Using other freqs to communicate between planes or ground?

[Gary G]

I've wondered if it is legal to utilize an "unused" frequency to communicate between planes or
to someone on the ground for non-critical communication?
I don't know what for, but let's say you want to talk to your friend or CFI on the ground who
might give "additional instructions" on things.
Or, another pilot close by wants to exchange some restaurant info or something.
Or maybe a flying club wants to communicate or something.

Is that legal?
Is it ok?
(Let's assume your monitoring other freqs that you need to).

[Jay Beckman]

"Gary G" > wrote in message
...
> I've wondered if it is legal to utilize an "unused" frequency to
> communicate between planes or
> to someone on the ground for non-critical communication?
> I don't know what for, but let's say you want to talk to your friend or
> CFI on the ground who
> might give "additional instructions" on things.
> Or, another pilot close by wants to exchange some restaurant info or
> something.
> Or maybe a flying club wants to communicate or something.
>
> Is that legal?
> Is it ok?
> (Let's assume your monitoring other freqs that you need to)

Hi Gary,

Where I rent/train, the two closest uncontrolled fields use 122.8 and 122.7
so the FBO squeezes 122.775 in between for calling inbound when returning
from the practice area or from cross countrys.

The practice area (122.85) is close enought that you could, I suppose (if
you had a dilemma...), hail the FBO to ask for help.

The FBO freq is also handy if you need something from the office when you
are out on the ramp preflighting and you don't want to leave the plane
un-attended.

Jay Beckman
Chandler, AZ
PP-ASEL
Still nowhere to go but up!

[Peter Duniho]

"Gary G" > wrote in message
...
> Is that legal?

No. The FCC rules call out specific frequencies for use in specific
situations, including air-to-air, air-to-ground, radio testing, etc. You
are not permitted to use, for example, a tower frequency that you believe to
be unused in the area for some other purpose.

> Is it ok?

Define "ok". Many pilots use 123.45 as a "junk" frequency for the purposes
you mention, but it's not a permitted frequency. It's unlikely you'll
interfere with anyone else using that frequency, and it's unlikely you'll
ever get caught. But don't you think it would be better to stick to an
approved frequency?

> (Let's assume your monitoring other freqs that you need to).

I have no idea what that has to do with it.

Pete

[[email protected]]

"Jay Beckman" wrote:

> Where I rent/train, the two closest uncontrolled fields use 122.8 and 122.7
> so the FBO squeezes 122.775 in between for calling inbound when returning
> from the practice area or from cross countrys.
>
> The FBO freq is also handy if you need something from the office when you
> are out on the ramp preflighting and you don't want to leave the plane
> un-attended.

As someone who monitors that FBO frequency in the office, we do
occasionally hear other pilots using "our" frequency to converse with
each other. It's intrusive to us because our frequency is supposed to be
for communication between our FBO and OUR pilots (students, renters,
etc.) to make our operations smoother; the unwitting pilots find it
annoying when we tell them they're on our FBO frequency, as if WE are
interrupting THEIR conversation! I don't know if they're in violation of
any regs by using our frequency to communicate, but my guess is that it
doesn't happen frequently enough to pursue it.

[gerrcoin]

Just to add that transmissions from an aircraft can travel much
further than ground transmissions. So just because you never hear
anything on a particular freq does not mean that you will not cause
interference on it. Airport receivers have quite good reception and
certain atmospheric conditions can boost the propagation of radio
signals by a surprising amount. Stick to assigned freqs or, as peter
has mentioned, 123.45 is considered to be a common chat channel.

[Rip]

The AIM and FCC list 122.750 MHz and 122.850 MHz for air to air (and
private airports not open to the public).

Gary G wrote:
> I've wondered if it is legal to utilize an "unused" frequency to communicate between planes or
> to someone on the ground for non-critical communication?
> I don't know what for, but let's say you want to talk to your friend or CFI on the ground who
> might give "additional instructions" on things.
> Or, another pilot close by wants to exchange some restaurant info or something.
> Or maybe a flying club wants to communicate or something.
>
> Is that legal?
> Is it ok?
> (Let's assume your monitoring other freqs that you need to).
>
>

[Peter Duniho]

"Jay Beckman" > wrote in message
news:5Oyfd.18870$SW3.479@fed1read01...
> Where I rent/train, the two closest uncontrolled fields use 122.8 and
> 122.7 so the FBO squeezes 122.775 in between for calling inbound when
> returning from the practice area or from cross countrys.

Not sure what you mean by "the FBO squeezes 122.775 in". 122.775 is a
frequency specifically assigned by the FCC to "Aircraft (Air carrier and
Private)" and to "Aviation support". That is, it's a frequency reserved for
communication between planes and FBOs (among other things), and would have
been granted to the FBO for that purpose (another FBO at the same airport
would have to use a different frequency).

