Air Show scanning

K5DH · **Posted:** Mon Feb 13, 2012 3:29 pm

In general, most people who bring scanners to an air show don't have transmitting capability. To be able to transmit, obviously you must have access to an aviation band transmitter, either a handheld or one installed in an airplane or ground vehicle. Used handhelds are easy to come by and not that costly (in fact, I bought an older STS AV7600VOR handheld two weeks ago via eBay for $25.00!) and that's where the potential danger lies. It only takes one bozo with a handheld aviation radio to cause real problems. We've been fortunate that the problem episodes have been few. After over 40 years of involvement in "hobby radio" (CB, amateur, scanning, CAP, etc), I truly believe that those who intend to use a radio transmitter to cause harm will make it a point to find the proper frequency to do so, whether or not it's been published in a magazine. As someone else pointed out, they may have used a scanner to find those frequencies already. Typically, though, in my experience, the average scanner buff is harmless. He wants to listen to multiple frequencies, so an aviation handheld isn't going to be his cup of tea because most of them don't scan, and those that do scan really don't do it well. As for interfering with military comms, it would be nearly impossible for most people to gain access to a transmitter capable of operating on the military aviation band, which is where you'll find the military teams like the Blue Angels, Thunderbirds, et al. The information in the magazine article in question is not new. I've had it for years. My scanner is programmed with hundreds of freqs for the major military aerobatic teams, all of the airfields in my area, and some in other areas where I travel or vacation. I got it all off the internet, and serious scanner buffs know where to find it. The troublemakers know, too, and I doubt the magazine list gave away anything that those idiots didn't already know.

Your mileage may vary.

LadyO2Pilot · **Posted:** Mon Feb 13, 2012 3:37 pm

Dean, you are very correct...to a point. It has been my experience that there are enough spectators that have radios with transmitters that could (not would) cause problems. Do all of them want to commit "mischief"....absolutely not. Can they accidentally key the mic at the wrong moment....absolutely. I have had many spectators ask me for freqs as I was walking on the ramp and probably more than 50% of those asking had radios that transmit. But as you say YMMV.

CAPFlyer · **Posted:** Mon Feb 13, 2012 3:52 pm

Dean, the thing is that in the past, while you could get the info, you had to know where to go to get it. Nowadays, you just type it in Google and you'll get it immediately if it's been published somewhere. As a member of CAP, one of our constant worries is the fact that we use proprietary frequencies and now P25 encryption but within a week of our new frequencies becoming operational, they were posted on no less than 4 scanning websites, despite all of our internal documentation being "For Official Use Only" and subject to our OPSEC rules (which are basically the same as the USAF's). Considering that we may be passing sensitive information over those frequencies (like identification of victims), it's very troubling to me that people wouldn't respect that it's not a good idea to not spread that information publically. Same here. As the airshow is a high risk environment, publically disseminating that information where anyone can get it readily only makes an already difficult issue worse.

I guess my issue is that just because you can get the information yourself, is it appropriate to share that information widely where people whom may not be as responsible as you can get it? At what point do we draw the line for respecting the wishes of private individuals (aka the Airshow Performers) and organizations (CAP) to not publicize frequencies used versus "public information"/"public good"?

RyanShort1 · **Posted:** Mon Feb 13, 2012 4:01 pm

CAPFlyer wrote:

I guess my issue is that just because you can get the information yourself, is it appropriate to share that information widely where people whom may not be as responsible as you can get it? At what point do we draw the line for respecting the wishes of private individuals (aka the Airshow Performers) and organizations (CAP) to not publicize frequencies used versus "public information"/"public good"?

If someone dies because of a missed "knock it off," then it certainly will not be in the interest of the "public good."

Ryan

K5DH · **Posted:** Mon Feb 13, 2012 5:30 pm

Karen: I'm guessing that most of the people walking around air shows and fly-ins with handheld aviation radios are pilots. We can only hope that everyone with access to aviation radio transmitters are blessed with enough common sense and intelligence to refrain from transmitting. All pilots are taught proper radio procedures. We hope they stick with them.

CAPflyer and RyanShort1: I'm certainly not saying that I condone publishing air show (or police or fire or military or other) freqs in a national magazine like that. I guess I should have included words to that effect in my post (visualize image of Dean blushing). I was just pointing out that the information is commonly available on the internet and has been for years, those who want it can get it rather easily, and they most likely know how and where to find it. Scanner buffs are a chatty lot and they readily share information within their ranks. The horse in question had escaped the paddock a long time before the magazine issue in question was published.

