LONDON AREA AIRPORT???

[donfl]

WHY CAN'T WE GET A LINK TO LHR/LGW OR THE LONDON CENTER ON HERE? I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY NO ONE IS ABLE TO DO THAT.  IN ENGLAND AVIATION ENTHUSIASTS ABOUND, SURELY SOMEONE CAN GET THESE FREQUENCIES UP AND ON OUR WEBSITE?
THANKS

[KPryor]

Check out all the other threads here about that.  Search for Heathrow or British airport codes here and you'll see.  It's been discussed a great deal.  Oh, and welcome to the forum!
KP

[Lezam]

To be truthful... Its against the law to stream there 

Its not fair, but hey... life aint fair. So I hear? 

[Pygmie]

Not to start an argument, but it's also against the law to stream in Canada as well, but that doesn't seem to stop anyone from doing it here.

[tyketto]

Not to start an argument, but it's also against the law to stream in Canada as well, but that doesn't seem to stop anyone from doing it here.

Not to call you on it, but I haven't seen any applicable law here about that. Could you please post a link to the law as written?

Curious.

BL.

[Pygmie]

I don't have a link handy, but I know it's in the Radiocommunications Act.

It's not against the law to have a scanner and listen to the communications, but it is, however, against the law to divulge the contents of those communications, rebroadcast them, or record them.

It has never really been enforced up until now, but after the incident between the Air Canada pilot and the controller in YYZ that was heavily posted here, as well as several other sites, Nav Canada and the airlines have recently taken action.  Last I heard they were working with the RCMP to track down and give fair warning to individuals that are recording or rebroadcasting ATC communications to either stop or face fines of up to $25,000.

[Lexxx]

Pygmie

Just because Nav Canada has distributed documents and stated that in 'their opinion' the reproadcast of ATC transmissions is in contravention of Canadian Law doesn't make it so.

The distribution of scanned Air Traffic Control frequencies is permitted in Canada so long as the content is not deemed to be "personal information" as defined by the Privacy Act. To be considered "personal information", the information must be About an Individual, that individual Must be Identifiable, and the information Must be Recorded.

Whether or not an argument can be made that an aircraft registration identifies an individual (unlikely), or hearing a Controllers voice identifies that individual (even more unlikely), the web site must also make recordings available to the general public.

Now I did read about a case on the internet where some news agencies took the TSB to court to get access to ATC transcripts (Air France incident I believe) and lost. The TSB did not have to release the information, but the key, and reason the Transpotation Safety Board did not have to release the transcrits was that they included controller landline transcripts. Landline transcripts will include controller operating initials and so it can be argued that the controller could in theory be identified and so impact on that Privacy Act provision.

All this of course relates to Canada only. LiveATC is based in the States and is clearly permitted to funtion as they do, but even if LiveATC was based in Canada they have no access to controller operating initials or landline info (hot lines etc).

It will be interesting to see if Nav Canada or Air Canada win a court case and do change the Privacy Act in Canada. I suppose anything is possible in a post 9/11 environment, but until forced, the server in my house will keep running.

Lexxx
www.ykf.ca

[Pygmie]

It has nothing to do with the Privacy Act.  It has everything to do with the Radiocommunications Act.

From the Act, section 9.2:

No person shall intercept and make use of, or intercept and divulge, any radiocommunication, except as permitted by the originator of the communication or the person intended by the originator of the communication to receive it.

From further in:

Radio operators and all persons who become acquainted with radiocommunications are bound to preserve the secrecy of communications. No person shall divulge the contents, or even the existence, of communications transmitted, received or intercepted by a radio station, except to the addressee of the message or his accredited agent, or to properly authorized officials of the Government of Canada or a competent legal tribunal, or an operator of a telecommunications system as is necessary for the furtherance of delivery of the communication. These restrictions do not apply to a message of distress, urgency, safety or to messages addressed to "ALL STATIONS", that is, weather reports, storm warnings, etc.

Any person who violates the secrecy of communications is liable, on summary conviction, in the case of an individual, to a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year, or to both, or, in the case of a corporation, to a fine not exceeding twenty-five thousand dollars.

[Lexxx]

Pygmie

It is impossible to isolate a specific Canadian government Act and try to make a ruling or judgment to the exclusion of all other Acts. It can't be done.

It would be like saying, "This paragraph in Manops says I can do it. I don't care about any other references in Manops on the same subject." Not a reasonable position.

When there is any discussion about the Radiocommunications Act as relates to dissemination of air traffic frequencies in Canada, the Privacy Act always comes into play at some point because it always applies, and provides a basis for an argument on the subject one way or the other.

In my first post above I incorrectly stated that the TSB did not have to release transcript information to a Canadian news agency. In fact that ruling was appealed and judgment in the case was reserved. The TSB may yet have to release ATC transcripts.

The appeal in part included the following, and gives a sense of the ongoing arguments in Canada about disseminating captured air traffic information

-------------------------------

Issue Before the Court of Appeal

3. Whether the Application Judge erred in fact and in law with respect to the application of paragraph 19(2)(b) of the Act regarding public availability of information contained in recordings and transcripts of ATC radiocommunications on public radio frequencies reserved to the aeronautical service;

4. Whether the Application Judge erred in fact and in law with respect to the application of paragraph 19(2)(c) of the Act, and paragraphs 8(2)(a), (b) and subparagraph 8(2)(m)(i) of the Privacy Act;

5. Whether the Application Judge erred in fact and in law by refusing to determine the constitutionality of subsection 9(2) of the Radiocommunication Act, relating to the public availability, the use and the dissemination of information contained in ATC radiocommunications on public radio frequencies reserved to the aeronautical service; and

6. Whether subsection 9(2) of the Radiocommunication Act, as it relates to ATC radiocommunications, is contrary to paragraph 2(b) of the Charter and cannot be upheld by section 1 of the Charter.

Outcome

The appeal was heard on February 28 and March 1, 2006, and judgment was reserved.

--------------------------------

Pygmie. It may well be that the law will change and a higher court will deem it unlawful to capture and disseminate available air traffic frequencies in Canada, but at the moment there does not seem to be enough for any police agency to take any sort of action. If you hear of any case please let us all know.

Cheers
Lexxx
www.ykf.ca