Permit to use aircraft radio frequencies on ground

[C. J. Clegg]

We have a small consulting company that owns an airplane that is used
for business trips. From time to time it would be useful to be able
to contact the airplane from our office which is not located on any
airport. What do we need to do to get authorization to install an
aircraft band radio at our office and use it to contact the company
airplane?

Thanks...

[William W. Plummer]

C. J. Clegg wrote:

>
> We have a small consulting company that owns an airplane that is used
> for business trips. From time to time it would be useful to be able
> to contact the airplane from our office which is not located on any
> airport. What do we need to do to get authorization to install an
> aircraft band radio at our office and use it to contact the company
> airplane?
>
> Thanks...
>
Cell phone.

[RST Engineering]

WE covered this subject in excruciating detail just before Oshkosh last year
when we were trying to figure out how to contact Jay Honeck at his aviation
motel in Iowa City.

Google on a few of these things and see if the thread doesn't pop up
anywhere. ANybody got a better pointer?

Jim


"C. J. Clegg" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> We have a small consulting company that owns an airplane that is used
> for business trips. From time to time it would be useful to be able
> to contact the airplane from our office which is not located on any
> airport. What do we need to do to get authorization to install an
> aircraft band radio at our office and use it to contact the company
> airplane?
>
> Thanks...
>

[Gord Beaman]

"William W. Plummer" >
wrote:

>C. J. Clegg wrote:
>
>>
>> We have a small consulting company that owns an airplane that is used
>> for business trips. From time to time it would be useful to be able
>> to contact the airplane from our office which is not located on any
>> airport. What do we need to do to get authorization to install an
>> aircraft band radio at our office and use it to contact the company
>> airplane?
>>
>> Thanks...
>>
>Cell phone.

I agree...Radio's are finicky things and are difficult and
expensive to arrange so as to work well for all ranges but Cell
phones are so reliable now that I'd say that's the way to go for
your operation. Much cheaper too. They're very handy for the crew
themselves to use for weather info, calling to lay on fuel,
hangar space, servicing...etc etc...by far the best choice I'd
say...
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
C. J. Clegg > wrote:

> We have a small consulting company that owns an airplane that is used
> for business trips. From time to time it would be useful to be able
> to contact the airplane from our office which is not located on any
> airport. What do we need to do to get authorization to install an
> aircraft band radio at our office and use it to contact the company
> airplane?
>
> Thanks...

In a nutshell, you need to get a ground station license from the FCC,
for which you need to demonstrate that your proposed use falls within
the guidelines. Try the FCC web site for more info...

http://wireless.fcc.gov/aviation/fctsht4.html
http://wireless.fcc.gov/aviation/grnd.html

If these don't answer your questions, give them a call. In the past,
I've found the FCC folks to be very helpful about stuff like this.

Or, are you talking about being able to stay in touch with your aircraft
no matter where it is? If so, you probably want to look at ARINC...

http://www.arinc.com/products/voice_data_comm/air_ground_radio_svc/domest
ic.html

[C. J. Clegg]

On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 09:03:26 -0500, Roy Smith > wrote:

>Or, are you talking about being able to stay in touch with your aircraft
>no matter where it is? If so, you probably want to look at ARINC...

Good evening, Roy.

Actually, the main objective is to be able to contact the plane within
50 or 75 miles of base. But, I'll look at that ARINC. Might have
definite possibilities.

For those who suggested a cell phone, believe me I'd love to be able
to do it, but it ain't legal (it's against FCC rules), and anyway, it
doesn't work very well more than a few thousand feet above ground
because the cellular antennas are designed to keep all radiation down
low.

CJ

[Gord Beaman]

C. J. Clegg > wrote:

>On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 09:03:26 -0500, Roy Smith > wrote:
>
>>Or, are you talking about being able to stay in touch with your aircraft
>>no matter where it is? If so, you probably want to look at ARINC...
>
>Good evening, Roy.
>
>Actually, the main objective is to be able to contact the plane within
>50 or 75 miles of base. But, I'll look at that ARINC. Might have
>definite possibilities.
>
>For those who suggested a cell phone, believe me I'd love to be able
>to do it, but it ain't legal (it's against FCC rules), and anyway, it
>doesn't work very well more than a few thousand feet above ground
>because the cellular antennas are designed to keep all radiation down
>low.
>
>CJ

Well, CJ, I wouldn't want you to pass up a good thing because of
incorrect info so perhaps you should check out about this
'illegal' thing. They have cell phones installed in the seat
backs of some commercial airliners for the use of passengers
(I've seen them but haven't used one) so they sure aren't
illegal,

I believe that they use a different tower/receiver plan setup
specifically designed for long range (high) cell phones.

