topgun260 wrote:"And like I said earlier, turning off the transponder doesn't eliminate the primary target your airplane paints on ATC's radar. If they can see you with the transponder on, they can also see you with it off."
Not hardly. That may be the case in the area you stated but that certainly is not the case everywhere.

I have been told that standard ATC radar picks up txp returns but doesn't "skin paint" very well,
whereas military radar does both.
FWIW my main interaction with ATC is with a Naval Air Station.

Ace 007 said "It's time the FAA (with prodding from AOPA/EAA) got our personal info off of public website. I can't look up car license plates on the net, neither should I be able to look up N numbers."

Amen to that.

Anyone else notice how, if you file a BARR request to prevent the FAA from sharing your flight tracks with vendors, FlightAware puts up a big notice with your name, N number, city of residence in all caps, plus a link to your registration, saying "This aircraft (N------) is not available for public tracking per request from the owner/operator." Like it's their RIGHT to publish who I am, where I live, what I fly and where I go. I could do the Delaware LLC thing to anonymize myself, but there's cost and time for that. I used to think Flightaware was kind of neat. Now I think they're buttholes.

As for government surveillance, what Cary said is sad, but true. You have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide. Of course, that's only true if everyone in the G is 100% worthy of trust. Funny how aviation and aviators somehow fell through the cracks in the 4th amendment.

CAVU

O no...I guess we all better put on our tin foil hats now because we don't want everyone to be able to track us

hotrod180 wrote:

topgun260 wrote:"And like I said earlier, turning off the transponder doesn't eliminate the primary target your airplane paints on ATC's radar. If they can see you with the transponder on, they can also see you with it off."
Not hardly. That may be the case in the area you stated but that certainly is not the case everywhere.

I have been told that standard ATC radar picks up txp returns but doesn't "skin paint" very well,
whereas military radar does both.
FWIW my main interaction with ATC is with a Naval Air Station.

I've done experimental transponder testing with an faa facility that required turning off our transponder. They still saw us just fine. Not sure if that's typical or an outlier, just what we experienced.

CamTom12 wrote:

hotrod180 wrote:

topgun260 wrote:"And like I said earlier, turning off the transponder doesn't eliminate the primary target your airplane paints on ATC's radar. If they can see you with the transponder on, they can also see you with it off."
Not hardly. That may be the case in the area you stated but that certainly is not the case everywhere.

I have been told that standard ATC radar picks up txp returns but doesn't "skin paint" very well,
whereas military radar does both.
FWIW my main interaction with ATC is with a Naval Air Station.

I've done experimental transponder testing with an faa facility that required turning off our transponder. They still saw us just fine. Not sure if that's typical or an outlier, just what we experienced.

Every time I have requested advisories up here, flying around /x they have had 0 problem "skin painting" me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Primary radar range is dependent on several things such as aircraft size, orientation to the station antenna, the altitude you are flying above terrain and other clutter. Think of a Short Skyvan (large, flat reflective side and very large radar cross-section) flying perpendicular to the station antenna at 50 miles and 10,000' VS a LongEZ (small composite, very small radar cross-section) flying right at it at 200 miles and 500' AGL. Huge difference in return between these two. Throw some precip between you and the station and it makes the return even weaker.

Secondary radar just has to receive the signal from your transponder which usually puts out around 200 watts of power. That's a lot of power to send a signal 200 miles.

Obviously other things factor in as well such as station elevation above average terrain, transmitter/receiver type, power output, antenna size and other site specific issues.

YMMV

Timberwolf wrote:O no...I guess we all better put on our tin foil hats now because we don't want everyone to be able to track us

No need to mock fellow aviators who might have a different view on privacy than you.

Timberwolf wrote:O no...I guess we all better put on our tin foil hats now because we don't want everyone to be able to track us

Indeed!

