'Untrackable' Flights Might Not not be private any more.

ZapBrannigan said:
I'll be the dissenting voice. Imagine that you work for my company and that, rather than the CEO, we're carrying around a real estate team today. We have two problems. Number one, there are people in the community we are looking at who may not be real happy that we are thinking of building there. Number two, we have competitors who might be very interested in where we are looking to build.

Without blocking we might show up to the airport to find an angry mob of villagers with pitchforks and torches. Or, worse yet (?), our competitors there already closing the deal on the same parcel.

It's not ALWAYS the fat cats heading to Aspen guys. There are legitimate business reasons for privacy.
Click to expand...

^^This^^ X 2.

Also, many of our business clientele work for private corporations, not publicly traded entities.
 
Mark815 said:
Saying that privacy shouldn't be allowed because they're using the national airspace system is like saying we need to monitor the movement of every vehicle on the road because they're using government build roads. It just doesn't make sense.
Click to expand...

It is not a good analogy because most jets are flying in airspace or under rules which require clearances/radio communications, which are unencrypted and available for the public to listen to freely. Expecting privacy in this situation is foolish, although I understand the need for privacy.
 
The only thing that this will cause is less transparency. We have a blocked tail number. But you can still look up our N number and see who owns it. When the BARR program was put on hold for a few months we were in the process of putting the airplane into a "xyz corporation" name. That way ownership was hidden even if tracking was available. So now it's just going to make a lot of Delaware attorneys money setting up these pseudo corporations.
 
trafficinsight said:
The company I work for blocks our tail numbers and I can assure you that we aren't rich fat cat CEO's
Click to expand...

Hey traffic, that would look way better like this.

The company I work for blocks our tail numbers and I can assure you that we aren't rich fat cat CEO's.

Just stopped by to demonstrate. :)

.
 
People are also forgetting that there are those clients that deal in and may be carrying on their flights rare arms, gold and other precious metals, precious gems, jewelry, rare documents, rare books, rare stamps, art and artifacts, rare coins and paper money, collectibles, antiques etc., who book charters and because of security concerns, do not want their flights being traced either.

There are many valid reasons that people seek privacy in their business and private lives. A lot of clients appreciate, feel the need for and request this. They bring their own security or have security provided for them and this is just another layer of that security. There is nothing nefarious about it.
 
I think its pretty simple. If someone is blocking their call sign, theres probably a good reason for it.
 
The tracking of flights should be an "opt-in" not an "opt-out". Also I completely disagree with having our names publically available on landings.com as well as owner names/addresses of N-registered planes on there as well. I wonder why that started?
 
GX said:
We know that N1KE belongs to Phil Knight. His personal GV. Why should he, and his family be put under a direct microscope, and at possible personal risk, because he chooses to fly to Palm Springs for the weekend?
Click to expand...

I used to service N1KE as a line guy at Corporate Jets at KSDL in the early 1990s when it would visit a couple times a month. However back then, it was a GIII.
 
Mark815 said:
Saying that privacy shouldn't be allowed because they're using the national airspace system is like saying we need to monitor the movement of every vehicle on the road because they're using government build roads. It just doesn't make sense.
Click to expand...

Thanks to GM (Government Motors) my car doesn't come standard with a spare tire. It does, however, come standard with OnStar and a free 3-month subscription whether you want that crap in your car or not. I didn't want it. It doesn't matter because it comes standard. Oh, BTW, the dealer said they "had to activate" the membership in case I got into a car accident leaving their lot.

So, the new car came with the capabilities for a 3rd party which is partly owned by the Government to track my car, lock my doors, have conversations with me or just listen in on mine, shut off my car, and do a number of different "services" whether I want them or not.

Needless to say the coax cable for the GPS antennae was unplugged from the device and the fuse for the buttons/mirror were yanked out of the fuse box the next day rendering communication with the OnStar "computer thingy" impossible.



It's not the fact that they are. It's the fact that they can.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top