New case against flight tracking

What's needed to be known is that there is a plane in a particular spot, not whose's plane it is. One has little to do with the other.
 
You're ignoring Class 1 - the most common one.
Not ignoring it at all, any more than a comment about drones ignores toy drones.

The point is that anything operating in controlled airspace is subject to FAA regs and authorization - planes, rockets, gliders, etc.
 
Fixed.




Here's a portion of the text from the FAA regs:

Part 101 requires all Class 2 and 3 amateur rocket operators to notify the FAA air traffic facility nearest the place of intended operation prior to the launch. Notice of the launch must be provided to Air Traffic no less than 24 hours and no more than 3 days before the launch operation.
[...]
A waiver/authorization is required for amateur rocket operations conducted outside the operating limitations per paragraph 31-2-2. The most common reason for requesting a waiver/authorization is to operate within controlled airspace. An applicant must submit its waiver/authorization request to the service area. If the applicant submits its request directly to AST, AST must direct the applicant to submit its request directly to the service area.

So you agree it's not true that every (or any) model rocket entering controlled airspace will have a clearance.
 
Not ignoring it at all, any more than a comment about drones ignores toy drones.

The point is that anything operating in controlled airspace is subject to FAA regs and authorization - planes, rockets, gliders, etc.
...paper airplanes....

The point is that your statement was incorrect. And irrelevant.
 
Incorrect. Your own link shows that. Just because you consider it a toy does not mean it’s not a rocket. Because it is.
Any metal component immediately makes it class 2.
 
So you agree it's not true that every (or any) model rocket entering controlled airspace will have a clearance.
No, I do not.

If it is entering controlled airspace it needs to be authorized. Try it and find out for yourself.
 
No, I do not.

If it is entering controlled airspace it needs to be authorized. Try it and find out for yourself.

What actually prevents the entry into controlled airspace? Is there a force field or something?
 
It's public info she has no leg to stand on IMO.

That said, with these cases popping up more and more and non-celebrities wanting privacy why does ADS-B need a unique identifier beyond an ATC assigned Squawk code? For safety/traffic awareness purposes wouldn't it be enough to only show the aircraft type?
But it should not be public info; I'm not happy that anyone can look up my home value and various other stuff.
 
No, I do not.

If it is entering controlled airspace it needs to be authorized. Try it and find out for yourself.
Still no. I've launched many rockets into controlled airspace without being "authorized." I notice you're no longer claiming I need a clearance. And we still haven't addressed drones.

The reality for most of us is that there's loads of stuff flying around in controlled airspace with no clearance.
 
Still no. I've launched many rockets into controlled airspace without being "authorized." I notice you're no longer claiming I need a clearance. And we still haven't addressed drones.

The reality for most of us is that there's loads of stuff flying around in controlled airspace with no clearance.
Including full sized aircraft.
 
What's the compelling need to have everything public knowledge?
I'd like to have it available to me while flying and afterwards. I don't want people to build a global network of ADSB receivers like they do with liveATC.

Next I suppose you'll be wanting to make ATC conversations private?
 
Interesting the tangents this thread has gone through so far. If you want privacy for the airplane registry, contact your congressional critters and advocate for it.
I have. You get enough public pressure sentiment, and maybe there might be some congressional action.
As for ADS-B; the unique identifiers which stay with the plane never made sense to me. To me, this was just a bad design by engineers who never considered any aspect of security, and a lack of security is pervasive throughout ADS-B, let alone the broader ATC system.

Tim
 
….As for ADS-B; the unique identifiers which stay with the plane never made sense to me. To me, this was just a bad design by engineers who never considered any aspect of security, and a lack of security is pervasive throughout ADS-B, let alone the broader ATC system….
I detect notes of @denverpilot, ca 2014, in your post.
 
I'm not happy that anyone can look up my home value and various other stuff.

Yeah, I'm not thrilled about that either. When did that become a thing, that the local government has a website with all of that information? Its one thing if it is publicly available at the courthouse, another to make it easy and free to use.

