decent radio to listen to atc?

[AndoniP]

morning all

i'm looking for a small radio to listen to atc - what can people recommend? i've seen loads advertised in magazines, so i was wondering what current users could suggest in terms of price etc. not looking for anything amazing, just something to plug headphones into and listen in.

thanks in advance

andoni

p.s. if this is the wrong forum, feel free to move it - as far as i know only spotters use these things :}

NOTE - sorry I've read the sticky in the ATC forum. does anyone know how to delete their own posts??? :ouch:

[simonchowder]

I thought it was illegal for spotters to eavesdrop on closed broadcasts :=

[BeaconInbound]

http://www.pprune.org/atc-issues/206063-listening-uk-atc-communications-law.html

[simonchowder]

Happening on the manchester thread at the moment, some idiotic spotters debating a conversation they were beaking in on between ATC and a pilot :ugh:

[frostbite]

does anyone know how to delete their own posts

Click Edit, then Delete.

Tens of thousands listen, and have done for years. Just don't stand around with your radio blaring, and don't discuss what you hear. The Yupiteru MVT7100 is a pretty good piece of kit and covers a LOT more than airband.

[One Outsider]

It's voyeurism.

[JimmyTAP]

Have a look at the Maycom AR-108. Very small and neat with excellent reception.

[DILLIGAFF]

I agree with Frostbite above, have had an MVT7100 since it came out and it is a great piece of kit. Covers VHF / UHF and lots more with the right antenna.

[trident3A]

Have a look at the Maycom AR-108. Very small and neat with excellent reception.I've got one of these, very small with good reception. The only drawback is the speaker which you'll struggle to hear if anywhere near planes. You can of course use headphones.

[Skipness One Echo]

I thought it was illegal for spotters to eavesdrop on closed broadcasts

He's a troll who likes to stir up s*** regardless. He's always in the spotters forum even though he hates spotters.

Anyhoo - the listening into of ATC is technically illegal, however like a great many things in a liberal 21st century democracy, it is not enforced and a common sense approach is taken by the Police. Any airshow attendee will see that all the time.

The MVT-7100 is good but I have never beaten my old and sadly lost VT-225. What's the best equivalent to that?


Hey Simon, just tell me if this is your opinion some idiotic spotters debating why are you in this part of the forum? I mean all you ever do is insult people. Does it make you feel like a big boy?

[Malaysian28]

I hate to be rude, but this something like the 6 forum about recommending an airband radio / Scanner and its quite boring having to recommend and dicuss this topic so many times :ugh:

I use a PSR282 200 Channel Scanner.

[TrafficPilot]

I also use a Yupiteru MVT-7100 - best airband receiver I've ever used (pretty good for other bands as well!).

Only available second hand now sadly. I picked mine up from someone on eBay.

And before anyone asks...I use it to check the ATIS before leaving for the airfield to go flying:rolleyes:

Adam
TrafficPilot

[Capetonian]

Question : I understand that listening to ATC broadcasts is not regarded as an offence as long as you don't pass on the contents.

If this is the case, how do websites such as Listen to Live ATC (Air Traffic Control) Communications | LiveATC.net (http://www.liveatc.net/) manage to operate?

[TrafficPilot]

Capetonian if you perform a whois request on liveatc.net you'll see that the website is based in the United States. The radio communication laws in the U.S.A are less antiquated than they are here in the U.K.;)

Regards

Adam
TrafficPilot

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<Question : I understand that listening to ATC broadcasts is not regarded as an offence as long as you don't pass on the contents.>>

Sorry, that is wrong. It is absolutely illegal to monitor the airband. Full stop. It's stupid using the argument that many people do it..... many people break the speed limit but it is still illegal. So long as the user is fully aware that he is contravening the law and if he gets prosecuted then he knows why.

<<If this is the case, how do websites such as Listen to Live ATC (Air Traffic Control) Communications | LiveATC.net manage to operate?>>

In some other countries it is not illegal to monitor air, police, etc., and if it gets on the internet there is not much that can be done. Any web site operating in the UK and doing so would be breaking the law.

[Skipness One Echo]

if he gets prosecuted then he knows why.


Since the end of the Second World War, some 65 years ago, how many aviation enthusiasts have been prosecuted?

How many have been prosecuted full stop?

There's your answer....

[JimmyTAP]

It may be illegal to listen in to ATC but as far as I know no-one has ever been prosecuted for listening to the airband. A law that is never enforced is not a law worth having.
Speeding is also illegal and many do it. It is also dangerous in many cases and many have been prosecuted for breaking that particular law. I cannot see any reason why listening to the airband could in any way be construed as dangerous. Probably the reason it isn't illegal in many other countries.

[Malaysian28]

http://www.pprune.org/spectators-balcony-spotters-corner/398208-listening-some-few-miles-away.html

As I said earlier there have been many posts regarding purchasing and legality of listening in to ATC.

And yes people in the past have been prosecuted for listening in. (there's post somewhere on pprune about it)

[One Outsider]

Could an enthusiast explain why it is acceptable to listen in on communication which is not public, not addressed to them and by law off limits?

[simonchowder]

Because these idoits seem to think that as "spotters "they have some god given right to interfere with and listen in to people carrying out their legal duties and to post what they have quite unlawfully gathered on forums such as this,.. complete morons, a few need to be prosecuted to get the message across to these numpties:ugh:

[JimmyTAP]

simonchowder - are you kevlarcarl again?


Spelling "idiots" as "idoits" - are you being ironic?

[purplehelmet]

nice to see that you've sussed aswell that chowder and kevlarcarl make the same school boy errors when it comes to spelling.

[cherrylock]

Oh dear, i did not even know this was against the law no one said anything about this when we spent a lot of money buying our radio:uhoh:

[Skipness One Echo]

Could an enthusiast explain why it is acceptable to listen in on communication which is not public, not addressed to them and by law off limits?

It's not "acceptable" in the legal term. However if you were British, like I am, an many posters on here, you would know what the "British" attitude to such matters is. If it does no harm, is enjoyed by a great many, brings excitement to adults and kids alike, informs people about how things work and makes grown men get out of the house on occasion, we treat it as generally a good thing.
There are always fusspot who like to over react, men (generally men) who need the protection of rules and lots of them. We have just escaped 13 years of more rules introduced into our country than ever before. It is for this common sense reason, that we must allow the authorities to focus on criminals who cause pain, nuisance and suffering. Arresting people who like to listen to ATC, something happily legal in many other enlightened countries isn't a key priority. Why on Earth should it be?