> The practice area (122.85) is close enought that you could, I suppose (if
> you had a dilemma...), hail the FBO to ask for help.

The regulations don't say anything about 122.85 being usable as an
air-to-air frequency. Who told you that 122.85 is approved for use as the
"practice area" frequency? Is that published somewhere?

> The FBO freq is also handy if you need something from the office when you
> are out on the ramp preflighting and you don't want to leave the plane
> un-attended.

It is definitely a good thing to know the frequencies for FBOs.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"gerrcoin" > wrote in message
...
> [...] Stick to assigned freqs or, as peter has mentioned, 123.45 is
> considered to be a common chat channel.

However, as I also mentioned, it's not an approved channel. It's reserved
for ground test stations.

If you're going to chat on the radio in the air to other stations in the
air, you should do so on 122.75, which is the frequency specifically set
aside for air-to-air communication.

I would also use 122.75 for student-to-instructor communications, when the
instructor is on the ground with a hand-held for example, even though that's
patently illegal (it's not an air-to-ground frequency, and the handheld is
not a legal station for the purpose of transmitting).

Pete

[Jim Weir]

"Gary G" >
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:

->I've wondered if it is legal to utilize an "unused" frequency to communicate
between planes or
->to someone on the ground for non-critical communication?

Absolutely not, unless the "unused" frequency is assigned by license to either
you or the ground station. There is only one air to air frequency for airPLANES
(122.75) and another one for rotorwing aircraft (123.025). (Ref 47CFR87 sub F)



->Is that legal?

Again, illegal as hell unless one of you has applied for and been granted the
FCC (not FAA) license for the frequency for the purpose intended in 14CFR87.

Jim


Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com

[Jim Weir]

"Jay Beckman" >
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:

->Where I rent/train, the two closest uncontrolled fields use 122.8 and 122.7
->so the FBO squeezes 122.775 in between for calling inbound when returning
->from the practice area or from cross countrys.

Illegal as hell UNLESS your FBO has applied for and been granted a license on
that frequency (47CFR87 sub K). Most FBOs don't want to spend the extra $50 on
a license and hope against hope the little men in the antenna van don't pop them
$10K a day for the privilege.


->
->The practice area (122.85) is close enought that you could, I suppose (if
->you had a dilemma...), hail the FBO to ask for help.

122.85 is also authorized under subparts H and K, but only upon a showing of
need and the requisite application and fees.

So the old question goes, "Who is it going to hurt, and who is going to catch
me?" The same folks who will be hurt and who will catch you if you don't
maintain currency and carry passengers, fly without a flight review, with an
expired medical, and all that good stuff.

Jim

Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com

[Jim Weir]

It is not "your" frequency. Every aviation frequency is issued on a shared
basis. If the aircraft involved are authorized on that frequency for the
purpose for which they are using it, then you are not entitled to shoo them off
the frequency.

If, however, they are using a frequency FOR WHICH YOU HAVE A CURRENT AND VALID
FCC LICENSE and they are using it for a purpose not covered under that
particular part, then you have the right to ask them to take their conversation
to a legal channel.

Tell you what. The FCC maintains a database of ALL valid licenses. Why don't
you just post here the name of the person or business that you think has a
license for that frequency and I'll go look it up and report back here?

Jim




shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:

->As someone who monitors that FBO frequency in the office, we do
->occasionally hear other pilots using "our" frequency
Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com

[Dave S]

wrote:
> "Jay Beckman" wrote:
>
>
>>Where I rent/train, the two closest uncontrolled fields use 122.8 and 122.7
>>so the FBO squeezes 122.775 in between for calling inbound when returning
>>from the practice area or from cross countrys.
>>
>>The FBO freq is also handy if you need something from the office when you
>>are out on the ramp preflighting and you don't want to leave the plane
>>un-attended.
>
>
> As someone who monitors that FBO frequency in the office, we do
> occasionally hear other pilots using "our" frequency to converse with
> each other. It's intrusive to us because our frequency is supposed to be
> for communication between our FBO and OUR pilots (students, renters,
> etc.) to make our operations smoother; the unwitting pilots find it
> annoying when we tell them they're on our FBO frequency, as if WE are
> interrupting THEIR conversation! I don't know if they're in violation of
> any regs by using our frequency to communicate, but my guess is that it
> doesn't happen frequently enough to pursue it.

Given the small amount/number of frequencies, I doubt that you have
exclusive use of YOUR frequency. There should be air to air frequencies
and Multicom (122.9) for air to ground that should be used for such
purposes that the "unwitting pilots" are using them for, but that being
said I doubt that any FBO has standing to claim a frequency for
exclusive use.

Dave

[Dave S]

What makes a handheld illegal? Public safety folks get licensed for and
use handhelds all the time. Its licensed as either a mobile or a
portable (its been a LONG time since I've been around em)..