I was surprised when I first moved to Iowa, that my salary as a low-level public employee is published in the local newspaper annually. Apparently its state law here. I get that it is public information, but its different when it is freely placed for any and all to see. I doubt my nosy neighbor would have made the trip to City Hall to find out, but when its in their Sunday paper they can't help but look.
 
Yeah, I'm not thrilled about that either. When did that become a thing, that the local government has a website with all of that information? Its one thing if it is publicly available at the courthouse, another to make it easy and free to use.

I was surprised when I first moved to Iowa, that my salary as a low-level public employee is published in the local newspaper annually. Apparently its state law here. I get that it is public information, but its different when it is freely placed for any and all to see. I doubt my nosy neighbor would have made the trip to City Hall to find out, but when its in their Sunday paper they can't help but look.
Probably since the 70s or maybe 80s. Title companies found it much easier to compile all the data and keep it updated than to send someone to county records every time they needed to run a search.
 
I'd like to have it available to me while flying and afterwards. I don't want people to build a global network of ADSB receivers like they do with liveATC.

Next I suppose you'll be wanting to make ATC conversations private?

How did you go from "What's the compelling need to have everything public knowledge?"
to "Next I suppose you'll be wanting to make ATC conversations private?"?
 
I detect notes of @denverpilot, ca 2014, in your post.

I do not have Nate's level of verbosity, but I did find we had similar viewpoints very often, especially around cybersecurity. I have not talked seen him online, or heard any updates in a few years. I hope he is doing better.

Tim
 
Actually, already being done for years...private companies (Motorola and FlockSafety) do all the plate reader/plate tracking in my home state. Then they sell it to who ever wants it, including both police and/or private entities.

Also in my state, ANYONE can get plate/vehicle/owner info from the state, for $6 per plate. It's public information, you just have to know how to get it.
I'm replying to the prospect of real time tracking of every automobile, so your state doesn't appear to offer that service. I think you must agree with me that it's a regrettable policy, since you keep your identification and location private here on POA.
 
I didn’t realize at the time that by using an official PO BOX with the FAA, I’m somewhat protected from a lack of privacy. The stalkers will have to figure out another way to find where I really live.
 
They'll look at the ADSB track and see which property you keep circling before returning to the airport. :biggrin:
 
I'm replying to the prospect of real time tracking of every automobile, so your state doesn't appear to offer that service. I think you must agree with me that it's a regrettable policy, since you keep your identification and location private here on POA.
lol…if my id and location are private, it wasn’t intentional! I’m not interesting enough for anyone to track, car, plane or otherwise.
 
Somehow, reading the US Constitution, I'm not seeing the right to know everything about anyone else...
Communications Act of 1934 gives US citizens the right to receive any transmission over the RF spectrum.

There are limits on what you can do with the information.
 
That protects against the government searching and seizing without probable cause. The Constitution provides no protection against a private entity.
It also offers no protection when you have no expectation of privacy, like when doing observable stuff in public.
 
It also offers no protection when you have no expectation of privacy, like when doing observable stuff in public.
But to what extent does "observable" cover? "So-and-so aircraft left the airfield at 8am" vs "So-and-so left this airfield at 8am and is currently 2 states away at 8K' AGL and will be arriving in ATL at Noon". What expectation of privacy can be had when you are only able to "observe" someone due to gov't mandated/provided tracking info?
 
But to what extent does "observable" cover? "So-and-so aircraft left the airfield at 8am" vs "So-and-so left this airfield at 8am and is currently 2 states away at 8K' AGL and will be arriving in ATL at Noon". What expectation of privacy can be had when you are only able to "observe" someone due to gov't mandated/provided tracking info?
This is a Con Law II question.
 
But to what extent does "observable" cover? "So-and-so aircraft left the airfield at 8am" vs "So-and-so left this airfield at 8am and is currently 2 states away at 8K' AGL and will be arriving in ATL at Noon". What expectation of privacy can be had when you are only able to "observe" someone due to gov't mandated/provided tracking info?
“Arriving in ATL at Noon” isn’t part of the ADSB transmission, FYI.
 
Back
Top