Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
All Private Plane Flight Plans Must Be Public  
User currently offlinejetjeanes From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 1430 posts, RR: 1
Posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 11619 times:

This is not an opinion, but an actual article that came out today, not sure if i can post the link but

Private-planes will no longer be able to cite privacy and instead must provide a “valid security concern” to have flight information blocked from public viewing, the U.S. Transportation Department said. So aircraft on radar sites that show aircraft moveing from one location to the other will now no longer be blocked.

The State Dept has said The registration number, flight path, departure point, destination and flight length will be accessible to the public unless operators and owners provide the Federal Aviation Administration “written certification” that it would create a security threat.....

The FAA requires business-jet operators to provide their origin, route and destination so the agency can manage traffic flow. Anyone who knows the registration or “N” number on the tail of an aircraft can use Web sites such as FlightAware.com, the largest tracking service, to see that information.

So basically they have 60 days to comply and you will be able to see a celebritiy or corporate aircrafts orgin and destination , allowing for A.netters to snap a few great photos.. This should be very interesting.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-0...ight-plans-must-be-public-faa.html

[Edited 2011-05-27 17:32:33 by srbmod]


i can see for 80 miles
51 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21555 posts, RR: 55
Reply 1, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 11425 times:

Well, I guess that whole right to privacy thing doesn't mean all that much. Bad call by the DOT.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineN6238P From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 501 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 11418 times:

Personally I don't like this. Why? For the reason listed above me and that is that people will want to go to the airports, FBO's, and parking lots to see who is who. I work at an FBO and on a daily basis we have high profile customers coming through our doors. The anonymity of the service we provide is what attracts customers. Security procedures keep the non traveling public from the ramp but once past the door into the FBO, anyone can walk in. It is rare but every once in a while someone will be wondering around the building asking questions about everything outside of our social security numbers and at times it leads to embarrassing and unprofessional situations.

I understand curiosity of the public but not everyone can handle their curiosity and I can only imagine the security issues that would follow when all aircraft tracks become public.



To actively root against anybody is just low, and I hope karma comes back at you with a vengeance
User currently offlineDashTrash From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 1522 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 11385 times:

All the more reason to buy a NetJets share. 

User currently offlinejetjeanes From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 1430 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 11365 times:

Im sure you have been cleared to work for the Fbo by the Tsa, if you see anyone wandering around like that you should ask questions, Ive had them in the past disquise themselves as fire inspectors. always as for an id or chunk them out,,

Many of these jets are in corporations names and only a few know who they really are, but theres no more masking them on radar. If someone gets a pic of a plane outside of the gates or on approach is one thing, but storming an fbo is a bit to much  



i can see for 80 miles
User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5592 posts, RR: 6
Reply 5, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 11166 times:

Quoting jetjeanes (Reply 4):
Im sure you have been cleared to work for the Fbo by the Tsa

Probably not, unless it's at a major airport with airline ramp access.

Quoting jetjeanes (Reply 4):
if you see anyone wandering around like that you should ask questions

That's a given.

Quoting jetjeanes (Reply 4):
Ive had them in the past disquise themselves as fire inspectors

"Them" who? TSA? If that's the case, I'd have them arrested on the spot. They cannot impersonate a government official. That's a felony in every single jurisdiction in the US.

Ask for ID, and if they refuse or pull out something that says something different from what they originally claimed they were, the cops get called right away.

Quoting Mir (Reply 1):
Well, I guess that whole right to privacy thing doesn't mean all that much.

Ironically, the government is now forcing a claim of "security" to increase privacy rights.



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15729 posts, RR: 26
Reply 6, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 11045 times:

Quoting jetjeanes (Thread starter):
Private-planes will no longer be able to cite privacy and instead must provide a “valid security concern” to have flight information blocked from public viewing, the U.S. Transportation Department said.

This is an absolutely horrible ruling. Where certain people are flying their planes is not anyone's business, and if they don't want it broadcast on the internet, they should have that right.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5592 posts, RR: 6
Reply 7, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 10892 times:

Quoting jetjeanes (Thread starter):

The FAA requires business-jet operators to provide their origin, route and destination so the agency can manage traffic flow.

Just to be clear, this only applies to IFR flight plans, but flying at 16500ft just doesn't cut it in jets.