I have had NUMEROUS chats with the armed Police at LCY and LHR with them wanting to know what I am up to, with the camera. Not once in all of those conversations has the readily apparent air band scanner been mentioned even once. Busy men, the Police!

The clinching argument is that it hacks off that poisonous man-child that is Simon Chowder. He who lurks in spotters corner to call other people names. Proud of yourself are we Simon? Run along old thing, mum must have the tea ready by now I think.

[Planemike]

SOE.................

Couldn't have put it better myself........!!!!!!!!!!!!

It is too be hoped that one of the spin offs of a change of government will be much less rule making and general prying into our affairs by government....

Planemike

[AndoniP]

guys, thanks for all your replies.

i understand the process is technically illegal.

as I am doing my ppl i am desperate to learn more about RT discipline (as that's one thing i'm not very confident on), and also use it for airshows. i wouldn't think of regurgitating stuff i hear on the internet, i wouldn't see the point.

hah, Malaysian28:
I hate to be rude, but this something like the 6 forum about recommending an airband radio / Scanner and its quite boring having to recommend and dicuss this topic so many times :ugh:

I use a PSR282 200 Channel Scanner.

Thanks for participating in the very thread you're criticising. Well done :ok:

[Nick_H]

Mods. Is their anyway you can ban simonchowder from this forum ? He's just Trolling.

[simonchowder]

Planemike , thats rather rich , spotters who by their own admissions enjoy eavesdropping illegally on closed private radio broadcasts (and then often as not discussing those private broadcasts here) then have the gall to whine about other people prying into their "hobby" :hmm::hmm:

[JimmyTAP]

simonchowder;
"often as not" ? I think you exaggerate somewhat. Thousands "eavesdrop" as you call it every day; there is currently ONE thread discussing an R/T conversation.

If listening to ATC really was a problem and "private" then they should encrypt their radio transmissions.

Why do you care so much anyway what others do as a hobby?

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

I wonder how many of those on here who encourage flouting the law would like to have members of the public spying on them while they are working? Like someone listening in to your phone calls, or listening and watching over your shoulders would you? That's what you are doing when you listen to the air, police or other utilities. These people are doing their jobs and need to speak to others just as if they were in the same office. Radio gives them the facility to carry out that work over long distance.

What they don't understand is that it's not just the airband which is confidential, but ALL radio comms for which they do not have proper authority. They just need to understand that that is the LAW, whether they like it or not. It has nothing to do with recent governments; it has been law for decades. When I did my Flight R/T Operator Licence in about 1962 the examiner pointed out that the licence only entitled me to use the airband whilst I was flying as part of a crew.

I don't particularly care what the anoraks get up to, just as long as they know where they stand in law. I have had PMs thanking me for that advice from the more sensible individuals on PpruNe over the years.

[Old Photo.Fanatic]

A few years back I lived near Cambridge Airfield, and used to scan the Airwaves.
One Sat afternooon.
On selecting 121.5 I heard a Distress beacon , quite feint but audible.

I am ex RAF Radio Technician so felt I had to do something.
I ran the local plod and explained the situation, qualified my call by saying that I was maybe out of order but I felt it was important.

They agreed and said they would look into it.
A few minuites later I had a call from the main rescue centre in Scotland asking if they could listen to my Scanner over the phone to verify the situation.
They agreed it was genuine and said they would update me on the outcome.

Awhile later they called and said they had monitored the area and had located the Beacon as coming from Marshalls Airport. On further local investigation found it to be from a C-130 in a hanger,
someone had left the emergency transmitter switched to activate.
They thanked me very much and on my remarks about responding to something I had picked up while scanning said "no worries you carry on scanning with our blessing"!!!!!!!!

The reason I do have a scanner is to help me when at an Airport/Airfield
to identify in advance Aircraft which may be of interest to Photograph, giving me time to set myself up in the best position.
(I am of an age where I prefer to sit in the comfort of my car and move only when I feel it is worth it)

OPF

[Planemike]

H D................

Have seen what you have said but do you not think it might be more sensible to repeal the law which is widely flouted and appears to serve little if any useful purpose? Were it vital the communications remained confidential I am sure some form of encrypted form of communication could be used.

I think the fact no individual has ever been prosecuted for listening to airband and the receiving equipment is widely on sale tends to indicate that "the authorities" have other rather important matters to attend to and are not in the least concerned about the practise.

Planemike

[One Outsider]

they should encrypt their radio transmissions

Should it not be enough that the practice is illegal?

receiving equipment is widely on sale

A great many things legally on sale can be used illegally. Does that justify the illegal
use?

It seems that the attitude is; Because I find it interesting and because I can and because I can get away with it then it is ok.

And interesting pick and choose approach to the law.

[Planemike]

Firstly....... I am not a user of airband equipment.

My point is, if it were important the contents of the transmissions remained confidential something would be done about it. Nothing is done about it, no prosecutions, equipment still legally on sale, why not bring the law into harmony with what is actually happening??

Both HD and OO explain that listening to airband is illegal, which indeed it is, but neither say what HARM is being done by the practice. As no harm is being done I guess the "authorities" are willing to leave things as there are.

Planemike

[Capetonian]

Laws such as this have to remain in place to provide the authorities for a framework in order to be able to prosecute when someone has clearly misused information obtained. That is why there is a tolerance. Removing the law would be 'carte blanche'.

[goldox]

Laws such as this have to remain in place to provide the authorities for a framework in order to be able to prosecute when someone has clearly misused information obtained. That is why there is a tolerance. Removing the law would be 'carte blanche'.


I agree with Capetonian. As a long-time and regular monitor of airband and other transmissions, I fully understand that what I am doing is illegal under current UK legislation, and I could not argue otherwise.

However it seems to be the norm that the authorities mostly turn a blind eye to this practice, as long as common sense is applied. My 'overhearing' a transmission between ATC and aircraft giving, for example, a clearance to a new height or heading, is pretty innocent and harms no-one. And of course I keep this to myself. I note that these types of routine transmissions are reproduced without hindrance, in such publications as "Flying the big jets" and several ATC guides.

However, hearing sensitive/confidential information and relaying this to all and sundry, well then I would expect to be hit with a big hammer and could have no defence. I think for these reasons (and to frustrate the criminal classes) the emergency services moved away from open FM transmissions to secure TETRA.

Regarding the comparison to the speed limit, it's the same. On a motorway 77mph is illegal, but you would not expect to be pulled over. However, 95mph is different, you are pushing it too far beyond the spirit of the law!

[Skipness One Echo]

I think Heathrow Director is from the old school which is not a criticism pre se, but the world has really moved on. Taking photos of the lines of aircraft on delivery during the Second World War at Prestwick may have been seen as an act of spying, nowadays we view it as a priceless historical archive.

