London NATS ATC 131.1166Mhz - Uniden BCT15X

[SilverShadow]

London NATS Air Traffic Control on 131.1166Mhz AM Both ways picked up 150 miles away in Derbyshire, UK on a Uniden Bearcat BCT15X Radio Scanner.

Youtube Link: http://youtu.be/DOXOXM5hi4w

[sammy3417]

Good catch...dont put in on YouTube tho might give ATC some ideas about encrypting their communications

[m0lsx]

I looked at putting Norwich ATC on the international site http://www.liveatc.net/ However home work before doing it suggested that here in the UK, doing that results in almost immediate interest from Ofcom, this is due to pressure from NATS, as I understand it.
Someone several years ago tried to put one of the big London airports on liveatc & reported having been contacted by Ofcom within days.
Putting feeds & maybe also recordings of NATS online is a breech Section 5(1)(b) of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949..I only know that as it is what they accuse those who put feeds online with.
http://www.live-radio.net/atc.shtml

People putting UK feeds online have been contacted within 24 hours in the past..strange what difference pressure from NATS make to Ofcom, as someone breaking other laws is completely ignored.

[gazza]

Both Ways?
Surely that would be via a "local" repeater?

[ScanLeicester]

Still active today

[nickjaxe]

What you are listening to is London area radar...you will have a transmitter on a high hill somewhere near...its not London airport ATC..although the controller maybe based in the London area...some freq have several transmitter sites many miles apart to cover a big area.

Its for ATC cover for overflying a/c.

Nick.

[Brunlea]

I looked at putting Norwich ATC on the international site http://www.liveatc.net/ However home work before doing it suggested that here in the UK, doing that results in almost immediate interest from Ofcom, this is due to pressure from NATS, as I understand it.
Someone several years ago tried to put one of the big London airports on liveatc & reported having been contacted by Ofcom within days.
Putting feeds & maybe also recordings of NATS online is a breech Section 5(1)(b) of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949..I only know that as it is what they accuse those who put feeds online with.
http://www.live-radio.net/atc.shtml

People putting UK feeds online have been contacted within 24 hours in the past..strange what difference pressure from NATS make to Ofcom, as someone breaking other laws is completely ignored.

I was in contact with Broadcastify about live streaming aviation but then thought it wasn't worth the risk being in the UK. It's annoying why they cause such a fuss over a harmless hobby. If people don't want to have their transmissions monitored then they should either switch to something secure, or perhaps there should be a UK database of users who do not give permission to be monitored. As a tax payer, surely I have some right to monitor the services that are using something I have paid for (Within reason) and that pass on/over the free land. I can access most other things that are confidential via the DPA and share it.

When I go to Manchester Airport's Aviation Park, the shop not only broadcasts live transmission from the tower and air control zones over their in-store speakers, but recommends people buy a radio scanner to listen to aviation. They plaster adverts for them all over the shop! They have done that for years and i'm sure NATS are aware of it.

Would it not be possible to release a license that allows you to monitor? You then have a database of harmless people just enjoying a hobby. I'd even pay for one if it wasn't too ridiculous in price.

I can watch and stream locations of aircraft with my radar, surely that is more dangerous? Why isn't that illegal?

[milly]

I agree about the pointless and unenforceable restrictions on listening to radio transmissions.

As a tax payer, surely I have some right to monitor the services that are using something I have paid for (Within reason) and that pass on/over the free land. I can access most other things that are confidential via the DPA and share it.

Being a taxpayer doesn't exclude you from abiding by the law. To put it another way....you have paid for roads and road furniture, probably pay taxes to use a vehicle and yet you can still be prosecuted for travelling at 31 mph in an area with a 30mph speed limit in force.
'most' is a gross over-exaggeration when talking about confidential things you can access as a result of the DPA.

When I go to Manchester Airport's Aviation Park, the shop not only broadcasts live transmission from the tower and air control zones over their in-store speakers, but recommends people buy a radio scanner to listen to aviation. They plaster adverts for them all over the shop! They have done that for years and i'm sure NATS are aware of it.

The various Wireless Telegraphy Acts have included the proviso that you can listen to transmissions if you have permission of the licence holder. When at Ringway you have that permission.

I can watch and stream locations of aircraft with my radar, surely that is more dangerous? Why isn't that illegal?

You operate a RADAR transmitter on land in the UK? Under what terms was that licenced?

