HD, it never bothered me that people were " eavesdropping". If it had done, I suppose that you could have accused me of hypocracy - since I spent several of my formative years "eavesdropping" on ATC as a spotter (initially VHF , & then HF - which became a passion). In fact, it was what encouraged me to become an ATCO in the first place ! I can see that there is the potential to misuse the technology but, overall, I have never seen any actual harm in it; & nowadays sites such as Flightradar 24 seem to have the potential for being used much more for the pursuit of various nefarious activities.

HD what's your beef with this? You pop up like an old fusspot everytime this comes up reminding us of our criminality yet it's perfectly legal in many other countries. What drives you to believe the Police should be cracking down on this.

Btw if the "law was the law" there would be no need for a public interest test for any prosecution.

The world has moved on from grammar school chaps in tweed and blazers getting the nod et al. Fr24 as Kcockayne rightly says is way more interesting if you were so minded. Try Century 21! You might like it :)

Having read the ofcom document it's particularly vague when it comes to listening to ATC. As mentioned by KelvinD it is fair to consider ATC as "navigation traffic". The law appears more focused in regard to listening to police and other such radio TX. ATC is a navigation based service. Now, arguably, listening in on company frequencies could be considered "private". Basically, it's all as clear as muck!

I don't think it's vague at all.

If you use a scanner to obtain information contained in a message of which you are not the intended recipient, it's an offence under the WTA.

It's a fair cop, guv.

For me it comes down to the interpretation of navigation transmissions. ;)

I guess it means you won't be prosecuted for tuning into your local VOR. :O

HD: Unless things have changed (and I know they haven't yet), police transmissions in the UK were never encrypted. Northern Ireland was an exception for obvious reasons. Many police, ambulance and airport authorities used MPT1327 trunked systems. I know Heathrow used, and may still use, MPT1327.
Met Police moved to Motorola's Smartzone trunked system in the mid 1990s, moving again to the Tetra system about 15 years later. In each case, they relied on the various systems using "channel hopping" to make life difficult for the bad boys wanting to eavesdrop. The Tetra system made things a stage more difficult for the eavesdroppers by going to digital transmissions.
Encryption was always available as an option but was taken up only on a very restricted basis as it involved more money. Many other police systems around the world did go for encryption but they were generally governments with loads of money. I know this because it is "what I did" for 20 odd years.
Dave: Thanks for the link. My searches of the Ofcom site didn't turn up this one but I failed to search for 'scanners' and perhaps that was the reason. I think it just reinforces the "clear as mud" feeling. Tuning in to a VOR? What a lot of noise they make!

Large ATC unit I worked for operated under the title of International Organisation for the Security of Air Navigation. As I say, all down to interpretation! :O

Haven't a clue what MPT 1327 is/was but I can recall police in Bucks using a 'duplex' VHF system whereby the 'station' transmitted on one frequency and vehlcles replied on another with 'beeps' being transmitted on the station frequency to tell everyone else to belt up.

And the CPS would take one look and prosecute? Ever? How many Policeman pass the stands selling air band scanners at air shows? I have lost count of the occasions I have chatted with Police with a scanner earpiece in. They don't care and rightly so.

But to be clear, all technically illegal. With no prosecutions ever or likely in any reasonable scenario. Much of the criminal law can pass into disuse or only be used in quite exceptional circumstances.

No, not if you are listening to transmissions of one of the listed exceptions. Additionally my point is that ATC communications relate to air navigation, thus navigation. Communications relating to navigation may be listened to! It would certainly make an interesting court case if it ever came to that. :)

As ex ATC I will defend the right for the public to listen in on ATC communications. However, I do vehemently disagree that what is heard be recorded and used on social media, or even worse sold to any national or international news agencies.

Ignorance of the law, be it real or feigned, has never been a valid defense. Neither has deliberate misunderstanding, so cut the bull, HT.

It's my interpretation of the law One Outsider. I stick by it. You don't have to like it. So cut the insults One Outsider!

Harry Frankfurt wrote a paper about it in 1986.

LOL! You're entitled to your opinion One Outsider :p

Yes, that's a reasonable summing up of the current situation.

But in the highly unlikely event of a prosecution under the WTA, the "navigation transmissions" defence in respect of ATC traffic wouldn't carry any weight as the Act itself makes no distinction between receiving those and any other transmissions not intended for the recipient.

chevron: The system you are referring to was the bog standard half-duplex system that was pretty much universal until the advent of trunked radio systems and MPT1327 was an early version of this.

Whether it is legal or not, it is largely unenforceable.

Having been on the other end of ATC transmissions for many years, now working as a private operator I'm more concerned about FR24 giving out information to all and sundry, such as where we departed, where we are going to, present position, altitude and speed. Not to mention G-INFO giving out the owner's details, name and address!

Yup, sounds fair to me ( ex-spotter)