18:05

For my tuppence worth. Pilots/Atco's are highly qualified professionals, for unqualified peoply to make comments/criticims on their work should not be allowed. I fell out with a spotter once for making remarks towards me. I knew the chap through the flying club who made comments from listening to the r/t. He was not qualified to comment on the scenario nor had a real picture of the situation just from listening on the VHF.

Scott Voigt

9th May 2005, 19:47

In the US you can buy the professional version of a couple different trackers that take the info that the FAA gives out to the providers for free. You can use this to watch traffic all over the place. There are a couple of filters in place, but for the most part you are able to look at everything.

As many of you know, you can also find a few sites that have the radio traffic on it too. Listening is no problem here in the states, just recording it and giving it to someone else such as a news station. That is a no, no...

regards

Scott

Jerricho

9th May 2005, 19:53

Unfortunately Scott, it's a no no in the UK, but the b*stard media still do it.

speedbirdzerozeroone

9th May 2005, 20:20

I endorse your sentiments wholeheartedly ILS 119.5 but your viewpoint runs parallel to this thread rather than in the same vein. Jericho has provided a link to an example where such uninformed scaremongering ‘taints’ plane conversation (pun intended). You will always get this so long as people listen to ATC frequencies and then vent their fears in a debating forum designed for the purpose of informed conversation.*

*dependant on how informed you/others, consider you are

>>>>>>>>>

My original thread is more so aimed at why ‘not providing a live’ online ATC / PASSUR feed is ‘any safer’ than providing ‘one at all’, (which is lagged by a published fixed timeframe) which is the case in America to date.

Example A (current circumstances)

If we measured the info available to spotters today ‘without a live internet feed’ as a % rating then it currently stands at about 80% (scanners / airline timetables / RT basics …etc ensure that a spotter can be pretty sure when an a/c is about to land or depart)

But….

If we measured the info available to spotters (in example A) AND INCLUDE a ‘live online feed’, then as a % rating - the amount of sensitive information would increase by only a small factor relative to all the data that is ALREADY broadcast and widely available……

001

BDiONU

10th May 2005, 06:05

Putting aside all the legal questions (which you seem to be ignoring in any case).

Who is going to pay to connect up and run this live radar feed? Why would any ATSP have any interest in doing so, unless they ran it as a commercial concern and I very much doubt that there's going to be sufficient spotters willing to pay hard cash to make it worthwhile.
Also how exactly would the providers filter out certain squawks and military flights, the UK provides a joint and integrated ATC En Route service. Unless there is just one aerodrome who's traffic interests you?

It appears from your posts that you're demanding wider availibility of commercial data for FREE for your particular hobby. I should remind you that ATC in the UK is no longer in the public sector, it is run as a commercial enterprise. I cannot imagine any company in the UK allowing (what are effectively) CCTV cameras into its offices and work areas giving live feeds to the internet along with voice as well.

BTW I do wonder why Wittering are unwilling to allow you in, have you made a nuisance of yourself? From the tone of your posts in here you reminded me of an old saying my Mum uses. You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

BD

Whipping Boy's SATCO

10th May 2005, 06:56

Security is a significant issue here.

Whilst I would prsonally welcome an all informed public, I'm not so sure I would want todays terrorists realising that all aircraft inbound airfield A fly over reporting point B at FL C. I suppose you would continue to counter this argument with the fact that you can validate this data by RT alone - it all comes down to the level and accuracy of detail that is readily available.

It is possible to filter sensitive flights and then promulgate the sanitised data on the internet. However, why should this be done, at cost, just so you can follow your hobby? Propose a business case to CE NATS and see how much he would charge you for the privilege.

BDiONU

10th May 2005, 07:27

Ah! Well just raising an Investment Proposal and getting this as far as an AOD (Analysis, Options & Design) would cost an absolute minimum of £35k. Into F&O (Feasibility & Options) and dependent on the available options with engineering solutions would be circa £150k at external business rates (because this is not NATS core or internal business). Dependent on the chosen option, implementation (including testing) would be a minimum of another £50k and deployment around £25k. Maintenance and running costs are unknown.
The above costs are based on standard sorts of projects, although not on FRS15 rates but make or buy and are probably on the slightly low side. Not a cheap thing to provide and I think I could be certain that this would be shot down in flames at the very first pass through the IPT.

'Show me the money!' :}

BD

Gonzo

10th May 2005, 10:36

Back in the mists of time (2000) I went to a quaint little air display at Farnborough. Myself and a few colleagues (wearing 'Don't privatise ATC' T-shirts) found the NATS stand in the chalets. I seem to remember seeing something akin to the flight tracker software that one can use to observe traffic in the USA. I think I even found a software presentation about it somewhere. Whatever, NATS were in the process of producing one, but obviously stopped.

Why?....
Cost?
PPP?
9/11?

Who knows.

speedbirdzerozeroone

10th May 2005, 11:55

BD

Most of those recruiting for RAF in the Midlands (Leicester / Peterborough) are referred to Wittering (whilst waiting for their Cranwell OASC date) and so they have more than a few applications as I’m sure you can imagine, but thanks for the helpful tip…It might interest you to note that the station motto is: “strength is freedom.” something the Americans relish, but something we Brits are all to aware of losing the grip on. (as exemplified by the tone of your reply).

Gonzo

Cheers mate, at last someone with a valid reason… Pity, the Americans are leading the way (again) in this field…..

001

BDiONU

10th May 2005, 12:14

Not quite sure I grasp the meaning of "Strength is freedom" in the context of your reply, please feel free to elucidate :D

I'm an ex-Mil ATCO so I do have an idea of how many visit requests Mil Towers get.