[Brunlea]

I agree about the pointless and unenforceable restrictions on listening to radio transmissions.

Being a taxpayer doesn't exclude you from abiding by the law. To put it another way....you have paid for roads and road furniture, probably pay taxes to use a vehicle and yet you can still be prosecuted for travelling at 31 mph in an area with a 30mph speed limit in force.
'most' is a gross over-exaggeration when talking about confidential things you can access as a result of the DPA.

The various Wireless Telegraphy Acts have included the proviso that you can listen to transmissions if you have permission of the licence holder. When at Ringway you have that permission.

You operate a RADAR transmitter on land in the UK? Under what terms was that licenced?

I should have probably replaced "most" with "lots/many/loads".

I agree laws are there, and generally laws are to protect life and property; travelling at 31mph can be dangerous, and I agreed to those act/laws when I accepted my driving license. Although the Wireless Telegraphy Act could be argued by the freemen of the land is not a law, rather than an act imposed on you if you accept it. I'd rather be within the law but enjoy a harmless hobby that doesn't cause a threat to life or property.

Who gives the permission to everyone to listen to aircraft at Manchester Airport and the ATC zones? I really want to know as I'm tempted to write them a letter asking for "permission".

If the shop has permission to sell a radio for monitoring aviation, then buying that radio from them surely means you have that permission to use it for that purpose? I hope they tell buyers and state it in the sale it's only to be used at that location.

How can listening to an aircraft be more dangerous than watching or broadcasting an exact location of an aircraft through RadarBox software? That's right, it isn't which is why mo.... lots/many/loads of other countries don't give a second thought about people listening.

[milly]

I agree laws are there, and generally laws are to protect life and property; travelling at 31mph can be dangerous, and I agreed to those act/laws when I accepted my driving license. Although the Wireless Telegraphy Act could be argued by the freemen of the land is not a law, rather than an act imposed on you if you accept it. I'd rather be within the law but enjoy a harmless hobby that doesn't cause a threat to life or property.

You agree that laws are there but you only agree that some of them apply to you? More realistically expressed as everyone choses to ignore some laws
'Freemen of the land' - interesting to bring that term into things. If you believe the spam about it then you presumably do not accept that any Act of Parliament applies to you and all of the other waffle becomes irrelevant ........so you could use broadcastify or any other streaming medium with impunity.

Who gives the permission to everyone to listen to aircraft at Manchester Airport? If the shop has permission to sell a radio for monitoring aviation, then buying that radio from them surely means you have that permission to use it for that purpose? I hope they tell buyers and state it in the sale it's only to be used at that location.

The licence holder, Manchester Airport Plc has given permission. In the same way, most airshows give permission. In both cases presumably because it is easier to do so (for a perfectly harmless hobby) than to try and prevent people from bringing airband capable receivers on site and breaking the law by using them. They also permit airband communication to be broadcast over their PA system (as do the Sparrows and other display aircraft).
As for the shop telling you anything about the legality..why should they? It is not illegal to buy, sell or own a receiver/scanner capable of receiving any radio frequency in the UK. It is up to the person using such equipment to operate it within the law.

How can listening to an aircraft be more dangerous than watching or broadcasting an exact location of an aircraft through RadarBox software? That's right, it isn't which is why most other countries don't give a second thought about people listening.

Who said it's more dangerous? You now mention 'radarbox software' - I guess this means you DON'T in fact operate the RADAR transmitter that you earlier post implied. As for whether using a radio to monitor mode S / ADBS signals is legal or otherwise...no idea. Does it class as 'broadcast' (ie. not intended for a specific recipient) and is therefore fair game?

There are often comments that NATS / CAA come down hard and quickly on people yet there are hundreds of youtube clips of UK ATC comms. None of the reports ever seem to be able to quote specific examples or named people.

If people use any of my online recievers to listen to things they shouldn't I don't worry as there is a clear statement to the effect that people should use the receivers within the terms of their local laws and that I don't take responsibility for ensuring they do. OFCOM must be happy with that as the receivers have been online for around 15 years and they've never knocked on my door (unlike the TV licensing people who write to my home address once a month to remind the occupier that there is time to get a licence before the court case is instigated).

Like most people on here, I'll continue to listen to what I feel like regardless of the legality given that I'm unlikely to do any harm to the licencees/users/myself.