An issue at Blackpool Tonight

[sarah123]

Hi

Was listening to ATC at Blackpool tonight since I'm staying over here tonight and heard the most bizarre yet funny conversation ive ever heard. Well i thought it was funny anyway.

Helicopter(Jet Ranger judging by background sound) was inbound to BLK from Preston(15miles east) and asked for join into BLK in the usual way. Think the Approach controller was a bit shocked bacause they got into a debate on freq about closing times. The time is 21.10 local. Cutting long story short, controller says we close at 9pm but you are welcome to come in but you will incur extension charges. Heli says how much with a laugh to his voice. Controller says dont know will find out. Ok says heli, controller says £150+VAT and its not what I do(or something along those lines). Heli was shocked and we go into silence. Heli then says are you still open.Controller repeats an earlier statement that yes we are but only by prior arrangement to IFR(or Ryanair) traffic.(sorry sound was bit distorted there). Heli has another chuckle, I would assume that was because they are open yet closed - get it!?! Controller after establishing contact with FR inbound says to heli to contact on another freq where they (shall we say) sorted it. Heli sounded not amused that for a private flight of the cost of landing was so high.

I know a bit about all the regulations/fire cover etc etc etc but the question is it seems a bit pathetic to cause so much hassle over a small helicopter on an inbound into BLK when you consider the FR flight always operates after 9pm. Is it the airport or local council regulations fault to cause this problem ie Why not open officially till 10pm say rather than through prior agreement. Surely FR wont be happy about this extra cost to a flight 7 days a week or is it a case of waivering costs for FR.

Just seemed a bit OTT to me or are they just the wonderful CAA regs we all love that ATC were following ?Anyway just wondered what you guys thought really.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

I don't know the answer, but what I do know is that you have committed an offence under the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1949, as amended!

[sarah123]

Sorry? Was a general question. Was just curious. If that has something to do with listening to airband scanners then surely people listening to them at airports and so on are also commiting an offence? They even take word for word conversations from ATC convo's and put them in aviation mags.

[A I]

Sarah may have been listening on a scanner or as a pilot transiting the area. I suspect that the offence which she may have committed under the 1949 act is discussing information glleaned on a public forum. And by the way I personally do not think that the act needs to be reformed.

A I

[sarah123]

Sorry. Didnt realised such a post would cause me to get banged up for years, was just trying to make converstation, learn and talk to people with the same interests and similar occupations. Would it make any difference to the 'Director' if I told you I had an RT Licence issued by an aviation governing body in the UK(I dont mention the name for fear of breaching the freedom of speech act)?

For the purpose of a simple life I retract my 1st post and under the very title of this website - 'Prrune' my comments can be regarded as a rumour and not an official statement thereby Blackpool Airport for the purpose of this topic and its associated staff which are not mention nor known are merely 'made up' names and bare no relevence to this rumour.

Along with most other posts on this forum.

Happy days - Not.

[Harrier46]

Sad... HD seems to have nothing better to do than berate the many people who listen in on their legally purchased airband scanners. However, avoiding his attempt to hijack the thread I would mention that several airfields technically close but actually remain operational and manned all night for mail and newspaper flights. Bournemouth and Exeter being the obvious ones. And anything landing after the official closure time incurs an extension fee. So Blackpool is hardly unique with this charge.

[2 sheds]

I know that this subject has been debated to death before, but I have some sympathy for Heathrow Director's comment, particularly as Sarah123 might not be aware of the niceties.

Yes, I know that numerous people use airband scanners, but as long as they are not using the information gleaned for any other purpose, they are tolerated as being harmless. However, as soon as that information is utilised or publicised, that is a different matter. I hardly think anyone will get excited about this, Sarah, BUT I would not be too impressed if I were the controller or helicopter pilot concerned at having what is, in effect, my private conversation printed in public. Consider this...if ATC were conducted with telephones and cables, it would be highly illegal to tap into the verbal exchanges. Also, whatever you might do for a living, would you be very impressed if any member of the public were permitted to monitor your every word and action and then publish such information with their own, perhaps ill-informed, comments?

On the specific point you raise, in the case of an extension beyond the normal, published hours of operation, this costs money! - for staff in various departments, electricity, water, toilet cleaning PLUS the airport is in business to make a profit. Are you suggesting that the commercial operator should bear the whole cost of the extension and the helicopter operator contribute nothing? If anyone can afford to / needs to operate a Jet Ranger, I think they can afford a mere 150 quid - or, of course, they could flight plan accurately and check the hours of operation.

