Airport Handling frequency
 

Hello,

I've been wondering for quite a while what the handling frequency is about - for example, at the charts for ESSA, it might say: Arlanda Handling: 131.450? At what point would pilots have to call that frequency, and what are they actually handling? Since, the normal ground operations are communicated via the interphone between the flightdeck and the ground personell, I don't really see why there's a frequency that is called handling at most airports.

Thanks in advance.

It's for ordering the honeywagon to attend the aircraft when it's parked.(plus any other important things like wheelchair assistance for a passenger, catering needs, maintenence etc)

<<I don't really see why there's a frequency that is called handling at most airports. >

So that the crew can contact their agents while airborne. I don't know the situation nowadays but in the past many large airlines had their own frequencies, e.g Bealine Ops, Speedbird Ops, etc.

Still do, HD.

To get an idea of what is said on Company channels try liveatc.net.

Airport Detail: KJFK | LiveATC.net

Click on KJFK Company Channels.

It can be very interesting at times.

(Listening to ATC in the US and I presume to US ATC via the internet in this country is legal.)

(I've just edited the line above to make it clear that I am referring to listening to overseas ATC transmissions on the net. I do believe that LiveATC.net says that it cannot carry transmissions from UK airports due to local laws.)

Listening to ATC in the UK is illegal.

We call the handling company about 20-30 minutes prior to arrival. We advise them of our expected arrival time, how many passengers we have, whether we have any passengers that require assistance, and to order things like toilet service and fuel trucks. They can also advise us if our gate sobthat we can plan our possible taxi route and brief this.

Despite H D's post No 6,have done and still do.I have often wondered if the rather cryptic messages"2Sierras" or "3Romeos," refer to possibly Ambi lift passengers,and others who are "semi"mobile.Any knowledge gratefully accepted.

They are short for WCHR, WCHS etc:

WCHR: Passenger who can walk up and down stairs and move about in an aircraft cabin, but requires a wheelchair or other means for movements between the aircraft and the terminal, in the terminal and between arrival and departure points on the city side of the terminal.

WCHS: Passenger who cannot walk up or down stairs, but who can move about in an aircraft cabin and requires a wheelchair to move between the aircraft, in the terminal and between arrival and departure points on the city side of the terminal.

WCHP: Passenger with a disability of the lower limbs who has sufficient personal autonomy to take care of him/herself but who requires assistance to embark or disembark and who can move about in an aircraft cabin only with the help of an onboard wheelchair.

WCHC: Passenger who is completely immobile who can move about only with the help of a wheelchair or any other means and who requires assistance at all times from arrival at the airport to seating in the aircraft, or if necessary, in a special seat fitted to his/her specific needs the process being inverted at arrival.

G-MILF Thanks.

I understand that this is the general caise, but that the prohibition may be waived in some locations and some cicumstances.

Many years ago there was a notice at the bottom of a stair outside the eastern end of the then only terminal at Manchester inviting members of the public to come up and get theit airband receivers checked for non-interference with ATC communications. This implies that there was then a general grant of permission to listen to ATC at Manchester. Has this permission ever been revoked?

Dairyground, HD is of course technically correct but he is becoming a little repetitive about it. The reality of course is that scanners have been used frequently by enthusiasts since I was a little kid and I have NEVER observed the law being enforced by either the police or anyone else. However, in these modern times, unless spotters/enthusiasts refrain from the urge of immediately posting on social media what they hear, this could well change in the future!

Pilots of some well known airlines can often be heard practicing their calls to their handling agents on 121.5.

It's also tolerated as any Police conversation in three decades of doing so has proven. :)
Scanners are happily sold at airshows, some of the older generation just don't accept it's a harmless and enjoyable past time enjoyed by many. Indeed there's a lot of UK published books on the subject matter, but as Bren says, illegal in the UK #secretsquirrel

With fr24 now being a thing, I can't see HMG getting upset and cracking down, we have more pressing issues of state methinks.

I thought it was ok to listen but illegal to act or pass on any info received !

I think Dockwell needs to acquaint himsself with the law!

Lots of people argue that it's "OK" because little is done about it..... same as those lunatics who break the law by driving along my road (40mph limit) at breakneck speed. Just because people do it is no reason for others to copy them. The law is the law!

Oh for goodness sake HD do give it a rest! Driving above a 40mph speed limit is an entirely different story.

The law used to say it is OK to listen to, among other things, licensed broadcast radio and weather and navigation broadcasts. (found in this forum from 2003!). A search of the Ofcom site, which has taken over from the old agencies such as the GPO, shows nothing in this regard.
However, the question is "Does ATC traffic come under navigation broadcasts"? Clearly, instructions given to an aircraft by ATC must be considered "navigation" traffic. On the other hand, after 50 odd years in radio, I personally would consider it not to be a "broadcast" but a private system. After all, the users (airlines) are surely paying for these services, via airport use/navigation fees etc?
It seems to be a "law" that could keep a squadron of barristers in expensive and lucrative battles for years!

HT It is NOT a different story! I know that some of my ex-colleagues in ATC did not like the idea of people eavesdropping on them at work. Police transmissions are encrypted so Joe Soap cannot listen in. Pity that can't happen on the various air bands.....

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)