I (IMHO) thought the most valid reason (security etc to one side) was that of money. If you and your band of merry spotters would care to pay for NATS (or indeed any other ATSU) to give you a feed on the internet, to campaign and take through all the various legal procedures a bill to allow these feeds on the internet and allow ATSP's to give you what you want then I'm certain its possible.
However there is no reason for any ATSP in the UK to undertake the work outlined above free, gratis and for nothing. Its not gonna happen unless the people who want it are willing to shoulder a lot of the work and put a large amount of wonga upfront to pay for the bits they cannot do :p

I say again 'Show me the money!' ;)

BD

Lon More

10th May 2005, 13:52

FWIW
BAW001 says
currently stands at about 80%

As well as no radar data, no access to landline co-ordination, and the increased use of air/ground data links, probably in fact less than 50%.

I don't ever remember reading in the job description that it was part of my job to inform the piblic of what I was doing, in fact, the opposite. Even as a supervisor, I was instructed to refer any requests for info to the Press Officer

From memory the R/T on the web was provided, not by ATSP but by private individuals - also frequently not live.

What would be in it for the provider making, say, radar info available? A considerable financial investment, the fact that the unscrupulous would probably make use of it to bolster nefarious claims, weigh heavily against it. Furthermore "spotters" are not primarilly interested in ATC but only in filling their little books.

Sorry, no link whatsoever between this topic and "Safe Air Travel"

Lon More, here before Pontius was a Pilot or Mortus a Rigger.

BDiONU

10th May 2005, 14:01

Yes Lon More a bit of a disconnect between the title and the content. A more appropriate title might be 'Spotters demand more for free'.

BD

Serving in the RAF when the PMC was just a briefcase.

Warped Factor

10th May 2005, 15:49

Gonzo,

Flight Path UK you're thinking of.

There was even a demo version of it up and running.

The IP address that used to access it still points at a NATS server but it's behind user name and password access.

Pulled for legal concerns was the word I heard.

WF.

speedbirdzerozeroone

10th May 2005, 18:13

So BD Wittering have an ongoing 100% acceptance rate of spotters through the gates do they? (I would regard this as a far greater breach of 1) security and 2) their purpose. But far be it for me to discuss how you spend the remaining majority of your working day. I have enjoyed numerous visits to working RAF stations as a Cadet Warrant officer but you seem to miss the point I’m trying to convey….)

How many a/c enthusiasts watch the ‘moving map’ in the seat head rest in front of them when they fly on their holidays? (JUST ME THEN………?)

The subject of the debate has ‘everything’ to do with safe air travel (Heads up: its kinda the crux of your vocation!) but I’m sorry for thinking for one moment that a few of those in the industry might just see the point of the debate through the haze created by cyclical issues of: funding / ‘job description’ / et al.

If I had a few million pounds to spend, you guys would be happy for me to pay your employer to put the feed online would you?……. (NO funny that, I didn’t think so either!)

But I’ll roll with you..

So now we have weeded out the issues of:

1) funding
2) it not being ‘an issue of safety’

……..what:

reasons substantiate not posting an online live ATC (moving MAP) feed

……..Anyone want to answer the original question perhaps with the legal evidence which “must” be the binding issue which I was hoping for clarification on.

My intention was never to rile anyone but find answers. Thanks to the righteous individuals for perpetuating the confusion on this matter as I’m sure that’s exactly what industry needs….(I’ll happily engage you with a similar attitude……)

No tell you what - instead of asking fellow Brits ‘why they can’t do it’, I’ll just ask the yanks ‘why they can’ and see what exactly are the binding laws; I just thought someone on here might know.

All I’ve found out so far is that the majority of native ATCOs would feel ‘abused’ by the prospect, which IS NOT the question. Answer the question!

001

(thats "001" BD)

Whipping Boy's SATCO

10th May 2005, 18:58

OK, back to your original question:

Excuse the nature of this contentious thread but I would like some watertight reasons for why the current legislation even stands…..

Please enlighten us as to what legislation you are refering? We have merely speculated as to the rationale; maybe you can put more meat on the bone.

PS. I, like many, see no link between your question and the "safe(ty) of air travel". If you mean "security" then I think you have had a reasonable response. Just becuase the gold old USA does something, doesn't mean that we have to automatically jump into bed with them.

PPS. Why am I allowing myself to waste any of my time on such drivvle?

Gonzo

10th May 2005, 19:00

WF,

Yeah, Flight Path UK, that was it. Thanks

rodan

10th May 2005, 19:19

So now we have weeded out the issues of:
1) funding
2) it not being ‘an issue of safety’

Uh... when did this happen? Just because you reeeeeeaaaaaally don't want them to be issues doesn't make it so.

The subject of the debate has ‘everything’ to do with safe air travel (Heads up: its kinda the crux of your vocation!)
It is?! Wow!!! Why isn't that covered in the training?!? Has someone told the CAA this?

Lon More

10th May 2005, 19:51

The subject of the debate has ‘everything’ to do with safe air travel (Heads up: its kinda the crux of your vocation!)

Thank you, but after almost 40 years in the job I don't need a wannabe to point that out.

IF you make it into the RAF I can just see your first CR:

Having reached rock bottom, he has started to dig.
His men will follow him anywhere, if only out of curiosity.
I would not breed from this officer.

Apologies, for all I know you might be a very nice person, but mouthing off in here will just get you slagged off. You are not related to a guy called "Impi" are you?

