ATC Radio Scanners and all that
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Age: 48
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is not a sweeping statement as I very clearly state that I hope SOME individuals are not reflective of the whole.
The individuals in question were unreasonably offensive to what appears to be a reasonable request. I could quote, but I don't particularly want to "name names" nor do I think it is necessary to point them out as it is bloody obvious!
If listening in is so horrendously bad, then make it illegal to buy the means to do so and ban everyone who asks about it here.
Wouldn't we then have a happier world?
I should point out I did not intend to cause offence.
The individuals in question were unreasonably offensive to what appears to be a reasonable request. I could quote, but I don't particularly want to "name names" nor do I think it is necessary to point them out as it is bloody obvious!
If listening in is so horrendously bad, then make it illegal to buy the means to do so and ban everyone who asks about it here.
Wouldn't we then have a happier world?
I should point out I did not intend to cause offence.
Last edited by eal401; 15th Nov 2004 at 11:03.
Ohcirrej
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: This is the internet FFS.........
Posts: 2,921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If listening in is so horrendously bad, then make it illegal to buy the means to do so and ban everyone who asks about it here.
Personally, I have not the slightest problem with spotters/enthusiats using a scanner. What get's under some people skins is the whole fact that some of the things that can and will be heard ARE sensitive, or can quite easily be taken out of context. I believe the law states that what is heard shall not be recorded or repeated to anyone. Yet, some of the questions that pop up here just shouldn't be asked, and they stem purely from from something heard over a scanner. That thread I linked above is a prime example. Also the whole "Oh, I heard/saw a go-around at where ever" has been thrashed to death many times. Ever read the next day in a newspaper an event you were involved in, with information that could only have been gained from a scanner in there, that was written about a totally standard procedure, IE a go-around. I have.
I guess the crux of the matter is what's being done with what's being heard. Like this very medium, perception of what is actually being presented can vary from individual, and misunderstandings can occur. Someone who rips on here after hearing an operator declaring a TCAS RA and starts asking quesions is going to be met with a little opposition.
And don't for one minute think I am sitting here with a holier than thou, superiority complex. I'm happy to sit and talk about aviation all day. I love answering questions, as well as asking them. I've still got a lot to learn, and you only really learn by asking questions...........intelligent ones.
Last edited by Jerricho; 15th Nov 2004 at 14:51.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ATC receiver
I was wondering if anyone could advise me on a good atc receiver. I am an enthusiast and travel as well, i would like something that would enable me to pick up atc at heathrow and also if possible when travelling, the flight deck. Is it permissable to listen to the exchange between atc and the flight deck during travel?
thanks
thanks
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't think it advises on equipment models, but the legalities, etc, are all covered here :
Listening to LHR ATC
Listening to LHR ATC
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This question has been oft covered on here! The basic fact is that it is illegal to monitor such transmisions. I'm not denying that the equipment is available for purchase but it is as well to know where you stand in law.
Using radio sets on board aircraft is subject to the regulations of the particular airline. Some airlines have live R/T on one of the audio channels on the passenger seats.
Using radio sets on board aircraft is subject to the regulations of the particular airline. Some airlines have live R/T on one of the audio channels on the passenger seats.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
jguruz - in the absence of recs from users here, type 'atc scanner' into Google and you will find an online forum where the merits of various types are discussed.
I'm Just A Lawnmower
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Over the hills and faraway
Age: 62
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First bit of advice is not to get a cheap one - there are a number on the market for around twenty quid. Unfortunately, these simply expand the FM band upto 136 Mhz. Whilst this covers the correct part of the VHF spectrum, airband transmissions are in AM and your tranny will not be sensitive enough to distinguish between frequencies. I had one once that could listen to Prestwick tower (118.15) and approach (120.55) simply by tuning in to a frequency half way between them.
I've now got a proper AM hand held scanner which does the trick quite nicely (Maycom is the make). I think they range from about £60 upwards.
I've now got a proper AM hand held scanner which does the trick quite nicely (Maycom is the make). I think they range from about £60 upwards.
I'm Just A Lawnmower
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Over the hills and faraway
Age: 62
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually, I'm listening now to my Watch as I'm on leave. 124.82 is a good frequency as it is transmitted from just up the road so the Galloway controller is loud and clear. It's amazing how different they sound on the RT compared with chit chat in the canteen 
What about Ireland?
As I recall, it all goes back to the bits in the Radio Regulations that Administrations are required to preserve the secrecy of radio traffic, or words to that effect. The Radio Regulations are international law, and are signed up to by governments like any other international treaty. The requirements date back to when personal telegrams and so on were sent in plain language by morse: these days, it's a convenient weapon for the enforcement agency to have available.
'If any message, the reception of which is not authorised is received, the contents of the message or its existance shall only be revealed to a duly authorised person or a competent legal tribunal'.
