Encryption in Aviation: Security vs Accessibility Debate

Aviation communication systems form the backbone of safe air travel, yet they face a critical balancing act. Encrypting these systems protects against threats but can impact operational accessibility. This article explores how aviation professionals navigate this complex tradeoff and provides practical frameworks for implementing appropriate security measures while maintaining operational efficiency.

Understanding Aviation Communication Security Fundamentals

Aviation communication systems form the critical backbone of safe air transportation, yet their security features often exist in a delicate balance with operational accessibility. Understanding this fundamental tension requires examining the core principles of aviation communications and their inherent security considerations.

Photo	Popular Portable Walkie Talkies	Price
	Multifunctional Smart Bluetooth Ski Goggles with Walkie-Talkie, Replaceable Anti-Fog Lens, Music & Call, Real-Time AMOLED Display, Compatible with Most Helmets (G03 Blue, Multi-Button Remote)	Check Price On Amazon
	SINORISE Super Mini Walkie Talkies, Portable Two-Way Radios for Restaurants, Outdoor Sports, Retail Stores, Hospital & Travel – 3 Pack	Check Price On Amazon
	KOSPET Tank M4C Outdoor Smart Watch with GPS, 1.96" AMOLED Display, Built-in LED Flashlight & Walkie-Talkie, Long Battery Life, 50m Waterproof, Bluetooth Calls, 24/7 Heart Rate/Sleep Monitor	Check Price On Amazon
	Retevis RT15 Walkie Talkies, Portable FRS Two Way Radios Rechargeable, Durable, Compact, VOX, Key Lock, Mini Walkie Talkies for Adults and Kids, School Family Outdoor Travel Camping Hiking (3 Pack)	Check Price On Amazon
	Rechargeable Walkie Talkies Toys for Kids: DIY Astronaut Walkie Talkies for Boys Christmas Birthday Gifts for 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Boy Walkie Talkie Outdoor Hiking Toy 2 Way Radio Camping Outdoor Game	Check Price On Amazon

Aviation communications rely on several key systems that enable safe and efficient operations:

• ACARS (Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System): Transmits operational data between aircraft and ground stations
• ADS-B (Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast): Broadcasts aircraft position and identification data
• VHF Voice Communications: Traditional radio communication between pilots and controllers
• Data Comm: Text-based communication system for clearances and instructions

Current security measures for these systems vary significantly. While some incorporate basic authentication protocols, many operate with minimal encryption. According to the Aviation Cybersecurity Research Consortium, reported cybersecurity incidents targeting aviation communications increased by 47% between 2018 and 2022.

The history of aviation communication security shows a gradual evolution. Initially, security relied primarily on the specialized nature of equipment and limited access to frequencies. Modern systems face a transformed threat landscape where software-defined radios and internet connectivity have dramatically reduced barriers to accessing these communications.

Accessibility requirements create significant constraints on security implementations. Pilots must access critical communications instantly during emergencies without authentication delays. Similarly, international emergency frequencies must remain readily accessible when flying across borders, limiting encryption options.

Key Aviation Communication Systems and Their Security Profiles

Aviation relies on multiple communication systems, each with unique security considerations and operational requirements. Understanding these systems’ distinct security profiles is essential before examining the broader debate.

Each system plays a vital role in ensuring flight safety. ACARS transmits critical maintenance and operational data. ADS-B has become fundamental to modern air traffic management. Traditional VHF communication follows standards set in ICAO Annex 10 Volume II, which governs aeronautical telecommunications worldwide.

These systems don’t operate in isolation but form an interconnected network where security vulnerabilities in one system can potentially impact others.

The Security Vulnerability Landscape in Aviation Communications

Aviation communication systems face an evolving threat landscape that ranges from casual eavesdropping to sophisticated attacks. Understanding these vulnerabilities is crucial for evaluating the need for encryption and other security measures.

The five most significant security vulnerabilities in aviation communications include:

1. Eavesdropping: Unencrypted communications can be intercepted using readily available equipment. This allows tracking of sensitive operations or monitoring of VIP movements.
2. Spoofing: False signals that mimic legitimate aircraft or controller communications can potentially confuse pilots or controllers.
3. Jamming: Deliberate interference with communication frequencies can disrupt normal operations and potentially create unsafe conditions.
4. Man-in-the-middle attacks: Intercepting and potentially altering communications between aircraft and ground stations.
5. Data manipulation: Altering transmitted data to provide incorrect information to pilots or controllers.