BDiONU

10th May 2005, 20:48

In response to your last post. Do you recall what I said about attracting more flies with honey than vinegar?

Did I state that Wittering have a blanket acceptance of Spotters through the gates? I think I said (and correct me if I'm wrong) that I'm well aware of the requests made of Mil ATC Towers. You were a CWO? Your Mum must be very proud of you.
Indeed far be it from you to discuss how I spend the remaining majority of my working day. Obviously the time I've spent giving you an answer has been wasted time, which is unfortunate as most 'outsiders' visiting PPrune tend to treat those who bother to give a reply with some modicum of courtesy.

Moving map display on the headrest, quite what has that to do with ATC? Do you actually know what function ATC perform?

What does this debate have to do with 'flight safety'? What do spotters contribute to flight safety in a positive way as opposed to a negative one? I well recall having to despatch fire crews to crash gates to move on itinerant spotters from blocking them when notices are very clearly displayed. Although one ex-SATCO of mine, after politely remonstrating with some spotters who refused to move, sent the fire crews on a practice crash to a location on the far side of the obstructed crash gate. They very quickly moved out of the way although sustaining some damage to their vehicle.

If you had only about a million to spend and would put in the effort to get a change in the law (funding council etc.) and fund the engineering changes required then I'm absolutely certain NATS would do the necessary. I can be certain because I'd write the IP etc. for you and earn many smartie points for bringing in external business.

You seem to have had some scope creep though, moving maps versus ATC displays. If NATS took on your business we would need to see your requirements, ones which don't change because scope creep leads to increased costs as you (the customer) appear not to know precisely what it is you want. Is it a full radar feed with sound, is it a 'moving map' display, whatever that is in ATC terms? Can you tell us precisely what it is you want to see and hear?

Several posters have told you about the legalities involved in broadcasting certain frequencies, which you seem to chose to ignore. If you and your band of Spotters are prepared to mount (and fund) a legal challenge then I'm sure these could be resolved. But don't expect industry to do your legwork for you, there is no benefit to us.
As to why our transatlantic cousins allow it, who knows? We in the UK don't. Full stop (or should that be period :D )

Answer the question you plaintively cry. Well can you state the question precisely, then we might be in with a chance of answering it.

Lon More your CR comment is shocking! I may think that this man (youth?) is so dense that he bends light but I couldn't possibly write it :O

BD

terrain safe

10th May 2005, 20:56

I have just read this thread and can't believe this cretin doesn't understand the phrase 'it's against the law'. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean it will go away. Why should it be repealed? It doesn't really stop most people from listening in quietly and stops the more flagrant abuses that could happen.

SO JUST DROP IT.....

Goes away now to kick the dog:( :( :(

speedbirdzerozeroone

10th May 2005, 22:54

http://www.passur.com/sites.htm

If you follow this link and then choose kjfk (as the airport you want to monitor - you’ll need to type it in to your address bar for it to work) then you will see that the PASSUR feed I referred to [in the very first post! ], in conjunction with ATC transmissions on a scanner/current internet source, “would (IF the PASSUR feed WERE LIVE) give a very comprehensive picture of a/c movements”

***I choose 80% (Lon More as a % of what data is considered worthy of note…as the only thing missing in PASSUR feeds are: destination and carrier. But I respect your assessment that compared to yourselves (ATCOs) a spotter can only get a picture of around 50% ‘the real picture’. ( I would suggest even lower!) Which without the implementation of widespread real time telemetry is rather like a pilot saying that an ATCO only knows 50% of what his aircraft is doing. The point in fact regarding ratios is whilst you wouldn’t care what his N1 ratings or fuel status were at V1…those who tune into PASSUR don’t care if someone working the AMA has to ‘prompt’ the tower (insert seemingly ‘behind-the scenes’ scenario here)…..***

But getting back to the discussion, if the PASSUR feed was in real time then the compromise in safety(= security; just for you SATCO) of that flight would increase only nominally. I don’t want more information about the a/c (enough is widely broadcast to make a very informed assessments already) I am just suggesting why delaying the information that is already provided is lagged by a ‘specified’ period which therefore is a pointless security measure (is it not?)

The moving map in the back of your headrest provides exactly the same information which I’m suggesting might be published online to avid plane spotters so the crux of the original question was why this same info cannot be broadcast on the net in the same format.

But don’t bother, Like the majority of you – I don’t care anymore; let the yanks take the lead again while we busy ourselves with infighting……..

>Rodan: I was humouring Lon More’s post (10/5/05 13.52)

>BD: I began the discussion with your mother’s philosophy in mind. (not a trace of discontent in my voice I believe???) Elucidating on your analogy, I expected flies but, you can imagine my upset when I realised (dripping in honey) that I interrupted a field of angry hornets with more bravado than brains…

>Mr More: I obviously remind you of yourself and although I’m charmed and thank you for the entertainment….(you’re obviously as blissfully ignorant as to the answers as I am on this which is nothing to be ashamed of; it appears nobody knows. ATCOs aren’t trained lawyers after all and there is absolutely no correlation between the legislature and whether an ATCO (or any other profession) feels infringed upon by progress and the changing world around us.

TS> wtf are you on about?

I just wanted to find out why we’re trailing in the wake of the yanks on this issue but forgive me; I have been short-sighted.

After analysis of more than a few responses from my fellow Brits, irrespective of any legally preventative legislation (which no-one can actually name/state with regard to definitive references and government bills), at last it’s dawned on me what really hinders such developments in the aeronautical industry of this country.