Part of the problem is that the public at large have somehow come under the opinion that they have the "right" to listen to anything that's transmitted, since the airwaves are "public domain". I disagree, but that doesn't mean much in the grand scheme of things.

And no, I don't share my scanner frequencies with anyone. If they want to listen, they can find the info themselves. Just like I did. . . :wink:

CAPFlyer · **Posted:** Mon Feb 13, 2012 8:27 pm

Well, here is the response I got from Bob Grove, publisher of Monitoring Times -

Quote:

Hi, Chris:

I appreciate your sharing your concern that someone with a two-way radio can cause interference on critical air show frequencies, but our cessation in publishing such frequencies would have negligible effect on this possibility. Let me explain.

The FAA has published for decades which frequencies are allocated to which services, and it's only a matter of typing "air show frequencies" into an Internet search engine to come up with the complete list. It is available from myriad sources.

Monitoring Times is currently listed first on Google (today at least!) because we are the most recent one to cover air shows. We've been publishing these lists for decades. This month's issue is very promotional toward air shows and undoubtedly increases interest in attendance as the shows come close to home. I strongly suggest you acquire this month's issue to see how positively we present the air shows.

The deliberate interference is caused by individuals who have two-way radio. Malicious mischief takes preparation, not merely the happenstantial discovery of some frequencies in a listeners' magazine. The fact that you recall only two incidents among hundreds of thousands of attendees over the past five years in which someone with a transmitting radio was involved shows how rare such instances are.

Because of the proliferation of electronics at every turn, it's time for vulnerable targets of radio misuse to develop protective measures:
1. Change frequencies on a regular basis
2. Don't release frequencies in advance of the show so they can be published.
3. Use code words for various alerts and functions
4. Alternate among other license-free services for backup communications (MURS, FRS, CB, etc.)
5. Acquire radio direction finding (RDF) equipment to locate sources of interference.
6. Require legitimate communicators to use validation authenticators that change throughout the event.
7. Install scramblers, or acquire radios with scramblers.
8. Position volunteers with radios through out viewing area to report relative signal strengths of deliberate interference to make location easier.

These just popped into my mind; I'm sure there are other means of protecting communications as well.

While all critical communicators face problems with intentional interference, taking away useful information from everyone is no more an answer than taking keys away from all drivers to prevent accidents. The drunks and risk takers will still be on the road.

If you would like me or anyone on our writing staff to assist you with proactive plans to protect sensitive communications, please feel free to ask. We will be happy to help.

Best wishes for a safe air show season,

Bob

This response sadly shows me that he does not understand the real issues. I responded with a short reply basically stating that most of his "alternatives" were illegal for airborne communications anyway and additionally added that none of those internet sources he references are official outlets (i.e. not approved) and his publication of unpublished frequencies and usages is where the problem lies, not that they're talking about having a scanner at an airshow.

myteaquinn · **Joined:** Tue May 24, 2011 6:46 pm **Posts:** 112

Boy am I sorry that I stirred up such a hornet's nest with my post. I had written two paragraphs about my feelings but reread what I was going to submit, I disagree with a lot of what was said about listening in on the communications. No doubt that would have (judging from the post) irritated most of the people reading this thread, so I deleted my response. Just one last thing, I am still going to air shows with my scanners it just adds the experience for my wife and I.

For all of the air show pilots out there stay safe and have fun. I have never taken the time to talk to you as there are usually many others around that are probably better conversationalist, but now let me say thanks for entertaining me. Thanks.

Forgotten Field · **Posted:** Mon Feb 13, 2012 9:43 pm

Quote:

Because of the proliferation of electronics at every turn, it's time for vulnerable targets of radio misuse to develop protective measures:
1. Change frequencies on a regular basis
2. Don't release frequencies in advance of the show so they can be published.
3. Use code words for various alerts and functions
4. Alternate among other license-free services for backup communications (MURS, FRS, CB, etc.)
5. Acquire radio direction finding (RDF) equipment to locate sources of interference.
6. Require legitimate communicators to use validation authenticators that change throughout the event.
7. Install scramblers, or acquire radios with scramblers.
8. Position volunteers with radios through out viewing area to report relative signal strengths of deliberate interference to make location easier.

Oh great, another price to add to the cost of doing an airshow. RDF equipment? Volunteers checking signal strength? Scramblers? HOW ABOUT YOU JUST DON'T PUBLISH THE FREQUENCIES?

