A Rec.Aviation FRS Channel @ Oshkosh this year?

[Bob Chilcoat]

IIRC, last year someone (Jim Weir?) designated a Rec.Aviation FRS channel so
that everyone could find each other more easily. My brothers and I plan on
being there this year. Did it work out and was it any help last year? Are
there plans for repeating such a thing this year. If so, what channel?
Thanks.

--
Bob (Chief Pilot, White Knuckle Airways)

[RST Engineering]

WE designated channel 3 with no tone coding, but we may revise that this
year in light of the idiot children to whom a radio is something to scream
into to see how many adults they can piff off.

Jim



"Bob Chilcoat" > wrote in message
...
> IIRC, last year someone (Jim Weir?) designated a Rec.Aviation FRS channel
> so that everyone could find each other more easily. My brothers and I
> plan on being there this year. Did it work out and was it any help last
> year? Are there plans for repeating such a thing this year. If so, what
> channel? Thanks.
>
> --
> Bob (Chief Pilot, White Knuckle Airways)
>
>
>

[Jay Honeck]

> WE designated channel 3 with no tone coding, but we may revise that this
> year in light of the idiot children to whom a radio is something to scream
> into to see how many adults they can piff off.

That's been our experience on ALL FRS channels at OSH, Jim. Those radios
have become ubiquitous, and there are just too many people on the grounds to
use them reliably.

Alternatively, however -- and you understand that I would never recommend
this, of course -- but a far more reliable form of communication at Oshkosh
(and one that is guaranteed to be used only by pilots) would be to designate
a totally off-the-wall frequency on your aviation hand-held radio. Say,
122.575, or something similar.

I certainly have no personal knowledge of such things, but I've heard that
these radios offer a 100% reliable form of communication at OSH, with
excellent range to boot.

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[[email protected]]

I have used FRS radios successfully at OSH, but
tone protection is a must. There will still be some
interference - and sometimes you will have to make repeated calls due
to stronger signals drowning you out. The system isn't perfect, but
it's a lot better than going without.

David Johnson

[RST Engineering]

Jay, I'm shocked -- TOTALLY SHOCKED -- that you would even MENTION such a
brazen affront to our aviation band. I mean, that would mean that we would
have to leave our FRS radios home, our 2m ham radios home, our CB radios
home ... just THINK of the havoc that would wreak upon the suppliers of
batteries, the sellers of radios, the little children homeless because of
this totally

wonderful

idea.


And yes, I've considered it, against the multiple federal licenses I hold
that are my day to day bread and butter.

Now, if someone ELSE were to propose it, and search a particular frequency
for (non)use, certainly somebody could adopt my code name of weirdjim and be
on that frequency.

But you understand, it isn't me. It can't be me. Nosir, I'd never do that.

122.575 you say?

Jim




>
> Alternatively, however -- and you understand that I would never recommend
> this, of course -- but a far more reliable form of communication at
> Oshkosh (and one that is guaranteed to be used only by pilots) would be to
> designate a totally off-the-wall frequency on your aviation hand-held
> radio. Say, 122.575, or something similar.
>
> I certainly have no personal knowledge of such things, but I've heard that
> these radios offer a 100% reliable form of communication at OSH, with
> excellent range to boot.

[Jay Honeck]

> But you understand, it isn't me. It can't be me. Nosir, I'd never do
> that.
>
> 122.575 you say?

I've never heard of such a stupid thing in my life.

But, given that 122.575 *is* the dumbest of all possible solutions, perhaps
we should discuss potential uses for radio communication of this type at
OSH. What have you got in mind if (for example) any pilots would be stupid
enough to use the aviation-band radio frequency in the 122.575 range to
communicate on the Oshkosh grounds?

Theoretically speaking, of course.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jack Allison]

Jay Honeck wrote:

My, this *is* a fascinating theoretical topic the two of you have going.
I look forward to "hearing" (not via radio waves...never!) any results
that anyone lame enough to try this achieves. Perhaps this topic will
come up in the far away land of IOW sometime approximately five weeks
from now...nah, couldn't happen.


