Legalities of ATC listening in the UK
Alba Gu Brath
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Merseyside
Age: 55
Posts: 738
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to take this question to a slightly pedantic level. What is to stop an individual buying a C150, parking it (and paying the necessaries) on the GA apron at A.N.Other airport and sitting in that all day listening to ATC?
Seems to me an unenforcable law that needs serious review.
Seems to me an unenforcable law that needs serious review.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Hey! Look, I never said I thought it was good law - simply that I don't think it is often enforced.
In reality, even if there was a will to enforce it, the people who sit at the airport fence are the easy ones to nab - it's the ones who choose to listen at home or whatever that make it pretty much impossible to enforce.
If you want to start a campaign to repeal all poor law you'll get my support but I can't help thinking there are better things to focus effort on!
In reality, even if there was a will to enforce it, the people who sit at the airport fence are the easy ones to nab - it's the ones who choose to listen at home or whatever that make it pretty much impossible to enforce.
If you want to start a campaign to repeal all poor law you'll get my support but I can't help thinking there are better things to focus effort on!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: London
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks
Thanks everyone for your replies.
It looks like we wont have any of these live internet ATC feeds in the UK in that case.
It's pretty annoying, as the sites in the USA, particularly the JFK one, are so popular. Would have loved to set one up in the UK.
I'm going to sulk now....
P.S. One line in RA169 says that you may listen if you have permission ... does that mean, if I ask the CAA, only receive specific frequencies (no company specific or ACARS) and get their OK in writing, it's not a problem? From my dealings with them, I see they are a seriously conservative organisation who are unlikely to say yes. Besides, it's very easy to say 'no'.
It looks like we wont have any of these live internet ATC feeds in the UK in that case.
It's pretty annoying, as the sites in the USA, particularly the JFK one, are so popular. Would have loved to set one up in the UK.
I'm going to sulk now....
P.S. One line in RA169 says that you may listen if you have permission ... does that mean, if I ask the CAA, only receive specific frequencies (no company specific or ACARS) and get their OK in writing, it's not a problem? From my dealings with them, I see they are a seriously conservative organisation who are unlikely to say yes. Besides, it's very easy to say 'no'.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: An island in the ocean
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ALEXA,
Wouldn't charging them with a breach of a lesser offence allow them more time to gain evidence for a prosecution on the more serious charges? Or, are there indefinite detention periods associated with charges of Terrorism?
Wouldn't charging them with a breach of a lesser offence allow them more time to gain evidence for a prosecution on the more serious charges? Or, are there indefinite detention periods associated with charges of Terrorism?
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crossfire,
I know someone who did just that, and the reply went along these lines:
The only way of listening to the airband legally is to be licenced, and we will only licence you if you are able to, and entitled to, both receive and transmit on that band.
I know someone who did just that, and the reply went along these lines:
The only way of listening to the airband legally is to be licenced, and we will only licence you if you are able to, and entitled to, both receive and transmit on that band.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: London
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SMB
The powers of detention for questioning under the UK Terrorism legislation are the widest that the UK authorities have. Subject to certain safeguards, the police can detain for a significant period. Let me know if you want details!
The two sections of the Terrorism Act I mentioned to in my earlier post deal with possession of articles and the gathering of information (for terrorism purposes) and each carries a 10 year maximum prison sentence.
By way of contrast, the Wireless Telegraphy Act offences are really very minor in criminal law terms. The main offence regarding scanners is using WT equipment without authorisation. That carries no prison sentence. The maximum fine is "Scale 5" (£5,000 last time I looked) and there is a power to order forfeiture of the kit. The authorities also have powers of entry, search and seizure, for which they require a warrant.
The Wireless Telegraphy Act does not even give the authorities a power of arrest without warrant here, so anyone caught using a scanner would normally be dealt with by summons, not by being hauled off to the nick for questioning.
Hope that helps.
The powers of detention for questioning under the UK Terrorism legislation are the widest that the UK authorities have. Subject to certain safeguards, the police can detain for a significant period. Let me know if you want details!
The two sections of the Terrorism Act I mentioned to in my earlier post deal with possession of articles and the gathering of information (for terrorism purposes) and each carries a 10 year maximum prison sentence.
By way of contrast, the Wireless Telegraphy Act offences are really very minor in criminal law terms. The main offence regarding scanners is using WT equipment without authorisation. That carries no prison sentence. The maximum fine is "Scale 5" (£5,000 last time I looked) and there is a power to order forfeiture of the kit. The authorities also have powers of entry, search and seizure, for which they require a warrant.
