Back to Squawk list
  • 49

Senators Request Privacy Protection for GA

제출됨
 
In an effort to protect the privacy of general aviation pilots across the country, 26 Senators wrote Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood today opposing a recent proposal by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to eliminate current privacy protections for general aviation aircraft and pilots. (www.airportbusiness.com) 기타...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


jimquinndallas
I have no problem with pilots/owners wanting to protect their operations from public access. I can see no reason to force them to have their operations disclosed. If there are operators flying the airways of the U.S. who are up to no good, there are ways to track them anyway. Comments welcome!
mannjoh
Let's get to the real issue. It is not your everyday GA pilot/owner that is concerned about "privacy". It is the Fortune 250 CEO who is using the corporate jet for non-business purposes that he/she doesn't want some lawyer to discover in a divorce case. It has happened before....
jimquinndallas
Hmmm..... John, I hadn't thought of it that way. Being a former security guy, I thought that perhaps the main reason was for corporate security more than anything else, but you have a very valid point!
dbaker
That's an incredible number -- 26 senators.
QuickBurn
Probably the same 26 senators who are spending tax dollars to fly in private aircraft the same way as that Fortune 250 CEO. They are just looking to avoid future scandals.
chiphermes
You guys would be brilliant political commentary if only there was such a thing as the Fortune 250.
mikeap
mikeap 0
Way to go Chip. I bet you took a break from telling the teacher who came back late from the cafeteria or recess, to jump on here and catch that HUGE mistake. Nice one Chip. We'd be lost without your bean counting. By the way, I just stayed 10 minutes past my expired parking meter. Email me and I'll send you my license plate info so you can report me.
rwb2112
rwb2112 0
"Fortune 500" is the big list, when AT&T left San Antonio there were news articles referring to losing a "Fortune 10" company.

Regarding the story, I don't really care where they go or who's on them, I just like to see a badass Gulfstream or Falcon on approach!
rick737
It's really all about businesses being able to protect the senior management from threats and corporate espionage. Why should the government make it easy for bad guys to do their work? It's not the business of the public to know where anyone travels. Why should the operator of a private aircraft be any different.
wings700
More government intrusion! The radical left wing Socialist party led by Barack Obama strikes again!
jimquinndallas
rwb2112: "Regarding the story, I don't really care where they go or who's on them, I just like to see a badass Gulfstream or Falcon on approach!"

AMEN! Preferably at the approach end of their runway...
laurastants
THIS everyday GA pilot/owner is concerned about privacy. I don't care to allow any and everyone to track where I am going in my car either, even if I don't fly-or drive-anywhere more interesting than to visit my grandparents. I should have the right to do that in privacy.
AvSalesPro
Only a very small number of executives really need this from a safety standpoint. I also understand that some may not want their competitor knowing what they are doing in some merger type scenario. The rest may just like the "sense" of being under the radar. I guess the problem I have is that some tax strategists suggest using this system for the first year of ownership as an aid for tax avoidance. The tax avoidance and the aforementioned hiding of "personal use" cause me to assume it's more of "cover my tracks" effort than a truly safety thing for most users.
rick737
Av sales pro, If you think the IRS and any minsicsule government agency that wants that info can't get in less than 30 seconds, you are sadly mistaken. The general public has no right to this data any more than you have right to know how much electricity I use. Of course, if you are for a big brother form of government, you would like to see any right to privacy destroyed.
rick737
one more thing, Av Pro, it's is not a matter of a CEO needing this level of privacy, it is a matter of the right to privacy, wanting privacy and having the means to remain private. Frankly, there's no argument that makes sense, stating the public has a right to know. WE DON'T.
antoinemb
I'm not so concerned about the privacy of routing info for GA. What about pilot certificate info that can easily be looked up on the FAA registry ? Shouldn't this information be classified as private ?
66lima
24 minutes ago


"I'm not so concerned about the privacy of routing info for GA. What about pilot certificate info that can easily be looked up on the FAA registry ? Shouldn't this information be classified as private ?"


Yes , it should be private. If a police dispatcher randomly looks up your diver license or car registration for no reason they can go to jail
But your pilot info or your ham radio info is public information?
Baloney!