--
Jack Allison
PP-ASEL-IA Student
Arrow N2104T

"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the Earth
with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there
you will always long to return"
- Leonardo Da Vinci

(Remove the obvious from address to reply via e-mail)

[Ben Jackson]

On 2005-06-18, RST Engineering > wrote:
> And yes, I've considered it, against the multiple federal licenses I hold
> that are my day to day bread and butter.

Dear weirdjim (not his real name),

I am shocked that someone with your credentials would recommend such
an outrageous plan! As someone of your technical expertise no doubt
knows, you are considering bootlegging on the crummiest sounding band
out of all the ones you listed! You should at least have the DECENCY
to suggest something FM... ;-)

--
Ben Jackson
>
http://www.ben.com/

[[email protected]]

Related (but slightly off the wall), with a venue the size of Oshkosh
fellow hams might consider Tiny Tracker .

(For non-hams, this is a man-portable GPS unit that periodically
transmits its location which is then displayed on a map. Very handy
for locating the body :-)

-R.S.Hoover
-(KA6HZF)

[Darrel Toepfer]

wrote:

> Related (but slightly off the wall), with a venue the size of Oshkosh
> fellow hams might consider Tiny Tracker .
>
> (For non-hams, this is a man-portable GPS unit that periodically
> transmits its location which is then displayed on a map. Very handy
> for locating the body :-)

A friend sent me a link to this today:
http://findu.com
http://www.ew.usna.edu/~bruninga/aprs.html

I like the weather addons, but it gets kinda pricey real quick...

[tedstriker]

On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 21:11:12 -0500, Darrel Toepfer
> wrote:

wrote:
>
>> Related (but slightly off the wall), with a venue the size of Oshkosh
>> fellow hams might consider Tiny Tracker .
>>
>> (For non-hams, this is a man-portable GPS unit that periodically
>> transmits its location which is then displayed on a map. Very handy
>> for locating the body :-)
>
>A friend sent me a link to this today:
>http://findu.com
>http://www.ew.usna.edu/~bruninga/aprs.html
>
>I like the weather addons, but it gets kinda pricey real quick...

If I'm able to fly into OSH via homebuilt, isn't it legal to talk to
persons on the ground with handheld aviation radios from my plane, if
it's parked and I'm sitting in it? Anyone talking to another person on
the ground could say they were calling me and got each other by
mistake, which of course would be true. Not sure if you need to have a
station licence to talk on unicom. But I've heard those freqs. aren't
much worried about. The plane to plane freq. is 122.7 isn't it? But I
know some airports use it also.

[tedstriker]

What does FRS stand for? is that those talk-about radios mostly
Motorola?

[Montblack]

("tedstriker" wrote)
> What does FRS stand for? is that those talk-about radios mostly
> Motorola?


Yes.

http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/personal/family/
FCC - Family Radio Service (FRS)


Montblack

[john smith]

wrote:
> Related (but slightly off the wall), with a venue the size of Oshkosh
> fellow hams might consider Tiny Tracker .

What am I supposed to do, walk around all day with my laptop strapped to
my chest?
:-))

[RST Engineering]

> If I'm able to fly into OSH via homebuilt, isn't it legal to talk to
> persons on the ground with handheld aviation radios from my plane, if
> it's parked and I'm sitting in it?

Yes, but the people on the ground can't talk back to you without a station
license.



Anyone talking to another person on
> the ground could say they were calling me and got each other by
> mistake, which of course would be true.

Not unless both people on the ground had a station license for the frequency
in question. No, sitting in your airplane on the ramp doesn't constitute a
ground station license.



Not sure if you need to have a
> station licence to talk on unicom.

The aircraft is granted a station license as part of the certification
process for getting an N number. A ground station has a boatload of
paperwork to do to get a unicom license AND there is only one licensee at
any one airport.