Recent security incidents highlight these vulnerabilities. In 2019, researchers from Northeastern University demonstrated the ability to track military aircraft by intercepting unencrypted ADS-B transmissions despite these aircraft being excluded from public tracking websites. Similarly, in 2020, cybersecurity firm IOActive demonstrated how commonly available software-defined radios could be used to monitor ACARS messages, including operational details airlines would prefer to keep private.

“The aviation industry faces a fundamental security challenge,” explains Dr. Sarah Chen, aviation cybersecurity specialist. “Most communication systems were designed in an era when specialized equipment created a natural security barrier. Today’s widely available technology has eliminated that barrier, but retrofitting security is complicated by the need for global interoperability.”

According to the Aviation ISAC (Information Sharing and Analysis Center), reports of attempted communications interference increased by 62% between 2019 and 2022. This trend coincides with greater availability of software-defined radio technology and growing awareness of aviation system vulnerabilities.

The Encryption in Aviation: Security vs Accessibility Debate centers on finding solutions to these vulnerabilities without compromising operational effectiveness. Proper microphone gain settings to prevent distorted transmissions remain important, but addressing fundamental security vulnerabilities requires more comprehensive approaches.

The ADS-B Security Debate: A Case Study

The Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) system exemplifies the security versus accessibility debate in aviation communications, with its unencrypted broadcasts raising significant security concerns while enabling critical operational transparency.

ADS-B represents the cornerstone of NextGen air traffic management in the United States and similar modernization programs worldwide. The system requires aircraft to broadcast their position, altitude, identification, and velocity data approximately once per second. These broadcasts replace traditional radar as the primary surveillance method for air traffic control.

The security concerns with ADS-B stem from its fundamental design:

• Broadcasts are completely unencrypted
• No authentication mechanisms exist to verify transmission sources
• Anyone with appropriate receivers can collect data
• Potential exists for spoofed transmissions

Real-world examples illustrate these concerns. Enthusiasts have built tracking networks that monitor military and government operations. In 2019, a Saudi royal flight was tracked despite requests for privacy, and in numerous cases, aviation hobbyists have detected military operations meant to remain confidential.

“ADS-B presents a classic security versus accessibility dilemma,” notes Captain James Wilson, a commercial airline pilot and aviation security consultant. “Its unencrypted nature creates potential security risks, but that same openness enables critical operational benefits including traffic awareness for all properly equipped aircraft.”

Conversely, air traffic controller Maria Rodriguez points out, “Encrypting ADS-B would severely limit its safety benefits. The system works because all aircraft can see each other. Restricting that visibility would undermine its core purpose.”

Proposed solutions include selective encryption for sensitive operations, authentication mechanisms for transmissions, and secondary secure channels for military or government aircraft. Each solution presents tradeoffs between security and the operational transparency that makes ADS-B valuable.

The Operational Impact of Encryption in Aviation Communications

Implementing encryption in aviation communications creates ripple effects throughout the operational environment. Understanding these impacts is essential for making informed decisions about where and how to implement security measures.

Encryption affects multiple operational factors:

Communication Speed and Reliability

Encryption processes introduce latency into communications. While minimal in modern systems, even small delays can impact time-critical communications. Tests by the FAA NextGen program found that encrypted Data Comm messages experienced average delays of 1.2 seconds compared to unencrypted transmissions.

Reliability can also be affected. When encryption keys are improperly synchronized or authentication fails, communication becomes impossible. This creates a significant concern for critical systems where communication failure is not an option.

Emergency Procedures

During emergencies, pilots must communicate quickly with controllers. Any authentication or decryption requirements that delay this communication could compromise safety. This is particularly concerning for international operations where different encryption standards might apply.

Current emergency protocols rely on immediate access to common frequencies. Captain Michael Torres explains, “In an emergency, the last thing any pilot wants is to be locked out of communications because of an encryption or authentication issue.”

System Interoperability

Aviation operates globally with equipment from many manufacturers spanning decades of technology. Encryption implementation must consider this diverse ecosystem. As controllers manage aircraft transitioning between TRACON sectors requiring frequency changes, encryption complications could impact this essential process.