Context is everything. There is little harm that can be done by telling the press what you hear on ATC. If it's important enough to upset people and end up in the press, they'd get it from another chatty pilot IMHO. Such is life. To be honest, I'd be more concerned if they really did try and stop us listening because we'd then be convinced they had something to hide! We now know we have good reason to suspect "the authorities" as they've been caught BS'ing once too often. I mean for the love of God the Head of the CAA has no Aviation Experience and came from Worst Great Western Railways, something which I have painful experience of. Somehow leave it to the professionals isn't the defenece it once was....if ever!

Transparency is often a good thing gentlemen, calm yourselves to a frenzy please. If an ATCO vectors two aircraft into each other, the spotter informing the press is really the least of his worries.

Think of context. Next to no-one ever gets proesecuted for "tweaking" their CV a little. However in the wrong circumstances, the CPS shouts public interest and you'll get prosecuted. Think of Maxine Carr who lied on her CV in a way that many do. I ask again, how many spotters / enthusiasts have been prosecuted for listening to the airband since 1945?

Can someone outline the real world harm that this does and outline a top level case for sending someone to court? The courts are busy places I believe (!)

[simonchowder]

All seems a bit creepy to me, its bad enough adults spending all day scribbling aircraft reg numbers in a little book but wishing to listen in on private conversations is pushing it a bit , i wonder if they also tune their little boxes to the police /ambulance /fire frequencies as well, that must be very tempting for these characaters:sad:

[Skipness One Echo]

All seems a bit creepy to me, its bad enough adults spending all day scribbling aircraft reg numbers in a little book

Actually Simon you're the living definition of creepy. I see you post only in the Engineering, Airlines and Spotters sections. I see you're not a Professional Pilot but a backroom techie of some sort. Now that's fine. But you hate spotters yet most of your recent postings are in the spotters section. You remind of the school bully's scrawny little mate, never out in the open, always in the wings sneering.

What I also find pathetic is your clear intolerance of other people. I struggle to find any recent posts that you have made that adds anything worthwhile to a thread.

You mock, you name call, you belittle and you sneer with your little emoticons. And yet I don't see you as someone who has much to be superior about really. Indeed your ignorance that one cannot listen to Police band shows you know less a about radio comms than most of the other subjects you speak about with the threat of information or relevant facts!

Mods, WHY is he still on allowed on here given he adds NOTHING to any argument and goes out of his way riling good men and women who enjoy pprune?

[frostbite]

I find the various references to ATC "private conversations" an exaggeration.

They are no more than routine exchanges of information.

[Planemike]

What I also find pathetic is your clear intolerance of other people. I struggle to find any recent posts that you have made that adds anything worthwhile to a thread.



Hey Simon.........Why not rise to the challenge? Put together some words that are instructive, informative, positive, encouraging, tolerant, pleasent and show a general friendliness to your fellow Forumites and indeed all of humanity.

Planemike

[purplehelmet]

well said skipness and very well put:D:D
how many times has this troll and his alter ego kevlarcarl been red carded?
he add's sod all to any thread,and gets off by winding the rest of us up.
small minded sad little boy go play some where else.

[One Outsider]

Why is it unreasonable of me to have an expectation of being able to go to work and use the tools of my trade without having an unknown number of unknown people monitoring me, for no other purpose than having their curiosity satisfied?

[Groundloop]

as I am doing my ppl i am desperate to learn more about RT discipline

At some stage in your PPL you will get a Flight Radio Telephony Operator's Licence (is it still called that since the days when I got mine?). Then you won't be doing anything illegal.:ok:

[simonchowder]

Exactly one outsider why should you indeed be monitored by these people, would these characaters relish you snooping on them as they go about their daily work, why do they feel the need to do it and why do they think they have some god given right to break the law by doing it?

As for being sad PH ,well this weekend all being well i will be gliding at long mynd, you i presume will huddled on some airport terrace with your flask of tea collecting reg numbers and snooping in on other people having all the fun, now how sad is that?:ok:

[Evanelpus]

Blimey, will my AirNav radar box be considered a tool of perversion as well?

[L4key]

SC are you really 45? :eek:

Anyway - I for one actually enjoy your posts. The entertainment value is excellent. Keep going, why on earth anyone would rise to your evident brand of immature trolling is beyond me.

Sorry, nearly forgot... :ok:

[TrafficPilot]

simonchowder does sound rather like a failed spotter..

Did he scald someone with his thermos of coffee on a viewing balcony somewhere?

Maybe he poked someone's eye out with his airband radio antenna.

Or quite likely he ticked all the reg entries in his World Airline Fleet handbook without actually spotting the aircraft concerned!

Legal or not - listening to airband is a harmless pursuit and (with a copy of CAP413 handy) helps PPL students gain an excellent understanding of the language and proceedures before they take their RT exam. It certainly made me feel alot more confident about talking to ATC when I was training.

TrafficPilot

[Skipness One Echo]

Ahh Simon, same old, same old.
"Spotters bah, I'm better than them, blah blah." You come across as someone with a spiteful little grudge.

snooping in on other people having all the fun

What on Earth do you do in the aviation industry Simon? You're far from professional so you're never a CPL. Do you perhaps wash the windows? Is that "on the inside" enough?

Anyway good to know your mummy is letting you out this weekend. A glider eh? Mmm that's impressive. Odd that you've not once posted on the subject of gliding.

Are you in fact Walter Mitty as well as kevlarcarl? We should be told...
*that's enough of that ED*

Go on, tell us why you hate us so. So much effort to cause so much annoyance.

Did you mistake a 707 for a DC8 and never live it down?
Did you think port was next to sherry?

We should be told.

Here's some advice mate. If you don't like something, stay away from it. If you poke it with a stick often enough, you'll get your hand bitten off. Stay out of Spectators Corner if you don't like spotters. It's that simple, stop being a moron and leave people alone.

[JEM60]

I don't spot, I used to fly, I don't play golf but I do, and enjoy, ballroom dancing, which a lot of people probably don't like. However, I like it, it is one of my hobbies, and I think it is very ignorant of people to run down what other people enjoy.
I don't see what spotting has to attract people to it, but at least the spotters have a hobby, which makes them much more interesting than people who don't have one for a start. What other people do in there spare time is surely sacrosanct, and should not be criticized simply because it's not what you would do!!. Each to his own. [I also adore pretty women, and that's harmless too]

[Gulf4uk]

seems the original Question here got Hijacked one thing to remember
when Buying a radio .