Dave

Peter Duniho wrote:

> "gerrcoin" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>[...] Stick to assigned freqs or, as peter has mentioned, 123.45 is
>>considered to be a common chat channel.
>
>
> However, as I also mentioned, it's not an approved channel. It's reserved
> for ground test stations.
>
> If you're going to chat on the radio in the air to other stations in the
> air, you should do so on 122.75, which is the frequency specifically set
> aside for air-to-air communication.
>
> I would also use 122.75 for student-to-instructor communications, when the
> instructor is on the ground with a hand-held for example, even though that's
> patently illegal (it's not an air-to-ground frequency, and the handheld is
> not a legal station for the purpose of transmitting).
>
> Pete
>
>

[Jim Weir]

Peter...

Sorry, you pushed a hot button. 123.4, 123.45, and a few others are flight test
frequencies (47CFR89 sub J) and are ONLY available to aircraft manufacturers and
aviation equipment manufacturers. This is the ONLY license where the person
applying for the license must indicate and swear to the fact that they are a
legitimate manufacturer. Specifically excluded by supplemental interpretation
are those constructing an aircraft for personal reasons or other "homebuilder"
reasons. Van's Aircraft could easily qualify for the licenses (and has). An
individual building an RV-6 could not.

When we need to do a test, we use one, two, or more of these for data
transmission, coordination between the test facility and the aircraft being
tested, and all that good stuff. We haven't had a need for the license for this
last year, and let it lapse. When we need it again, we'll apply and pay the fee
and get it.

It goes further than that. Before we use any of these test frequencies, we are
required to notify all other test facilities for a 100 mile radius of our
proposed hours of operation and types of transmissions they might expect to
hear. If there is a conflict between users, they are required to work it out
themselves before EITHER of them can use the frequency.

Having said that, you might want to check with the pilot of the Coors Silver
Bullet. When we were doing some antenna tests a few years ago, he decided to
use one of our assigned test frequencies as his "airshow announcement"
frequency. We politely asked him to move to his assigned frequency and he
politely told us to go !^c# ourselves. Which, since we were recording the data
on tape anyway, somehow found its way to the FCC Livermore Monitoring Station.
We weren't told what the fine was, but were advised that it was "substantial",
whatever that means.

Understand, we've got equipment, personnel, aircraft, and other expenses during
one of these tests, and when some @$$#)!& comes on to chatter it ruins an hour
of test data, which is an expense to us. A rather large expense, which, of
course, we pass on to you in the form of higher prices for our products. We
aren't about to play nice guys when this is a well known breach of the rules.

We also had a nice chat with the chief pilot of a local commuter airline who had
one of his junior pilots chatting with his buddies at FL250. That hammers the
frequency for an hour in any direction. Just a friendly chat, mind you, and the
problem disappeared.

Most of the problems stem from flight instructors who either don't know or don't
care who they screw up and teach their students the same. I do hope that those
of you who advocate the use of these frequencies are willing to pay the
consequences.

Jim



"Peter Duniho" >
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:



->
->Define "ok". Many pilots use 123.45 as a "junk" frequency for the purposes
->you mention, but it's not a permitted frequency. It's unlikely you'll
->interfere with anyone else using that frequency, and it's unlikely you'll
->ever get caught. But don't you think it would be better to stick to an
->approved frequency?



Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com

[Jim Weir]

The hell it is. See previous dissertation.

Jim


gerrcoin >
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:

Stick to assigned freqs or, as peter
->has mentioned, 123.45 is considered to be a common chat channel.


Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com

[Jim Weir]

"Peter Duniho" >
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:

-
->However, as I also mentioned, it's not an approved channel. It's reserved
->for ground test stations.

Nope. Subpart J is entitled FLIGHT Test stations.


->
->If you're going to chat on the radio in the air to other stations in the
->air, you should do so on 122.75, which is the frequency specifically set
->aside for air-to-air communication.
->
->I would also use 122.75 for student-to-instructor communications, when the
->instructor is on the ground with a hand-held for example, even though that's
->patently illegal (it's not an air-to-ground frequency, and the handheld is
->not a legal station for the purpose of transmitting).

A SINGLE instructor with a SINGLE student has been found to qualify for Subpart
K Flight School frequencies 123.3 and 123.5. The handheld is a perfectly legal
station for use in this service, but as I've pointed out several times, the
individual flight instructor (or their flight school) must apply for the license
and pay the fee.

The point of all this rambling is that there is a frequency available for almost
any use and almost any condition, but unless the stations at both end of the
communications link are authorized AND LICENSED on these frequencies, then the
communications FROM BOTH ENDS are illegal.