The Wireless Telegraphy Act does not even give the authorities a power of arrest without warrant here, so anyone caught using a scanner would normally be dealt with by summons, not by being hauled off to the nick for questioning.
Hope that helps.
Going back 30 years or more (!!!!!) I can remember that if one wanted to listen in on an aircraft band radio at Manchester Airport , or Ringway as it was then known as , one had to take the radio to an office somewhere under the tower to have it checked . If it didn't interfere then it was ok. Those were the days , dunno what it's like now .
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Scotland
Posts: 269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How come then it was ok on concorde's final flight to hear live ATC on Sky TV, did they need permission or what??
And also the audio files of the final flight are available for download across the www so.....
Personally l think its a very flawed rule and if someone wants to commit an act of terrorism they are going to do it whatever.
And also the audio files of the final flight are available for download across the www so.....
Personally l think its a very flawed rule and if someone wants to commit an act of terrorism they are going to do it whatever.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: London
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
deeko
You are absolutely right. There is no obvious harm in using a scanner for anorak purposes - so long as it doesn't interfere in any way with legitimate transmission and reception. (And there is a separate offence of causing interference, by the way!)
The 1949 law is nothing to do with the prevention of terrorism. It is just one illustration of how the British system works. The state has a tendency to restrict the activities of its citizens for trifling reasons. Often, I think, because the state believes that it knows best and that we can't be trusted to use our freedoms properly.
And once an activity is made criminal, it is very rare for the state to decriminalise it. I can think of three examples in the last 35 years.
So don't hold your breath.
Alexa
You are absolutely right. There is no obvious harm in using a scanner for anorak purposes - so long as it doesn't interfere in any way with legitimate transmission and reception. (And there is a separate offence of causing interference, by the way!)
The 1949 law is nothing to do with the prevention of terrorism. It is just one illustration of how the British system works. The state has a tendency to restrict the activities of its citizens for trifling reasons. Often, I think, because the state believes that it knows best and that we can't be trusted to use our freedoms properly.
And once an activity is made criminal, it is very rare for the state to decriminalise it. I can think of three examples in the last 35 years.
So don't hold your breath.
Alexa
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alexa is right, very rare for offences to be just wiped from the statute books without being replaced.
Using an airband radio isn't enforced much like a huge number of offences because a constable has discretion. Thats why you don''t always get slammed in the book when stopped by Police for a traffic offence (unless of course its traffic that stop you....). The peception most people seem to have here that listening to airband transmissions does no harm is correct, so why waste time, paper and tax payers dosh dragging Mr Cosmos Smallpiece off before the beaks.
Using an airband radio isn't enforced much like a huge number of offences because a constable has discretion. Thats why you don''t always get slammed in the book when stopped by Police for a traffic offence (unless of course its traffic that stop you....). The peception most people seem to have here that listening to airband transmissions does no harm is correct, so why waste time, paper and tax payers dosh dragging Mr Cosmos Smallpiece off before the beaks.
Official PPRuNe Chaplain
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Witnesham, Suffolk
Age: 80
Posts: 3,498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My amateur radio licence (issued under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949) allows me to receive and transmit on a wide range of frequencies, and to receive on a load more (the "Schedule")..
It used to have a paragraph something like "May not listen on frequencies not listed in the Schedule; should transmissions on such frequencies be overheard, they may not be recorded and details must not be passed to persons not authorised to receive them; should they be recorded, the recordings must not be made available to..."
Always baffled me - effectively, "you mustn't, but if you do, you mustn't talk about it."
Then they took back the old licence and gave me a new one with many pages of terms and conditions, and it's too impenetrable to know what is/is not allowed.
Clearly a) it's not permitted to listen to ATC except when flying or ATCing; b) nobody much cares if you do, but don't talk about it.
It used to have a paragraph something like "May not listen on frequencies not listed in the Schedule; should transmissions on such frequencies be overheard, they may not be recorded and details must not be passed to persons not authorised to receive them; should they be recorded, the recordings must not be made available to..."
Always baffled me - effectively, "you mustn't, but if you do, you mustn't talk about it."
Then they took back the old licence and gave me a new one with many pages of terms and conditions, and it's too impenetrable to know what is/is not allowed.
Clearly a) it's not permitted to listen to ATC except when flying or ATCing; b) nobody much cares if you do, but don't talk about it.