1 Does it cover what i want to listen to ,if you only need VHF
then get one for that . many Radios with loads on are often
poor on Rejection of unwanted noise.

2 Battery Life (get a spare set of NICADS and a SOLAR Charger

3 get a decent pair of phones for it so only you can hear it

I First listened to Aircraft some 50 years ago at School when a Science
Master introduced the class to SHANNON AIR RADIO And what it all
meant so fidling with a short wave Radio at home found SHANWICK.
Some of early VHF FM Radios Suffered with Aircraft Breakthough so
at times you could hear 127.7 the then MID route over where we
lived . bought my first Airband Set near EGLL and my First scanner
from TANDY when like very many those days we were buying parts
for our CB Radios .Never Ever been warned by Police for using a radio
and very often even today thay will come and stand by you and
others with Radios in full view all very interested .
What i want to know is are all that that keep on about use of
and Law 100percent Without such Equipment themselves and
RADAR BOXES I Wonder ?

TONY
Farnborough

[pasir]

My history goes back as a junior with KLM Air Traffic at Croydon where their Dakotas shared the apron with Junkers 52's of SABENA and Air France. I recall that at home late at night I too would listen in to the transatlantic Air traffic radio chatter in the 40's and 50's on my ordinary Derwent valve radio - pulling in such far away stations as Idlewild Gander Rio Rome etc. - with crystal clear reception of ground and a/c xmissions.

Later when working for SAS airlines I was offered their R1132 VHF receiver (ex RAF) (delivered in its own huge fitted wooden crate with seperate power pack and metal stand). This enabled me to listen in to a/c lining up at Heathrow - following their flights onto Shannon and over the Atlantic - Switching between the two radios. Great Days - The golden days of Flying !

.

[Groundloop]

There was a time when, if you wanted to use an airband receiver on the Spectators' Terrace at Glasgow (it had one once!), you needed to have it tested by ATC and be issued with a certificate to say that it did not interfere with operations at the airport. Good excuse for a visit to the Tower.

[goldox]

I seem to remember in the old Queens Building spectators area at Heathrow, they had a PA feed giving aircraft movements and details, was it Tower or Ground relay, or maybe just an announcer? Can't quite recall.... many years ago.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

It was a commentator, usually Stan Little or Flo Kingdon plus A N Other I believe. There was no relay of R/T.

[goldox]

Ah! Thanx HD...

[pasir]

Whether or not listening to air traffic radio is legal I would place in the same file as listening to Police radio - whereby for every Yes - there
will also be a 'No' !

Ham Radio (Amateur Radio) licence holders will often quote the 1948
Wireless Telegraphy Act and state that the practice 'Is Illegal' !
However if seeking an answer from your local police station (as I once did)
will leave you further confused as they dont seem to know for sure either.

I have heard it summed up that 'Provided one does not act upon or use
any information gained by listening in' then it is not illegal.

[simonchowder]

So its no just pilots/ ATC you lot snoop on, its police transmissions as well, why the hell would you want to sit there listning to police radio traffic ? :confused:

[Groundloop]

why the hell would you want to sit there listning to police radio traffic ?

To hear when they are coming to arrest you for listening to ATC.:ok:

[frostbite]

Ham Radio (Amateur Radio) licence holders will often quote the 1948
Wireless Telegraphy Act


Not this one!

It has not been possible to monitor Police transmissions for many years. Better you get up to date than pointless pontificating.

[purplehelmet]

not me chowder, you presume wrong, im not a spotter but have an interest in aircraft and family and friends who work in the industry,so this weekend i will be out playing golf with my mates and no doubt going for several pints with more mates,whilest you will be sat in a glider on your own now thats sad!.
why dont you go and post on the gliders thread who knows you might even make some friends on there.

[Skipness One Echo]

Oi, CHOWDER
why the hell would you want to sit there listning to police radio traffic ?

Why the Hell would you want to be up past your bedtime in Spectators Balcony AGAIN, upsetting people when you've got school in the morning?

As I pointed out some way back, Police band is not available on a scanner as it has been secure for a few years now. Do keep up young man!

[UZZY]

Anyway !!! Poor old AndopiP only asked what was a decent Airband radio to listen to...at this rate we will have had another General Election before we know !.....a lot of hot air but i suppose it keeps those boring :mad: gliders up in the air. :E

[AndoniP]

i got a few suggestions on the first page, they're good enough for me to look into. the rest has been a good old argument between the seniors, sensibles, and downright stupids :ok:

[Skipness One Echo]

I got a WIN-108 for my Christmas from my Dad one year and thought it was the best present ever. It's VHF reception was great. Then I moved up to the Yupiteru VT-225 which was a whole new beast, amazing reception and 100 stored freqs. Alas it got nicked to I moved up to....

the Yupiteru MVT-7100 which doesn't have great reception at all as it tries to do too much. I then stepped back down for the MVT-3330 which promised amazing things but is prone to all sorts of interference. I also managed to snap the connection from the antenna to the circuit board with both new scanners as they don't like being in pockets and the connection isn't the best design.

Is it possible to buy a new scanner that models roughly what the VT-225 delivered SEVENTEEN years ago? Excellent VHF / UHF airband reception with a good search and store options?

Cheers

BTW I hope I'm a sensible. I might not be though (!)

[frostbite]

There's always the Yaesu VR5000, but it ain't cheap and it ain't portable (very).

[TrafficPilot]

Skipness One Echo said:

"the Yupiteru MVT-7100 which doesn't have great reception at all as it tries to do too much."

Don't quite understand what you mean can you elaborate?

I've used the 7100 for a few years now and it has excellent performance for an "early" handheld receiver. Sensitivity and selectivity is among the best I've seen. I use a home-made 1/4 wave antenna for airband mounted on the roof and a 20m long wire strung out down the garden for listening to HF.

Advice for anyone considering buying a handheld airband radio..

1) Buy a digital receiver with digital display (analog "elastic band" displays are pretty useless and only really work well if you're within a couple of miles of an airport).

2) Make sure it has a detachable antenna (preferably with a BNC connector).

3) Most airband receivers are susceptible to "noise" generated by televisions, computers, dodgy central heating systems etc so try and site the radio in the clear and if possible use an external antenna for best performance.

4) Make sure the radio has adjustable frequency "steps" (ie, 1,5,6.25,10 khz etc)

Hope this helps

And remember - Don't listen to any transmissions for which you don't possess a licence:ok: otherwise bad things could happen (and if you want to know which bad things...watch the movie SCANNERS:bored:)

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<Ham Radio (Amateur Radio) licence holders will often quote the 1948
Wireless Telegraphy Act and state that the practice 'Is Illegal' !
However if seeking an answer from your local police station (as I once did)
will leave you further confused as they dont seem to know for sure either.