Jim



Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com

[Greg Butler]

The answer is yes. You can use any other frequency that you are authorized
to use, such as CB, Ham (If you are licensed), or the family radio band
(those little handhelds at walmart).


"Jay Beckman" > wrote in message
news:5Oyfd.18870$SW3.479@fed1read01...
>
> "Gary G" > wrote in message
> ...
>> I've wondered if it is legal to utilize an "unused" frequency to
>> communicate between planes or
>> to someone on the ground for non-critical communication?
>> I don't know what for, but let's say you want to talk to your friend or
>> CFI on the ground who
>> might give "additional instructions" on things.
>> Or, another pilot close by wants to exchange some restaurant info or
>> something.
>> Or maybe a flying club wants to communicate or something.
>>
>> Is that legal?
>> Is it ok?
>> (Let's assume your monitoring other freqs that you need to)
>
> Hi Gary,
>
> Where I rent/train, the two closest uncontrolled fields use 122.8 and
> 122.7 so the FBO squeezes 122.775 in between for calling inbound when
> returning from the practice area or from cross countrys.
>
> The practice area (122.85) is close enought that you could, I suppose (if
> you had a dilemma...), hail the FBO to ask for help.
>
> The FBO freq is also handy if you need something from the office when you
> are out on the ramp preflighting and you don't want to leave the plane
> un-attended.
>
> Jay Beckman
> Chandler, AZ
> PP-ASEL
> Still nowhere to go but up!
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jim Weir" > wrote in message
...
>
> The hell it is. See previous dissertation.
>

Actually, 123.45 IS considered by many to be a common chat channel. It is
NOT a common chat channel, of course, but that doesn't change the fact that
many believe it is.

[Astrid]

"Rip" > wrote in message
om...
> The AIM and FCC list 122.750 MHz and 122.850 MHz for air to air (and
> private airports not open to the public).

Can I use these freqs for communication in formation flights?

[[email protected]]

Dave S wrote:

> Given the small amount/number of frequencies, I doubt that you have
> exclusive use of YOUR frequency.

I put the word "our" when mentioning the frequency in quotation marks
because I *don't* know if it is registered to our FBO with the FCC ...
it is on all our documentation as our "base station" frequency, and it
is also listed in the Flight Guide (which I realize doesn't necessarily
mean anything).

> There should be air to air frequencies
> and Multicom (122.9) for air to ground that should be used for such
> purposes that the "unwitting pilots" are using them for, but that being
> said I doubt that any FBO has standing to claim a frequency for
> exclusive use.

Maybe my term "unwitting pilots" was out of line...I expect a pilot from
out of the area may not know it's used for our FBO without having
specifically looked at our info. And no, we don't try to "shoo them off"
when we hear them; however, we do tell them that they are chatting on
our aircraft-to-FBO frequency. I've yet to hear any conversation on that
frequency *between aircraft not from our FBO* that consists of anything
other than "hey Bill, what time did your wife say you had to be back
today?" or "I'm over Dead Tree Road, where are you?" ... and when we
tell them they're on an FBO frequency, they pretty much tell us to
"f@#$-off" too, just as another poster said.

[Jay Beckman]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Jay Beckman" > wrote in message
> news:5Oyfd.18870$SW3.479@fed1read01...
>> Where I rent/train, the two closest uncontrolled fields use 122.8 and
>> 122.7 so the FBO squeezes 122.775 in between for calling inbound when
>> returning from the practice area or from cross countrys.
>
> Not sure what you mean by "the FBO squeezes 122.775 in". 122.775 is a
> frequency specifically assigned by the FCC to "Aircraft (Air carrier and
> Private)" and to "Aviation support". That is, it's a frequency reserved
> for communication between planes and FBOs (among other things), and would
> have been granted to the FBO for that purpose (another FBO at the same
> airport would have to use a different frequency).

Peter,

Didn't realize that 122.775 was tied to a specific FBO. But now that you
mention it, I've never heard anyone else ever use it, so thanks for
clarifying that. I used the term "squeezed" just to point out that it falls
between the freqs used at nearby airports.

>
>> The practice area (122.85) is close enought that you could, I suppose (if
>> you had a dilemma...), hail the FBO to ask for help.
>
> The regulations don't say anything about 122.85 being usable as an
> air-to-air frequency. Who told you that 122.85 is approved for use as the
> "practice area" frequency? Is that published somewhere?
>

Can't say for sure that it's published in the official FCC/FAA sense but:

The flight school where I trained prints it on the same flipcard that has an
airport diagram with reminders for the tower frequency split, ground, ATIS,
unicom, PHX approach, and the above mentioned 122.775 if you need to hail
the FBO.