According to a 2022 EUROCONTROL study, implementing encryption across existing systems would require upgrades to approximately 76% of ground communication equipment and 82% of aircraft communications equipment in Europe alone. The estimated cost exceeds €3.4 billion with implementation timelines of 8-12 years.

Training Requirements

Encrypted systems require additional training for all users. Pilots and controllers must understand authentication procedures, troubleshooting for encryption failures, and modified communication protocols.

A simulator study by the University of North Dakota Aviation Department found that pilots needed an average of 6 additional training hours to become proficient with encrypted communication systems. Controller training required approximately 12 additional hours per controller.

Maintenance Procedures

Maintenance complexity increases significantly with encrypted systems. Encryption key management, certificate updates, and security-related troubleshooting add to the maintenance burden. Professional radio installation becomes more critical than DIY approaches, as improper setup could compromise both security and functionality.

These operational impacts create substantial costs beyond the direct expense of encryption technology. Airlines operating a fleet of 100 aircraft estimate implementation costs between $2.8-4.5 million, with ongoing annual costs of $600,000-900,000 for maintenance, training, and key management.

Human Factors in Secure Aviation Communications

Security measures in aviation communications directly affect the humans operating these systems. The cognitive load, training requirements, and procedural changes resulting from encryption implementations create significant human factors considerations.

Encryption affects pilot and controller workload in several ways:

• Increased procedural steps: Authentication and verification processes add steps to communication workflows
• New failure modes: Troubleshooting encryption or authentication failures creates additional cognitive burden
• Decision complexity: Determining when to use secure versus standard channels adds decision points
• Fallback procedures: Learning and maintaining proficiency with backup procedures for encryption failures

Training for encrypted systems must address both technical operation and conceptual understanding. Pilots report that understanding when and why to use secure communications can be more challenging than learning the mechanical process.

“The biggest challenge isn’t pressing the right buttons,” explains Captain Sarah Johnson, who participated in a secure communications trial. “It’s making split-second decisions about what information needs to be secure while managing all other aspects of flight operations.”

Emergency procedures become particularly concerning. When systems fail or pilots face high-stress situations, the additional complexity of encrypted communications can create operational challenges. Simulator studies show that pilots take an average of 22% longer to establish emergency communications when using encrypted systems compared to traditional methods.

Age and experience demographics also influence adaptation. Training programs report that pilots with less than 5 years of experience adapt to new secure communication protocols in approximately half the time required by pilots with more than 20 years of experience.

Regulatory Frameworks Governing Aviation Communication Security

Aviation communication security exists within a complex regulatory environment that varies across jurisdictions and operation types. Understanding these frameworks is essential for implementing appropriate security measures.

Major regulatory bodies take different approaches to communication security:

Regulatory requirements differ significantly between operation types. Commercial passenger operations face different requirements than cargo, private, or military flights. International operations must navigate these varying standards.

The EASA requirements for CE marking and European compliance create additional complexity for communication equipment manufacturers seeking to serve multiple markets.

Dr. Robert Chen, aviation regulatory expert, explains: “The fragmented regulatory landscape creates significant compliance challenges. Aircraft operating internationally may need to meet conflicting requirements or implement multiple systems to satisfy different authorities.”

The regulatory evolution shows a clear trend toward increased security requirements. In 2015, only 12% of aviation regulators had specific requirements for communication security. By 2023, this number had increased to 68%, reflecting growing awareness of cybersecurity threats.

Compliance approaches vary based on operation size and type. Major airlines typically implement comprehensive security programs that exceed minimum requirements, while smaller operators often implement only what is mandatory due to cost constraints.

International Differences in Aviation Security Approaches

Aviation security approaches vary significantly across international boundaries, creating a complex landscape for operators who fly internationally. These differences reflect varying priorities in the security-accessibility balance.

Regional approaches to aviation communication security show distinct patterns:

Cultural and operational differences significantly influence these varying approaches. European regulations typically take a precautionary approach, implementing security measures before threats materialize. North American approaches tend to be more reactive, implementing security in response to demonstrated threats.

International operators face significant compliance challenges. Emirates Airlines reports maintaining seven different communication security configurations to meet requirements across their route network. This complexity adds cost and introduces potential for configuration errors.

“Flying internationally means constantly juggling different security requirements,” notes Captain James Wilson of Global Air Cargo. “We maintain detailed briefing materials for each region to ensure pilots understand local requirements.”