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlineGiancavia From Vatican City, joined Feb 2010, 1323 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 10863 times:

Ah Flightaware becomes useful for all my bizjet photos again.. Now for that pesky wells fargo bank! 

User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21555 posts, RR: 55
Reply 9, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 10830 times:

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 7):
Just to be clear, this only applies to IFR flight plans, but flying at 16500ft just doesn't cut it in jets.

Nor does maintaining cloud clearances.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineThirtyEcho From United States of America, joined Dec 2001, 1645 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 10751 times:

Great. Now we can track Sara Palin's G-V as she goes on her "bus" tour.

User currently offlineB727LVR From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 630 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 10725 times:

I'm kinda confused.... Doesnt the already filing of flight plans "help the agency manage traffic flow?" Don't the contollers from the tower to the centers, along the route already have a means of accessing this information? At a bare minimium I would expect the departing airport and arriving airport to already have a means of being able to control the flow in and out of their airports with out causing problems at the FBO's.


I'm like a kid in a candy store when it comes to planes!
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15729 posts, RR: 26
Reply 12, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 10723 times:

Quoting B727LVR (Reply 11):
Doesnt the already filing of flight plans "help the agency manage traffic flow?" Don't the contollers from the tower to the centers, along the route already have a means of accessing this information?

Yes. What this ridiculous ruling does is say that instead of telling only people who need to know, you must tell everyone unless you can demonstrate a reason why you shouldn't. Operationally, this really won't change much. It just makes things much easier for those with prying eyes.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineB727LVR From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 630 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 10662 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 12):
nstead of telling only people who need to know, you must tell everyone

Hmm......   



I'm like a kid in a candy store when it comes to planes!
User currently offlineComeAndGo From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1041 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 10652 times:

This is great! So now I can finally find out who those pesky helicopters are that always fly above my house. I'll know where they departed from. I'll be able to go to the airport and see that jerk that ruined my quiet Sunday afternoon the other day.

User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21555 posts, RR: 55
Reply 15, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 10636 times:

Quoting ComeAndGo (Reply 14):
This is great! So now I can finally find out who those pesky helicopters are that always fly above my house. I'll know where they departed from. I'll be able to go to the airport and see that jerk that ruined my quiet Sunday afternoon the other day.

You're probably going to be disappointed, as helicopters won't be covered by this because of the type of operations they do.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineblueflyer From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 3967 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 10605 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I realize I am in the minority here but private aircraft operators had it coming. They have been able to request for years that their flight plans be non-public. While they were not required to justify their request, it was to be on security or competition grounds. However in the past few years, the number of such requests has skyrocketed without any evidence that genuine threats against private aircraft passengers had similarly skyrocketed.

So now the DOT is taking corporate privacy off the table and telling operators that want to use security: prove it!

I see nothing wrong with that.

[Edited 2011-05-27 23:44:57]


I've got $h*t to do
User currently offlineyvphx From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 256 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 10601 times:

I actually don't agree with this ruling either. I don't care to know where certain celebrities with their own planes are going. They deserve every right to privacy as I do when I decide to head over to my local shooting range and fire off some rounds pretending the target is an ex-girlfriend. I think when you are worth some money, need to travel with few knowing where and why, you should be available to be "blocked" from flightaware.com, et al.

Just think of it this way, you become and instant celebrity because you design said medical procedure that will transform your aging old body into a health 20 year old body over night. I would think you would want privacy from that lunatic Lucy who decides they need to bug you to death for you to give her the treatment for free.

Bad move DOT


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15729 posts, RR: 26
Reply 18, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 10534 times:

Quoting blueflyer (Reply 16):
They have been able to request for years that their flight plans be non-public. While they were not required to justify their request, it was to be on security or competition grounds. However in the past few years, the number of such requests has skyrocketed without any evidence that genuine threats against private aircraft passengers had similarly skyrocketed.

The point is that they shouldn't have to justify anything, and frankly, the flight plans probably should never have been public by default in the first place. It isn't any of our business who's plane is where and when. There is simply no justification needed.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21555 posts, RR: 55
Reply 19, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 10478 times:

Quoting blueflyer (Reply 16):
So now the DOT is taking corporate privacy off the table and telling operators that want to use security: prove it!