It must be printed on lots of things since I hear planes from Chandler,
Stellar Airpark, Williams Gateway and Falcon Field routinely declare where
they are in relation to known landmarks, their current altitude, direction
of flight and their intentions (PP maneuvers, simulated engine failure,
ground ref maneuvers, returning to xxx airport, etc...) There is some
"chatting" occasionaly when one plane thinks they might cross paths with
another and wants to be totally sure of the location or intentions of
another.

In the NE practice area (primarily used by FBOs at Scottsdale and Deer
Valley), they use 122.75.

Don't know about the northwest side of town.

>> The FBO freq is also handy if you need something from the office when you
>> are out on the ramp preflighting and you don't want to leave the plane
>> un-attended.
>
> It is definitely a good thing to know the frequencies for FBOs.

Agreed. That was a specific detail which I overlooked on my long solo XC
(cause for a bit of "clenching") but the ground control folks at Yuma were
kind enough to provide it when I told them the specific FBO I was headed to
to get topped off.

Jay Beckman
Chandler, AZ
PP-ASEL
Still nowhere to go but up!

[Bob Gardner]

In the Northwest, 123.45 is assigned to the Boeing Company Flight Test
Department. This is a long and complicated URL, but it is a somewhat
up-to-date list of companies assigned to use 123.45.

http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws.exe/genmen/uls/frequency_res.hts?db_id=19&rows=0&radio_serv=&freq=00000123.45000000

We use the aviation radio frequencies as a privilege, not a right. Don't
make up your own rules.

Bob Gardner

"gerrcoin" > wrote in message
...
> Just to add that transmissions from an aircraft can travel much further
> than ground transmissions. So just because you never hear anything on a
> particular freq does not mean that you will not cause interference on it.
> Airport receivers have quite good reception and certain atmospheric
> conditions can boost the propagation of radio signals by a surprising
> amount. Stick to assigned freqs or, as peter has mentioned, 123.45 is
> considered to be a common chat channel.

[Peter Duniho]

"Dave S" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> What makes a handheld illegal? Public safety folks get licensed for and
> use handhelds all the time.

I should have been more clear. I was talking of the typical use, in which
no station or operator's license exists to legalize the use.

You're right that if a CFI goes to the trouble to get the appropriate
license, they may use a handheld radio as a licensed station.

[Capt.Doug]

>"Jim Weir" wrote in message > Sorry, you pushed a hot button. 123.4,
>123.45, and a few others are flight test frequencies (47CFR89 sub J) and
are >ONLY available to aircraft manufacturers and aviation equipment
>manufacturers.

Please allow me to qualify your statement by pointing out that this is not
true in much of the world.

D.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Jim Weir wrote:
>
> So the old question goes, "Who is it going to hurt, and who is going to catch
> me?" The same folks who will be hurt and who will catch you if you don't
> maintain currency and carry passengers, fly without a flight review, with an
> expired medical, and all that good stuff.

Just as a matter of curiousity, Jim, would it be the FAA who pursues this or the FCC?

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

[Jim Weir]

I could give a rat's ass less what is true outside the USA. I'm trying to make
measurements inside the USA. Observe our rules in the USA or not, your choice,
but don't regard the rules and I'll fry your ass.

Got it?

Jim



"Capt.Doug" >
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:

->>"Jim Weir" wrote in message > Sorry, you pushed a hot button. 123.4,
->>123.45, and a few others are flight test frequencies (47CFR89 sub J) and
->are >ONLY available to aircraft manufacturers and aviation equipment
->>manufacturers.
->
->Please allow me to qualify your statement by pointing out that this is not
->true in much of the world.
->
->D.
->

Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com

[G.R. Patterson III]

Gary G wrote:
>
> Is that legal?

Sure -- I recommend 121.5. :-)

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

[Peter Duniho]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
> Just as a matter of curiousity, Jim, would it be the FAA who
> pursues this or the FCC?

Does the FCC enforce the FARs? The FAA is as likely to enforce the wireless
communications regulations as the FCC is to enforce the aviation
regulations.

[zatatime]

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 15:40:26 -0700, Jim Weir >
wrote:

>We also had a nice chat with the chief pilot of a local commuter airline who had
>one of his junior pilots chatting with his buddies at FL250. That hammers the
>frequency for an hour in any direction.


I'm not being sarcastic, but wondering why a transmission "hammers the
frequency for an hour?"

I made the mistake of being taught to use 123.45 "any 'ol time you
want to" and about 3 years ago got someone very mad at me. I didn't
even know I did something wrong, but haven't used the freq. since.