I have heard it summed up that 'Provided one does not act upon or use
any information gained by listening in' then it is not illegal.>>

Pasir. If you are uncertain why don't you check the official line, which appears in a "sticky" in the ATC forum? Here's what it says:

Anyone who intends to listen to radio transmissions should be aware of the following:

A licence is not required for a radio receiver as long as it is not capable of transmission as well (The Wireless Telegraphy Apparatus (Receivers) (Exemption) Regulations 1989 (SI 1989 No 123). The exception to this is that it is an offence to listen to unlicensed broadcasters (pirates) without a licence. Licences are not issued for this purpose.

Although it is not illegal to sell, buy or own a scanning or other receiver in the UK, it must only be used to listen to transmissions meant for GENERAL RECEPTION. The services that you can listen to include Amateur and Citizens' Band transmissions, licensed broadcast radio, and weather and navigation broadcasts.

It is an offence to listen to any other radio services unless you are authorised by a designated person to do so.

And OFCOM also gave PPRuNe the following direct interpretation of the law (similar to the above).


Quote:
In short you can use a scanner to listen to anything broadcast for general reception, radio amateurs, CB, weather and navigation broadcasts. Unless you are a police officer or work in the emergency services you are not allowed to listen to their communications.

You can only listen to other services if you have the permission of the sender. The air show is a good example where the control tower frequencies are publicised and that would be considered permission. Unquote

In practical terms, you are unlikely to be prosecuted for simply listening in, if discrete and sensible. However, if you pass on information from what you hear, through Bulletin Boards, the press, or by setting up a live feed, then it's entirely feasible to feel Ofcom's hand on your collar and an appointment before the beak.

___________________________________

That page has been somewhat superceded - check the OFCOM site for the latest info, which includes the following:

Question: Am I breaking the law by owning a scanner?
Answer: No, but you should not use one to listen to frequencies other than general reception transmissions.

Question: Can I get a licence to use a scanner?
Answer: No, there is no scanner licence. You do not need one for a scanner.

Question: Could I get authority to listen to emergency service transmissions, for example? I am interested and might be able to help.
Answer: No, authority is reserved for people acting under statutory authority. If you wish to listen in to messages, you should obtain the permission of the person sending them.

Question: Isn't it all right to listen as long as I don't pass on what I hear?
Answer: No, using radio equipment to listen in is an offence, regardless of whether the information is passed on.

Question: Isn't this all a bit heavy?
Answer: No. No-one likes their private or business conversations to be listened to. Parliament has passed these laws to protect the privacy of radio users.

I believe that settles ALL arguments. The last two answers are particularly appropriate.

[simonchowder]

Problem is your dealing with spotters here who seem to think they have god given rights not only to illegally monitor private broadcasts but to block emergency vehicle access points at airports, sneak into secure areas where they can ,and generally make a complete nuisance of themselves where ever they congregate

[JimmyTAP]

You don't half write a load of tripe simonchunder. When was the last YOU saw spotters making a nuisance of themselves? I actually think you need help mate. Step away from the keyboard firstly and stop posting on spotters fora. That will help enormously.

If it is illegal to listen to ATC broadcasts, isn't it illegal monitor to ADS-B, ACARS-D and virtual radars on-line? Aren't they private too?

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

I think simon speaks a great deal of sense. I am a lifelong spotter and I could talk all night about the lunatic behaviour I have seen, both at Heathrow where I worked for many years and many smaller places. It beggars belief what some of these clowns will do for a reggie!! And, YES, at Farnborough I have often seen spotters blocking emergency access gates. If you gave many of them two brains they'd have a pair!!

I am pretty sure that if a serious decision was required on SBS and the various other "radar" boxes they would be deemed illegal. However, as we all know, it's cheaper for the authorities to turn a blind eye!

[DX Wombat]

Heathrow Director and Simon are right. I too have seen crash gates being obstructed, in one case by a member of the armed forces based at that particular airfield.

[JimmyTAP]

I must be in with the wrong crowd as I've seen very little bad behaviour by spotters in general. The odd one or two that go a bit OTT but in general pretty good as any visitor to the AVP at Manchester will testify. I have to say that I can't think of any incident where spotters have caused any danger to aircraft or aircrew. Most are pretty savvy about what is safe and what isn't. Many, like myself, are in the industry anyway so are well aware of what constitutes suitable behaviour.

I think simon speaks a great deal of sense

Now that is funny!

[B314]

I don’t normally get involved in (heated?) debates but I would like to add my tuppence worth, ok £’s worth! I don’t regard myself as a spotter in the sense that I would visit airports to record and photograph a multitude of aircraft. I have taken photos of vintage aircraft at one airshow (Duxford) and if a Super Constellation where to visit one of the South East airports yes I’d like to get a few shots. I’m interested in aviation and the complex nature of air routes, and yes in the radio exchanges between pilots and ATC. I don’t ‘hang around’ airports or airfields, don’t make a nuisance of myself and have enjoyed videos posted on some sites of rare aircraft arriving and departing UK airports filmed by many enthusiasts. I’m middle aged, a family man, believe myself to be responsible, don’t consider myself a numptie, moron, idiot, or that I interfere in the work of others by listening to Airband radio for a particular aircraft transmission and following it on a tracking site, especially when a member of my family is on that flight.

As with anything in life there’ll be those who are very ‘low key’ and cause no interference or insult to anyone else by passively following this hobby and at the opposite end of the scale there’ll be those pursuing their hobby in a manner I wouldn’t wish to be associated with. Likewise there’ll be folk who fail to see the attraction of such a hobby and where there appears to be some degree of ambiguity in Law will quote whichever interpretation they see appropriate in support of their particular view whilst some will adopt a more laissez faire approach to the whole issue.

Ofcom is clear about listening in to ATC transmissions as these are not general reception transmissions, but scanners capable of receiving transmissions outside of that category are available. If they were banned and I for one would be saddened by it, then the practice of ‘eavesdropping’ as it has been referred to might be resolved, unless a black market emerges for the supply of the receivers.

In time a sophisticated encoded transmission system will no doubt be developed where receiving all such transmissions will not be possible outside of the realm of those specifically authorised to hear them. So be it. In the meantime as long as no criminal act is perpetrated or information acted upon and such listening is carried out discretely, despite the annoyance it will cause to some I see no real harm in enjoying listening to aircraft descending to lower flight levels, being instructed to ‘hold at Lambourne’ or contacting Heathrow ‘Callsign only’ etc l will continue to enjoy this occasional hobby in the privacy of my own home or maybe from my car whenever I drop off or collect someone at Stansted. There’ll no doubt be others with a similar approach to listening to airband receivers and I’m sure they’d also object to being regarded as nuisances.

