Back to Squawk list
  • 29

FAA says Private-Plane Flight Plans Must Be Public

Private-plane owners will no longer be able to cite privacy and instead must provide a “valid security concern” to have flight information blocked from public viewing, the U.S. Transportation Department said. “Both general aviation and commercial aircraft use the public airspace and air traffic control facilities, and the public has a right to information about their activities,” Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said in the statement. ( 更多...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

Del Schier 1
Private pilot information such as access to name and address from tail numbers or flight tracking should not be public information anymore than auto driver's license or registration or a car's trip plan.

It gives information to a vandal or thief to rob your home! Perhaps lookup your tail number and come to your home for some insane reason, like they didn't like the noise your airplane made.
FlyBoyDC10 0
I have not filed a flight plan in years (retired). Don't give 'em any ideas, however. Freedom to Fly is basic FREEDOM 101. FAA, TSA have all lost their minds. How dumb can you be and still breath. No one has the right to know where I'm going in my airplane, just as no one has the right to know where I'm going in my truck. Pilots, you hold the meaning of AMERICA (freedom), on your shoulders. You are this country's FIRST line of Defense. Open your eyes and resist any attempt to restrict or deny this basic Freedom, OR AMERICA is doomed to fail. JD
Personally, those who's already have private listings do so for a reason. Its not a public aircraft, so its travel does not and should not need to be publicly made. If the US had a private sector of the NAS, I'm sure these same individuals and company's would rather fly within them
KauaiGolfer 0
This is a non-issue. If individuals or corporations wish to block their tail numbers, let them! They're not blocked from law enforcement or the FAA, so what's the point?
I think the only people who need privacy is people who got a death treat or something.
skylloyd 0
Chris, what in the hell are you talking about?
indy2001 0
If a pilot doesn't want to take advantage of the (costly) services that are provided by the FAA, that's fine. Stay VFR and you've got all the freedom you want. But don't complain if nobody comes to your rescue after a crash (see Steve Fossett). An IFR flight plan doesn't list names, just the number of souls on board. So all an interested party would know from the tail number is who the plane is registered to, not who is on it.
Though it would be logical if Joe Plumber with his C172 would fly it himself, or a friend/family member of his.

I agree with you that we need to be wary of the government encroaching on our liberties, but this is a different case. The Constitution does not list flying as one of our basic unalienable rights. You are not born with the right to fly. Flying is a privilege granted to someone by the government. Because of that, the government can regulate it however they want to.
Jeff Lawson 0
FAA press release is [ on their website].
skylloyd 0
Of course you are aware that when the Constitution was written, that flying was not one of there visions.
Flying, like driving is a priviledge, however, if government continues to invade and insert more regulations on A/C owners and operators, I see a demise of "flying" as we know it, until it is under total government control.

Yes, I am aware that the framers of the Constitution did not envision flying, however, that doesn't change my point that flying is a government granted privilege. Also, I agree that more regulations are not good for flying, however, I do not feel that this is a change that limits anyone's liberties. All it does is add an extra step in the process of getting your flight information blocked. The real issue here is how is "valid security concern" defined. I hope it is a very broad definition.
KauaiGolfer 0
Yes, driving is also a priviledge. I don't see anyone insisting to know who I am or where I'm going when I'm in my car. Again, if law enforcement needs to know, they can find out. Does the rest of the human race have a right to know? Hell no!
TTail 0
Comparing driving a car to flying an airplane is like comparing apples to oranges. If you're going to fly IFR then you are required to file a flight plan. That includes disclosing a certain amount of information. Like people have said above, passengers are not listed on the flight plan. The only person that is identified is the pilot. I think too many people are just reading the headline. There is still an opportunity for operators to have their flights blocked. This regulation just puts an extra requirement in the process. Like I said above, the issue is how "valid security concern" is defined. Unfortunately, the article doesn't tell us.
pfp217 0
I disagree Austin. I don't see how just because an aircraft files an IFR flight plan it all of a sudden becomes public domain. If I buy a ticket on an airline or passenger railroad, a regulation is in place that if someone comes up and asks if Ted Smith is on that airplane or train, that airline or railroad is not allowed to disclose that information. I don't see how a private aircraft is any different. It is no different than driving in a private car. You are using a public road system but beyond that they're one in the same.
Rich Brown 0
I asked the dircector of flight ops at my former employer why one of the company Lear's had been at Hilton Head over the weekend. He goes "how did you know?" I replyed FlightAware. Next thing you know no one could track the comings and goings of the company fleet. Security? I think not, Stockholders, I think yes.
Paul Claxon 0
Who gives a xxxxx, I lost my medical ! lol
The Bloomberg story says " . . . Congress in 2000 directed the FAA to let companies block the flight data." So what gives LaHood the right to change the policy . . . . isn't this flouting the direction of Congress?


還沒有帳戶嗎? 現在就註冊(免費),設置諸多客制化功能、航班提醒等等!