No one would stand for John Public to be required to file a "flight plan" to drive to the store or pick up his kids from school so the rest of the public could track him. Whose business is it if I fly out for a 100 dollar hamburger?

This is wrong.
trennor
I'm Canadian, and I think these guys are absolutely correct. I don't think private people should be tracked, "just because we can;" imagine how you'd feel if your car uploaded your travel data. Some people would be okay with it, but I think the entire concept of tracking people on the internet is wrong.
jp5909
To the bright individual who said the public has no right to know....and compare it to electricity usage....much like aircraft...your usage is displayed for all to see on the outside of your house....Ahhh big secret Lolol. Also as long as the planes are making use of thing paid for by the tax payer(airports and atc) we've got the right to know.
Iskra
Iskra 0
Well Jeff,

Who do you thing pays for the roads and bridges you drive on... When you go out to meet the 20 year old babysitter for drinks, I what to know...
rick737
Well jeff why don't post the use of your car on the net for all to see. Since you are driving on taxpayer purchased road, I have a right to know your ev every movement. I'll compare intellgence quotion will you anyday.
joeharvey
Perhaps you all have forgotten who we are: Americans. Our constitution gives up the right to privacy if you are a Cub pilot or a Lear pilot. When our government persistently over reaches the powers it derives from "We the People" its time to change the government.
Bill202
Bill202 0
Before we get all p***ed off at our government, remember that the only reason this data was made public in the first place was the request from private, profit-making enterprises.
devsfan
i have a solution.....Instead of the tail number the moniker "UNK" could be used for GA...That allows the aircraft to be tracked in real time but conceals the ownership of the aircraft.
Apothis86
Ken, that's actually a pretty good idea. It would never work though, it makes too much sense. :P
WALLACE24
BY THE WAY-EVER HEAR OF A THING CALLED "ONSTAR" IN GENERAL MOTORS CARS? YOU MAY NOT SIGN UP FOR THE SERVICE BUT IT IS ON THE CAR AND THEY CAN TRACK YOU ANYTIME AND THERE IS NO WAY FOR YOU TO TURN IT OFF OR DICONNECT IT. CELL PHONES, ECM'S ON ALL VEHICLES, COMPUTERS, ETC. ALL CAN BE USED BY THE GOVERNMENT OR LAWYERS TO INVADE PRIVACY. PRIVACY IS OUT THE WINDOW UNLESS YOU ARE A HERMIT.
rick737
Jim I have already snipped the wires to the antenna for my onstar. let them find me now.
WALLACE24
ARE YOU SURE THAT IS THE ONLY ANTENNA? GOVERNMENT MOTORS YOU KNOW.
66lima
James Wallace, et al,

I think the difference between Onstar and ATC is that I can't call Onstar or go on the internet and find out where you are going in your car 24 hours a day. and follow you there.

There is a big difference. And Onstar does not follow you around just for giggles.
The only time they care where you are is when your airbag goes off.