I'm quite familiar with VHF/HF aeronautical radios and I cannot
imagine anything handier for what you propose than cel phones.
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

[Roy Smith]

Gord Beaman > wrote:
> Well, CJ, I wouldn't want you to pass up a good thing because of
> incorrect info so perhaps you should check out about this
> 'illegal' thing. They have cell phones installed in the seat
> backs of some commercial airliners for the use of passengers
> (I've seen them but haven't used one) so they sure aren't
> illegal,

These are not cell phones. They are attached to a ship-board
communications system which uses a satellite link (or possibly dedicated
ground stations) to patch you through to the terrestrial phone network.
Different system completely from cell phones.

[Jürgen Exner]

Gord Beaman wrote:
[...]
> 'illegal' thing. They have cell phones installed in the seat
> backs of some commercial airliners for the use of passengers

Those ain't cell phones (where would you find a cell phone tower e.g. in the
middle of the Atlantic anyway?) but satellite phones.

jue

[C. J. Clegg]

On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 02:55:16 GMT, Gord Beaman >
wrote:

>Well, CJ, I wouldn't want you to pass up a good thing because of
>incorrect info so perhaps you should check out about this
>'illegal' thing. They have cell phones installed in the seat
>backs of some commercial airliners for the use of passengers
>(I've seen them but haven't used one) so they sure aren't
>illegal,

Good morning, Gord.

As others have mentioned, those phonse aren't cellular (I didn't know
that they were actually satellite phones but it makes sense that they
would be). I have used those phones once or twice and while they are
quite expensive to use, they do work rather well and are a lot better
than nothing if you have to get in touch with the ground from an
airliner.

There are also satellite phones that work in private airplanes but
that's a rather expensive option too. I already have the radios and
antennas I need and if I can license one of them as a ground station
from our office, I can do everything we need to do for only the cost
of the license.

Cellular phones are definitely illegal, no question about it, for use
in airplanes that are not sitting on the ground. This is from FCC
rules, not FAA, though FAA has their own rules.

Note also that there are also Personal Communications Service (PCS)
phones, such as Sprint PCS, that are erroneously referred to as "cell"
phones but are not; they work in a different service (the PCS service
rather than the cellular service). Those phones ARE legal to use in
airplanes. Unfortulately they often don't work well in airplanes, for
the same reason that cellular phones usually won't work well ... the
ground station antennas are designed to keep all of the radiation low
to the ground and minimuze the radiation that goes out above the
horizon, so if you're much higher than about 2000 feet or so, it's
hard to get a connection.

Also, I have been told (not sure if this is true) that both cellular
and PCS ground stations have the ability to detect how far away you
are from the station, probably by sending out a signal and measuring
the time it takes to get a reply, and if you're beyond some limit (35
miles was mentioned), they won't let you connect.

CJ

[Gord Beaman]

Roy Smith > wrote:

>Gord Beaman > wrote:
>> Well, CJ, I wouldn't want you to pass up a good thing because of
>> incorrect info so perhaps you should check out about this
>> 'illegal' thing. They have cell phones installed in the seat
>> backs of some commercial airliners for the use of passengers
>> (I've seen them but haven't used one) so they sure aren't
>> illegal,
>
>These are not cell phones. They are attached to a ship-board
>communications system which uses a satellite link (or possibly dedicated
>ground stations) to patch you through to the terrestrial phone network.
>Different system completely from cell phones.

Yes...dedicated ground stations...as I said Roy...actually I
believe that they utilize regular cel towers some of which are
equipped with somewhat different receiver systems...also there's
many fewer of them than regular cel service because of the
generally much longer range of the airbourne units.

It's quite a large budding service...there was a big writeup
about it in...?...'life' maybe?...awhile ago...


--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

[Roy Smith]

Gord Beaman > wrote:
>Roy Smith > wrote:
>
>>Gord Beaman > wrote:
>>> Well, CJ, I wouldn't want you to pass up a good thing because of
>>> incorrect info so perhaps you should check out about this
>>> 'illegal' thing. They have cell phones installed in the seat
>>> backs of some commercial airliners for the use of passengers
>>> (I've seen them but haven't used one) so they sure aren't
>>> illegal,
>>
>>These are not cell phones. They are attached to a ship-board
>>communications system which uses a satellite link (or possibly dedicated
>>ground stations) to patch you through to the terrestrial phone network.
>>Different system completely from cell phones.
>
>Yes...dedicated ground stations...as I said Roy...actually I
>believe that they utilize regular cel towers some of which are
>equipped with somewhat different receiver systems...also there's
>many fewer of them than regular cel service because of the
>generally much longer range of the airbourne units.