[Nobend]

Agree with you Sarah it is pathetic if the place is a closed and open at the same time airport.

Wonder what FR's prior arrangement with Blackpool is? Probably costs them nowt if you consider the fact that it now costs more to land a PA28 than a 737.

[sarah123]

No I wasnt aware or I wouldnt have posted the dam thing in the 1st place. Just didnt seem that far different from other topics raised during the last days weeks and years.

Christ I am and always have been a law abiding person. From a legal point of view my last post(post before this post) will cover my 1st post(topic starter) based on the title of this very website for which we all post(at our peril it seems) so end of story without going into occupations!!!

On a personal note I find it dissapointing that you cant have a conversation without the book being thrown at you. Especially under the title of this website. Think some people need to get a life.

2 Sheds. Understand your point regarding private convo's but at the end of the day if it is not properly enforced(100 spotters a day in prison for doing sod all- what a joke) then they cant complain.

[Jerricho]

Hi Sarah,

No, you're right about it not being too different. And I guess if you read throught the "ATC Humour" thread, some of the stories there aren't dissimilar at all. Unfortunately, what HD has posted is true of the act in the UK. And not having a go, but your post is pretty detailed, even with the time and all. And not trying to be a scaremonger, but if the pilot/controller involved saw this on the site, they would well be in their rights to demand it taken off one way or another, which could be a major headache to the site owner, the very gracious Mr D. Fyne ( )

If you're feeling a little bored, you could do a search of the forums and find all the postings that have transpired regarding the use of scanners, the act and various people's slants regarding "it's illegal but............"

Or if you're really bored, you could have a little trawl though the search function for "Live ATC online" and "real time flight tracking"

All the best.

[mocoman]

Hi Sarah,

firstly as one who inhabits the world of the scanner owner I can sympathise with your annoyance, although I would add that I see no real need for a change in the current legislation and suggest that you read what follows carefully.

As has been said, the STRICT legal position in the UK is clear:

While it is allowed to purchase a scanner it is still illegal to use such a device for listening to transmissions destined for what is deemed restricted broadcast; this includes ATC transmissions.

It is also prohibited to re-broadcast such transmissions (on the internet for example) or propagate, via any medium, specific details of what you may have heard .

However; in actuality the use of scanners to monitor ATC transmissions for the purposes of general interest, hobby or self-education APPEARS to be tolerated for the most part as long as the specific details of the transmissions are not disseminated to the general public domain.

Note that even an off-duty pilot or ATCO is not, by the letter of the law, allowed to listen to such transmissions.

My current understanding is, and I look forward to being corrected if I am wrong, that generic discussion about RT appears to be OK but specific details are to be avoided as far as possible.

I hope that this clears up for you the rather nebulous legal position that surrounds this issue.

It would have been far better if an explanation had been forthcoming from the start rather than just receiving a terse "you have committed an offence...." from the initial responder to your post.



And to address the real point of the thread;

Maybe the airline bung them some cash to bring their flight in after the official closing time?

The amount involved is probably not as much as the one-off cost since it would be a guaranteed and regular revenue for the airfield but I'm guessing that shekels change hands somewhere along the line to allow that flight to land on a regular basis.

Cheers

[Hippy]

... although I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out the shekels are going the other way. This is how FR is said to operate elsewhere, with the airport recouping it's losses via the sale of over-price coffee, airport transfers, etc...

Sarah, welcome to the forums. As I'm sure you've realised, it's better to limit the number of posts that start 'I was listening to my scanner and...'

[flash8]

However; in actuality the use of scanners to monitor ATC transmissions for the purposes of general interest, hobby or self-education APPEARS to be tolerated for the most part as long as the specific details of the transmissions are not disseminated to the general public domain.


For the most part? I'd say for the all part - I am unware of any prosecution ever relating to this issue.

Some people need to chill out I think, no personal identifying details were given in the original post, no slander or anything even contentious.

[rej]

Sorry for being so dull but am I missing a trick here. I am not even going to discuss the use of scanners as it has been done to death here before.

If the airport was open for an IFR (or whatever) inbound then the helicopter was not using an extension for him/her, merely landing at an airfield that was still open. Provided any PPR etc conditiions were met then IMHO the charge of almost 200 quid was outrageous. Surely the normal landing, parking fees etc would suffice- afer all an open airfield is an open airfiels as all the required safety services were in place for the IFR (...) inbound. Now if the IFR was about to shut down and thus the airfield was closing it is another matter but ........ I think business is coming in the way of common sense and the overriding desire to provide a service and help someone out. Whatever happened to the goodness of human nature; and before anyone calls me naive, would it have really hurt to let the rotary land without the extra cost. What goes around comes around.