Rich
jp5909
If you really want to see where I drive I have no problem posting gps data. Because I have nothing to hide....the real question is what do these folks have to hide that they don't want people to know where their plane departs and arrives at? It's not like it tells who or what is in the plane...just that a given plane flew from point a to point b. I just don't see how its any kind of big deal at all. Those that have a REAL need can still opt out so stop whining.
jp5909
Also...does anyone else find it rich that the people complaining are doing so on a site that exists solely for making use of the very data they want hid?
jp5909
Oh better toss your cell too Richard...it too logs gps data for e911 by federal law...gonna claim you cut the wires on it too?
Iskra
Iskra 0
Well let's see Jeff.  I see you were at the babysitters house from 11p to 5a...  Should I tell your wife!  Oh you say you were just feeding here cat....  Who cares if I have just a little piece of your privacy I can create any story I want and you are now guilty and have to prove your innocents.
jp5909
See that's the point only those with stuff to hide would have problem. Those that maintain their integrity on the other hand, fear no one seeing where they are....and definitely won't care if someone knows they flew from point a to point b. Again I ask what do these people have to hide?
WALLACE24
THE PRIVACY SIDE IS A LEGITIMATE ISSUE. BUT MY GUESS IS THAT FROM A SECURITY SIDE VERY FEW OF THESE PEOPLE HAVE A REAL THREAT TO THEIR SAFTEY. THEY JUST DON'T WANT ANYONE KNOWING WHAT THEIR AIRCRAFT ARE DOING AND THE IMPLICATIONS THEREOF.
WALLACE24
RICHARD, YOU ARE RIGHT. YOU CANNOT CALL ONSTAR AND GET THE INFO. BUT I'LL BET THERE ARE THOUSANDS THAT CAN.
suterman
I don't imagine that those specializing in corporate espionage have been utterly stumped because tail numbers have been blocked, and if I recall blocking was introduced not too long after shareholders of several companies kicked up a fuss about the company Gulfstreams weekending at Martha's Vineyard etc too many times. And how many of the blocked aircraft have tail numbers and/or color schemes characteristic of their owners? What's next, a new law making it illegal to look at them because their movements are supposed to be a secret?
garysi
Airlines are not excluded from this blockage. If an aircraft or company is involved with 'for hire' transfer of passengers, no matter the number, then they should also comply with the same regulations or policies as the big guys --this could be one or five hundred paying passengers. The FAA clearly expresses this distinction by the levels of licenses for pilots. The same holds true for maritime regulations.
Fleagle
Fleagle 0
INCREMENTALISM. . . . .
A mollified, deluded Public; helots carefully allowed to remain in their..
'Comfort' zones. Ostrichism. " It can't happen here. "
Smile.
Take your medication of choice. But shun Tobacco,and Alcohol; Bad.
Firearms; BAD. Stick with big Pharma. GOOOD! "Diversity" "Sensitivity" goood. Rehabilitation; goood. Real men, Cry. goood; beautiful.
Turn yourself in early, and you won't be punished. Confess."Hate"speech; punishable.

Google "The Frankfurt School".
Cheers,lads. And, lassies.
PacAero
President Obama is in favor of this Aug.2nd release of information, as he claims it has to do with "transparency in government." However, private citizens are not in the government. Maybe we should all track the whereabouts of Congress ... how would they feel about that?
conortodd
I hope y'all fly better than you argue.
bishops90
@ Connor - LOL !!!

The point in this whole arguement is not whether anyone "needs" to have the activity of ther aircraft blocked or not, it's whether they have the RIGHT to DECIDE to have it blocked or not. All the rest is irrelevant. The gonvernment has now decided that no, you don't have that right based on some silly precept about the use of federal ATC facilities and services. At the same time, they MANDATE that you use these facilities if you are within given distances of airports or above certain altitudes, including the use of transponders. Therefore there is no possibility of privacy for those who use those facilities. Nobody is advocating anonymity from the government. We all abide by the rules of the air, just like we abide by the rules of the road (more or less). Yet we have the RIGHT to have information about our travel on public highways to not be distributed to anybody who wants it for any reason or no reason. The same right should apply to the use of airspace. As an enthusiast, I LIKE to know when the Pepsi G-V is stopping by, or when Michelin's Falcons are coming and going, because I like to photograph aircarft. But do I have a RIGHT to this information? - No I do not!

로그인

계정을 가지고 계십니까? 사용자 정의된 기능, 비행 경보 및 더 많은 정보를 위해 지금(무료) 등록하세요!
이 웹 사이트는 쿠키를 사용합니다. 이 웹 사이트를 사용하고 탐색함으로써 귀하는 이러한 쿠기 사용을 수락하는 것입니다.
종료
FlightAware 항공편 추적이 광고로 지원된다는 것을 알고 계셨습니까?
FlightAware.com의 광고를 허용하면 FlightAware를 무료로 유지할 수 있습니다. Flightaware에서는 훌륭한 경험을 제공할 수 있도록 관련성있고 방해되지 않는 광고를 유지하기 위해 열심히 노력하고 있습니다. FlightAware에서 간단히 광고를 허용 하거나 프리미엄 계정을 고려해 보십시오..
종료