As to why not digital, there's a number of reasons. One is the installed base. Another is that digital is either there or its not - but analogue can have a lot of degradation and still manage to get the message over. Similarly, aircraft VHF is AM, not FM, because with FM the weaker signal is suppressed: on AM at least you know its there, and there's a better chance of realising it. Which, I understand, was the original reason for choosing AM for aircraft VHF fighter control in 1939, although it wasn't widely available until about 1941/2. Incidentally, the fact the band is 108 to 136MHz stems from that band having been used originally. After WW2, there were a lot of surplus 4 channel VHF radios available (the American SCR522), and they got fitted in civil aircraft for a while until purpose built equipments with more channels became available. Having said all that, there are moves afoot to bring in digital voice for aircraft control: how it will perform in practice when there's a lot of people trying to talk at once will be interesting. I can see nobody getting through at all, instead of one or two making it.
Still, in modern radio engineering, it's like the quote from Animal Farm, - 'Analogue bad, digital good'.
'If any message, the reception of which is not authorised is received, the contents of the message or its existance shall only be revealed to a duly authorised person or a competent legal tribunal'.
As to why not digital, there's a number of reasons. One is the installed base. Another is that digital is either there or its not - but analogue can have a lot of degradation and still manage to get the message over. Similarly, aircraft VHF is AM, not FM, because with FM the weaker signal is suppressed: on AM at least you know its there, and there's a better chance of realising it. Which, I understand, was the original reason for choosing AM for aircraft VHF fighter control in 1939, although it wasn't widely available until about 1941/2. Incidentally, the fact the band is 108 to 136MHz stems from that band having been used originally. After WW2, there were a lot of surplus 4 channel VHF radios available (the American SCR522), and they got fitted in civil aircraft for a while until purpose built equipments with more channels became available. Having said all that, there are moves afoot to bring in digital voice for aircraft control: how it will perform in practice when there's a lot of people trying to talk at once will be interesting. I can see nobody getting through at all, instead of one or two making it.
Still, in modern radio engineering, it's like the quote from Animal Farm, - 'Analogue bad, digital good'.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: London, UK
Posts: 437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If listening in is so horrendously bad, then make it illegal to buy the means to do so and ban everyone who asks about it here.
not sure of the relevance, but there was a scheme mooted several years ago, which was to allow subscribers to follow real time radar traces on their pc, via the internet. I seem to remember that it was aimed at commercial companies interested in tracking flights, and enthusiasts.
Think 9/11 stopped its development.
Think 9/11 stopped its development.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: He's on the limb to nowhere
Posts: 1,981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
gingernut,
An example of this service is here. There was also a free US service which gave information on UK flights which were sent to the FAA in real time. I understand the UK authorities shut that down, probably because they were not getting paid for it rather than any fallacious but oft quoted security reasons. I think it all boils down to a different approach to freedom of information in different countries.
An example of this service is here. There was also a free US service which gave information on UK flights which were sent to the FAA in real time. I understand the UK authorities shut that down, probably because they were not getting paid for it rather than any fallacious but oft quoted security reasons. I think it all boils down to a different approach to freedom of information in different countries.
thanks for the link, its taking ages to download, so I'll try it later at home.
I have been known to listen to aircraft on my radio, at the same time as watching the arrivals board on Teletext.
Should I get out a bit more, or do you think that I may need help of a professional nature?
I have been known to listen to aircraft on my radio, at the same time as watching the arrivals board on Teletext.
Should I get out a bit more, or do you think that I may need help of a professional nature?
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: EGBG & LPPR
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Legal issues aside, domestic and international, it appears that to an extent it has found its way onto the net.
www.liveatc.net
Mainly US and South American. No UK airports figure although you can follow activities at Cork should you wish....
Mmmmm....
Apologies if this is old info
www.liveatc.net
Mainly US and South American. No UK airports figure although you can follow activities at Cork should you wish....
Mmmmm....
Apologies if this is old info
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i have a Maycom AR-108 scanner. The transmissions are crystal clear, it picks up the entire aviation band, and most importantly it sells for a really good price.
If listening to aviation scanners is illegal, it's one of the most relaxed laws i've ever heard of!
If listening to aviation scanners is illegal, it's one of the most relaxed laws i've ever heard of!
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: The Burrow, N53:48:02 W1:48:57, The Tin Tent - EGBS, EGBO
Posts: 2,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RTFM, surely one solution to your problem would be that radios capable of reception on these frequencies could only be purchased on production of a valid licence? If you then held a relevant CAA Licence you would have no problem. I have a Radio Amateur Licence and would love to see this apply to my hobby too. As it stands anybody can puchase a transceiver capable of being used on the Amateur bands without having to provide proof of holding a licence. M3WOM (aka DX W)