Airports recording CTAF transmissions

B

brafter

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Jun 5, 2013
Messages
19
Display Name
Display name:
brafter
With little fanfare, a newly developed "black box" device has been installed at a number of small airports in Maine to record CTAF transmissions. The system was developed following a recent accident at KRKD in which a departing aircraft struck a ground vehicle and subsequently crashed, killing all three aboard (the NTSB has yet to issue a final report).

I'm curious what pilots here think about smaller airports recording radio traffic and, for that matter, video of aircraft operations for this purpose.

Related article:
http://www.kjonline.com/news/Device-aids-safety-at-smaller-airports.html?pagenum=1
 
...or let me rephrase that...I always operate with assumption that someone is recording!
 
The great thing is, now they will have a complete record of everybody operating at the airport, in case they decide to start charging user fees for the use of the airports!!
 
These folks do understand that radio transmissions are not required? And that some planes don't have electrical systems?
 
What's the big deal ? With NSA recording everything from Honeymoon boudoir conversations to HOT housewife cell traffic with their drop-in boyfriends, It hardly seems noteworthy that a more than idle single runway airport manager imagines himself as the highlight of a News network TV spot. Maybe if he was monitoring truck traffic on the active ?
 
EdLarkin said:
These folks do understand that radio transmissions are not required? And that some planes don't have electrical systems?
Click to expand...

I suspect they do understand that, but presumably in an accident investigation, etc., some information is better than no information. The airwaves are public; I've never been under the impression that transmissions on any frequency were somehow immune from cropping back up.

Along the same lines, my first flight instructor always identified himself on CTAF frequencies as "little yellow grumman" in place of a tail number. He figured it was more useful to the average see-and-avoid pilot than a tail number, and he wasn't on a CTAF frequency to talk with anybody who would care about his tail number.
 
SCCutler said:
The great thing is, now they will have a complete record of everybody operating at the airport, in case they decide to start charging user fees for the use of the airports!!
Click to expand...

Don't use your tail number then. It's pretty useless anyway (though recommended by the AIM). I think using aircraft color is more helpful....ie" Clow traffic, yellow cub turning left base.."
 
Turningfinal said:
Don't use your tail number then. It's pretty useless anyway (though recommended by the AIM). I think using aircraft color is more helpful....ie" Clow traffic, yellow cub turning left base.."
Click to expand...

Huh, that's not a bad idea, I might start doing that.
 
What would be the objection to recording audio and video? Flying isn't a private dance that happens behind closed doors. It's a public activity that's conducted in cooperation with strangers.

I'm no lawyer, but I think there is a long-established understanding that there is no expectation of privacy when one is out and about in public. Anyone can take your picture on the beach. Anyone can record your cheers in the stands at a football game. Stores routinely record shoppers via CCTV.

Say there were an incident, and a planespotter with a handheld transceiver happened to catch audio or video that could help investigators determine what happened? Would there be a good reason not to provide those tapes to investigators?

Why would there be an objection to having recordings that could help establish the truth of what happened?
 
With amatures having local radios hooked up to their computers streaming to liveatc, always figured it was more or less a public transmission, never use my full callsign anyways.

The trend to record and story EVERYTHING is expensive, intrusive and well annoying IMHO
 
I wrote up a proposal to design a system like theirs 5 years ago. Record CTAF, record AWOS, reclaim the silence space, add some sort of time code track, be able to access it through a local wireless http interface. It would have been a fun and interesting project except for the hostility I got when I described it to pilots and the one FAA guy. I also learned about airport improvement funding and how difficult it would be to get airports to spend money on it.

So good luck to them, I believe they will need it.
 
Turningfinal said:
Don't use your tail number then. It's pretty useless anyway (though recommended by the AIM). I think using aircraft color is more helpful....ie" Clow traffic, yellow cub turning left base.."
Click to expand...
I personally prefer a number or two of the tail number. It's more unique. I've actually heard three people in one pattern once just referring to themselves as Cessna. If you couldn't sort out the differences in their voices you'd have no clue who was who. Rather annoying.
 
