Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Map of radar sites

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Map of radar sites

    Hi is there a map of FR24 receiver site locations please?

    Thanks.

  • #2
    No, and there never will be, such a map would breach privacy laws in several European countries, the best you can hope for is one with the positions randomised to +-10km or so.
    FR24 F-EGLF1, Blitzortung station 878, OGN Aldersht2, PilotAware PWAldersht, PlanePlotter M7.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by F-EGLF1 View Post
      such a map would breach privacy laws in several European countries
      Why would it? What "privacy" is at risk?
      Mike


      www.radarspotting.com

      Radarspotting since 2005

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Anmer View Post
        Why would it? What "privacy" is at risk?
        Try asking the Germans that, they are paranoid over such things.
        FR24 F-EGLF1, Blitzortung station 878, OGN Aldersht2, PilotAware PWAldersht, PlanePlotter M7.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by F-EGLF1 View Post
          Try asking the Germans that, they are paranoid over such things.
          Maybe but such maps exist for other flight tracking services. Paranoia's not the same a breaching "privacy laws".
          Mike


          www.radarspotting.com

          Radarspotting since 2005

          Comment


          • #6
            More relevant than privacy laws is laws regarding the reception of radio transmissions. Unless the UK laws have changed markedly, to receive transmissions is fine, but to relay (divulge the contents) of those to another is a breach of the radio legislation. There's something to ponder......

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Stealth View Post
              More relevant than privacy laws is laws regarding the reception of radio transmissions. Unless the UK laws have changed markedly, to receive transmissions is fine, but to relay (divulge the contents) of those to another is a breach of the radio legislation. There's something to ponder......
              That's the answer Kinetic used to come up with whenever it was asked why it had abandoned its data sharing option is BaseStation. Back in 2006!

              I'm 100% sure UK authorities are well aware of Mode-S data being "relayed" and by whom.
              Mike


              www.radarspotting.com

              Radarspotting since 2005

              Comment


              • #8
                Here we have similar, worded to the effect of 'to which you are not the intended recipient'

                What gets it across the line, is such things as a 'broadcast' (TCAS avoidance) is intended for multiple varied recipients.

                Wouldn't be an issue if there was an opt-in capability to please those who do not want to (and block countries where it would be seen as a loss of rights/public privacy breech). But I suspect the consideration to spend time coding for it is very low priority.
                Posts not to be taken as official support representation - Just a helpful uploader who tinkers

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Anmer View Post
                  That's the answer Kinetic used to come up with whenever it was asked why it had abandoned its data sharing option is BaseStation. Back in 2006!

                  I'm 100% sure UK authorities are well aware of Mode-S data being "relayed" and by whom.
                  Pretty much irrelevant now, for as far as I know they haven't prosecuted anyone for divulging the contents of messages for many years, if at all. I doubt that any attempt would be regarded as incompetent and wouldn't make it to court. Just mentioned it in the sense of pointless legislation.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Oblivian View Post
                    Here we have similar, worded to the effect of 'to which you are not the intended recipient'

                    What gets it across the line, is such things as a 'broadcast' (TCAS avoidance) is intended for multiple varied recipients.

                    Wouldn't be an issue if there was an opt-in capability to please those who do not want to (and block countries where it would be seen as a loss of rights/public privacy breech). But I suspect the consideration to spend time coding for it is very low priority.
                    The system has got to the point where it is practically impossible to restrict who receives it. The voluntary efforts of various servers probably appeases any potential complaints from military/police/rich wankers.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Stealth View Post
                      The system has got to the point where it is practically impossible to restrict who receives it. The voluntary efforts of various servers probably appeases any potential complaints from military/police/rich wankers.
                      I have no problem with law enforcement flights and many aspects of military operations being blocked but it not just "rich wankers" with corporate jets who like to hide where private aircraft are going. Here in Australia there is an outfit that operates a fleet of old Saab and Metroliner planes on both charter and regular public transport ie airline operations. All their flights are completely blocked on Flight Aware and only show up on FR24 as a trail with the aircraft type as a callsign - just like corporate jets.

                      If they have some reason to block public viewing of charter ops then OK but in a country where ADSB is mandated for all aircraft operating under IFR and even small charter outfits operating Cessnas can be tracked by the public then I think people who have bought a ticket on such an airline are entitled to expect, for instance, that the person picking them up at the other end might be able to check progress of the flight on their phone.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Something to ask Flightaware about perhaps?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by airnrail View Post
                          I have no problem with law enforcement flights and many aspects of military operations being blocked but it not just "rich wankers" with corporate jets who like to hide where private aircraft are going. Here in Australia there is an outfit that operates a fleet of old Saab and Metroliner planes on both charter and regular public transport ie airline operations. All their flights are completely blocked on Flight Aware and only show up on FR24 as a trail with the aircraft type as a callsign - just like corporate jets.

                          If they have some reason to block public viewing of charter ops then OK but in a country where ADSB is mandated for all aircraft operating under IFR and even small charter outfits operating Cessnas can be tracked by the public then I think people who have bought a ticket on such an airline are entitled to expect, for instance, that the person picking them up at the other end might be able to check progress of the flight on their phone.
                          Given there are any number of sites providing un-filtered information it all seems rather pointless. You can add to your list the various companies engaged in Aerial Survey work, the Search and Rescue CL60"s, the jets operated by Care Flight and there is the C182 in NSW which changes its Mode S code when it wants to be visible.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X