I’m posting this in MPSIMS for general information. If you have an opinion about it, perhaps I should have put it in IMHO. Or if you feel strongly about the issue, or the greater issue of privacy, maybe it belongs in GD. But here it is now.
One commenter reminds us to remember that private aircraft will have their flight plans published online, but the flight plans of FAA aircraft won’t. He suggests that since government flights are being paid for by the public, then using Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood’s own logic they should have their flight plans published. Security, doncha know.
Flight plans are not required for VFR flight in the U.S., but are required for IFR and may be filed for any flight.
Sometimes those transponders come with lead shielded bags, so you don’t have to be tracked unless you’re going through a toll area. I don’t know about the flight plans though. Did they justify it in some way? Is it supposed to discourage terrorists or drug dealers? I can’t see how public access to that information is necessary though.
Here’s another article. I don’t see any justification. La Hood just says it’s ‘in keeping with government transparency’.
Speaking of transponders, they are required within 30 miles of Class B airspace. Most airplanes have them. When requested, the pilot sets a certain code. This allows ATC to identify him on radar. Mode C transponders provide altitude information.
This change will last approximately 0.03 minutes after the CEOs of various UberMegaCorps discover their worker peasants can track the Gulfstream’s trips to the Caribbean. Then our government will yield to their corporate johns and eliminate this.
I give it about a month. (Unless they implement a special waiver for corporate jets.)
FWIW: I don’t think this requires a flight plan. If you get flight-following your N number will show up as well. My Missus uses this to see if I stop off at a bar on the way home from the airport.
PS. Sorry Johnny, my cynicism gland is overactive today.
There are a couple of things in the second-linked article that indicate that businesses don’t get an exemption – even when there is the potential for violence against the passenger(s). But those guys aren’t exactly MomCorp. Should the head of GM or AIG get his head busted by someone who used the information, there probably will be an exemption.
Which leads me to ask, ‘What’s the point?’ Is the information useful? Sure, it is. I use the FAA database all the time to find out what happened to various airplanes. The other day I used it to verify that a seller on eBay was the owner of a plane. Can the information be used for nefarious purposes? Sure, it can. Joe Bob Crimsonisthsmus might be a terrorist, who sends the information to his cell to take out Mr. Benevolent Moneybags. But how likely is that?
So making flight information public makes it easier for people who, like me, are using it for innocent purposes. On the other hand, it makes information available to those who may have a not-so-innocent agenda. I think the greatest good/least harm approach would be to allow anyone who wants to keep his or her itinerary private, to keep it private. As it sits, I don’t see anything that makes flying safer.
For starters people can file for alternate destinations (to get out of Dodge) and cancel en-route and fly VFR it to final destination. The other thing to do is make the plane anonymous using a shell company. Celebrities contract aircraft this way. It’s kind of like an aircraft time share.
They typically include the number of passengers on board, although not their names. But for something like a corporate jet that doesn’t matter a whole lot since only the upper management is going to have access to it anyway.
If a plane belonging to a corporation files a flight plan for 8 to the Bahamas people aren’t going to think they’re taking the janitorial team for a weekend getaway.