I guess flying under the radar will hide you from Big Brother if that is what you want. I do know the jets on the military routes "those little black lines on your chart" can paint you with their targeting radar no matter what, which is comforting. I understand it is a bit of a game with the jet jockeys to paint GA aircraft with their radar. Cannot confirm nor deny they then make practice runs on painted "target".

Timberwolf wrote:O no...I guess we all better put on our tin foil hats now because we don't want everyone to be able to track us

My point and example of "tracking gone bad" was completely lost on you then. The copter in that example was doing everything legally but was tracked, stalked, and harassed.

Ace007 wrote:

Timberwolf wrote:O no...I guess we all better put on our tin foil hats now because we don't want everyone to be able to track us

My point and example of "tracking gone bad" was completely lost on you then. The copter in that example was doing everything legally but was tracked, stalked, and harassed.

I think you're missing the point. I completely agree that a situation like this should never happen. That was more geared towards hotrod and his picture. Again, it's none of anyone else's business where I fly my plane as long as I'm abiding by all applicable FAR's and not bothering anybody. Since when did aviators get such thin skinned? Hotrod got it.

Maybe people recall a couple years ago where some government agencies were tracking aircraft that were squawking 1200 flying around VFR only to be rolled up by a bunch of bullies in black SUV's looking for drugs. Those illegal stop/seizure activities were halted, but sure makes it easy for big brother to track who you are with the current equipment.

This has developed into a very interesting thread.

I have never been comfortable with the “You have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide” argument.



Here is an interesting article by Alex Abdo, Senior Staff Attorney, ACLU Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project titled “ You May Have 'Nothing to Hide' But You Still Have Something to Fear ”

Link : https://www.aclu.org/blog/you-may-have-nothing-hide-you-still-have-something-fear

Interesting read. YMMV

Denali wrote:This has developed into a very interesting thread.

I have never been comfortable with the “You have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide” argument.



Here is an interesting article by Alex Abdo, Senior Staff Attorney, ACLU Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project titled “ You May Have 'Nothing to Hide' But You Still Have Something to Fear ”

Link : https://www.aclu.org/blog/you-may-have-nothing-hide-you-still-have-something-fear

Interesting read. YMMV

I guess I spent too much time in the legal system to ascribe to the “You have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide” argument, either. Not sure I agree with the ACLU, either. I tend towards being more moderate. Law enforcement can and does get too heavy handed at times; it's also pretty necessary in a civilized society.

But my point was that, regardless of one's feelings about the ability of the gummit to track flights, turning off the transponder (if equipped) and ADS-B Out (if equipped) is an intentional violation of the regs which could get a pilot into a whole lot of trouble.

So let's imagine Pilot Scofflaw, doing nothing else that violates the regs, is regularly flying with his transponder and ADS-B Out turned off. His primary target is picked up by ATC. The controller reports to his supervisor that once again, he's painting a primary target going from Airport A to Airport B, and this is the umpty umpth time it's happened this month. Supervisor reports it up the line, and Inspector at FSDO decides that it's time to look into it. So he drives to Airport B, waits for a phone call from controller that he's painting the target as it flies from Airport A. Scofflaw lands at Airport B in his well equipped Bugsmasher, but with his portable electronic surveillance doodads, Inspector doesn't pick up any transponder or ADS-B Out transmissions during Scofflaw's approach.

Inspector does a ramp inspection of the Bugsmasher, as he's allowed to do by regulation. He notices that although it's equipped with an avionics master, the off/standby/on/alt switch on the transponder is off, confirming his electronic surveillance. He advises Scofflaw that he'll be getting a notice of violation letter. Cutting to the chase, the end result is that Scofflaw's certificate is suspended for 90 days, for intentional violation of FAR 91.215 for transponder operation and 91.225 for ADS-B Out operation.

Obviously, I don't know if it would be a 90 day suspension, a year suspension, a civil penalty, or what the FAA would do. But I do know that intentional violations of regs, especially ones which may impact safety of flight, are treated pretty severely, even under the new "kinder and gentler" FAA enforcement policies. So I'm guessing at least 90 days.

