[kanga]

.. is openly advertising my personal details by the CAA on the internet justifiable?

A long and wider debate. ISTR it was always possible to discover the Registered Owner or Operator (name and postal address) of any G- reg aircraft, but it used to require a letter or visit to the ARB in London, and possibly the payment of a fee for each query. What has changed is that under the policy that data compulsorily acquired by Agencies of Government, already available to public scrutiny, should be made available online - part of the Open Government initiative which started late '90s and still extant - this 'personal' data was included and available for easy online search.

I believe that, analogously, anyone can discover the Registered Keeper of any UK- (or possibly GB-; NI may be different) motor vehicle from DVLA. I don't know if this can be done by online search at home, but operators of private car parks can clearly do it. I don't know if it is still possible physically to examine the written Share Register (including shareholders' names and addresses) of any UK-registered Company by going (in working hours!) to the address named at Companies House as the HQs and paying a fee of 1/- (5p for youngsters) to whoever answers the door ISTR some diligent investigative journalists doing this to expose business scandals in the '50s and '60s ..

[Shoestring Flyer]

I think there is maybe a lot to be said nowadays if you only do local/burger run type of flying for just having an aircraft simply equipped 'Radio only'.

[Gwynge]

It is important to keep things in perspective. The regulator, (like pilots and even ATCOs) has made mistakes, and I am very happy to jump all over them and tell everyone and anyone about those mistakes. I just don't think those mistakes, serious as some of them are, justify people turning off a working transponder.

Ian

I'm not sure that you fully appreciate the situation. The regulator has not simply made mistakes. It has, and continues, to wilfully behave unlawfully.

I think I have a decent grasp of the situation. If anyone has documentary proof of the regulator behaving unlawfully, systematically or otherwise, please get in touch.

Regardless, I don't believe turning the transponder off is justifiable.

Ian

Examples: MOR information according to EU Regulations may not be used for the purposes of determining blame/liability. This is constantly being breached. Licences provisionally suspended when there is no ongoing investigation. Also unlawful. If your want to see the actual court verdicts on these you'll have to wait a little longer though.

[flybymike]

I blocked my tracking flight details by sending firm emails, if necessary repeatedly, as some of those listed were mildly obstructive, to:

support@radarbox24.com
support@fr24.com
support@planefinder.net

They require the aircraft ICAO Hex code and a copy of a Proof of Ownership document.

You will then see this very satsfying message if you search for your own aircraft:

'This aircraft is present on our blocked aircraft list.
If you are the owner/operator and want to access data for this aircraft please contact our team at support@radarbox24.com'

I would happily fly with aircraft details removed from FR24 and the like, but for syndicate owned aircraft, group agreement from all members is unfortunately not always, if ever, achievable.

[Miscellaneous]

...but for syndicate owned aircraft, group agreement from all members is unfortunately not always, if ever, achievable.

I would imagine this may result in a rare unanimous agreement. We went on majority, which granted can be frustrating.

What serves as proof of ownership, but does not divulge any more information than they already have?

[Gasbag]

I think a lot of the vexatious comments are down to jealousy as previous posters have said. In the late ‘80’s I was involved with the Airship passenger flights over London operating out of Radlett. Try as we might it was virtually impossible to vary the route in/out by very much and we inevitably got complaints. Several years later I met somebody who said he always took his hunting rifle out into the garden and shot at us as “it was so noisy”. This “person “ was a training Captain in a major Airline flying the quiet, shy and retiring BAC 1-11!
NIMBY really doesn’t cover it. I think he was just jealous of the view we got and we appeared to be having more fun from our flying. Who knows, but it’s tantamount to attempted murder if he really had done as he said.

[Gasbag]

Sorry, was trying to edit earlier post with this (above)and failed!

[Sir Morley Steven]

Ignorance can cloud one’s judgment. I was doing a prof check for SEP renewal and my candidate selected a field next to Welford disused top as the PFL spot. Good call. After the go around I gave him practice EFATO. Again expertly dealt with.
Next day I got a call from a self righteous ar£e copper from Welford asking for an explanation why I flew so low. After explaining in the 500ft rule (SERA 5005, not rule 5 - that went five years ago) he indiscreetly gave me some sensitive information about Welford and off he went. The next day I got an email from the CAA asking why I had breached the rules of the air.
I replied asking which rude I was supposed to have breached and got a “sorry none, cased closed”reply.
My time was wasted by an idiot who misread the rules and wasn’t grown up enough to be corrected.
In the OPs case, the complainant wasted everyone’s time but almost certainly is a troll as he didn’t contact either the police or the CAA.
But please stop going on about Rule 5 being the low flying rule. It isn’t and hasn’t been for five years.

[Hooligan]

Funnily enough, just heard a police helicopter zot over here, quick check on ADSB shows it at 200-300' - Nah! Came over twice more with me outside watching; actually they are rather lower than usual... I'd say 500' was a reasonable estimate, though I am in a valley and he did do a fairly wide orbit. See if any of my "Nextdoor" neighbours comment about it.

[matthew_w100]

But please stop going on about Rule 5 being the low flying rule. It isn’t and hasn’t been for five years.

I thought I understood this but apparently I don't. SERA 5005 says "shall not be flown below 500' " but I thought the UK had a registered difference which reverted us to the old Rule 5 wording of "500' from persons, vessels, vehicles or structures". What's the actual situation?

[xtophe]

SERA 5005 needs to be read with its companion ORS4 No 1174

[Miscellaneous]

Have you been teaching the wrong rules for the last 5yrs, @Sir Morley Steven?

[Dave W]

SERA 5005 needs to be read with its companion ORS4 No 1174

Naturally it does - we wouldn't want Rules to be published for the convenience of the user rather than the drafter, else where would it all end?

Thankfully we do have p53 of the Skyway Code in this instance.

But it does grip me that so much of the law and guidance that surrounds is held in multiple places and only makes sense if you (a) read it all together (b) can remember where to find it all, and; (c) have the confidence that there isn't something relevant tucked away i some other less-than-obvious obscure place.

A lot is in the SkyWay Code, thankfully - but not everything, and the SkyWay Code tends to lag changes.

Eschew obfuscation!

[Bathman]

As posted elsewhere the answer is 3500 miles to the west and its call the FAR AIM

[flybymike]

its call the FAR AIM

Surely that’s for firing ranges higher than 3000ft.