[Flyin'Dutch']

@riverrock Are you a PAW spokesperson?

[johnm]

@riverrock as I pointed out above the receiver would have to be under UK jurisdiction for the Act to have any relevance....

[Cub]

Pretty obviously you didn't bother to research the point I made about the difficulty or impossibility experienced by others on this very forum trying to do what you say is an easy thing to do. SO, for the hard of searching, let's see how you get on with some of the replies below. After that, please let us know how you get on with your requests to suppress the sharing of your data from the companies you have listed. Once you've actually achieved what you say is an easy thing to do with those companies I think your whining will be taken far more seriously. Good luck

.

Clearly the PilotAware customer service and engagement training has not filtered down to you yet but not to worry

Actually, in conjunction with a colleague who takes the privacy and security of his clients very seriously, we have been very successful in suppressing the sharing of the position and flight identity of four Channel Island’s registered aircraft on several of the sites you quote although not with 360Radar who I understand PilotAware exchange their data with?

Hence, I return once again to my original point. I am personally more than happy for the electronic emission from my aircraft (Mode A,C,S, ADS-B, PilotAware or FLARM) to be received, processed, shared and rebroadcast for flight safety purposes, to afford me and others the protection of these emissions. I am less comfortable with the sharing of that data for public view and scrutiny.

Does PilotAware have any mechanism to allow the emissions received by them from my aircraft to just be shared for the intended purposes and not redistributed by them on a publicly accessible site such as 360Radar?

[GrahamB]

@riverrock Are you a PAW spokesperson?

Are you a spokesman for your Health Authority/Employer/CAA every time you answer a medical question with facts and some opinion thrown in?

[lobstaboy]

@lobstaboy

The Wireless Telegraphy Act

is as out of date as its name implies...

2006 isn't out of date, surely?
It's called Wireless Telegraphy by international agreement.

[johnm]

@lobstaboy Wireless Telegraphy no longer stands on its own, so legislating for a specific jurisdiction is largely pointless these days. The fact that something is illegal to receive or transmit in one territory is easily ignored by doing the transmitting and receiving somewhere else and passing the data on by other means.

[lobstaboy]

Hence, I return once again to my original point. I am personally more than happy for the electronic emission from my aircraft (Mode A,C,S, ADS-B, PilotAware or FLARM) to be received, processed, shared and rebroadcast for flight safety purposes, to afford me and others the protection of these emissions. I am less comfortable with the sharing of that data for public view and scrutiny.

Yes. Hence me banging on about the Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006.

[exfirepro]

@lobstaboy

The difference is that unlike FR24, PlaneFinder, and all the other ‘open to subscription’ or ‘free to access’ aircraft tracking sites (including NATS Airspace Explorer), PilotAware doesn’t ‘pass ADSB or any other data on to ‘the public’. It is rebroadcast only on request by another PilotAware unit, either directly from the original ground station, or where operationally more efficient - from another ground station with which has a more reliable connection to the requesting aircraft, via the encrypted GRID network.

With the exception of Mode-S data passed via encrypted link to our multilateration partner 360Radar in order to achieve multilateration (allowing us to accurately rebroadcast actual Mode-S aircraft positions), and OGN data passed directly to the OGN servers (under agreement to expand their safety coverage), NO data is shared with or sent to any other websites or freely available. 360Radar to my knowledge also do not share data with any other websites.

As stated earlier, PilotAware take great care when sharing or publishing any analysis data to ensure this is either done with the approval of the aircraft owner or that aircraft details are appropriately redacted. Where such publication (for example in this forum) may appear to reflect negatively on a device or installation, I can assure you that the primary intention is to encourage users to optimise the installation of their equipment for the benefit of us all. If others choose to take a different view, that is certainly not the intention of the PilotAware Team.

Agreeing to not display or rebroadcast individual aircraft positions to other aircraft - as @Cub originally seemed to be requesting (latest post above acknowledged) would IMO be on the same level as condoning the user of the aircraft engaging ‘stealth mode’ by turning off their EC transmitters, which would be absolutely ludicrous and totally counterproductive to what we are all trying to achieve. Hopefully, I have clarified the position re any broader release or sharing of data.

[lobstaboy]

@lobstaboy Wireless Telegraphy no longer stands on its own, so legislating for a specific jurisdiction is largely pointless these days. The fact that something is illegal to receive or transmit in one territory is easily ignored by doing the transmitting and receiving somewhere else and passing the data on by other means.

Not so. If I'm at 3000' over central UK and my aircraft's adsb transmission (which I intend to be used by other pilots) is displayed on, for example, FR24, then it must have been received by a ground station in the UK because its range is limited. It doesn't matter where the FR24 servers and stuff are because it is the person operating the receiving ground station who is contravening the Act.

