ACARS Radio

[chrismol1]

Is there any type of equipment that I can buy to receive ACARS? I mean some kind of radio that is specifically made to receive ACARS that I can go online and buy? I dont want to buy a scanner unless it has all the cables hooked up where I can just plug it in and decode on the computer

 

[KE7JFF]

Well, with a scanner, its just one cable that goes from the radio to the LINE IN of your sound card.

I'm not sure what you mean by a ACARS radio; you mean an airband radio that shows ACARS data on it? I'm pretty sure no one has one of those.

 

[chrismol1]

I'm not sure what you mean by a ACARS radio; you mean an airband radio that shows ACARS data on it? I'm pretty sure no one has one of those.

just wondering, as there might be a place out on the internet that sells home built receivers like this

 

[crayon]

http://wiki.radioreference.com/index.php/ACARS#Hardware_Decoders

This has been discussed at length, so you will be able to find more information using the search button.

 

[Capt1B]

Hello all, I am new to this forum. It looks very interesting for those of us interested in scanners!

I have a question for you if you don't mind, chrismoll:

Why would you be interested in receiving and reading ACARS messages?

 

[chrismol1]

Hello all, I am new to this forum. It looks very interesting for those of us interested in scanners!

I have a question for you if you don't mind, chrismoll:

Why would you be interested in receiving and reading ACARS messages?

I'm interested in knowing what is being said in my area. I've scanned the aircraft band before on voice and I want to experiment with data

 

[jetcos]

I would like to jump in with an answer to this question as well.

I have been logging ACARS for 5 years now and create daily logs and post them to numerous ACARS Groups. I am a spotter and in most cases the Flight Number and Registration of the aircraft appear in my logs, this is what I am after in the "spotting" game. Collecting aircraft registrations of aircraft I have seen.

This is my 2008 summary: 5140 Logged / 2403 Made / 234 Scraped

Made are new reg's and Scraped are aircraft I have seen before but now have a new reg. This summary covers aircraft I have logged on numerous trips and at several airports. My main spotting is at YYZ Toronto.

Hope this adds to the ACARS question of why some of us would want to log aircraft via ACARS.

Cheers,

Steve

 

[Capt1B]

ACARS is a means of communication between airline ops staff and their aircraft and I'm not sure why people go out of their way to intercept these messages and read them. Aside from the fact most of the text messages would be tedious and mundane, it smacks of an invasion of corporate privacy. Does it not?

 

[crayon]

Aside from the fact most of the text messages would be tedious and mundane, it smacks of an invasion of corporate privacy. Does it not?

Uh, no.

What your post smacks of is someone who does not really know the in's and out's of the scanner hobby and specifically how it relates to aviation.

There is no privacy from transmissions that are being broadcasted in the clear, unencrypted. That is a fact. Complain about it, gripe about it, pronouce uneducated judgements about it, whatever, but nothing changes the fact that is not an "invasion of privacy".

Disregarding the text messages between the crew and the ground, there is other information peculiar to the plane spotting hobby that are contained within an ACARS transmission. ie: position reports with lat/long.

I can only hope this helps stave off the flood of misinformation that usually is produced by idle speculation about a certain topic.

 

[bhambuchen]

"Invasion of privacy"?

ACARS is a means of communication between airline ops staff and their aircraft and I'm not sure why people go out of their way to intercept these messages and read them. Aside from the fact most of the text messages would be tedious and mundane, it smacks of an invasion of corporate privacy. Does it not?

This does not relate to ACARS specifically, but your comment about privacy brought to mind a good story. Many years ago I travelled to Washington DC for business, and as an avid scanner enthusiast, I always carried my portable scanner and frequency counter. One day I looked out my window to see an official-looking motorcade pull up at a building just down the street. My freq counter would not work at that range, so I perched on a bench across the street and on the corner. The motorcade carried secret service staff, many of whom stayed with the vehicles. I picked up several frequencies, plugged them into my scanner and was happily listening away. After a while, I noticed a fellow exit the suburban, cross the street in my direction and position himself nearby and behind me. I went on about my business, and he eventually went back into the car. A minute later, two men exited the car, approached me and asked what I was doing. I showed them my equipment, and how it worked. They had never seen a freq counter before, and were quite interested. One agent told me they did not like me listening to their communications, but when I asked if it was legal, the other said "yes it is", and physically pulled the other guy away, as they went back to their car. I listened as they called in my name, and received an answer that I had no record.