Somewhere in my distant memory I recall being told it was illegal to listen to the Pirate stations back in the 1960’s, therefore no doubt none of us around at the time ever listened to Radio London, Caroline, Britain Radio, Radio City, 270, 390 etc, right?

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

B314. I'm not sure that anyone has suggested that people who listen to the airband are nuisances. However, in the world of aircraft spotting there are some morons just like in many other hobbies. For many years my wife and I were keen twitchers - going after rare birds around the country - and some of the lunatics in that hobby had to be seen to be believed.

Contrary to the beliefs of some, I have no desire to spoil anyone's entertainment but as a user both professionally and in my hobby I have very great respect for radio communications and my aim has always been to ensure that people know the law.

I hope you appreciate that having admitted using the airband, and published what you have heard you have broken the law twice!

Plenty of us listened to pirate stations... and plenty of people break the speed limit or carry illegal arms and are never caught. It doesn't mean they haven't broken the law; they've simply got away with it.

[pasir]

Thanks to HD for updates regarding the legal v illegal dispute of listening in to ATC and associated aviation radio xmissions - all provided without the need to add barbed comments and nit picking - unlike one or two other
responses. My information originally posted was obtained prior to 1980 whereas the more recent info posted has updated and clarified the position.
Thanks to HD.

[B314]

HD, thanks for your reply and before I respond allow me to clarify that I'm not being argumentative on this point (it may appear so from my original post) but merely adding a point of view.

I do accept, as you say that, as the law stands at present, I am breaking it by listening to ATC transmissions. I own a Maycom AR 108 scanner capable of receiving transmissions between 108 and 180 Mhz. This receiver is legally available in this country through a number of outlets.

According to Ofcom: "It is not illegal to sell, buy or own a scanner or any other receiver but it should only be used to listen to transmissions meant for general reception. The services that can be listened to under the definition of general reception are:
licensed broadcasting stations;
amateur and citizens' band radio transmissions; and
weather and navigation transmissions"To my knowledge none of the above broadcast within that range. Therefore as I see it I am at liberty to purchase the unit but really shouldn't switch it on! Perhaps more stringent controls are required to authorise the manufacture in this country and the importation from overseas of such scanners to ensure that only 'legal' sections of the FM band between 30 and 951 MHz are featured in the receivers, and the permitted frequencies available on units to authorised personnel only, no doubt opening a very big can of administrative and procedural worms in the process.

In time a TETRA style ATC system will no doubt come into being if for no other reason than for increased aviation security and as a result of progress. In the meantime it may be easier to argue for a further review of the Ofcom ruling, but that would take years and may be resolved to eveyone's liking. As for me I won't publicise, act on or undertake any actions as a result of listening to what I find extremly interesting and educational, whilst accepting that, yes, I'm technically breaking the law.


B314

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

B314. The rules regarding the marketing of radio equipment in this country are almost non-existent and anyone can purchase a transceiver covering the air band. My amateur radio equipment covers from 100kHz to 450mHz and it would be possible for me to transmit pretty well anywhere in that range. I do not because I obey the law.

Until fairly recently huge numbers of cordless telephones operated illegally and it was great fun listening to all my neighbours talking on the amateur band where they should not have been!

It is also possible to buy cars and motorcycles that will do well over 100mph so why are they on sale in a country where the maximum speed is 70?

[Simtech]

B314,

The 2 metre amateur band falls within the coverage of your receiver: 144 - 146 MHz. And, at the risk of appearing pedantic, there is no such thing as the 30 - 951 MHz FM band; various users have allocations within that block of spectrum and the modes of transmission they are allowed to use include AM, FM, SSB and CW to name but a few.

And yes, I know that SSB is just another flavour of AM...

[Skipness One Echo]

I hope you appreciate that having admitted using the airband, and published what you have heard you have broken the law twice!

Bren as I have posted before, they are breaking a law which has never been enforced in this country in the way that you are making out. It is one of the many laws on the statute books that remain there but are not going to see you before a court unless you break some othetr more serious law. Really.

carry illegal arms and are never caught.
Not QUITE the same thing, honestly.

You never answered my question incidentally. In the period 1945 to the present day, how many spotters have been before the courts on this matter alone? I am going to say ZERO. The world has moved on from "authority knows best", a little bit of transparency in this area is a good thing IMHO.

As for agreeing with Simon Chowder, shame on you.

spotters here who seem to think they have god given rights not only to illegally monitor private broadcasts but to block emergency vehicle access points at airports, sneak into secure areas where they can ,and generally make a complete nuisance of themselves where ever they congregate

You are making a small minority out to be refelective of a decent majority. Simon, given that you are actually KevlarCarl, both Luton Despatchers with a love of gliding, hatred of enthusiasts and BANNED from pprune as such, do tell me again why you hate spotters so that you come into a spotters forum just to spout offensive twaddle?

The PPruNe say quite clearly "No offensive/abusive posts." and yet time and time again you get to spout misrepresentative codswallop under MULTIPLE IDENTITIES. Good grief.

At the least can we ban him from Spotters Balcony because the only reason he posts in here is to break the above PpruNe rule!? Please!

[B314]

HD Interesting point about the phones, I recall hearing some at the 1560Khz end of the AM band years back

Simtech, yes you're right, which would somewhat lessen my point about my scanner! I should have realised there's no FM band as such between 30 and 951 Mhz (and no I don't think you're being pedantic) I incorrectly worded the Ofcom statement which says "Generally, scanners cover the non-broadcast radio bands between 30 and 951 MHz using FM". My mistake, sorry.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Skipness 1E. There is absolutely no need for me to respond to you. The law is as stated. End of story.

Take care.. Bren

[Pugilistic Animus]

well the phrase that I learned here on pprune for the situation is:

The Law is an ASS:}:}:}

[PaperTiger]

I believe that settles ALL arguments.Except for the one that if this is such a heinous activity the various arms of the law might be expected to take strong action to stop it. They haven't, so it seems they don't care, and regard it as a matter of no consequence.

Aircrew and ATCOs who don't know this is going on must be living in a very small world indeed. Get over yourselves and leave the spotters alone.