I’ll write to the CAA using the same ‘original’ question safe in the knowledge that a reply cosseting more professional explanations and reasons will shed more light on the matter.

001 (requesting higher to leave the turbulence below)

SUBJECT DROPPED

...001 rolls off into the setting sun musing at the viability of a PP(FACT)Ne, maybe in America?

Lon More

11th May 2005, 00:21

...001 rolls off into the setting sun
TFFT another village regains its idiot.

:} jetblast mode:}

PPRuNe Radar

11th May 2005, 00:37

I just wanted to find out why we’re trailing in the wake of the yanks on this issue but forgive me; I have been short-sighted.

Others may argue they are trailing and we are leading in a common sense approach ;)

After analysis of more than a few responses from my fellow Brits, irrespective of any legally preventative legislation (which no-one can actually name/state with regard to definitive references and government bills), at last it’s dawned on me what really hinders such developments in the aeronautical industry of this country. I’ll write to the CAA using the same ‘original’ question safe in the knowledge that a reply cosseting more professional explanations and reasons will shed more light on the matter.

NATS is a 'private' company with commercial interests. Hard to see how the CAA can force it to give up data which may be commercially or security sensitive. Have a search online and you will find the NATS En Route Licence issued by the CAA. It states exactly what is required of it as a company in terms of service provision. And keeping spotters sweet is not anywhere within it ;)

speedbirdzerozeroone

11th May 2005, 02:38

Cheers PPRuNe Rader, I was hoping for this type of response in the first instance so I’ll take a peak at the wording of the licence which you refer to. Every piece of information has a price.

001

Quote:

LM> “More than just an ATCO”

Quod Erat Demonstrandom as we village idiots like to say….

PPRuNe Radar

11th May 2005, 09:25

Much of it is legalese gobbledy gook but the En Route licence is here:

NATS EN Route (NERL) Licence) (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/5/ergdocs/nerlicence_november2003.pdf)

The obligations placed on NATS for the provision of ATS at airports (and hence services and data available) will be subject to a contract with the airport for whom the service is provided. Not sure those kinds of documents ever get to see the light of day in public.

speedbirdzerozeroone

11th May 2005, 14:57

Thanks again PPRuNe Radar, you are a true professional.….

001

Jerricho

11th May 2005, 16:06

BAW001, I more than a little bemused by your ramblings. You commenced your thread with a crusade to obtain "watertight reasons"........and how quickly it changed.

While it obvious you seem more than a little passionate regarding the topic, just who the hell do you think you are coming out with verbal like

The subject of the debate has ‘everything’ to do with safe air travel (Heads up: its kinda the crux of your vocation!) (my italics)

The "subject" of the debate and most of what you are carrying on about has NOTHING to do with air saftey, and for you to feel you have to point out "its kinda the crux"........ I'm amazed you haven't been told to f*ck right off (in that many words)

The debate is that you as a spotter feel hard done by that legislation exists in the UK that prevents live ATC feeds (of whatever format) being provided on the web, and that there exists legislation concerning the use of a scanner to listen in to ATC frequencies (which, at this point it should be noted that I have never seen it enforced :rolleyes: ) And it sounds like you have a little sand in your ass regarding the fact it is available in the US. Why don't you move there then?

Aside from the example/link I provided, I'll throw a few more at you:

- Security related flights (more than just good old Police flights)

- Situations where (touch wood) an incident/accident has occurred. Tell me, if your/your family were involved some sort of incident as pax or pilot, would you really want somebody on the ground with a scanner hearing the whole thing interpret what they heard and run around saying to one and all "Hey, you're not going to believe this!".......believe me, it happens (as this site has displayed on more than one occasion). There are also implications of this in any pending investigation that may be required (once again, if the damn British media get hold of it)

- I am wondering if these feeds would continue if a situation were to occur. Would the plug be pulled while it was sorted out? I'm betting yes.

I’ll write to the CAA using the same ‘original’ question safe in the knowledge that a reply cosseting more professional explanations and reasons will shed more light on the matter.

Yes, you little professional. You do that.

speedbirdzerozeroone

11th May 2005, 17:59

J> So in the event of an event, why would the feeds be ‘pulled’ if they have no bearing on the safety/security of air travel?

Quote:

******
The debate is that you as a spotter feel hard done by that legislation exists in the UK that prevents live ATC feeds
*****

Not at all, I can sit outside any airport and listen merrily to atc feeds direct from the horses mouth.

But I do feel hard done by the attitudes of those I considered professionals, however the debate is on naming that legislation to analyse what small print actually says that atc / passur feeds cannot be published in real time.

*** If David Beckham misses an open goal, it won’t stop half the country laughing in his face and telling him he’s crap, but then he’s the man on the pitch at the time and only he knows the conditions at hand; something a true supporter would appreciate this as I do in your case Jerricho (or any other ATCO). If Mr Beckham fouls up and ‘genuinely’ questions his own abilities ‘off the back’ of accusations made from anyone of 100,000 rabble in the stands; then he shouldn’t be doing the job.***

And I do believe, not once have I questioned the fine work that ATCOs do in keeping UK air space the safest in the world. (which would not be compromised by the nominal developments I’m suggesting) Whether my suggestions might invoke more scaremongering is a different debate all together. (Mr Beckham copes very well with all the browbeating he gets..)

Perhaps I haven’t explained the passur link all that well (has anyone bothered to look? The contention is more to do with the real time broadcasting of those ‘moving maps’ which pax see in their headrest.