The fact that some people may think they have a right of privacy, does not make it so, even if you are a secret service agent. It is the responsibility of the sender to protect his communication, if he deems it important to do so.

Interestingly enough, I took the same equipment through a White House tour, and picked up NOTHING, even though agents were talking into their wrists. Even then, when they wanted to protect their privacy, they used spread spectrum or some kind of frequency hopping system.

 

[OK2BCK]

great post bhambuchen!

 

[Capt1B]

Well in these enlightened times, I guess I can see how you can describe this practice as not being an invasion of privacy (a bit like journalists saying the public has a right to know ANYthing when they invade the privacy of citizens). But the fact is, one function of the ACARS system for many airlines whose aircraft are not equipped with SatPhone systems is to avoid sensitive conversations taking place over voice comm systems and being listened to by those for whom the information was not intended. The reasons for this are self-evident. But as you've pointed out, the spotters intercept these messages in the interests of personal voyeuristic needs and are thereby doing the airlines a dis-service.

Why anyone would want to know the lat/long of random aircraft, of which there are hundreds if not thousands in the air at any time, I can only wonder at.

So, on that topic, can the average spotter monitor SatPhone calls? Just wondering if that system is still safe to discuss company business through without people eavedropping.

 

[Finto]

I am an airline pilot. This thread makes me laugh because usually when we get an acars message it is crew scheduling trying to screw up our day even more. a typical acars message at my airline (us airways express) is as follows.

Have the FO call us when you land we have additional flying scheduled for him

or us to them

Can you make sure we have crew meals when we get into PHL at gate F5. THX

 

[Capt1B]

Yeah I hear you, usually that's what it is. On the other hand, I had two fellas last year on a Middle Eastern flight, claiming to be terrorists. Of course it turned out to be nothing but two idiots but think about some spotter in the western world blowing that news after the company had successfully dealt with it in-house on a flight to NYC or London.

Do spotters (or anyone else outside) really need to be reading our message traffic????

 

[iMONITOR]

There should not be any expectation of privacy when using ACARS. It was never represented or intended as a secure form of communications.

People have been in the hobby of monitoring ACARS for years. There are several hardware devices, and software publicly available for monitoring ACARS. Theres no secret underground conspiracy or covert activity taking place.

 

[crayon]

The good news, Capt1B, such as it is, is that you are not alone in your thought processes as to how lay-people commonly perceive and attempt to explain what their expecation of privacy is. The bad news is that it is usually wrong.

Assuming that you are a citizen of the United States, you are afforded privacy within certian boundaries and that is protected by the Fourth Amendment of the Consitution of the United States:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

While the Fourth Amendment deals with the interaction of the US government and it's citizens, extrapolations regarding what "privacy" is can be made. But first, let's cover the basics and then we can talk about privacy as it impacts radio communications.

A search is constitutional if it does not violate a person's "reasonable" or "legitimate" expectation of privacy. Somewhat recent case law hammered this out in: Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 362 (1967) with Harlan, J., concurring. The following four criteria are generally used in determining whether or not we can expect our privacy to be rudely invaded:

1. General Legal Principles: Unless you live your life as a complete hermit, anything you do or say, knowingly, in a public place, does not constitute an expectation of privacy.
2. Vantage Point: As long as the police do not trespass, or try to illegally inhabit or occupy a space, any area that you can be seen from is considered 'fair game' to become a vantage point from which to place you under surveillance.
3. The Degree of Privacy Awarded by Buildings and Places: Any place in public, unless you happen to be in a phone booth, attending a sporting event in an enclosed arena, or at your favorite concert, is fair game to have you under surveillance.
4. Technology: A case brought before the Superior Court in 1973 agreed that, "Judicial implementations of the Fourth Amendment need constant accommodation to the ever-intensifying technology of surveillance" (Dean v. Superior Court [1973] 35 Cal.App.3d 112, 116); "the Fourth Amendment must likewise grow in response" (United States v. Kim [1976] 415 F. Supp. 1252, 1257).