[PaulSS]

Clearly the PilotAware customer service and engagement training has not filtered down to you yet but not to worry

That's because, unlike you with uAvionix, I have never had a vested interest in Pilot Aware, am not (nor have ever been) employed by Pilot Aware and have never received any incentive, gift or reward for expressing my views on their product. In fact, quite the opposite, I have paid full price for all my Pilot Aware and ATOM station kit. I have never had any 'customer service and engagement training' from Pilot Aware.

On the other side of the fence, your pointed questioning, rhetorical suggestions and unfounded accusations started when you were employed by uAvionix. It's a shame some of their customer service and engagement training didn't rub off on you, as you'd then realise your modus operandi of deflection and ridiculous questions, that got you nowhere as a uAvionix employee, continue to disappoint after your short-lived career with them.

You know the answers to your questions, conveniently ignore those that aren't a challenge to uAvionix (e.g. NATS sharing your Mode S MLAT information) and seem totally oblivious to the the facts, versus your perception of suppressing the information you hold so dear.

Why are you not asking your questions of the CAA, NATS etc? You must have previous colleagues in those august organisations who would only be too willing to answer your queries.

[Cub]

@riverrock Are you a PAW spokesperson?

Are you a spokesman for your Health Authority/Employer/CAA every time you answer a medical question with facts and some opinion thrown in?

Graham. I think the problem is trying to work out who or who is not speaking for PilotAware on these topics. Lee clearly is fundamental to the operation but understandably cherry picks his contributions carefully but then we have a quite long but perhaps interchangeable (?) list of pseudonyms, some of which are extremely rude, aggressive and accusative, but do appear to contribute facts around the product and it’s functionality. Often these are the only apparent ‘official’ response to the debate and then are ‘endorsed’ by a like from Lee or another member of the recognised team.

I completely accept that a ‘like’ does not represent endorsement or attribution to the company but it is one small indication that what has been said may represent the view of the company or at least that individual.

I hasten to add that I regard a ‘like’ of my posts by @gaznav as the Sword of Damocles to the ongoing debate

[johnm]

@lobstaboy I grant you that FR 24 et al may be illegal but I don't think ATOM grid is because they are acting as agents.

[Cub]

The difference is that unlike FR24, PlaneFinder, and all the other ‘open to subscription’ or ‘free to access’ aircraft tracking sites (including NATS Airspace Explorer), PilotAware doesn’t ‘pass ADSB or any other data on to ‘the public’. It is rebroadcast only on request by another PilotAware unit, either directly from the original ground station, or where operationally more efficient - from another ground station with which has a more reliable connection to the requesting aircraft, via the encrypted GRID network.

With the exception of Mode-S data passed via encrypted link to our multilateration partner 360Radar in order to achieve multilateration (allowing us to accurately rebroadcast actual Mode-S aircraft positions), and OGN data passed directly to the OGN servers (under agreement to expand their safety coverage), NO data is shared with or sent to any other websites or freely available. 360Radar to my knowledge also do not share data with any other websites.

As stated earlier, PilotAware take great care when sharing or publishing any analysis data to ensure this is either done with the approval of the aircraft owner or that aircraft details are appropriately redacted. Where such publication (for example in this forum) may appear to reflect negatively on a device or installation, I can assure you that the primary intention is to encourage users to optimise the installation of their equipment for the benefit of us all. If others choose to take a different view, that is certainly not the intention of the PilotAware Team.

Agreeing to not display or rebroadcast individual aircraft positions to other aircraft - as @Cub originally seemed to be requesting (latest post above acknowledged) would IMO be on the same level as condoning the user of the aircraft engaging ‘stealth mode’ by turning off their EC transmitters, which would be absolutely ludicrous and totally counterproductive to what we are all trying to achieve. Hopefully, I have clarified the position re any broader release or sharing of data.

@exfirepro Thank you for the comprehensive answer.

I am still a little confused. Can you please confirm then that my P3I or multilatrrated Mode S position received by ATOM ground stations is or is not rebroadcast by 360Radar?

Also, please confirm that 360Radar do not sell/pass that data to other providers?

Please be clear I am not suggesting that I or anyone else adopt ‘stealth mode’ as you describe it. I am simply asking about the possibility for the emission to be used for the purpose intended and not shared on a public forum.

[riverrock]

@riverrock Are you a PAW spokesperson?

Just to be clear - certainly not, I'm only a customer (PAW fitted to one of my group owned aircraft, awaiting installation on the other).

Nothing I've said is outside public domain.

Think they should give me a job ? (I'd say no anyway...)

[johnm]

@Cub 360radar is a subscription service as I'm sure you know. If that worries you then you might want to have a serious panic about this from NATS