I wasn’t suggesting it’s illegal to just listen to ATC, rather that it’s not allowed to do anything with that traffic.
A question for those feeders that are also listening to ATC with a good VHF-antenna, what is the reception range compared to ADS-B?
Yes I know Keith, the laws involved with the CAA are complex. I had to sit a written, and a practical exam, along with time served usage in my log book to get my radio license.
My PPL was very monitered by the CAA in the UK from start to end.
Its a fine line to listen, and at some point like the old police channels (which got moved away from FM where everyone listened to them) to the general public enjoying the fun of following aircraft.
In the old days with air band radios, I used to sit on a hill near to me to monitor and then hear the French Concorde break the sound barrier on a clear day, with binoculars and radio tuned in, myself and a good friend used to wait to see the odd angled vapour trail towards the south heading west in anticipation
If we could not get reception, as we knew the times of flights (AF001)) (this was well before all this hobby came along) we would watch the skies to the south
Personally, I have seen every (including prototypes) Concordes in flight.
Now, I am enjoying this hobby from a distance and still on the learning curve
Best regards
J
Range with the DPD Airband antenna and Antennas.us preamp is roughly similar to my ADSB tracking range (I’m terrain limited on some sides). Basically, I can hear planes out to around 170 nm over the ocean well enough. This is about where the ATC zones I tune into end. I can sometimes hear them before I can track them. Also, can hear very low altitude planes when ADS-B can’t.
Range over high mountains seems to be about the same, but that’s also where the ATC zone lines are drawn. I’d have to tune into frequencies on the other side of the mountains to see what I could get. In terms of distance and obstructions, VHF wins overall by nature. And HFDL range is about 6,000 nm so far…
That’s the situation in Germany (from a discussion board):
In Germany, eavesdropping on aircraft radio is a criminal offense. For example, Sections 148 and 89 of the Telecommunications Act (TKG) provide that eavesdropping on messages not intended for the operator of the radio equipment or communicating the content of such a message or the fact of its receipt is a criminal offense punishable by up to two years’ imprisonment or a fine.
As “operator” you need a specific license called radiotelephone certificate (aviation)
You can own a device, but you must not use it for that purpose without the license, which is also documented in this (I haven’t read all the details)
Zertificate looks like this:
And what happens when you listen to aircraft radio through the internet when the communication is picked up in a country where listening is not prohibited?
are you volunteering? 
I don’t know about streams of radio in Germany.
Sometimes i listened to radio in Europe, but i do not find it that interesting.
Like this site:
Scannernet.nl - Live scanner Civil-Air (Mobile)
That will be for the courts to decide 
One can always STFW. Government agencies in charge of telecommunications in different countries have websites. So do those who regulate aircraft operations in their country. Also, you may find a searchable law library for the country of interest.
The trouble is, the results are not always easy to interpret. For instance, it is frequently said that feeding ATC to the internet is legal in Canada yet the radio regulator’s website seems to clearly state that reception of non broadcast traffic is prohibited.
I remember having this discussion with @abcd567 last year New device VHF Airband FlightStick from Radarbox/Airnav Systems - #37 by LawrenceHill
The Cananian regulations are very similar to those of the UK and In the UK the equipment that is exempt would be declared in what is known as a statutory instrument. However, they and exactly what is defined within them are much more difficult to find.
In the UK it is almost impossible to find out what is legal and what is not until there has been a court ruling. The regulator makes the rules but does not give legal advice. It is up to the courts to decide what the rules the regulator has made actually mean.
… becaue they both have same Queen, this is natural.
1 Like
List of European countries from where Air Band voice communications are streamed to Liveatc.net. We can infer that in these countries law permits receiving and broadcasting on internet the Air Band communications:
Bulgaria
Czech Republic
France
Hungary
Ireland
Latvia
Lithuania
Malta
Moldova
Netherlands
North Macedonia
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Serbia
Slovakia
Slovenia
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
The post I was replying to was about the legality of receiving and monitoring airband communications in the first place, not necessarily about feeding them in turn to an Internet site.
IIRC, in the US it’s illegal to monitor private point-to-point communications such as radiotelephone conversations for longer than it takes to identify that that’s what it is. That could be what the Canadian regulator’s website means. This is why access to an online law library that also contains case law and previous court decisions would be handy if you can find one for your country, or else ask a lawyer: many if not most provide free initial consultations. There may even be an online “ask a lawyer” site for your country if you look for one. Then you could find out if anyone’s been charged with violating this law, and if so how the judge interpreted the meaning and intent of the law.
This is why there are so many lawyers, and why case law plays an important role in the judicial system: the legislative body who made the law presumably knew what the intent of the law was but they almost never clearly state that intent within the law itself, leaving it open to later interpretation as lawyers and judges end up having to second-guess the legislator’s intent.
In your example it depends on how “broadcast” is interpreted. A pilot speaking to ATC could be interpreted as point-to-point nonbroadcast traffic. OTOH the intent of aeronautical communications is that other pilots may also receive them so that they know what’s going on with other air traffic in the area to help with collision avoidance, which could indicate that they’re actually general broadcast messages after all. This is why there’s often a frequency on which radio traffic from the tower, approach, departure etc. are merged so all of these frequencies’ traffic can be heard by area pilots on one freq. I can’t remember what the term is for these merged feeds on one freq.
I also think it’s illegal to make use of what you hear while radio monitoring for personal gain or criminal purposes: it’s generally OK to monitor unencrypted first responders on a scanner for personal information and enjoyment but it’s not OK to sit outside of a bank in a getaway car and monitor them so you know when the cops are coming, for example.
My point was that the Canadian regulator’s site states that the reception itself is prohibited. It is obvious however there is a difference between the stated regulations and what is tolerated. In many countries there are quite large differences between what the law states and what is the commonly accepted practice.
So if you’re listening to, say. an AM broadcast station on your car radio and it picks up radio traffic from a nearby aircraft or tower that you’re driving past you’ve just broken the law? That’s stupid.
That is not permitted under UK legislation (if you fancy wading through these):
Again, it depends on the laws in particular countries. If your blessed to live in a free country like I do, for instance, the only laws regarding radios are to do with transmitting without the proper license or permit or causing interference with other communications. I haven’t been able to find any laws regulating the reception of radio (broadly defined by me to cover everything between DC and daylight, including satellites and television.) Other countries are less free and more restrictive. Hence my advise to search for online law libraries and/or consult with a lawyer.
But not all of us live in free countries such as yours
…and I typed “your” instead of “you’re”. More caffeine needed. 
1 Like