[Sooty25]

I still believe FR24 and the like, are a blatant breach of the Wireless Telegraphy Act

48 Interception and disclosure of messages
(1)A person commits an offence if, [F1without lawful authority] —
(a)he uses wireless telegraphy apparatus with intent to obtain information as to the contents, sender or addressee of a message (whether sent by means of wireless telegraphy or not) of which neither he nor a person on whose behalf he is acting is an intended recipient, or
(b)he discloses information as to the contents, sender or addressee of such a message.

I agree. And I read that as meaning the owner of this forum/website is committing an offence also when a screen shot from FR24 is shown. But I am not a lawyer. And I'm nothing to do with Ofcom.

If it is done as a screen grab and doesn't display aircraft reg, as the two images in this thread are done, at worst, these are a copyright issue with the website owner.

[lobstaboy]

A person commits an offence if without lawful authority he discloses information as to the contents...
That's the key bit, with the punctuation etc changed to exclude the other bits.
Still sounds like an offence has been committed, even with anonimisation?

Anyway this is way off at a tangent really...

[Rob P]

Hypothetically…
- Anonymous user posts details about some crappy flying, or perceived crappy flying
- Some people pile on
- Site is viewed by many. Owners, Clubs, CAA etc.
- It may turn out that Mr/Mrs Anonymous was right. Or they may have been wrong.

Well as you say that is hypothetical.

In this case the 'perceived crappy flying' at best shows some dreadful issue with the altitude encoder, knowledge of which should get to the owner soonest.

If it puts people in fear of stupidity such as flying through a winch launch site, then it has been a good thing.

And it's not a question of anyone's privacy being 'invaded'. Nobody knows who the pilot is at any particular moment.

Just my 2p

Rob P

[PeteSpencer]

equally I have heard no convincing argument against it

Hypothetically…
- Anonymous user posts details about some crappy flying, or perceived crappy flying
- Some people pile on
- Site is viewed by many. Owners, Clubs, CAA etc.
- It may turn out that Mr/Mrs Anonymous was right. Or they may have been wrong.
- Lots of potential consequences for pilot. Not so much for anonymous poster, even fewer for those piling on afterwards

Plenty of downsides, next to no upside. There may be clear cut cases, but vast majority will be shades of grey. Only sensible option is to go with no reg/names.

Ian

Agreed : our Arrow piloted by a group member 'allegedly' flew through a paradrop zone while canopies were in the air.

I (as CAA registered group 'owner'/Trustee) got the sh itt iest imaginable letter (thanks G-INFO) from the dropzone outfit including photograph etc.

I had to trawl back through the records to identify the pilot from alleged time and date then dropped it in his lap. As often is the case there were about four sides to the story........................

[Dave W]

Hypothetically…

Well as you say that is hypothetical.

Yet just what Ian described has happened here many times, as we all sadly know when thinking back.

In this case...

It's a policy that covers unknowns and uncertainties. Those things are why there is a policy. It's never perfect, as nothing is.

But it is good enough.

I think that's my last try at an explanation.

[Rob P]

Yet just what Ian described has happened here many times, as we all sadly know when thinking back.

It has indeed, but this instance isn't one such.

Rob P

[Boxkite]

@midlifec Where did you get the height info from of the Cirrus? And what is the reference level for that quoted, are you talking AGL?

Mk1 eyeball, supported by this and other sources-

And does that site take into account the current pressure?

[Boxkite]

@midlifec Where did you get the height info from of the Cirrus? And what is the reference level for that quoted, are you talking AGL?

FR24 and the like report the altitude (AMSL) from the ADSB signal or Mode S, which means it is based on standard barometric pressure of 1013.2, so needs adjusting for the day.

Yes, I am aware, hence the question to midlifec.
And there's confusion in one sentence right there anyway; FR24 does not report "altitude (AMSL)". It reports Flight Level shown as feet, as stated in the second part of your sentence.

[Sooty25]

Even though I disagree with FR24 et al. I do occasionally have a look, usually as something passes over my office.

The other day EA Helimed passed over so I had a quick look and followed its departure.

He's keen, I though as he approached the hospital, over a town, at an indicated 120knts and 300ft. Only to see him disappear from the trace still doing 65knts and at -275ft!

[ls8pilot]

@midlifec Where did you get the height info from of the Cirrus? And what is the reference level for that quoted, are you talking AGL?

FR24 and the like report the altitude (AMSL) from the ADSB signal or Mode S, which means it is based on standard barometric pressure of 1013.2, so needs adjusting for the day.

Yes, I am aware, hence the question to midlifec.
And there's confusion in one sentence right there anyway; FR24 does not report "altitude (AMSL)". It reports Flight Level shown as feet, as stated in the second part of your sentence.

You are correct- the point is that at a Flight Level/standard pressure indication of around 1,800ft the aircraft was nowhere near the 3,700ft Altitude marked on the chart to be clear of winch launching. In any likely pressure range he was 1,200ft AGL +/- (typically) 300 ft .

It is of course this difference (added to possibly transponder errors) which can make FR24 show a negative altitude - as in the helicopter example.

I sat in on a Gasco safety event last year where there was a quiz on what the markings meant over glider sites - about two thirds of those answering got it wrong !

PS: I believe (from memory) the definition of FL is just "Altitude at Standard Pressure in 100's of feet", hence the phrasing in the original.

[VRB_20kt]

I sat in on a Gasco safety event last year where there was a quiz on what the markings meant over glider sites - about two thirds of those answering got it wrong !

That’s just a wee bit disingenuous isn’t it? Most pilots simply suggest that the figures are AAL rather than AMSL - an error that improves safety margins.

[Flyin'Dutch']

I sat in on a Gasco safety event last year where there was a quiz on what the markings meant over glider sites - about two thirds of those answering got it wrong !

That’s just a wee bit disingenuous isn’t it? Most pilots simply suggest that the figures are AAL rather than AMSL - an error that improves safety margins.

Is it?

Basic map reading, I would contend, a skill any pilot should have.

Not?

If they can't read that part of the map, what other bits are they not able to read?

Lack of knowledge is seldom an isolated phenomenon.

[VRB_20kt]

I imagine that there are quite a few bits that "they are not able to read" - just as there are ten road signs that most people simply don't know the meaning of.

When planning a route you have the time to look at the key and work out what you're seeing. When confronted with a symbol in a quiz that option is not available.

[lobstaboy]

When planning a route you have the time to look at the key and work out what you're seeing.

But too many folk just don't do that, do they? They just bang it in SD or other software and go.
This is precisely why I like to plan the route first on the paper chart, make sure I'm happy with it, and then put it into the GPS.
But I'm losing this argument I'm afraid.

[Lockhaven]

But too many folk just don't do that, do they? They just bang it in SD or other software and go.
This is precisely why I like to plan the route first on the paper chart, make sure I'm happy with it, and then put it into the GPS.
But I'm losing this argument I'm afraid.

Your not losing the argument with me because that's exactly how I plan as well.