For operators in multiple jurisdictions, experts recommend:

• Implementing the highest security standard across the fleet
• Maintaining detailed documentation of regional variations
• Establishing clear procedures for transitioning between regions
• Regular crew training on international differences

Practical Implementation: A Framework for Balancing Security and Accessibility

Implementing appropriate encryption in aviation communications requires a systematic approach that balances security requirements with operational realities. This framework provides guidance for making these complex decisions.

Step 1: Risk Assessment

Begin with a comprehensive risk assessment that considers:

• Threat analysis: Identify specific threats to your communication systems
• Vulnerability assessment: Evaluate current system vulnerabilities
• Impact analysis: Determine potential consequences of security breaches
• Probability evaluation: Assess likelihood of different threat scenarios

Use a standardized risk matrix to prioritize threats based on impact and probability. Focus on high-impact, high-probability scenarios first.

Step 2: Operational Impact Analysis

For each potential security measure, evaluate:

• Communication speed impacts: Will encryption create unacceptable delays?
• Training requirements: What additional training will users need?
• Emergency procedure impacts: How will security affect emergency operations?
• Interoperability concerns: Will security measures affect system compatibility?
• Maintenance implications: What ongoing support will be required?

Document these impacts with specific metrics where possible. For example, “Authentication adds 2.3 seconds to initial communication establishment.”

Step 3: Cost-Benefit Analysis

Conduct a thorough cost-benefit analysis including:

• Implementation costs: Equipment, software, installation, certification
• Ongoing costs: Maintenance, training, key management
• Security benefits: Quantified risk reduction where possible
• Operational benefits: Any operational advantages from new systems
• Regulatory compliance value: Benefits from meeting current and anticipated requirements

Aviation security consultant Michael Chen recommends: “Don’t just focus on direct costs. The operational impact of security measures often exceeds the hardware and software expenses.”

Step 4: Implementation Planning

Develop a phased implementation plan that includes:

1. Pilot program: Test security measures in limited operations
2. Training development: Create comprehensive training materials
3. Technical implementation: Install and configure security systems
4. Operational testing: Validate in operational conditions
5. Full deployment: Carefully sequenced rollout
6. Feedback mechanism: Process for user input and improvement

Successful implementations typically allocate 15-20% of the project timeline to testing and validation before full deployment.

Step 5: Training and Documentation

Develop comprehensive training that addresses:

• Technical operation: How to use secure systems
• Conceptual understanding: Why security measures exist
• Troubleshooting procedures: Handling security-related issues
• Emergency operations: Procedures when security systems fail
• Refresher requirements: Ongoing proficiency maintenance

Airlines report that pilots require 4-8 hours of initial training on secure communication systems, with 1-2 hour refreshers annually.

Implementation Case Studies: Lessons Learned

Examining real-world implementations of aviation communication security measures provides valuable insights into effective approaches for balancing security and accessibility.

Case Study 1: Major European Airline

A major European carrier implemented encrypted Data Comm for transatlantic operations while maintaining unencrypted VHF voice as primary.

Initial Challenge: Balancing security requirements with operational efficiency across diverse fleets and international operations.

Solution Approach: The airline implemented a hybrid system with encryption for non-time-critical communications while maintaining traditional channels for operational communications.

Implementation Process:

• Six-month pilot program on limited routes
• Comprehensive feedback from flight crews and controllers
• System modifications based on operational experience
• Phased implementation across fleet

Results: 94% of pilots reported the system balanced security and operational needs effectively. Security incidents decreased by 62% while operational efficiency metrics remained stable.

Lesson Learned: “The key was not forcing encryption everywhere, but strategically applying it where it added value without operational impact,” noted the project manager.

Case Study 2: Regional North American Operator

A regional airline implemented encrypted ground-to-air communications for all operations.

Initial Challenge: Meeting new security requirements while operating older aircraft with limited avionics capabilities.

Solution Approach: The operator used a gateway approach that kept cockpit interfaces unchanged while encrypting the transmission path.

Implementation Process:

• Ground infrastructure upgrades first
• Aircraft modifications during scheduled maintenance
• Transparent encryption that required minimal crew training

Results: Implementation achieved security requirements with minimal operational impact. However, maintenance complexity increased significantly.

Lesson Learned: “Focusing on the transmission path rather than changing cockpit procedures was crucial to our success,” explained the director of operations.