Here's some info I dug up on who uses the test freq:

User...........City...............Approx. Lat/Long

NASA...............Crows Landing, CA..........37N-121W
US Air Force.......Edwards AFB, CA............35N-118W
NASA...............Moffett Field, CA..........37N-122W
US Army............Windsor Locks, CT..........42N-73W
US Navy............Patuxent, MD...............38N-76W
US Army............Lakehurst, NJ..............40N-74W
US Air Force.......Nevada Test Range, NV......37N-116W
NASA...............Cleveland, OH..............42N-82W
US Army............Quonset, RI................42N-71W
US Army............Columbia, SC...............34N-81W
NASA...............Wallops Island, VA.........38N-75W
US Army............Truax Field, WI............43N-89W

More interesting stuff, and a long article about 123.45 at:

http://www.aerorfi.org/


z

[StellaStar]

>unless the "unused" frequency is assigned by license to either
>you or the ground station.

Jim, got a link for how to apply for the permit required?

I learned that (perhaps it's a state law) law-enforcement types don't want you
to use a portable scanner-type radio tunable to cop frequencies when you're
mobile. It's understandable, given the tendency of Bad Guys to use such a
situation to evade enforcement. But a licensed ham radio operator is exempt
from that. I carry a printout of that regulation in my glove compartment since
I carry a portable scanner...even though it's programmed only with aviation
frequencies.

If it's not ferociously expensive I could see getting the required license in
case I can ever afford a mobile radio that transmits on the av freqs, too.

[Jens Krueger]

Peter Duniho > wrote:

> > The practice area (122.85) is close enought that you could, I suppose (if
> > you had a dilemma...), hail the FBO to ask for help.
>
> The regulations don't say anything about 122.85 being usable as an
> air-to-air frequency. Who told you that 122.85 is approved for use as the
> "practice area" frequency? Is that published somewhere?

Check the AIM (I know it's "only" recommend and not regulatory, but
hey...), Chapter 4-1-11 Designated Unicom/Multicom Freq. Under 4-1-11 b)
2) you'll find "Other Frequency Usage designated by the FCC:

Air-to-air communications and private airports (not open to the public):
122,75, 122,85
Air-to-air communications (Helicopters)
123,025

Hope that helps.

Cheers,
Jens

--
I don't accept any emails right now. Usenet replys only.

[Jens Krueger]

gerrcoin > wrote:

> Stick to assigned freqs or, as peter
> has mentioned, 123.45 is considered to be a common chat channel.

Which is just a common misconception. 123,45 is no more a designated
air-to-air frequency then anything else. The FCC has 122,75 and 122,85
authorized for air-air and air-to-ground on private airports. 123,02 is
for helicopter air-to-air.

123,45 just "stuck" with a lot of pilots because it's easy to remember.
Check 4-1-11 b) 2) in the AIM.

Cheers,
Jens

--
I don't accept any emails right now. Usenet replys only.

[Gary G]

Geez! Why'd you have to come across like that?
Seems the guy is making a clairification on some
non-US" issues and you have to get not only defensive, but
substanitally rude.

I think many appreciate that clrification - which contained no threats
nor direct attack, and you got all "ship yo a$$" like.
Gee - thanks for being so contructive!

Got it?

[Gary G]

Ha ha!

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message ...
>
>
> Gary G wrote:
>>
>> Is that legal?
>
> Sure -- I recommend 121.5. :-)
>
> George Patterson
> If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
> been looking for it.

[Icebound]

"Gary G" > wrote in message
...
> I've wondered if it is legal to utilize an "unused" frequency to
> communicate between planes or
> to someone on the ground for non-critical communication?
> I don't know what for, but let's say you want to talk to your friend or
> CFI on the ground who
> might give "additional instructions" on things.
> Or, another pilot close by wants to exchange some restaurant info or
> something.
> Or maybe a flying club wants to communicate or something.
>
> Is that legal?
> Is it ok?
> (Let's assume your monitoring other freqs that you need to).
>

NOWHERE is there provision for chit-chat in the aviation frequency band.
For that, you need to go to the Part 95 "Personal Radio Services" (Citizens
band).

Air-to-air frequencies are designed for license holders in support of
licensed business and/or aviation operations.

Radio is International and so are radio rules. Your chit-chat on an
air-to-air frequency may be interfering with a legal operation across the
border.

[Ron Natalie]

Icebound wrote:

> Air-to-air frequencies are designed for license holders in support of
> licensed business and/or aviation operations.
>
> Radio is International and so are radio rules. Your chit-chat on an
> air-to-air frequency may be interfering with a legal operation across the
> border.

If so, the FCC doesn't seem to be confirmed. My air-to-air use on 122.75
is whatever I as a pilot/operator feel is warranted. What the hell is
a "licensed business and/or aviation operation." The FCC doesn't even
require me to have either an operator or station license for airborne
domestic VHF use.

[John Galban]

"Astrid" > wrote in message >...
> "Rip" > wrote in message
> om...
> > The AIM and FCC list 122.750 MHz and 122.850 MHz for air to air (and
> > private airports not open to the public).
>
> Can I use these freqs for communication in formation flights?