The take-away from this is and again, assuming you are citizen of the United States, is that you need to adjust your understanding of your Fourth Amendment rights to this legally correct mantra:

Anything I do or say in public forfeits my rights to any expectations of privacy.

I am sorry if this conflicts with your current perception of privacy, but it has been tested over and over again in courts of law and upheld. This is the way that it is and to quote David Spade's SNL charater, "Get use to it".

Now let's swing this back to radio communications and apply these principals there.

Well in these enlightened times, I guess I can see how you can describe this practice as not being an invasion of privacy (a bit like journalists saying the public has a right to know ANYthing when they invade the privacy of citizens).

This is an incorrect exaggeration. If the "privacy" of a person is being invaded in direct offense to the Fourth Amendment, as you have described, it would be subject to lawsuits and criminal prosecution. We see paparazzi taking pictures in public, but we do not see paparazzi bursting into people's homes to take pictures and that is the difference.

But the fact is, one function of the ACARS system for many airlines whose aircraft are not equipped with SatPhone systems is to avoid sensitive conversations taking place over voice comm systems and being listened to by those for whom the information was not intended. The reasons for this are self-evident.

This is an incorrect statement as well and I am not trying to be rude, but any "self-evident" reasonings are derived from an uneducated perceptive. The fact is that if a radio transmission is not encrypted (hence an expectation of privacy) and broadcasted in an unencrypted format, the is no expectation of privacy.

But as you've pointed out, the spotters intercept these messages in the interests of personal voyeuristic needs and are thereby doing the airlines a dis-service.

*shrug* So what. It is not the legal obligation of the listener/scannerist to avoid unencrypted radio transmissions purely for ethical reasons. If a radio communication needs to be shielded from eavesdropping or any perceived "dis-service", it is the responsibility of entity/person who is initiating the transmission to secure it. And to rehash, if a radio transmission is encrypted, then those people entitled to it's contents have a reasonable expectation of privacy and are afford protection under the law.

Why anyone would want to know the lat/long of random aircraft, of which there are hundreds if not thousands in the air at any time, I can only wonder at.

Why do people collect buttons? Why are people fascinated by the Dromaius novaehollandiae? Why do some people think they are hot stuff when they look like an assimilated Borg drone with bluetooth headsets stuck in their ear and have other cellular related grab strapped to their bodies? Some people just like all things aviation and ACARS combines a love of radios with aviation.

So, on that topic, can the average spotter monitor SatPhone calls? Just wondering if that system is still safe to discuss company business through without people eavedropping.

The short answer, for you, is no for the first part and yes for the second part.

Please read my quasi-dissertation about providing radio feeds on the Internet as it is related to ones expectation of privacy:

http://www.radioreference.com/forums/showthread.php?t=81717

If you still have questions, please try to articulate them in such a manner that shows that you really did take the time to read and understand the information presented. I hope this was helpful.

:wink:

edit - Because it took a bit of time to compose this, other posts were made, and I wanted to acknowledge and concur with SIG-INT statement that there is no secret underground conspiracy or covert activity taking place. Stand down red alert Capt1B, if there was a legal issue to scannerists and ACARS, it would have been sorted out long before you have became aware of it.

 

[firetaz834]

I guess following that logic, then you would have any agency that transmit on a non-secure line saying the same thing about those of us that care to monitor the frequencies. They all would be saying in some form or another "Do spotters (or anyone else outside) really need to be monitor (reading) our message traffic".

That is something to think about, any agency (or company) that wants to protect there data, just needs to spend the funds to institute proper security to safegard this information. It shouldn't be protected by just saying that we shouldn't be listening to it. If that was the case, then every police agency would be saying the same thing (and some of them are).

 

[iMONITOR]

On the other hand, I had two fellas last year on a Middle Eastern flight, claiming to be terrorists. Of course it turned out to be nothing but two idiots but think about some spotter in the western world blowing that news after the company had successfully dealt with it in-house on a flight to NYC or London.

Major commercial airlines have a new, secure communications device for reporting any terrorist threats. You should be aware of this, unless you work for a small, or private airlines, or you do not hold a 'need to know' position in the airlines.