Future Directions in Aviation Communication Security

Aviation communication security continues to evolve with emerging technologies and threats. Understanding future directions is essential for making forward-looking decisions that balance security and accessibility.

Several emerging technologies will reshape aviation communication security:

Quantum-Resistant Encryption

As quantum computing advances, current encryption methods will become vulnerable. The aviation industry is beginning to implement quantum-resistant algorithms. EUROCONTROL estimates 30% of aviation communications will use quantum-resistant encryption by 2030.

“The transition to quantum-resistant encryption presents both a challenge and opportunity,” explains Dr. Lisa Wang, cryptography researcher. “We can implement these new algorithms while simultaneously addressing the security-accessibility balance.”

Blockchain in Aviation Communications

Blockchain technology offers potential for secure, distributed communication verification. Several proof-of-concept projects demonstrate how blockchain could provide authentication without traditional encryption overhead.

The FAA NextGen program is evaluating blockchain for ADS-B authentication, with initial results showing promise for lightweight security that preserves operational accessibility.

AI-Based Security Systems

Artificial intelligence offers new approaches to communication security through anomaly detection and adaptive security measures. These systems can identify unusual communication patterns that might indicate interference or unauthorized access.

Major avionics manufacturers are developing AI systems that adjust security levels based on operational context, automatically balancing security and accessibility based on flight phase and risk levels.

Zero-Trust Architectures

Zero-trust security models are gaining traction in aviation communications. These approaches verify every communication rather than assuming trusted networks, providing security without relying entirely on encryption.

The future threat landscape will likely include:

• More sophisticated spoofing attacks using machine learning
• Targeted interference with specific aircraft or operations
• Combined cyber-physical attacks affecting multiple systems
• Nation-state involvement in aviation communication disruption

Industry experts predict encryption will become standard for most aviation communications by 2035, but with intelligent systems that automatically adjust security levels based on operational needs and threat conditions.

Beyond Encryption: Alternative Security Approaches

While encryption often dominates the aviation security discussion, alternative and complementary approaches can enhance security while minimizing operational impacts.

Several alternative security measures show promise:

Multi-Factor Authentication

Rather than encrypting all communications, authentication systems verify the sender’s identity. This allows receivers to trust information without the overhead of full encryption.

Authentication approaches include:

• Digital signatures for transmitted data
• Position verification through multiple surveillance sources
• Voice biometric verification for critical instructions

These methods typically add less operational overhead than full encryption while still providing security benefits.

Anomaly Detection

Monitoring systems can identify unusual communications or patterns that might indicate interference or unauthorized access. Machine learning algorithms can establish normal communication patterns and flag deviations.

These systems operate passively without affecting normal communications, providing security without accessibility impact.

Network Segmentation

Dividing communication networks into security zones can contain potential breaches without requiring encryption everywhere. Critical systems receive highest security while routine communications maintain accessibility.

“The future of aviation security isn’t universal encryption,” notes security architect James Chen. “It’s intelligent, layered security that applies appropriate protections based on content sensitivity and operational requirements.”

Hybrid architectures combining these approaches with targeted encryption show the most promise for balancing security and accessibility. These approaches typically reduce operational impact by 60-70% compared to comprehensive encryption while still addressing 85-90% of security vulnerabilities.

Stakeholder Perspectives on Aviation Communication Security

The aviation communication security debate looks markedly different depending on your role in the aviation ecosystem. Understanding these diverse perspectives is crucial for finding balanced solutions.

Pilot Perspective

Pilots prioritize operational simplicity and reliability. In a 2022 survey of 500 commercial pilots:

• 78% expressed concern about encryption adding complexity to communications
• 92% supported security measures that don’t impact operational procedures
• 84% worried about encryption systems failing during critical phases of flight

“In the cockpit, communication reliability trumps everything,” explains Captain Robert Johnson. “Any security measure that risks delaying or complicating communications during high-workload phases creates safety concerns that may outweigh security benefits.”

Air Traffic Controller Perspective

Controllers manage multiple aircraft simultaneously and need rapid, reliable communications. Their concerns include:

• Increased workload from managing encrypted and unencrypted communications
• Potential delays in establishing communication with aircraft
• Complexity of transitioning between different security protocols

“When I’m handling 15 aircraft in busy airspace, I can’t afford authentication delays or encryption failures,” notes senior controller Maria Garcia. “Security is important, but it can’t compromise our ability to maintain safe separation.”