This isn't about security, it's about someone not wanting Joe Public to be able to watch their movements from the comfort of their own home.

I would ask those who support this whether they would also be in favor of a tracker on their car that would let anyone in the world see where that car was (and thus where they were) at any time. I certainly wouldn't want that - I value my privacy too much.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinenetjetsintl From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 593 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 10246 times:

Quoting ThirtyEcho (Reply 10):
Great. Now we can track Sara Palin's G-V as she goes on her "bus" tour.

HAHAHA, Funny stuff, and unfortunately true..

So now the CEO of blah, blah, blah will be traveling to a hostile country and everyone will get an advance notice? hum


User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 21, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 10081 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 19):
This isn't about security, it's about someone not wanting Joe Public to be able to watch their movements from the comfort of their own home.

While I agree with your sentiment - the recent record also shows that many corporate jets are hidden from tracking to prevent Joe Stockholder from knowing how much and where the aircraft of the company they own fly. I see this ruling, which we have known was coming, as a reaction to the abuse of the previous system.

Quoting netjetsintl (Reply 20):
So now the CEO of blah, blah, blah will be traveling to a hostile country and everyone will get an advance notice?

That information is already usually publicly available from the other country ATC system.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 12):
What this ridiculous ruling does is say that instead of telling only people who need to know, you must tell everyone unless you can demonstrate a reason why you shouldn't.

The previous process also required that aircraft owners have valid security reasons why the aircraft should not be publicly tracked. This ruling only requires that reason be provided to a federal review authority rather than be internal. I wonder how many corporate and private aircraft owners actually have documented their security reasons for not having the aircraft tracked.

Quoting DashTrash (Reply 3):
All the more reason to buy a NetJets share.

Cetainly an easy way to prevent tracking.

Quoting jetjeanes (Thread starter):
you will be able to see a celebritiy or corporate aircrafts orgin and destination

Relatively few celebrities own private jet aircraft, they really don't have enough ready cash to operate a million dollar a year system of pilots, maintenance, hanger and such. Most use services such as FlexJet and NetJets. This will not change their ability to prevent tracking of their flights.

Personally I think this is much ado about nothing. Just a change in the procedures to justify blocking flight tracking. Certainly we are going to see more private bizjets and even smaller props which are currently blocked - having information available.

But no way the major political supporters, including corporate aircraft from companies with substantial PACs, are not going to be able to "justify" having their flight tracking blocked.


User currently offlineBlobusus From United States of America, joined Aug 2009, 35 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 9940 times:

I don't see how this is going to change much of anything. Somebody will develop a boilerplate that the FAA will accept and everybody will start using that to hide their movements just like they always have. If that doesn't work they'll take extra measures to hide who actually owns and uses the aircraft. A lot of these folks really do have security concerns, and some of them just don't like to be tracked. Fine. As long as traffic separation is maintained I don't see why it's anybody's business. The job of ATC is to keep planes from running into each other, not provide intelligence for paparazzi.

User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12464 posts, RR: 46
Reply 23, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 9927 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Seriously,
Who gives a f...


Quoting yvphx (Reply 17):
I don't care to know where certain celebrities with their own planes are going.

Nobody's forcing you to look at it even if it's available online. Not interested? Join the club.

If anonymity is a requirement, "celebrities" and corporations will simply register their planes to holding companies. In fact, there's probably a good business opportunity there!



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlineadamblang From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 115 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 9599 times:

Quoting scbriml (Reply 23):
If anonymity is a requirement, "celebrities" and corporations will simply register their planes to holding companies.

Or fly commercial.