I would not be surprised if they used some of the same towers, but
just because they're on a cell phone tower doesn't make them a cell
phone. Towers are a limited resource and most of them are shared by
all sorts of unrelated servics (often even direct competitors).

The terrestrial cell phone infrastructure is optimized for phones on
the surface which are either stationary or moving at relatively low
speeds (i.e. highway speed or less). The antenna coverage, cell
overlap, signal propigation patterns, and switching algorithms are all
designed around these assumptions.

Using a cell phone in an airplane not only gives the phone line of
sight to many more cells than the system was designed for, but the
high speed motion also causes it to switch from cell to cell faster
than normal. Both of these break design assumptions and degrade the
system. That's why the FCC bans cell phone use from airplanes.

Systems designed for aviation use may share some of the basic cell
system ideas (and even some of the physical infrastructure like
towers), but the ground station grid and switching algorithms are
optimized for their intended use.

[Gord Beaman]

(Roy Smith) wrote:
>
>Systems designed for aviation use may share some of the basic cell
>system ideas (and even some of the physical infrastructure like
>towers), but the ground station grid and switching algorithms are
>optimized for their intended use.

Of course, so what are we arguing about?...I never did claim that
they're compatible with each other...these special cell phones
are merely special cell phones...they operate just 'like' the
common cell phone in that they allow the 'customer' to move from
'cell' to 'cell' and they switch the customer to the new 'cell'
precisely as the common cell system does except at -longer
intervals- because of the wide cell tower spacing (and certainly
on different channels from the common system).

As you say, these special phones cannot use the standard cell
system because of their generic differences (mostly in range)
etc. BUT...they're cell phones nonetheless simply because they
allow the customer to move from cell to cell...which is the
reason that the word 'cell' was coined in the first place.

It's pretty easy to see the problem...a terrestrial cellphone can
almost never 'get into' more than one cell facility at a time yet
a cell phone on an aircraft can 'see' dozens of them because of
antenna height, thus creating havoc in the system...that's -why-
using the common unit on an aircraft is illegal.
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

[David Lesher]

(Roy Smith) writes:

>>Yes...dedicated ground stations...as I said Roy...actually I
>>believe that they utilize regular cel towers some of which are
>>equipped with somewhat different receiver systems...also there's
>>many fewer of them than regular cel service because of the
>>generally much longer range of the airbourne units.

>I would not be surprised if they used some of the same towers, but
>just because they're on a cell phone tower doesn't make them a cell
>phone. Towers are a limited resource and most of them are shared by
>all sorts of unrelated servics (often even direct competitors).

Well, in reality, the towers and sometimes the RF gear is owned
by a company such as American Tower, Inc. and oh yes, they stack
as many carriers as they can on one piece of iron.

(And it's more than tower space; co-location means they can share
generator backup, fiber feeds, etc..)

As for if airborne is "cellular" -- that depends on whose
definition you want to use. Is it Jill Winecooler 'cellular'?
Nope. But can it share the name? You decide.
--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

[Gord Beaman]

David Lesher > wrote:

(Roy Smith) writes:
>
>>Gord sed:
>>>Yes...dedicated ground stations...as I said Roy...actually I
>>>believe that they utilize regular cel towers some of which are
>>>equipped with somewhat different receiver systems...also there's
>>>many fewer of them than regular cel service because of the
>>>generally much longer range of the airbourne units.
>
>>I would not be surprised if they used some of the same towers, but
>>just because they're on a cell phone tower doesn't make them a cell
>>phone. Towers are a limited resource and most of them are shared by
>>all sorts of unrelated servics (often even direct competitors).
>
>Well, in reality, the towers and sometimes the RF gear is owned
>by a company such as American Tower, Inc. and oh yes, they stack
>as many carriers as they can on one piece of iron.
>
>(And it's more than tower space; co-location means they can share
>generator backup, fiber feeds, etc..)
>
>As for if airborne is "cellular" -- that depends on whose
>definition you want to use. Is it Jill Winecooler 'cellular'?
>Nope. But can it share the name? You decide.

Of course...and the term is no longer 'cellular' anyway it seems,
they now seem to prefer 'Mobile phones' so I guess it's a moot
point, but ISTM that the aircraft cel system is a helluva lot
closer to the terrestrial cel system than anything else.
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

[[email protected]]

On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 16:09:21 -0500, C. J. Clegg
> wrote:

>We have a small consulting company that owns an airplane that is used
>for business trips. From time to time it would be useful to be able
>to contact the airplane from our office which is not located on any
>airport. What do we need to do to get authorization to install an
>aircraft band radio at our office and use it to contact the company
>airplane?
>
>Thanks...