I would also think the TSA would frown upon any airline attempting to deal with idiots claiming to be terrorist, 'in-house'. Perhaps a Federal Agent here on RR reading your comments will be in touch soon, asking you to elaborate on your 'in-house' strategies.

 

[Capt1B]

Major commercial airlines have a new, secure communications device for reporting any terrorist threats. You should be aware of this, unless you work for a small, or private airlines, or you do not hold a 'need to know' position in the airlines.

The international airline I work for operates well over 100 aircraft which are equipped with the above-mentioned comm equipment as well as GPS, IRS, eFB, HUD, OPT, FADEC, FBW, BFL, dual or quad BRTs - you name it. I've been flying for over 20 years and this is the first I've ever heard of such a secure comm device especially designed for reporting terrorist events. I'm sure a "need-to-know" principle is in effect at executive-level dealings in the airline, just as in any big business but to expect it is held at operator level (ie: pilots and maintenance staff, etc) is a tad naive.

Are you sure you're not referring to the humble transponder (with which every RPT aircraft is already equipped) with a certain code (which every terrorist already knows)? The concept of such equipment does, however, sound very interesting; would you mind elaborating on it a little please (if you haven't signed a NDA or are classified TS).

I would also think the TSA would frown upon any airline attempting to deal with idiots claiming to be terrorist, 'in-house'. Perhaps a Federal Agent here on RR reading your comments will be in touch soon, asking you to elaborate on your 'in-house' strategies.

I think you're jumping to conclusions here regarding the context of my statement as well as focussing on the wrong aspect of the illustration. But to satisfy you, "In-house" in that example meant the federal police as well as local cops plus company security (in the background) handling it in a relatively discreet manner from doors-open. No one drew a weapon, no one was shot. Okay "in-house" may have been the wrong phrase; I simply meant that spotters and therefore the media never got to hear about it. But it would appear that's partly because it happened in a part of the world where the citizenry are not particularly interested in monitoring this sort of electronic activity.

Perhaps a Federal Agent here on RR reading your comments will be in touch soon, asking you to elaborate on your 'in-house' strategies.

I welcome the inquiries from your TSA/Federal agent and will direct him to the company security officials who handled the situation. Is this agent a member of this forum then? What is his or her name, please, so I know for whom to look out? Once again: the strategy is not mine; I merely passed on the information through the most secure means available to me to minimise the oportunity for someone like you (no personal offence) to catch on and start spreading the word.

Crayon, a well-informed and energetic post. From the effort put into some of the replies here it's obvious that the ability to pry into commercial business and potentially delicate matters is held, by some, to be some sort of right. Reading between the lines and having been around a little while, the strenuousness displayed by most of you says to me you guys know what you're doing isn't really ethical but have convinced yourselves at base level that it is. This mindset isn't easy to argue against.

Guys, since you have taken it as a fundamental right to listen in to the activities of others who have nothing to do with you, and since you hold this to be reasonable and ethical, then you must have some sort of tenet for your behaviour after the fact. If my event (which as is usually the case turned out to be a false alarm) had taken place in the post-911 highly-sensitive US airspace or in the UK and you'd been "lucky" enough to be the one to intercept the information first, what would you have done with that information? What are your guidelines then for dealing with sensitive information gained whilst listening in to the activities of others which do not concern you?

Please try not to use the line that ACARS was developed with people like you and specialist civilian-level monitoring equipment in mind and therefore the user-expectation is that they accept the right of all and sundry to listen in. This holds no more water than if I were to say the police and highway patrol RADAR speed "guns" and cameras are made detectable and therefore the detection systems are legal and ethical because they quite obviously are not (since there are laws in many places banning them).

 

[crayon]

Crayon, a well-informed and energetic post.

Thank you, I always try my best to present information that is both factual and informative as I loathe misinformation.

Seeing how you are a British citizen and/or have strong English ancestry, this conversation is at a stalemate and I will not make any more attempts to clarify or further the conversation.



The English and American notions of privacy, as they stand now, and are encoded in law, are fundamentally at odds with each other even though I fear they are on a convergence course.