The views and opinions expressed here are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my employer or its partners.
25 EMBQA : Don't think for one second anything will change. When the Gov't gets overwellmed by all the requests to remain blocked they will delay the program if
26 stealthz : There was, there is, and there are many organisations making money from it for many years. The first thing I ever knew about biz jets was an article
27 Post contains links C680 : NBAA's take on it. http://www.nbaa.org/news/pr/2011/20110528-039.php I think its nuts. I can't go to a web site and see where my neighbor is driving h
28 cptspeaking : There's a couple issues here. First of all, on the negative side, lots of businesses use company airplanes to travel around making deals. There are a
29 C680 : I suddenly see lots of corporate flight departments setting up subsidiaries with names like "Acme Airways" and "Bug Off Aviation" - we have one now -
30 goblin211 : Now the tabloids can get more info on celebs...I'm betting that they won't like that very much. While I understand people's concerns with this law, yo
31 C680 : We have the same thing: one of our planes is blocked, but GDS gives us password protected access to tracking since we operate the plane. I get an ema
32 Mir : Then let Joe Stockholder request (and get) a record of where the airplane has been. It's the real-time aspect of this that I object to. Wouldn't solv
33 limaniner : Seems like a bad idea. Being able to track the movements of bizjets real-time could also be a way to glean sensitive business information, e.g., if a
34 Dazed767 : I don't see the big deal. In fact this might be good since the feds can keep an eye on a few of the bad apple's out there flying around doing shady cr
35 Mir : You're not suggesting that the feds are limited to tracking flights on Flightaware, are you? -Mir
36 AirNZ : So how does this discussion stand when, in the past, there are very many on a.net ardently in favour of making BBJ flight plans, and the like, public.
37 Post contains images readytotaxi : Hell NO, I don't want to be in a cabin with a "celebrity" being fussed over by crew who think they are fab, let them fly separately, or in the hold.
38 NIKV69 : Of course. The current administratio has gone out of it's way to show it's not a fan of Corporations. This ruling is just another power grab and much
39 cptspeaking : I should mention, you CAN currently block a tail number on flightaware, then for an exhorbitant fee, selectively unblock it to certain specified user
40 aa61hvy : You may be giving Joe Public a little too much credit. Do you really think John Smith will be tracking Warren Buffet's plane? No. Most people don't k
41 RobertS975 : I really do not see how one can know who is aboard a plane from its tail number. This is much ado about nothing.
42 wdleiser : but one company can track the tail number of their rival company now and see what business deals they may be partaking in.
43 jetjeanes : Personally i dont care about the celebrity, and the ones that i know that dont fly commercial fly something like net jets, i would only be interested
44 dumbell2424 : But if you're someone like Tiger Woods, you have your own, personalized plane still flying under Netjets banner that is currently blocked by flightaw
45 baldheadeddork : Hi guys. Several years of lurking and this is the post that finally gets me into the pool. @N6238P - I worked for a few years in the 90's at the late
46 BMI727 : That was ridiculous enough in the first place. One would hope. Precisely. Or even better, should my medical records be available for everyone unless
47 Mir : Nice first post - welcome aboard. Disagree with a couple of things, though: But it's not like there are private airways that can be used instead, is
48 fuelfool : According to the article, the current system was created in 2000. What was done before that?
49 rfields5421 : The data was publicly available, but only in near real time on the internet for a couple years. Previously you had to request, wait for delivery and
50 baldheadeddork : Thanks for the welcome. There isn't a private ATC (thank God), but as noted - there are a lot of options for using private jets without anyone being
51 C680 : Actually the oposite. I can't speak for others, but I'm saying that there should be consistency in government policies. There is no free database of
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Just Had My 1st Flight In A Private Plane! posted Wed Mar 22 2000 22:31:41 by LHMark
AB & LH Have Different Flight Plans DUS-MIA posted Wed May 12 2010 11:26:11 by CoachClass
Aero(Nigeria) Rolls Out 1st All Female Crew Flight posted Fri Apr 24 2009 07:12:02 by AsoRock
Help, Searching For Ahlam's Private Plane posted Sun Apr 5 2009 18:09:31 by QatarA340
Dutch Flight Tax To Be Abolished Per 1 July posted Wed Mar 25 2009 01:56:44 by Joost
LH: Bmi Must Be Turned Into A Profit Maker posted Mon Dec 22 2008 00:25:29 by TFFIP
FAA: Trouble Processing Flight Plans posted Tue Aug 26 2008 12:45:57 by Georgebush
Frontier Pilot Killed In Crash Of Private Plane posted Tue Jun 17 2008 19:07:06 by RonmacIAH
Panel Falls Off AA Plane, Flight Lands Safely posted Wed May 7 2008 15:07:05 by FWFlyer
Private Indian Carrier Plans Pakistan Launch posted Wed Apr 9 2008 13:07:47 by 777way