We've got one in our office.

Long story short, you can review the myriad of regulations and
sub-agencies involved, obtain/complete all the required paperwork and
apply to the FCC for an assigned operating frequency and a license.

Or, you can contact AIRINC. They are in the business of obtaining all
the necessary information, filling out all the required paperwork, and
getting you a frequency and a site license.

Their fees are reasonable (but not cheap), both initially, and
annually.

Through AIRINC, you also can set up a system that will allow you to
contact your aircraft virtually anywhere, however, it is much more
expensive.

The system we have in place is as you describe, a licensed aviation
band transceiver that allows two-way communication with our company
aircraft that are in the vicinity of the radio station.

Regards;

TC

[David Lesher]

{posted at Jer's request; he has ...an oil leak on his
server, yea, that's it..}




> Of course...and the term is no longer 'cellular' anyway it seems,
> they now seem to prefer 'Mobile phones' so I guess it's a moot
> point, but ISTM that the aircraft cel system is a helluva lot
> closer to the terrestrial cel system than anything else.

No. "Mobile phones" is an entirely separate service, running
in the 152 Mhz and 450 Mhz bands... this is what we had BEFORE
cell phones. :-)

I was a "Mobile phone" dispatcher when I was at university...
1970 - 1974. :-)

Best regards,

Jer/ "Flight instruction and mountain flying are my vocation!" Eberhard

--
Jer/ (Slash) Eberhard, Mountain Flying Aviation, LTD, Ft Collins, CO
CELL 970 231-6325 EMAIL jer'at'frii.com WEB http://users.frii.com/jer/
C-206 N9513G, CFII Airplane&Glider, FAA-DEN Aviation Safety Counselor
CAP-CO Mission&Aircraft CheckPilot, BM218 HAM N0FZD, 221 Young Eagles!
--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

[RST Engineering]

The most often used ruse is to have somebody in the office get some sort of
instructor license...the most often used is the "basic ground instructor"
and the exam is like a private exam on steroids. There is no practical;
pass the written and you am one.

Then you file the appropriate form with the FCC for an "aviation school"
frequency, either 123.3 or 123.5, whichever is the least used frequency in
your area. If you don't abuse the privilege and start yakking uselessly on
the frequency, you will be good to go for a long time.

Jim





> wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 16:09:21 -0500, C. J. Clegg
> > wrote:
>
>>We have a small consulting company that owns an airplane that is used
>>for business trips. From time to time it would be useful to be able
>>to contact the airplane from our office which is not located on any
>>airport. What do we need to do to get authorization to install an
>>aircraft band radio at our office and use it to contact the company
>>airplane?

[[email protected]]

On Sun, 9 Jan 2005 15:57:42 -0800, "RST Engineering"
> wrote:

>The most often used ruse is to have somebody in the office get some sort of
>instructor license...the most often used is the "basic ground instructor"
>and the exam is like a private exam on steroids. There is no practical;
>pass the written and you am one.
>
>Then you file the appropriate form with the FCC for an "aviation school"
>frequency, either 123.3 or 123.5, whichever is the least used frequency in
>your area. If you don't abuse the privilege and start yakking uselessly on
>the frequency, you will be good to go for a long time.

Honestly, I don't remember what exactly our station license consists
of. Basically, it states that we will use the assigned frequency for
inter-company communication-such as passenger/manifest info, fuel
requests, pilot/ground communication, etc.

Everybody in the office has at least a PPL, not being a radio guy, I
would assume that eliminates the need for a licensed "operator" on the
ground.

In our area, it ended up being a pretty "quiet" freq, with very little
communication other than ours.

Not saying that the way we did was the only way it can happen, just
that it was the easiest way to do it "officially", and we expected to
pay AIRINC for making it easier.

Regards;

TC

[Gord Beaman]

David Lesher > wrote:

>
>{posted at Jer's request; he has ...an oil leak on his
>server, yea, that's it..}
>
>
>
>
>> Of course...and the term is no longer 'cellular' anyway it seems,
>> they now seem to prefer 'Mobile phones' so I guess it's a moot
>> point, but ISTM that the aircraft cel system is a helluva lot
>> closer to the terrestrial cel system than anything else.
>
>No. "Mobile phones" is an entirely separate service, running
>in the 152 Mhz and 450 Mhz bands... this is what we had BEFORE
>cell phones. :-)
>
>I was a "Mobile phone" dispatcher when I was at university...
>1970 - 1974. :-)
>
>Best regards,
>
>Jer/ "Flight instruction and mountain flying are my vocation!" Eberhard
>

Yes, you're quite correct in what you say about the old 'Mobile
phones'.