SCCutler said:
The great thing is, now they will have a complete record of everybody operating at the airport, in case they decide to start charging user fees for the use of the airports!!
Click to expand...

They will only have a record of everybody using that CTAF within range.
 
EdLarkin said:
These folks do understand that radio transmissions are not required? And that some planes don't have electrical systems?
Click to expand...

oh stop making sense. . . . these are gubmint officials - they have been told or learned somewhere that airplanes have radios so that means everyone has a radio. That's been gubmint since we gathered as a species to exchange the ingredients make beer.

Now video is a whole nuther issue however - we're still working on a stealth airplane in the visual spectrum.
 
brafter said:
With little fanfare, a newly developed "black box" device has been installed at a number of small airports in Maine to record CTAF transmissions. The system was developed following a recent accident at KRKD in which a departing aircraft struck a ground vehicle and subsequently crashed, killing all three aboard (the NTSB has yet to issue a final report).

I'm curious what pilots here think about smaller airports recording radio traffic and, for that matter, video of aircraft operations for this purpose.

Related article:
http://www.kjonline.com/news/Device-aids-safety-at-smaller-airports.html?pagenum=1
Click to expand...

A misnomer in the headline. The existence of the box does not improve safety. It only aids in investigations if there is an incident or accident.

And just because the recording did not pick up a transmission, does not mean the pilot or ground vehicle failed to broadcast their intentions. Radios fail, you think you broadcast but you didn't, or you were on the wrong freq. and there are a lot of ground vehicles crossing runways at uncontrolled airports, with no broadcasts.
 
Not necessarily your tail number, but "blue cessna" won't cut it.

Of course, unlike certain other radio services, there's no strict requirement to "identify" your station. Color and type are just information for the people trying to spot you.

Maybe they can hand out tickets for people use ATITPPA.
 
How does thing thing discriminate among airplanes at altitude calling on 122.8 and hitting every receiver within 100 miles?
"Blue Cessna entering a downwind"
"Skydivers overhead in 2 minutes"
"We will be doing a left turnout"
I'd be willing to bet the first people to be uncertain about this use of a recording device would be any municipality that runs an airport and any FBO. Do they really want everything from their side recorded? In come the insurance agents and lawyers for briefings on what/how to talk and here comes the "county airport radio glossary" so the FBO and county/city people use 'just the right words'.
 
Brad Z said:
Identifying yourself as "the blue Cessna" is technically a violation of FCC regulations. When making transmissions, you're required to use your staton identifier, which is your tail number. Not a lot of folks enforcing it, though.

http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/index.htm?job=operations&id=aircraft_stations
Click to expand...

Meh, it says "Radio operators should use the following guidelines.."

I'm going to do what it takes to keep myself and others safe in the traffic pattern. In my opinion, there are times when a tail number is appropriate, and there are times when aircraft color is appropriate.
 
$2,500 for some .mp3 recording software, and a USB audio dongle in a "black box"? (That Uniden scanner shown in the picture costs about $80 bucks.)
$3,250 if you want them to include a laptop and the scanner. Wow :eek: I need to get in the "black box" business. I can only wish them the best of luck.
 
Last edited:
Turningfinal said:
Meh, it says "Radio operators should use the following guidelines.."

I'm going to do what it takes to keep myself and others safe in the traffic pattern. In my opinion, there are times when a tail number is appropriate, and there are times when aircraft color is appropriate.
Click to expand...

The actual regulations say "shall" not "should". I quoted what appear to be the relevant FCC regulations in this post back in May:

http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1163911&postcount=64

Since the FCC purpose for including station ID has nothing to do with visual identification for the purpose of keeping the paint unmarred, you'd have to say both your N number and the color of your paint.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top