But I've heard those freqs. aren't
> much worried about.

Hear again. Start chattering on a unicom frequency and watch the fur fly.


The plane to plane freq. is 122.7 isn't it?

122.75, and it's not plane to plane. It is specifically AIR to AIR, so that
lets out chatter while on the ground. 122.7 is a Unicom frequency.

But I
> know some airports use it also.

Really? Where?

Jim

[john smith]

RST Engineering wrote:
> Hear again. Start chattering on a unicom frequency and watch the fur fly.

Say what?
You're slipping in your old age Colonel.
("Here again" not "Hear again")
Eagerly awaiting your salty replay

[RST Engineering]

No, Colonel, I said what I meant:

>>"But I've heard those freqs. aren't
>> much worried about.

>Hear again. Start chattering on a unicom frequency and watch the fur
fly."


He said that he "heard" something about those freqs. I said, "Hear again",
which means listen one more time until you get it right.

{;-)


Jim




"john smith" > wrote in message
...
> RST Engineering wrote:
>> Hear again. Start chattering on a unicom frequency and watch the fur
>> fly.
>
> Say what?
> You're slipping in your old age Colonel.
> ("Here again" not "Hear again")
> Eagerly awaiting your salty replay

[john smith]

RST Engineering wrote:
> He said that he "heard" something about those freqs. I said, "Hear again",
> which means listen one more time until you get it right.
> {;-)

I suspected such a play on words, by my sense of humor clouded my judgement.

[tedstriker]

>
>But I
>> know some airports use it also.
>
>Really? Where?
>
>Jim
>

My home airport right here in Rock Hill, SC uses 122.7. KUZA

But I have to admitt, the idea of using handheld 760 channel aviation
radios as walkie talkies has always worried me. If a movement ever got
started where they were being used that way, I'd be afraid the FCC
might try to ban them or make their un-authorized use subject to even
worse fines and revocations. I've still got the STS 760VOR radio that
sold years ago and it works great. And after I figured out how to
replace the batteries without having to buy an expensive replacement
pack I like it even more. But the VOR radial funtion is pretty weak.
I'd hate to try and navigate a plane using it.

[RST Engineering]

"tedstriker" > wrote in message
...
>
>>
>>But I
>>> know some airports use it also.
>>
>>Really? Where?
>>
>>Jim
>>
>
> My home airport right here in Rock Hill, SC uses 122.7. KUZA


For plane to plane? I think not. You use 122.7 for Unicom, as it was
intended.

As to the FAA/FCC banning handhelds, wouldn't ya think before they did that
that they would pick one channel out of the 760 menagerie and declare it
"open season" for anything remotely RESEMBLING aviaition, including how to
find one another at fly-ins. Sheesh. One channel out of 760?

So we pick the least obnoxious of the lot and use it at Oshkosh. You got a
problem with that?

Jim

[tedstriker]

On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 17:22:51 -0700, "RST Engineering"
> wrote:

>
>"tedstriker" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>
>>>But I
>>>> know some airports use it also.
>>>
>>>Really? Where?
>>>
>>>Jim
>>>
>>
>> My home airport right here in Rock Hill, SC uses 122.7. KUZA
>
>
>For plane to plane? I think not. You use 122.7 for Unicom, as it was
>intended.
>
>As to the FAA/FCC banning handhelds, wouldn't ya think before they did that
>that they would pick one channel out of the 760 menagerie and declare it
>"open season" for anything remotely RESEMBLING aviaition, including how to
>find one another at fly-ins. Sheesh. One channel out of 760?
>
>So we pick the least obnoxious of the lot and use it at Oshkosh. You got a
>problem with that?
>
>Jim
>

I was wrong about the plane to plane thing, I'm glad to find out it's
22.75.
I like the idea of picking a freq. to use for anything aviation. That
would be great! Now if we could get the FCC to go along with the
idea.....
NO problem with that at all. It's a great idea. The question is, why
is the FCC so tight with letting loose one of those 760 channels?
And what would it take to get things moving in the direction of
letting one freq. out of all those loose for that purpose

[RST Engineering]

Well, they got burned with the 27 MHz Children's Band, good buddy, don'cha
know? They are loath to create that on the aviation band with idiots with
"hopped up raddios and linears" on the "good buddy frequency" and on the
pirate "freeband" aviation network.