Imagine those nervous flyers who send their nervous families off on holiday. I’m just supposing it might prove comforting to them to be able to type in a flight number online and know that flight ‘abc’ was currently happily cruising at x over y on its why to z. Businesses would even by able to chart the progress of freighter a/c carrying important cargo. (etc) The reasons are many and varied, but tuning into an airline website to be faced with either 1) ‘Not landed’ 2) ‘landed’3) ‘call airline’, just seems a little old tech…

Perhaps carriers can use their internal datalink for a/c to report their real time positions direct to airline ops. Then it’s up to the carrier whether it publishes that on its website. (Is there anything unlawful against this in the UK?)

I don’t expect a civil reply, but anyone wishing to tell me ‘what an abuse of their professional rights’ they would feel – then save it, I kinda worked that out.

001

Whipping Boy's SATCO

11th May 2005, 18:13

I'm sorry, but this dull air traffiker just doesn't get what Speedy One is on about. The argument appears to be getting more and more elliptical.

PS. I did browse Passeur.

Jerricho

11th May 2005, 18:26

why would the feeds be ‘pulled’ if they have no bearing on the safety/security of air travel?

If you read my post, you would have noticed in the second matter I raised. Should an accident/incident/failure occur, there is little to no use in having access to it, especially those who may only have a very basic understanding of what is transpiring. I'm not trying to advocate a veil of secrecy, just common sense over what may lead to the distortion of what actually happened, especially if external factors begin to bear (and in this litigation culture we live in..........I'll leave that up to your intelligence).

If Mr Beckham fouls up and ‘genuinely’ questions his own abilities ‘off the back’ of accusations made from anyone of 100,000 rabble in the stands; then he shouldn’t be doing the job.***

That's quite an analogy.........and it's utter bull****. Air Traffic Controllers adhere to strict procedures and operations, which takes some time to learn (and not everybody is suited to). I can tell you personally that I would certain listen to another controller's input on something to do with the job. But your analogy. Give me a break. You honestly believe what you have written?

but anyone wishing to tell me ‘what an abuse of their professional rights’ they would feel – then save it, I kinda worked that out.

Is that through your professional capacity to discuss the matter?

WB SATCO - Basically Mr BAW001 is a spotter who wants live feed on the internet. He seems to take the occasional swipe about professionalism then hold his hands up and says "not me Guv". It sounds like he thinks ATC is like football, and that David Beckham would make a good controller. The rest is just crap.

PIGDOG

11th May 2005, 18:58

As to why the USA do and the UK doesn't, the passur website says it all:

http://www.passur.com/am_airport.htm

Sorry SB001 but it says nothing about keeping spotters happy. :p

More for community awareness of flight paths and such, which isn't a bad idea. Maybe for community relations it wouldn't be a bad idea for places like STN or LHR.

I can see what SB001 is saying: 'What's the harm in having this info available?' (the law aside). It doesn't really pose any greater risk in security. I mean, a lock will only stop an honest man. If some nasties are intent on doing harm, would not having this sort of thing really stop them? Then again, do we want to hand it to them on a plate?

Anyway, enough said.

Let the status quo remain

speedbirdzerozeroone

11th May 2005, 19:39

Thanks pig dog, at least you comprehend what I’ve been trying to convey for the past few days. Keeping spotters happy was not really the main agenda, (A reminder of which can be found in most of my replies)

J>You seem to be bending whatever I write, I was always under the illusion that being shy, retiring and selfish and not helping your peers out, were the perfect traits of a worthy atco…but thanks for clearing that up, I feel so much more informed…

……I expect Mr Beckham to listen to his peers (and council them in return) but not to the public or the media (which would quickly result in a brood of quivering wrecks and legally embroiled football teams) If my statement is b******t then what you’re saying is that you DO regard the opinions of the uneducated ‘wannabe/media’ with any credibility, so AGAIN you have misunderstood the analogy that ‘I’ made. Unless, some wannabe with a scanner gets you nervous when he reports that:

http://www.pprune.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=149591

(May I use the thread which ‘coincidently’, YOU provided on the 9/5/05 15.38….?)

(Which I wouldn’t have expected an atco to reply to for the very reasons u give!……..a la Eric Cantona style)

(btw…….you don’t actually think for a minute that I was suggesting that kicking a ball around was comparable to the work of an atco do you? ALL professions are subject to media/public opinion but it doesn’t make them all uniformly (un)professional or deserved of it!)

Quote:

***
Is that through your professional capacity to discuss the matter?
***

…no, just fed up of “journeymen” getting righteous and not answering the question (but thanks for proving the point – again.)

001

Irish Steve

11th May 2005, 20:21

This is slightly off thread, but relevant, and may clarify some things, and at the same time make them even worse.

There are huge numbers of people out there with no aviation qualifications what so ever who take great delight in flying their virtual 747 from airfield A to airfield B using whatever flight simulator package appeals to them.

With the advent of the internet, and now broadband, they can even do this real time with other people, and there are now also add on packages available for the simulators that allow another person to act as an air traffic controller and control all these "virtual" aircraft. It used to be just pop up text messages on the screen, but broadband opens up the possibility of "real" audio, in real time.

I've also heard more than a few people express the idea that they'd like to fly their "virtual" flight in real time, mirroring exactly what is happening to the real flight, by using live ATC feeds such as the ones that have been discussed here, although they'd not be able to respond on line to the controller, or I for sure hope that they'd not be able to!!!

I'm not even going to start on the road of discussing the validity or otherwise of such practices, but they are happening.

In some cases, the people involved take it VERY seriously, to the point of obsession, and enemies have been made over very complex arguments in these areas.

To those of you that ATC for real, this probably looks like your worst nightmare. It may well be, although for training purposes, the thought of using internet virtual flyers, if they know what they are doing, might add some realism to the scenarios.

speedbirdzerozeroone

11th May 2005, 20:40

…although very thread, I’m not going to comment on another can of worms Steve but I’d safely say that the virtual world and real life are in no way comparable at all. (In terms of the skills / stresses / strains / calibre of the individual needed to perform the tasks etc.) But your suggestion makes for interesting food for thought…

Gary Lager

11th May 2005, 20:45

Journeymen have a right to get righteous - they do the job, and they are not obliged to answer ANY question you put to them. Many have tried so far, out of courtesy and because that's what it's all about - for many of us, and not just on PPRuNe, but in real life.

But BAW001, you continue to use sarcasm, critcising people for disagreeing with you and calling into doubt their credentials to 'answer the question', while it seems your own are beyond doubt. You are winding up a lot of people in an industry which you ought to be able to get along with, and who ought to be able to get along with you.

To those of you that ATC for real, this probably looks like your worst nightmare. It may well be, although for training purposes, the thought of using internet virtual flyers, if they know what they are doing, might add some realism to the scenarios.

There are already people employed at both LTCC and LACC to provide this service to ATCOs under recurrent and initial training- many are there because they have an enthusiasm for aviation and the ATC system which they enjoy putting into practice rather than whinging on PPRuNe.

If some nasties are intent on doing harm, would not having this sort of thing really stop them?

No, but I don't see why anyone should make it easier for them!

I’m just supposing it might prove comforting to them to be able to type in a flight number online and know that flight ‘abc’ was currently happily cruising at x over y on its why to z

..And what if it wasn't? 'Family sues airline/NATS for trauma experienced when they heard aircraft annoucing "diversion" and "fuel" and "catering problems" ' It's bad enough we have to let the general public vote!

Businesses would even by able to chart the progress of freighter a/c carrying important cargo.

I don't think you need to know how far over the Atlantic your parcel is, just when it's going to arrive - which is already catered for without live ATC feeds.

More for community awareness of flight paths and such, which isn't a bad idea. Maybe for community relations it wouldn't be a bad idea for places like STN or LHR.

Fair idea - but that info is, again, available without providing LIVE ATC information. Anyway, I once read an article (I swear to God) in the Richmond, Twickenham & Teddington Gazette complaining at LHR ATC because 77% of approaches were made 'from the east, over the boroughs of Richmond [etc]...', any real ATCOs/Pilots can hopefully see the two major problems with this complaint - beware!

BAW 001 uses lots of words like "probably wouldn't affect security" and "wouldn't affect security very much" - well I'd rather it didn't affect it AT ALL, thanks very much.

Bolleaux to the public. If they want to influence how the professionals do the job, the queue for your ATPL exams is there and the NATS application form is in the post. And we'll call you in 5 years...

terrain safe

11th May 2005, 21:23

BAW001 Do you use a green pen to wite with?;) ;) ;)

Jerricho

11th May 2005, 22:12

Unless, some wannabe with a scanner gets you nervous when he reports that:

Answer me this: Have you ever had to answer a phone call from some member of the public who swears they have seen an air-miss over their house. Or (as I mentioned previously), read a news report about an everyday operational occurance (a go around) in a national paper with information that only somebody listening to the freqency could know. I have. I don't afford them with the slightest bit of credibility, it's just we have the unfortunate situation of not being able to officially (or even off the record) set them straight.

(I'll conceed I've probably gone a little over the top with some of my posts. But I stand by what I say)

just fed up of “journeymen” getting righteous and not answering the question

Gary has answered this far more eloquently than I ever could..........and probably with less cursing.

GrumpyOldFart

12th May 2005, 00:53

Come on, guys, why do you encourage him? He is obviously looking more for aggravation than information. Just ignore him and he'll go away.

speedbirdzerozeroone

12th May 2005, 01:24

You misquote me gary lager…

GL > ‘BAW 001 uses lots of words like "probably wouldn't affect security" and "wouldn't affect security very much" - well I'd rather it didn't affect it AT ALL, thanks very much.’

What I actually said regarding the safety of air travel (and have said all along) is:

001 > ‘which would not be compromised by the nominal developments I’m suggesting’ (11/5/05 17.59)

….which even pigdog can see. Aside from the fact that this has turned into a bar room brawl, I really can’t see how a moving map on the net endangers the security of an a/c. (please see 4 pages of discussion before posting something I’ve already dealt with)

*****
‘Perhaps carriers can use their internal datalink for a/c to report their real time positions direct to airline ops. Then it’s up to the carrier whether it publishes that on its website.’
*****

This technology will come into play in the future it’s just a question of when, and if AA or United include such a facility on their websites, it’ll be interesting to see who else follows suit…

Bygones people, lets just wait and see the future....

Skase Jnr

12th May 2005, 10:15

Sorry about the bush beating but there is a reason for the discretion.

Answer = real time = real time opportunity to issue heading for intercept for collision. That’s it. You can't by virtue of the law of physics issue headings to intercept after the event.

Real life example in the colonies;

A real idiot failed dumb student pilot loser issued an instruction from a handheld to a real aircraft in real time and if not for the skills of a fast thinking tower controller a disaster could have occurred. He went to jail. You will to if you think any further about doing stupid things and knowing way too much plus encouraging the other psychos out there to have ideas. It’s a similar reason that the worlds most popular TV show CSI should be banned.

Investigators in your country have the powers to put a watch on you based on your questions. The answer is NO LIVE FEEDS for a reason.
:mad:

Lon More

12th May 2005, 10:15

Googling on "Air Traffic Control Radar Internet" I found some interesting sites, including this (http://www.goldeneracasino.com/air-traffic-control-radar-Gambler/) where BAW001 might be welcome.

I tried a couple of the links, quality of the audio is pathetic, but find this disturbing If you are within 20 miles of an airport and have a police scanner or any airband-capable scanning receiver, please consider becoming a feeder site. .

WTH do they need to scan the police freqs for as well, unless it's for the ambulance chasers?

This has been going on too long; I'm beginning to suspect a wind-up or a journo on the troll.

Bye-bye

rodan

12th May 2005, 13:23

001 > ‘which would not be compromised by the nominal developments I’m suggesting’

….which even pigdog can see.

So two spotters agree. An assortment of ATCO's, a pilot, and the CAA disagree. I know where my money is.

Aside from the fact that this has turned into a bar room brawl, I really can’t see how a moving map on the net endangers the security of an a/c.

No, you can't see, can you?

I would suggest it's a failing on your behalf, because Lord knows enough people have tried to politely explain it to you only to be met with sarcasm and patronising comments about the nature of our job and our professionalism. Please take that attitude to OASC with you, do us all a favour.

speedbirdzerozeroone

12th May 2005, 14:35

Thank you for another polite response rodan

My money’s on the ‘airlines’ (and what they’d do to keep the pax-a-mooing)

SUBJECT WELL AND TRUELLY FLOGGED

Jerricho

12th May 2005, 14:37

:rolleyes:

Because you say so, right = bat ball home.

(This was starting to get fun)

Gary Lager

12th May 2005, 17:49

You misquote me gary lager…

No I didn't, I said "uses words like... " - that's not quoting. I couldn't bothered to trawl through pages of your unjustified assumptions and unreasoned arguments to find the actual quote.

Thanks for doing it for me though:

‘which would not be compromised by the nominal developments I’m suggesting’

Sorry mate, but I've seen no evidence so far that justifies this unqualifed statement - NOT is a strong word to use unless you have lots of data to support it - and not just speculation or non sequiteurs [sp?] (eg. "they do it in the US, so it must be safe").

You questioned why these developments have not occurred here in the UK, you were given plenty of polite responses (and incidentally, just because I have only recently felt the impulse to post, doesn't mean I haven't been following the discussion for all those 4 pages - and I disagree completely with the assertion that once you 'deal' with a subject it is no longer open for discussion) but disagreed with the well-informed reasoning you were given so elected to consider them irrelevant.

So despite all your bleating to trhe contrary, it seems you were never interested in 'the question' which you bemoan the lack of 'an answer' to - but apparently just wanted to point out how wrong NATS is for not providing a live ATC for you for free.

I can cope with that - disagree with it, maybe - but accept it as a valid opinion, as can most on this forum. The 'bar-room brawl' you refer to appears in part to have provoked by your immature & sarcastic comments in response to those to disagree with, showing utter disregard for the company you keep here and winding up a treat all those here in professional aviation daft enough to try and help with your query.

Please, next time you say you are leaving (into the sunset, letting bygones be bygones, whatever) - mean it, or alternatively try to be as polite as me (which is a struggle at the moment) and let the discussion continue.

Genunie question: can we re-title the thread to somehow reflect the content more accurately?

flower

12th May 2005, 18:08

Why do people think that aviation is an area which should be open to the masses ?
Would you suggest we should have live feeds of teachers in their classrooms, Dr's in their surgeries, accountants in their offices.
I don't do my job for a spotters benefit I do it to provide an ATC service to aircraft.

BAW001 when the professionals involved i.e. ATCOs and Pilots don't want it there has to be a valid reason. Infact multiple reasons have been presented to you but you still don't see any harm in it.
The last thing we need is people with absolutely no Knowledge or even worse limited knowledge watching our every move, creating fear and apprehension amongst the flying public
as they simply have no real comprehension of how it all works.
We show people around ATC units and they find it terrifying and we are there to explain it, imagine if anyone could view it here.

There are so many reasons for it not to happen and I can think of no good reason for it to happen.

If you want to see how ATC works become an ATCO, now please accept what everyone has told you about how bad an idea it is for multiple reasons, not least the additional pressure it could place on ATCOs whilst they were working.

Gonzo

12th May 2005, 18:29

I commend the use of PPRuNe's 'Ignore List' function to the house......

BDiONU

12th May 2005, 20:08

I can only urge my Right Honourable collegues to follow the Right Honourable Gonzo's advice (hear, hear, hear!). Enough time has been wasted knocking on the door of a closed mind. ;)

Nice to see the thread title change :-)

BD

speedbirdzerozeroone

12th May 2005, 20:57

I only wanted similar ‘reasonable’ explanations like those given in this thread:

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?threadid=173997

I must have caught the first few post-ees on a bad day (which agitated me from the outset) and I’m truly sorry for any offence I caused anyone (thereafter) and that I’m only guilty of being as zealous at ‘cocky retorts’ as the rest of you. Sarcasm can be found in most threads on PPRuNe and although there is NO need for it, I was WRONG to be goaded into the banter which undermined the debate from the outset and which I thought could be kept separate. But now I know.

I can assure you I appreciate what EACH ONE of you has said if you referred to the question at hand.

001

MikeGranby

13th May 2005, 15:19

> For my tuppence worth. Pilots/Atco's are highly
> qualified professionals, for unqualified peoply to
> make comments/criticims on their work should
> not be allowed.