The AIM was updated in the early 90's to include 122.85 on the same
line as the real air to air freq., 122.75. Since then, many pilots
(myself included) have come to the erroneous conclusion that either of
these frequencies can be used for air to air communications. Many
will point out the AIM reference in support of their use of 122.85.

Jim Wier was kind enough to patiently educate me on the subject a
few years ago. The AIM has no regulatory bearing on the use of radio
frequencies. What is legal and what is not legal is determined by the
applicable FCC regs. According to them, 122.85 is NOT a general use
air to air frequency. The AIM table is misleading, in that respect.

I've seen articles in aviation periodicals, AOPA Pilot in
particular, that continue to refer to both 122.75 and 122.85 as
general use air to air frequencies. When I've sent corrections to
the authors, they're convinced that the misleading frequency table in
the AIM is all the justification they need. Oh well :-(

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[Icebound]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
> Icebound wrote:
>
>> Air-to-air frequencies are designed for license holders in support of
>> licensed business and/or aviation operations.
>>
>> Radio is International and so are radio rules. Your chit-chat on an
>> air-to-air frequency may be interfering with a legal operation across the
>> border.
>
> If so, the FCC doesn't seem to be confirmed. My air-to-air use on 122.75
> is whatever I as a pilot/operator feel is warranted.

122.75 is "Private fixed wing aircraft air-to-air communication", Subpart
F.

Subpart F says, in part:

(a) Aircraft stations must limit their
communications to the necessities of
safe, efficient, and economic operation
of aircraft and the protection of life
and property in the air, except as otherwise
specifically provided in this
part. Contact with an aeronautical
land station must only be attempted
when the aircraft is within the serivce
area of the land station. however, aircraft
stations may transmit advisory
information on air traffic control,
unicom or aeronautical multicom frequencies
for the benefit and use of
other stations monitoring these frequencies
in accordance with FAA recommended
traffic advisory practices.

It goes on in section j) to say later that "122.75 is authorized....for
air-air communication". It does NOT say in section j) "Oh, and by the way,
section a) is not valid here".

I don't think that this permits chit-chat about the Red Sox miraculous
comeback. It may permit discussion about the availability of fuel at XYZ or
that smoke plume limiting visibility over the city, or even that I am going
to be 15 minutes late on my ETA. But not about the color of the new baby's
eyes, or the 54 inch TV set I intend to buy.

Now, the FCC may choose to look the other way, but they SHOULD be concerned.


>What the hell is a "licensed business and/or aviation operation."

Something for which you could apply for and be assigned a "company
frequency". In which case you are still supposed to limit conversation to
items pertinent to that business, because other companies (somewhere) are
using that same frequency, too. Company frequencies are certainly assigned
in other parts of the aviation band, but I am not sure if they are in the
118-140 mHZ range.


Another pertinent rule is 87.41:

(b) Licensing limitations. Frequencies
are available for assignment to stations
on a shared basis only and will
not be assigned for the exclusive use of
any licensee. The use of any assigned
frequency may be restricted to one or
more geographical areas.


You HAVE to assume that you are causing interference somewhere, and
therefore communications are supposed to be pertinent and brief.


>The FCC doesn't even
> require me to have either an operator or station license for airborne
> domestic VHF use.

That is their choice. Because they have your tail number, they probably
felt they could avoid the extra paperwork, since they still know who you
are. No requirement for a license does not mean that those frequencies are
somehow "free-for-all". And just because your equipment can transmit on all
those frequencies does not mean that you are allowed to. They must still be
used according to their allocation.

[Jay Masino]

John Galban > wrote:
> Jim Wier was kind enough to patiently educate me on the subject a
> few years ago. The AIM has no regulatory bearing on the use of radio
> frequencies. What is legal and what is not legal is determined by the
> applicable FCC regs. According to them, 122.85 is NOT a general use
> air to air frequency. The AIM table is misleading, in that respect.
>
> I've seen articles in aviation periodicals, AOPA Pilot in
> particular, that continue to refer to both 122.75 and 122.85 as
> general use air to air frequencies. When I've sent corrections to
> the authors, they're convinced that the misleading frequency table in
> the AIM is all the justification they need. Oh well :-(

I seriously doubt that the FCC gives a damn, one way or the other. They
have better things to do than chase air to air conversations off of
122.85 (like listening to every single word that Howard Stern mutters).

--- Jay



--
__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
http://www.oceancityairport.com
http://www.oc-adolfos.com

[Jim Weir]

The FCC. Unless it is a violation that threatens ATC or something like that,
the FAA wants nothing to do with it. As a matter of fact, the unofficial FAA
position on the FCC "bad radio" list is that they could care less if we say or
do anything about it on an inspection.