If you fly in any of the dense areas (like Southeast Pennsylvania) of radio communications, you can usually hear somebody doing something other than an FAA-recommended or mandated transmission. I can specifically recall three times last year (2011) when I heard chatter that wasn't 'official.' Can you imagine some goofball hopping on the freq's during an accident like the one at Reno? Minutes and seconds save lives and can be easily wasted by some nut with a radio. Sorry, but the publisher needs to be educated about what he is potentially enabling by publishing the frequencies. Is he within his First Amendment rights to publish those freq's? Absolutely. Is it wise to do so? Absolutely not.

mlenoch · **Posted:** Mon Feb 13, 2012 10:15 pm

The most common problem during a show is not the errant spectator keying the mike. It is actually the 100 or so blue water trucks that need to cross the active during a performance (sic). Realistically, all sorts of logistical vehicles are running around and jamming airshow freqs. We use a private discrete that only the Heritage and demo share with the SOF on the ground. We do not share this with the air boss either. This ensures we have a clean frequency. Many jet teams also use a private frequency....sometimes on Uniform which the civie bands cannot access.
VL

CH2Tdriver · **Posted:** Mon Feb 13, 2012 10:41 pm

Has anyone here actually taken a look at that list? Most of those freqs are UHF (which comes in handy for the TB and BA's) and the others posted VHF I have found are generally not of much use. I have never seen the much coveted Airboss freqs posted which is what you really want for hearing all the action. I mainly get the airboss freq either by scanning or asking someone next to me. I have always found those freqs change regularly as well. I think Dean nailed it when he says that most folks have the $99 Radio Shack special which is what I use. I'd never think to take my almost $400 ICOM transceiver with me. It's no good for UHF anyway. This topic always comes up on airshow buzz or what not and always gets people bent out of shape.

For those who want to ban MT from posting the freqs, I suggest you make your next stop LiveATC.net. They have ALL the freqs posted for the tower or TRACON you listen to, and those are fixed freqs that don't change. What's to stop someone from getting hold of a transceiver, park next to JFK and keying the mic "American 123 GO AROUND GO AROUND!" Imagine the pandamonium that would cause? I can see someone getting a rush from that. So then next we would need to petition the FAA to only sell charts to those with a valid pilots license and photo ID, since all the facility freqs are posted there as well. There are pilots and controllers on that site's forum and I've never seen anyone voice concerns.

I rely heavilly on my scanner for setting up shots, getting a heads up on direction, and its alot better than waiting for the usually useless announcer caught up in his banter. I've been attending airshows for 30 years now and never heard an incident of an intrusion on the freq. Not saying it couldn't happen, but it is a small possibility in the grand scheme of things. One thing for sure, I've counted in the hundreds people smoking next to fueled aircraft. And on occasion the other horror stories, garbage tossed into intakes, grab and slam control surfaces etc... I think there's a lot more out there that can go wrong at a show.

CAPFlyer · **Posted:** Tue Feb 14, 2012 1:19 am

1) ATC frequencies are published by the FAA and available to the public. Airshow frequencies aren't. Any postings of them are from unofficial sources not related to the airshow or non-show related frequencies (i.e. freq. for the fly-in coordination prior to the airshow).

2) The FAA has DF equipment in the towers to be able to deal with such an occurrence when it happens (and it does). Not all airshows happen at towered airports. Additionally, very few handheld radios have the power on the ground to be mistaken for ATC. I have a hard enough time talking to a plane 5000 feet away from me on the same airport with my handheld.

3) We don't want to "ban" Monitoring Times from publishing it. We want them to be respectful in what they publish and not publish frequencies that can endanger the Safety of Flight in an airshow or at least try asking people if it's okay to publish the frequencies first instead of just putting them out there in print. A plane on an established approach (visual or instrument) has a much lower risk of going splat if someone says something stupid on the frequency than a guy flying a high-energy aerobatic routine.

We're talking apples and oranges here. MT is publishing specific frequencies used for specific high-risk situations (and don't let anyone tell you that an Airshow isn't high risk) and not frequencies used every day for routine traffic. Any extraneous traffic on frequency during an airshow causes many magnitude more disruption than someone doing the same on a crowded ATC freq.

Edit: BTW, if you want to use your scanner to setup shots - please do. If you want to listen to it at the airshow - please do. If you've got a scanner - then you don't need the list do you? That's the point. How does it help anyone with a scanner that takes less than 30 seconds to find what frequencies are in use in a given location to have a published list of frequencies? MT could have done the exact same article without the frequencies and still been just as informative and useful for someone with a $30 scanner they got off EBay.

Warbird Information Exchange

Air Show scanning

Who is online