[simonchowder]

I wonder how many of these spotters who deem themselves above the law would relish the thought of the great unwashed evesdropping on their private conversations/ phone call etc as they went about their daily work .......oh er, well thats different innit ....well actually mr spotter, no it aint

[Malaysian28]

I was looking through the App store for Iphone/Ipod applications and Live ATC have quite an interesting app where you can listen in to various ATC centers and Airports and some of them have nice detailed Airport Diagrams.

Obviously doesn't cover the UK but covers some of the interesting locations such as JFK, Toronto, Hong Kong, Sydney and so on.

Spent a bit of my lunch break yesterday listening into Hong Kong approach.

[pasir]

Having accepted that technically the practice is illegal - Hopefully most would now agree that there is little harm in listening in to ATC and other radio transmissions where such information gleamed is not then used for harmful or illegal purposes etc.

For those who continue to object to 'listening in' the practice does have its
plus side. In 1912 when radio was in its infancy and xmit range limited the sinking Titanic's radio distress call SOS / CQD was picked up in Scotland by an amateur who immediatly contacted the authorities -
although they would prove to be sceptical and slow to react.

[Pistonprop]

:hmm: Poor old HD always gets a bit aroused when this subject comes up. Watch the blood pressure HD ;)

[dhc83driver]

There have been prosecutions in the past. This one from 2001 in Scotland was gone after for using a transceiver but was also prosecuted for using a scanner as well.


Duncan George McRae, of Scorguie Court, Inverness was fined a total of £3,000 at Inverness Sheriff's Court on 17 December for charges relating to illegally listening and transmitting messages to aircraft flying over Scotland.

National Air Traffic Services Ltd first alerted the Radiocommunications Agency (RA) to unauthorised transmissions being made to aircraft in the Hebrides area. RA officers, using sophisticated direction finding equipment, located Mr McRae while he was transmitting on 21 July 2001.

Mr McRae had earlier pleaded guilty to the charges of:

- installing and using an aeronautical transceiver contrary to the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949; and

- using a radio scanning receiver, contrary to the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949.

He was fined £2,500 on the first count and £500 on the second.

David Hendon, Chief Executive of the Radiocommunications Agency said:

"Preserving the integrity of air traffic control communications is essential. This conviction is a tribute to the hard, and demanding, work of RA staff who are committed to keeping the airwaves clean. We work closely with NATS to ensure that we maintain air traffic control radiocommunications that are free from interference."

Roger Whyatt of National Air Traffic Services said:

"This is part of the continuing close co-operation between NATS and the RA to detect sources of interference to aircraft radiotelephone systems and safeguard the safe operation of Air Traffic Services in the UK."


On a personal note, 99% of the time i don`t mind but reading about a minor diversion or problem i had that is then asked about on a bulletin board is wrong. It always get blown up from nothing into the worlds worst incident. I know its human nature to be curious but some conversations are private, I also include ACARS in this.

[JimmyTAP]

If Mr McRae hadn't been prosecuted for transmitting, I doubt if he would have been prosecuted for listening on a scanner.

Ok, so that's one then with somewhat obvious implications. Has anyone been prosecuted solely for listening?

[3rd_ear]

Hello Botters Spalcony,

So there's my old dad, ex Sgt-Nav Blenheims, fall of France, May 1940 and he was not even 19, just about survived that for the freedom of all etc, and would have a word or two to say to some of these prescriptive whippersnappers, was pleased as punch when I gave him my MVT-7100. Anyone tries to take it off him, they'll have to get past me first.

I bought a Uniden Bearcat 3500XLT, needs a better aerial before it matches the MVT for reception, though some of the features are useful. A nice airband scanner, among other bands.

Would I be in breach by saying how much I admire the HD in the hot seat between 06:00 and 06:30? Their sheer skill in bringing in flights on 2 runways _and_ herding them so minimum distances are observed at all times? Bravo! It should be something played back at schools, as an example of people at the top of their game, people to be emulated.

Would it be illegal to describe the clear April morning when the HD offered pilots visual approaches? Or the joy in the pilots' responses? Surely not.

I don't understand the negativity about this at all. It says something about this country, what it has become. Not good.

Anyway, MVT-7100 is still my favourite, but the Uniden isn't bad as a replacement, OP.

[PaperTiger]

I don't understand the negativity about this at all.Don't even bother to try, it can't be rationally explained.

[pasir]

Concurring with a previous corresspondent - Yes it is absolutely gross
impertinance 'eves dropping on their private conversations / phone calls'.

I recall years ago on approach to Jersey - having been passed
landing information the Tower then enquired and recommended a certain hotel and how many nights accom would I like.

Yes it is gross impertinance to realise that this most private and confidential conversation could have been monitored by anoraks all over GB

Signed - Capt. Still-Fuming

[Planemike]

I don't understand the negativity about this at all. It says something about this country, what it has become. Not good.



Couldn't agree more !!! "Live and let live"..... "if it doesn't frighten the horses".....etc

Planemike

[PaperTiger]

I am at a loss to understand how a conversation can be private with 20-odd other crews listening. Semi-private I suppose, but more likely thought to be privileged with all that connotates.

[Skipness One Echo]

Has anyone been prosecuted solely for listening?

No. You have to add interfering with Comms or general misbehaviour to the list. Worry not.

[simonchowder]

Twenty odd crew listning ?..are CC stations fitted with RMP,s/headsets then?:confused:

[Malaysian28]

I have been thinking on this topic over the past week, we are quite fortunate in this country to have this law not policed, in some European countries such as Germany & Austria the sale of Scanners and listening into ATC is against the law and people breaking this law are fined or given prison sentences
(I could find such documents on Spotterwikki: Category:Austria - SpottersWiki (http://www.spotterswiki.com/index.php?title=Category:Austria))

I dont understand HD's point about comparing just LISTENING to ATC is the same as breaking the law about carrying offensive weapons or Speeding.
Both carrying Knives or doing more the 70mph on a public road is against the law but both these can cause serve damage or loss of live, however ONLY LISTENING to most of the time useless information (to spotters that is). I dont see how they are same.

However on the side of Air Traffic Controllers and Pilots I can understand why they would want there transmissions kept private, for example say the USA had stricter rules on the broadcasting on ATC over the internet (LIVE ATC & ATC monitor to name a few) no one would have heard that JFK controller who let his kids on the MIKE and would most likely be still controlling now. Many think it was cute but he was in the wrong and once released online the whole world including the MEDIA found out, and for some air passengers who may hear this, may be rocked to the core (especially if they are nervous flyers) and may be put of flying.

I know I sound over the top.

We may be very interested and curious what happens behind the scenes, but sometimes it can be our downfall and lead to may other problems

I also don't like how some ATC recording of accidents are published over the internet, for example the Continental flight 3407 crash, just think if you where a family or friend of crew member and the last words you ever hear from them are **** has establised localiser RWY 27L that must quite hard and for a controller constantly repeating callsign of lost aircraft can be quite spine chilling for all.