Should not be allowed??? Are you suggesting there should be a law against it or something? "Norman Stanley Fletcher, you are hereby sentenced to five years for the crime of commenting on the work of a pilot?" In the US, scanners are legal, and live ATC audio and data feeds are available. Indeed, since the ATC data is generated with tax money, it belongs to the people! Odd how when you start from the premise that the national airspace system is owned by the citizens, you end up with different conclusions re so many things...

Whipping Boy's SATCO

13th May 2005, 16:38

"owned by the citizens", it'll never catch on. Sell it and reap the benefits. :uhoh:

terrain safe

14th May 2005, 14:50

"national airspace system is owned by the citizens"

Sadly not it is owned by the airline group and the staff and the Government. Therefore not owned by the citizens.

Unfortunately...................

Jerricho

14th May 2005, 17:57

Don't forget that little percentage that went to NATS staff ;)

speedbirdzerozeroone

14th May 2005, 19:52

Now, we're wandering to yet another thread title change...

Who owns British airspace?

….although it’s rude to discuss business and politics, so it might be wise to let that 1 fly.

001

Jerricho

14th May 2005, 21:11

"I say Center, there appears to be opposite direction traffic at our altitude"

"What makes you think it's yours?"

mocoman

15th May 2005, 00:39

roflmfao.
Nice Answer :8

Regards

I\'ve been holding off on this thread.... or was it that thread lol

Why do people think that aviation is an area which should be open to the masses

I would pose the inverse question; why is it NOT be an area open to the masses? Are you keeping some dark secret that you don\'t want any of us to know about? Is working in the aviation industry the panacea to all ills and the supplier of life everlasting? :hmm:

001\'s original question, while possibly having the ability to be construed as naive, did have some merit.

The position of ranting from the standpoint of \'thats the way it is\' is not argument, just pure belligerance.

I will agree that some of his allusions were what could be best described as futile or simplistic and may well have deserved some gentle ribbing, but that does not detract from the fact that his questions were only truly addressed by PPrune Radar in the direct referral to NATs agreements with local service providors.

Actually, as an interested ATC onlooker, who incidently (directed towards Lonmore) does not own, let alone keep records within, a \'black book\' lol...., it has been disheartening to see the exclusionistic culture that some of you guys seem to wish to maintain to protect your profession.

The provision of live Internet Data feeds, which is a far cry from allowing ATC transmissions to be legally received, is something that even I, as a mere pleb, would feel nervous about for various reasons, some of which have been mentioned within the thread. That\'s even leaving aside for the moment the technical and financial considerations that have been raised.

The general consensus seems to be that the current Wireless Telegraphy Act is paid no more than lip-service in respect to ATC communications; to my mind quite rightly. If the spirit of the law (ie: the non-onward transmission or reporting of such communication) is maintained then the letter would appear to be as intact as is required, while allowing those that may wish to maybe learn and appreciate a small fraction of what you guys do every day the opportunity to do so.

I fail to understand why, with the exception of the misreporting in the media aspects, you seem to be almost universal in your condemnation when any \'outsider\' even so much as hints that they may have overheard any RT.

It is no great secret WHERE or WHEN most airliners fly and the fact of knowing that a certain arrival is to be, for instance, "FL130 by The Bottom Of My Garden" to me seems irrelevant, since, if I were of \'that\' frame of mind, I could be at my desk with my RPG and could take my pick; a terrorist does not care of the nationality of victims, unless a specific target is in mind, and with that exception the act in itself it is purely a matter of media coverage and \'terror-perpetuation\'. Unless all ATC RT communications are encrypted somehow then the bad-guys will always be able to snoop; drawing their own conclusions from the, as pointed out by yourselves, incomplete data and information that is available over the airwaves as well as their own via on-the-spot observation.

As other posters have implied, the media seems to be responsible for at least some of this attitude. Their (\'the media\'; in case you weren\'t sure lol) irresponsible and inaccurate reporting is just laughable in general not just when considered in relation to the aviation industry; maybe it\'s because their next-best story is some B-List f**k-wit shagging another B-list f**k-wit; sad to say but the state of the UK news media, and TV in general, is pretty much summed up by the term \'bottom-feeders\'. It doesn\'t mean that we all have to either pander to their whims or give-in to their brain-addled paranoia or sensationalism; it also means that we don\'t have to believe the rubbish they can spout either.

I\'m too old to get behind a live \'scope so it matters not to me but I think you should be a little less \'spiky\' when certain topics appear that are patently initiated by those that are NOT within your \'community\'.

I\'m afraid that outsiders will post, unless you get Danny to make the ATC forum, or even dare I say the whole of PPRuNe, a private forum accessible only by submitting your NATS/Airline/HAL/etc employee ID number. And what a sad day that would be; for all of \'you\' as well as all of \'us\'

:ok:

BDiONU

15th May 2005, 07:58

I shall try to give a 'professional' answer which should (hopefully) finish this thread off.
There are no 'live' ATC internet feeds in the UK because there is no legal requirement and it is not a CAA licensing requirement on the ATSP's to provide one.

Reading the PASSUR site there appears to be a need for ATSP's in the USA for the data which that company provides (although I'm a bit dubious about how the number of aircraft handled relates to when you need to re-surface the runway). In the UK (and Europe) things like En-Route fees are handled by a centralised computer system. 'Live' landing times at airports are taken from a feed off of NAS, hence you get a longer lead time for flights from the US than from France etc. So in the UK there is no business need as well as no legal nor licensing need. Therefore the ATSP's have no need to go to the trouble and expense of providing it.

BD