Jim

"G.R. Patterson III" >
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:


->
->Just as a matter of curiousity, Jim, would it be the FAA who pursues this or
the FCC?
->
->George Patterson
-> If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
-> been looking for it.

Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com

[Jim Weir]

Because in a relatively slow commuter aircraft, transiting horizon to horizon at
FL250 can take the better part of an hour. Chatting with your buddies along the
way pretty well takes care of what needs to be a quiet frequency for data
transmission.

Jim



zatatime >
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:

-
->
->I'm not being sarcastic, but wondering why a transmission "hammers the
->frequency for an hour?"


Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com

[Jim Weir]

Google on "FCC form 406" and be quite liberal in your story about why you need
the license...don't LIE, but use puffery to the extent you are comfortable with
it. Me? I had 350 students in my "flight school". I didn't have to tell them
that it was over the course of 35 years of instruction that I accumulated those
"students".

Jim


(StellaStar)
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:

->>unless the "unused" frequency is assigned by license to either
->>you or the ground station.
->
->Jim, got a link for how to apply for the permit required?
->
->I learned that (perhaps it's a state law) law-enforcement types don't want you
->to use a portable scanner-type radio tunable to cop frequencies when you're
->mobile. It's understandable, given the tendency of Bad Guys to use such a
->situation to evade enforcement. But a licensed ham radio operator is exempt
->from that. I carry a printout of that regulation in my glove compartment
since
->I carry a portable scanner...even though it's programmed only with aviation
->frequencies.
->
->If it's not ferociously expensive I could see getting the required license in
->case I can ever afford a mobile radio that transmits on the av freqs, too.

Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com

[Blueskies]

"Jay Masino" > wrote in message ...
> John Galban > wrote:
>> Jim Wier was kind enough to patiently educate me on the subject a
>> few years ago. The AIM has no regulatory bearing on the use of radio
>> frequencies. What is legal and what is not legal is determined by the
>> applicable FCC regs. According to them, 122.85 is NOT a general use
>> air to air frequency. The AIM table is misleading, in that respect.
>>
>> I've seen articles in aviation periodicals, AOPA Pilot in
>> particular, that continue to refer to both 122.75 and 122.85 as
>> general use air to air frequencies. When I've sent corrections to
>> the authors, they're convinced that the misleading frequency table in
>> the AIM is all the justification they need. Oh well :-(
>
> I seriously doubt that the FCC gives a damn, one way or the other. They
> have better things to do than chase air to air conversations off of
> 122.85 (like listening to every single word that Howard Stern mutters).
>
> --- Jay
>
>
>

It'll get to the point of the CB radio stuff someday - used to be you needed a license for the CB, but that disappeared
when they were everywhere...

[G.R. Patterson III]

Jim Weir wrote:
>
> The FCC. Unless it is a violation that threatens ATC or something like that,
> the FAA wants nothing to do with it. As a matter of fact, the unofficial FAA
> position on the FCC "bad radio" list is that they could care less if we say or
> do anything about it on an inspection.

Thanks. Thought that would be the case, but I got the impression they were a little
lax on enforcing some of their other rules. Glad to know they can move when
necessary.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

[zatatime]

Ohhh, I thought somehow one or two transmissions mucked up the works
that long, although I guess most people don't share just one or two
comments.

Thanks for the reply.

z


On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 16:05:04 -0700, Jim Weir >
wrote:

>Because in a relatively slow commuter aircraft, transiting horizon to horizon at
>FL250 can take the better part of an hour. Chatting with your buddies along the
>way pretty well takes care of what needs to be a quiet frequency for data
>transmission.
>
>Jim
>
>
>
>zatatime >
>shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:
>
>-
>->
>->I'm not being sarcastic, but wondering why a transmission "hammers the
>->frequency for an hour?"
>
>
>Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
>VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
>http://www.rst-engr.com

[BTIZ]

there are no unused frequencies.. all are allocated..

but there are dedicated "air to air" frequencies..

I hope that FBO using 127.775 has FCC approval..

BT

"Gary G" > wrote in message
...
> I've wondered if it is legal to utilize an "unused" frequency to
> communicate between planes or
> to someone on the ground for non-critical communication?
> I don't know what for, but let's say you want to talk to your friend or
> CFI on the ground who
> might give "additional instructions" on things.
> Or, another pilot close by wants to exchange some restaurant info or
> something.
> Or maybe a flying club wants to communicate or something.
>
> Is that legal?
> Is it ok?
> (Let's assume your monitoring other freqs that you need to).
>

[Capt.Doug]

>"Jim Weir" wrote in message > I'll fry your ass. Got it?

And all this time I thought you were a gentleman. Take your arrogant
attitude and shove it right up your ass. If I pushed your "hot button", too
****ing bad. The US is not the whole world. I'll start using 'your' test
frequency from now on just to be spiteful. You are a civilian- how about
acting like one?

D.