So I see both Arguments
(And now everyone will ridicule me)

[JimmyTAP]

Twenty odd crew listning ?..are CC stations fitted with RMP,s/headsets then?

He means twenty-odd other aircraft may be on the same frequency at any one time. I think you may have just blown your cover. You aren't part of the industry at all.:)

[dhc83driver]

A little bit of thread creep but what do people think of the current trend in adding ATC to You tube videos?, it seams that HD camcorders and a scanner are now replacing still pictures. I`d definitely class this as reproducing content and even broadcasting it!. Having the ATC on the video makes it more interesting but most of the interesting video`s are possibly the ones that should not be recorded!

99% of the time i can`t see a problem with a few spotters listening at the fence to see what`s coming in and maybe get a heads up for a good photo but i`m not so keen on any little thing i say over the radio ending up on Youtube, it could be taken out of context or be a private conversation regarding a technical issue or maybe a question to ATC that is understood by all who should be listening but played to the masses may be taken wrongly and then to be commented on! how would you like to be recorded every day at work and have the choice bits sent out to the masses!

[PaperTiger]

I doubt few would condone the rebroadcast (Youtube or whatever) of ATC recordings or even posting of transcripts. Similarly the mischevious use of transcievers.

On those points only, I'll agree with the finger-waggers. As for simply listening - NBD.

[AndoniP]

9KhZwsYtNDE

This video has had well over 2 million views and it shows just what you're getting at. It's fascinating and I personally find it extremely informative as to the communication between pilots and ATC in an emergency.

[dhc83driver]

AndoniP, that is precisely the sort of thing i`m on about. I`ll agree that in this case it it informative and the crew and ATC did a very professional job. But why should there bad day at work be posted? What if they were suspended for a time while an investigation was performed, Standard procedure in my company for a serious incident, To then have it be posted and have there every word commented on by people with no knowledge as to what happened. Did ATC want everything they did or say open to comment?. That is why i think it should remain private as the law states. The problem is that while listening to a scanner for your own interest is one thing it now grows into listening and filming, then filming and posting whats next? you tube vids of mode S positions over london with ATC added, film of the entire flight with t/o landing and enroute compiled from various sources?.

[L4key]

Yup - I though HD was a bit stuffy about all this but as usual things like this prove his point perfectly.

None of us in our day jobs would relish the thought of being listened in on. I expect most pilots don't mind and would be quite proud of their profession and the fact they are so revered as for people to want to listen in, but start putting it on you-tube is just bang wrong.

You need rules because unfortunately the world is full of morons. People who go too far ruin it for the harmless people who are just listening in.

[cieloitaliano]

My property's boundaries, as far as I am concerned, extend infinitely upwards. If anything 'violates' that space I have THE RIGHT to know who, what, where, and when it's up to....Why should there be a 'snob' value to ATC?

[Groundloop]

My property's boundaries, as far as I am concerned, extend infinitely upwards. If anything 'violates' that space I have THE RIGHT to know who, what, where, and when it's up to....

What an idiot!

[Lamyna Flo]

My property's boundaries, as far as I am concerned, extend infinitely upwards

You mean you think you own the square footage of airspace above your property ad infinitum?

Interesting concept, particularly for land/property owners with thousands of square acres in the larger continents... :rolleyes:

[AndoniP]

But why should there bad day at work be posted? What if they were suspended for a time while an investigation was performed, Standard procedure in my company for a serious incident, To then have it be posted and have there every word commented on by people with no knowledge as to what happened.

Bit of an overreaction there mate. It was just a birdstrike. Take the video for what it is, good flying and good communication between ATC and pilot/s. OK so matey has a camcorder and has a radio. He's obviously a spotter but if anything serious was to be caught on camera I would be prepared to bet an awful lot that it wouldn't appear on youtube first, it would go to the AAIB, and they would very much appreciate the video as well. Spotters are a bit more responsible than you'd think. I can't find any RT on youtube or anywhere else which contains anything that should be kept from the public... A lot of people make much more out of this than really need be.

[Groundloop]

A lot of people make much more out of this than really need be.

And a lot of people will come up with any old argument to try and justify carrying out an illegal act!

[maffie]

Yet if you go into the ATC section of this website there's 15 pages of transcribed ATC/aircraft messages. (the idenitifers are crossed out) but someone is still posting someone elses messages (Pilots and controllers)

Is this do as I say, not do as I do !!!

Matt


It's called ATC Humour

[EGCA]

Navigating carefully back into the controlled airspace of the thread topic, I think the GRE PSR 295 scanner deserves an honourable mention.

Just considering Groundloop's post of 27th May re having his airband radio certified at Glasgow airport, I well remember back in the 1960's having to take my massive Shorrocks portable radio ( half the size of a picnic hamper ) into the tower at Manchester Ringway to have it tested for non-interference on airband, and duly being given a certificate to that effect. The reason at that time for insisting on testing airband Rx's that were being used on the piers at the airport was that some cheapo kits came on the market for what I think were called "super-regenerative" type sets, and they just put out "birdies" everywhere on the VHF airband. That apart though, once you had your certificate, there was no problem with using your receiver openly within the confines of Ringway. Sadly I no longer have the Shorrocks, made in Blackburn if I recall correctly.

Incidentally in days of yore many domestic portable radios did have airband as a frequency band on the analogue dial, indeed I still have for daily use a 1970's/80's "Deccasound" domestic portable which has a dedicated airband, and is true AM, not FM. it stays tuned to my local repater for "London Information", and never needs retuning. Brilliant but arguably obsolete piece of kit!

Overall I dont think we are as well-off for airband Rx's now as we were say 25 years ago.

EGCA

[separation]

Quote:
My property's boundaries, as far as I am concerned, extend infinitely upwards
You mean you think you own the square footage of airspace above your property ad infinitum?

Interesting concept, particularly for land/property owners with thousands of square acres in the larger continents... :rolleyes:

This is true. however air traffic is exempt. I work as a tree surgeon and have known people to be threatened with court action for working on tree overhanging peoples property because they are trespassing in their 'airspace'. I thought yeah right sounds like bull/s ..........but it is true.

Or are you saying there is a limit to the height that you own above your property say 30ft, 300ft or maybe 3000ft what would it be?

[AndoniP]

I'm sure you'll all be thrilled to hear that I bought a bearcat 3500 in end :8

Looking forward to using it. Hopefully my rt will improve as a result :ok: