[FedCom] Aircraft ...

[A10382]

Many local police departments do like having citizens listen in on scanners.
It is good public relations, made the voters more compliant at budget time,
AND created a form of E-BLOCK WATCH.   Even the federal government is not
above wanting the taxpayers to know where their money is going.  The many
muti-million dollars spent on military airshow teams is a good example that
also helps recruiting efforts.

Really sensitive stuff, as seen from the input on this list, is always
encrypted.  The clear voice for airborne ops is really to let other pilots
be on the lookout for them and get ATC's notice that they'll be loitering
for a while.   Nothing ruins your day faster than a near-miss (not so
uncommon) or a mid-air collision (rare).

Another use of in-the-clear transmissions is for disinformation.  I.e.;
'clearing the area' and 'RTB' to get the cretins to come out of the
woodwork.

Near-Misses are defined by the FAA as aircraft passing within 500 feet or
less laterally of each other.  I can tell you from personal experience that
a 737 looks mighty LARGE when it's 500 feet away at your altitude, even if
you're both going in the SAME direction.

Other aircraft, even those close to you, can be very difficult to see if
they're viewed against a cluttered backdrop like a large city at night.
Even aircraft strobe lights, so visible when looking up against the night
sky, disappear into the well lighted background in a large city - day or
night.   On the other side of the equation, aircraft in trail on overwater
flights can frequently see the a/c in front of them up to 50 miles away.

Airports located in large cities (even large ones) can be almost invisible
day or night to someone unfamiliar with the area.  It's why airlines make a
pilot new to a route fly the cockpit jump seat for a few trips.  New charts
from non-government sources now contain photos of large metro airports
viewed from a number of arrival routes.

73
Frank

 ._._.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Parris" <CParris2@compuserve.com>
To: <fedcom@mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 12:30 PM
Subject: Re: [FedCom] ROSS 096 - Phila


> >>>I don't understand WHY they use these callsigns.  Talk about violating
> COMSEC.  They might as well hang a sign out and tell everyone they have
> a surveillance underway. <<<
>
> I've always believed that they used these callsigns as an indication to
the
> air traffic controllers that they are on mission and may have special
> requirements without having to explain it over the ATC channels. Simply
> using the ROSS callsign is certainly more discrete than calling approach
> control and saying we're the FBI and we are requesting clearance to hover
> in the approach path of your arrival flights at low altitude for a
while...
>
>
> >>> At least the "other" USG agencies operate on
> UHF.  That makes them a little less conspicuous.<<<
>
> Sometimes, but I have heard some federal agencies using discrete VHF
> channels with ATC or ARTCC's before. I have also heard a controller
talking
> with a Customs aircraft on UHF, but still simulcasting on his VHF side, so
> it didn't really make them that less conpicuous...
>
> Chris Parris
> Beaverton, OR
>
> _______________________________________________
> FedCom mailing list
> FedCom@mailman.qth.net
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/fedcom
>