I love this site, but legally speaking do owners/operators have a right to not have their flight tracked? Or is this simply a courtesy that this website extends to them?
IMO these aircraft are operating within the NAS, which is paid for by the public and users. If you choose to utilize these services your flight should be trackable.
Now I certainly understand AF1 or military flights needing to be secure as our security and national defense depends on it. But Jessica Simpson, Donald Trump or Phil Knight do not have the same right.
In my mind it’s no different than a person operating a motor vehicle on a public roadway. You have no right to privacy.
Yes, aircraft owners have the right to have their aircraft blocked. Complying with the NBAA BARR program is a requirement of the Memorandum of Agreement we signed with the FAA in order to get our ASDI feed from the FAA. We still receive flight tracking information about those aircraft, but we can’t share it with anyone except the owner and their agents.
Some aircraft (AF1, N1-N9) are blocked by the FAA, so we never see any information about them. Any operator can request either type of blocking. Foreign registrations (tail numbers and airlines) are blocked by the FAA by default although they may choose to be included in the ASDI feed.
I totally agree. Although a memorandum of understanding with NBAA sounds fancy, it means nothing to me. It’s like the AAA telling me to check the oil and pressure in my tires before driving on a holiday weekend.
What if every aircraft owner decided they didn’t want their aircraft tracked. This website would cease to exist. If I can listen to each of these aircraft on a scanner they should be required to be tracked.
The question is worded incorrectly. As mduell alluded to, it’s not FlightAware that is doing the blocking. I imagine FlightAware would like to show all flights but, as part of the contract to get the data from the FAA, they cannot.
I personally don’t like public companies blocking their aircraft because then the shareholders cannot see how the aircraft are used.
It appears Dami’s posting contains partially incorrect information.
Flight aware is going above the requirements for blocked flights. Using Dami’s very own words at discussions.flightaware.com/view … lights+bug, Flight Aware is following the spirit of the law, not the letter of the law.
To make a blanket statement that Flight Aware is not doing any blocking is incorrect.
Flight Aware is blocking blocked flights from being displayed in the arrivals and departures.
Allie (can I call you by what appears to be your real nickname of “incorrect” because that seems to be your favorite word?), here’s exactly what I said:
I think the other sites are following the letter of the law while FlightAware goes one step further and follows the spirit of the law. In other words, they are better than the others.
Whether they are following the spirit or the letter of the law, FlightAware is doing the right thing. The other sites that show “Blocked” for blocked aircraft are, in my OPINION, doing the wrong thing. I admire FlightAware for following the law the way it does.
Well that’s simply not correct. I can use dozens of city traffic cams to follow your car all over town. You are operating on a publically owned roadway. You have NO right to privacy. It’s no different than somebody taking a picture of you in public, you have no right to privacy there either.
Now if the aircraft is VFR and not talking to any ATC facility then they have the right to privacy.
Traffic cameras will not allow you to track a vehicle. You MIGHT be able to see the car of someone in particular - but can you be COMPLETELY SURE it is indeed that person’s car? No - you can’t read the license plates, so you can’t really be sure it’s THE vehicle.
Even so, IF you’re reasonably sure it’s the right vehicle, you can only follow it’s movement from camera to camera which basically shows direction of movement. You CANNOT know for sure exactly WHERE the vehicle’s destination is going to be. Once the vehicle exits from the roadway under surveillance, you can no longer “track” its movement and know for certain where the vehicle will be.
On ther other hand, FlightAware will tell you specifically where the flight originated, where it is going and even WHEN it’s expected to arrive. On top of that, aircraft owner information (name and address) is publicly available on the Internet. The probability of abuse is much higher with aircraft than with cars and traffic cameras.
You are conficting yourself on the above. NeedleNose covered the detailed part of a flight plan that isn’t so readily available on ground traffic, and covered it very well, so I don’t need to rehash that.
You are saying if I understand you correctly, that I have no right to privacy on a public road. Fine, I have no problem with that statement.
But, then you conflict yourself by saying VFR traffic using the very same public airways that IFR traffic uses have the right to privacy?
Your argument just don’t make the cut compairing VFR vs IFR as you can’t have the cake and eat it too!
I am hearing you on what you say about not using ATC services, but that has no relevance to my privacy, since there is the option of VFR flight following, that uses the very same resources as IFR and does NOT get tracked.
The absolute only reason the tracking is available is because I voluntarily file a flight plan. That doesn’t mean I voluntarily have to give up the choice of privacy.
BTW, I choose not to use the NBAA BARR system, as I see the value of others besides those close to me being able to track my tail number.
When they are VFR they are not using the ATC system funded by the taxpayers. No separation service or flight following services are being provided. This is especially true if they are departing a privately owned airfield.
And that’s about all that needs to be said about that!
As for aircraft owned be publicly traded companies…They are no different in their right to privacy. The aircraft is for the purpose of the conduct of business. And if the aircraft was trackable that company could be unwittingly placed in a position of competitive disadvantage and/or be at risk in its security of information or personnel.
If a shareholder of a public company wants to ensure the proper use of assets they have the prospectus that will show aircraft utilization and budget…maybe not where the aircraft goes all of the time, but that’s proprietary information. And there’s the board of directors, who are voted to their position to persue the best interests of the shareholders. Which includes aircraft use.
Most of those “self absorbed rich folk” have earned the privilege, and are entitled to the same rights as the working stiffs. Their use of “public services” doesn’t come for free…not even for them.
I disagree, just because you are rich or famous doesn’t give you a special right to privacy. Just ask Brittney Spears who is hounded by the paparazzi everyday. I don’t think it’s right, but she’s no more or less special than you or I.
Again, IMO the only aircraft that should be exempt are those critical to the safety and security or this nation. Otherwise if you’re using services paid for by the public your flight should be transparent to all.
I have a feeling it does mean something to you: without the MoA with the FAA, there is no ASDI feed for us; without the ASDI feed for us, there is no FlightAware for you.
So what you’re saying is that, because we drive our cars on public roadways, we should all be able to enter a license number into a Web page, find out where that car is, when it is going to leave, to where it’s going and when it’ll get there. AND we should be able to go to another Web site, enter that same license number and get the name and address of the owner of that vehicle? That’s MY understanding of what you said!