I was the chief (only) tech for a small communications company
where we installed 'Key telephone systems' and Mobile Car
Phones', BUT I was just pointing out that the cellular phone
companies 'now' call them 'mobile phones' (again?).

I have a brand new handout sheet here for the kind of cel phone
that I'm interested in exchanging for my present one...remember
that I said NEW handout...it calls them 'mobile phones'...I'll
scan it and email it to you if you cannot take my word for it...
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

[[email protected]]

Gord Beaman > wrote:
> David Lesher > wrote:

Yup! Gord is correct... that is what the industry is saying.
However, I believe the FCC is still with the old nomenclature
vis-a-vis Mobile Phone vs Cell.

Jer/ Eberhard

> >
> >{posted at Jer's request; he has ...an oil leak on his
> >server, yea, that's it..}
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> Of course...and the term is no longer 'cellular' anyway it seems,
> >> they now seem to prefer 'Mobile phones' so I guess it's a moot
> >> point, but ISTM that the aircraft cel system is a helluva lot
> >> closer to the terrestrial cel system than anything else.
> >
> >No. "Mobile phones" is an entirely separate service, running
> >in the 152 Mhz and 450 Mhz bands... this is what we had BEFORE
> >cell phones. :-)
> >
> >I was a "Mobile phone" dispatcher when I was at university...
> >1970 - 1974. :-)
> >
> >Best regards,
> >
> >Jer/ "Flight instruction and mountain flying are my vocation!" Eberhard
> >
>
> Yes, you're quite correct in what you say about the old 'Mobile
> phones'.

> I was the chief (only) tech for a small communications company
> where we installed 'Key telephone systems' and Mobile Car
> Phones', BUT I was just pointing out that the cellular phone
> companies 'now' call them 'mobile phones' (again?).

> I have a brand new handout sheet here for the kind of cel phone
> that I'm interested in exchanging for my present one...remember
> that I said NEW handout...it calls them 'mobile phones'...I'll
> scan it and email it to you if you cannot take my word for it...
> --

> -Gord.
> (use gordon in email)


Best regards,

Jer/ "Flight instruction and mountain flying are my vocation!" Eberhard

--
Jer/ (Slash) Eberhard, Mountain Flying Aviation, LTD, Ft Collins, CO
CELL 970 231-6325 EMAIL jer'at'frii.com WEB http://users.frii.com/jer/
C-206 N9513G, CFII Airplane&Glider, FAA-DEN Aviation Safety Counselor
CAP-CO Mission&Aircraft CheckPilot, BM218 HAM N0FZD, 221 Young Eagles!

[C. J. Clegg]

On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 19:01:30 GMT, Gord Beaman >
wrote:

>Of course...and the term is no longer 'cellular' anyway it seems,
>they now seem to prefer 'Mobile phones' so I guess it's a moot
>point, but ISTM that the aircraft cel system is a helluva lot
>closer to the terrestrial cel system than anything else.

The term "cellular" has a specific meaning within the FCC rules.
There is a section of the rules (I forget which one) that regulates
the "cellular service", and another section of the rules that
regulates PCS phones (the "personal communications service"). The
former is not allowed to be used in the air whereas the latter is.

A few years ago there was a company that was experimenting with ways
to use the "cellular service" from the air without bringing up too
many cells, etc. They were working with a special waiver from the
FCC. I don't know what all ever became of their work.

CJ

[Sport Pilot]

Cell towers do not work individually, each tower only has a few
channels of the huge amout of frequencies available. Your cell phone
simply picks the strongest available frequency. That is usually the
nearest cell tower, but if all available channels are in use that may
be the next nearest tower. There are not just cells but also regions
of cell towers, each region will use all of the available channels and
have a limited number of land lines available to it. The problem
occures when the cell phone access several regions with several towers
of the same frequency. Aircell phones have a lower power and a shaped
antenna giving a norrow beam down to the ground.

[Sport Pilot]

I understand that AirCell phones use the same system as regular cell
phones. There is a special antenna on the aircraft which gives a lower
power shaped transmission which cannot broadcast past the existing cell
region. Each region is made up of a network of cell phones. They may
have some dedicated frequencies or channels but they use the same
network of cell towers and regions.