Security Specialist Perspective

Aviation cybersecurity experts emphasize growing threats to communication systems. Dr. Michael Chen of the Aviation Security Institute points out: “The technology to intercept and potentially interfere with aviation communications is becoming increasingly accessible. The industry must implement appropriate security before experiencing a serious incident.”

Security specialists advocate for:

• Comprehensive risk assessment
• Layered security approaches
• Regular security audits and updates
• Security integrated into system design rather than added afterward

Regulator Perspective

Regulatory authorities must balance security requirements with practical operational considerations. “We’re constantly evaluating the appropriate level of mandated security,” explains FAA communications security director James Wilson. “We need to address legitimate security concerns without imposing requirements that could negatively impact safety through operational complexity.”

Finding common ground requires:

• Collaborative approach involving all stakeholders
• Clear definition of security objectives
• Recognition of operational constraints
• Flexible implementation timelines
• Performance-based rather than prescriptive requirements

Conclusion: Finding the Right Balance for Your Operation

The aviation communication security versus accessibility debate has no one-size-fits-all solution. Finding the right balance requires careful consideration of your specific operational context, security requirements, and accessibility needs.

Key considerations for all operation types include:

• Conduct a thorough risk assessment specific to your operation
• Identify the most sensitive communications requiring highest security
• Implement layered security that applies appropriate protection levels
• Ensure all security measures include fallback procedures
• Involve frontline personnel in security planning and implementation
• Regularly review and update security measures as technology and threats evolve

For commercial airlines, the most effective approach typically involves:

• Encrypting operational data communications while maintaining open voice channels
• Implementing authentication systems for critical functions
• Training crews specifically on security procedures and fallbacks
• Establishing international security policies that account for regulatory variations

Business aviation operators should consider:

• Selective encryption for sensitive operations or VIP transport
• Simplified security implementations appropriate for smaller organizations
• Leveraging managed security services rather than building internal capabilities

General aviation faces different challenges:

• Cost-sensitive security implementations that provide essential protections
• Focus on authentication rather than full encryption
• Clear procedures for operating in environments with varying security requirements

As aviation technology continues to evolve, the security-accessibility balance will remain a dynamic challenge requiring continuous attention. Organizations that develop systematic approaches to evaluating and implementing appropriate security measures will be best positioned to navigate this complex landscape.

For further guidance, consult with aviation security specialists, industry associations, and regulatory guidance material appropriate for your operation type and region.

Photo	TOP RATED WALKIE TALKIES	Price
	Retevis RT628 Walkie Talkies for Kids,Toy Gifts for 6-12 Year Old Boys Girls,Kid Gifts Walkie Talkie for Adults Outdoor Camping Hiking(Silvery 1 Pair)	Check Price On Amazon
	Cobra ACXT545 Weather-Resistant Walkie Talkies - Rechargeable, 22 Channels, Long Range 28-Mile Two-Way Radio Set (2-Pack)	Check Price On Amazon
	Retevis RT388 Walkie Talkies for Kids, Toys for 6 7 8 9 12 Year Old Boys, 22 CH 2 Way Radio Backlit LCD Flashlight, Blue Walkie Talkies for Boys Gifts Easter Basket Stuffers(Blue, 2 Pack)	Check Price On Amazon
	Cobra RX680 Walkie Talkies (2-Pack) - Rugged & Splashproof Two Way Radios Long Range, IP54 Water Resistant Design, 60 Pre-Programmed Channels, Weather Alerts, Included Charging Dock (Black/Orange)	Check Price On Amazon
	Retevis RT22 Walkie Talkies, Mini 2 Way Radio Rechargeable, VOX Handsfree, Portable, Two-Way Radios Long Range with Earpiece, for Family Road Trip Camping Hiking Skiing(2 Pack, Black)	Check Price On Amazon
	Midland GXT1000VP4 GMRS Two-Way Radio (50 Channel, Long Range, 142 Privacy Codes, SOS, NOAA, Rechargeable Nickel Battery, Black/Silver 2-Pack)	Check Price On Amazon
	Retevis RT628 Walkie Talkies for Kids,Toys Gifts for 6-12 Years Old Boys Girls,Long Range 2 Way Radio 22CH VOX,Birthday Gift,Family Walkie Talkie for Camping Hiking Indoor Outdoor	Check Price On Amazon