Bottom line: whether you like it or not, if you have a transponder installed, it has to be operating in flight. If you install ADS-B Out, it has to be operating in flight. You can't exempt yourself from doing so just because you want to, without potentially severe consequences.

Cary

"Must operate a transponder while in controlled airspace...." which class is E is technically controlled. Copy stick in class G only which typically leaves me at 700'. No problems as I'm usually in the altitude block anyways wherever I go around here to avoid all of the traffic. Also, will be removing ADSB since it isn't yet required. It doesn't provide me much on the glass anyways since weather lags behind so much with the summer storms. That's an easy kill.

If in the situation of seeing one airplane go from one airport to another with no transponder, and they have nothing better to do than to find out who it is, well I'd bet this won't happen as controllers are too busy paying attention to IFR traffic and the like. Pursuing some guy down at 700' not hurting anyone sounds like a waste of government funds.

TomD wrote:I guess flying under the radar will hide you from Big Brother if that is what you want. I do know the jets on the military routes "those little black lines on your chart" can paint you with their targeting radar no matter what, which is comforting. I understand it is a bit of a game with the jet jockeys to paint GA aircraft with their radar. Cannot confirm nor deny they then make practice runs on painted "target".

These guys probably believed that too. http://www.apnewsarchive.com/1993/Naval-Plane-Collides-With-Crop-Duster-In-Southeast-Washington/id-ee9eac102df1a6de3ae7b464ca0fbc0f

And these guys. http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/07/us/south-carolina-aircraft-incident/

Timberwolf wrote:"Must operate a transponder while in controlled airspace...." which class is E is technically controlled. Copy stick in class G only which typically leaves me at 700'. No problems as I'm usually in the altitude block anyways wherever I go around here to avoid all of the traffic. Also, will be removing ADSB since it isn't yet required. It doesn't provide me much on the glass anyways since weather lags behind so much with the summer storms. That's an easy kill.

If in the situation of seeing one airplane go from one airport to another with no transponder, and they have nothing better to do than to find out who it is, well I'd bet this won't happen as controllers are too busy paying attention to IFR traffic and the like. Pursuing some guy down at 700' not hurting anyone sounds like a waste of government funds.

As my teenage grand niece would say, "Whatever". I'm not trying to argue with you, just giving you a heads-up. Do what you want, try not to hit any towers poking up above 700' AGL (lots of those all over the country), and if/when you face enforcement proceedings, don't say you weren't warned.

Cary

@ Cary: +1

Timberwolf wrote:

... sounds like a waste of government funds.

I live in the Washington DC suburbs, and as I have said before, they've got a lot of serious talent downtown at the FAA, and a lot of time and money to show what they can do

I'm curious as to why each ADS-B out device has to be indentified/matched to a particular airplane.
We'll still have to squawk a code on our txpr's when we're in controlled airspace- "they" shouldn't need any more identification than that. The airplane ID thing does smack of big brotherism.

topgun260 wrote:

TomD wrote:I guess flying under the radar will hide you from Big Brother if that is what you want. I do know the jets on the military routes "those little black lines on your chart" can paint you with their targeting radar no matter what, which is comforting. I understand it is a bit of a game with the jet jockeys to paint GA aircraft with their radar. Cannot confirm nor deny they then make practice runs on painted "target".

These guys probably believed that too. http://www.apnewsarchive.com/1993/Naval-Plane-Collides-With-Crop-Duster-In-Southeast-Washington/id-ee9eac102df1a6de3ae7b464ca0fbc0f

And these guys. http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/07/us/south-carolina-aircraft-incident/

The crash in Washington happened (in 1993) at Diamond in Whitman County, incidentally a MTR (military training route) VR1354 goes right over Diamond WA. I'm guessing the crash in South Carolina (in 2015) was likewise in an MTR or other military airspace. So maybe turning off your txp, etc in areas like that isn't the best thing to do.

Did the AG pilot ever recover? Does anyone know?