[Harrier46]

It is normal practice when an extension fee is payable for each extra flight to pay that fee. Reason being if you pay for an extension for your flight you would be rather p**sed off if everybody else then used the facilities for free. Of course the question here is whether RYR actually pay any extension fees.

[jammydonut]

People - if your call journalists people - have been lured into Police stings by acting on fabricated messages

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Thanks mocoman for a rational posting and I am sorry if my initial response seemed off-hand.

There are a number of reasons why I often remind people of the law regarding scanners. Firstly I was a professional user of the radio spectrum for most of my life and am still a "hobby" user so I view radio as an essential and precious commodity which should not be abused - lives depend on it. I don't make the rules but see it as very sensible practice to remind people of the error of their ways if they bust those rules. If Sarah123, or anyone, chooses to purchase radio gear and listens to the air, police or whatever bands that is up to them but they should be aware of the law. Unfortunately, when one purchases this type of equipment the dealer will be more interested in earning his money than warning potential buyers what they can and cannot do. In an ideal world equipment for "restricted" bands should not be available to the public unless the purchaser can prove a legitimate interest.

Whatever any of you think, it is ILLEGAL to listen in to transmissions for which you are not authorised and this subject has been done to death on here a thousand times. It is also ILLEGAL to discuss in public anything you may have heard.

Policing of the radio spectrum in this country is virtually non-existent, which is why irresponsible people can buy air band transceivers and play at being air traffic controllers and pilots. Presumably none of you have experienced the results of such madness? I have and it is incredibly dangerous and terrrifying. I was directing commercial jets into Heathrow one day when someone decided thay could do it better and passed instructions to an aircraft. This resulted in a dangerous loss of separation. There are other controllers and pilots who can tell similar stories.

Don't ask me why the police ignore users of air band radios.... or why airport shops sell them.... I cannot answer that. All I can do is to remind people of the law and implore them to be sensible if they own such equipment.

[Bern Oulli]

rej, just think for a moment. FlyMe Airways has a regular extension of one hour to the promulgated hours at an aerodrome. For this the airline pays a fee. The aerodrome, after the official closing time, is open for that ONE flight, and staffed accordingly. Are you suggesting that any other aircraft can use that hour for free? Taking that arguement to its logical conclusion, presumably any number of other aircraft can use that hour "for free". Why on earth should that be? FlyMe Airways has paid for the privilege - why should their operation subsidise other people's operations after hours.

There may be many reasons why an airport officially closes at a certain time but is open thereafter for particular flights. Additional movements may contravene some local restrictions on flying after a certain time. Therefore the airport is officially closed (even though it is open for one aeroplane) and the authorities are able to say "No", or "OK but it will cost you".

flash8, for info there have been prosecutions, albeit rare. I am racking my brain cell for the details. The penalties are quite severe but the authorities only go for you if, as has been said, you blab what you heard to the press or "media". It also probably has to have some real public interest as in what was said on the R/T during an incident/accident. I don't think Sarah's revelations come into the "real public interest" category. Nonetheless, HD is quite correct and Sarah could (and should) have made her question a little more anonymous as regards times and places. Have a look at the OFCOM site for further info.

While labouriously typing this I see HD has beaten me to it. It may interest you to know that advertisements for scanners that encourage you to listen to "restricted" frequencies are themselves breaking the law and could be prosecuted for "inciting the reader (of the advert) to commit an illigal act".

[Dee Mac]

Sarah, this situation arises at a lot of smaller airfields with restricted opening hours, the ATC (& fire cover?) closes and the aircraft may land under an insurance indemnity. What this means is that the airport is not responsible for anything that happens if the pilot elects to land without ATC or fire cover. The situation you describe is slightly different in that a charge was mentioned over the air, I've never had to do that but I do recall cartoons around the time of NATS privatisation about controllers taking credit card details for a straight-in approach..... Mmmmm.

On the scanner thing, some bods get a bit upset and over the top about it, citing the law etc. Who cares? I don't in fact the idea of someone actually listening to my RT sounds good

[rej]

Point taken Bern Oulli

Maybe I have spent too long in the military where if the airfield is open, and extensions having been granted beyond the normal operating hours for say, one ac, I would be willing to allow other ac to use the airfield for approaches (subject to controller manning) or landings. I obviously have not got the killer business instinct in me, stupid old me for trying to provide a service for someone.