I don't blame them. The USA citizenship has not played them well in any
"freeband" network they have created. Witness the garbage and obscenities
on channel 19 (et al) of CB. It is worse on the FRS channels. Why would
you expect it to be any better for a "freeband" channel in the aviation
band?

BTW, gang, it is looking better and better for 122.775 as "monitor"
channel...

Jim


> NO p roblem with that at all. It's a great idea. The question is, why
> is the FCC so tight with letting loose one of those 760 channels?
> And what would it take to get things moving in the direction of
> letting one freq. out of all those loose for that purpose

[tedstriker]

On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 20:36:33 -0700, "RST Engineering"
> wrote:

>Well, they got burned with the 27 MHz Children's Band, good buddy, don'cha
>know? They are loath to create that on the aviation band with idiots with
>"hopped up raddios and linears" on the "good buddy frequency" and on the
>pirate "freeband" aviation network.
>
>I don't blame them. The USA citizenship has not played them well in any
>"freeband" network they have created. Witness the garbage and obscenities
>on channel 19 (et al) of CB. It is worse on the FRS channels. Why would
>you expect it to be any better for a "freeband" channel in the aviation
>band?

Good point, it would ruin the freq. if the same garbage "lingo" eeked
into the aviation band. I'm curious though, I wonder what kind of
range and clarity a handheld 760 radio would have talking to another
one at an airshow? I know if you get too far apart in a shopping mall
with an FRS it gets hard to communicate. Are aviation handhelds far
superior in ground to ground range and clarity?

[RST Engineering]

At VHF, it matters not what your power level or frequency is. "Horizon" is
everything. A one watt transmitter and a one microvolt receiver (fairly
typical of this sort of equipment) has a theoretical range of something on
the order of a thousand straight-line miles. "Straight-line" is the
operative word here.

We regularly talk to astronauts on the shuttle with a watt or two at both
ends. That is because we can both "see" each other in both an optical and
radio sense. Once I lose eye contact with the receiver, I'm pretty much
committed to losing radio contact as well.

The equation for "horizon" is given as: horizon (in miles) equals the
square root of the antenna height in feet times two. Let's presume two
handheld antennas, both at 6 feet above the ground. That's twelve feet of
antenna height. Twice that is twenty-four. Square root of twenty-four is
roughly five, so you might expect five miles of transmit range. In Iowa.
In a plowed cornfield. Put airplanes, buildings, people, walls, and any
other absorber into the mix and range decreases dramatically. In your
example of a shopping mall, once they turn the corner and put a concrete
wall (with the required steel rebar in it) between thee and me, range goes
to poop in a scooper. That's a technical term. You'll catch on after a
while.

From thirty+ years of running a ham radio on the field in Oshkosh, I feel
fairly confident in predicting that you would be able to talk from "Airshow
central" near the main arch to any corner of the field. However, trying to
talk from FondDuLac North (down at the approach end of runway 36) to the
North 40 (down at the approach end of runway 09) would be a stretch.

Jim



> Good point, it would ruin the freq. if the same garbage "lingo" eeked
> into the aviation band. I'm curious though, I wonder what kind of
> range and clarity a handheld 760 radio would have talking to another
> one at an airshow? I know if you get too far apart in a shopping mall
> with an FRS it gets hard to communicate. Are aviation handhelds far
> superior in ground to ground range and clarity?

[Bob Chilcoat]

The first suggestion was 122.575. Now we're talking 122.775. What's it
gonna be? I understand that someone's (HWMNBN'd) monitoring some likely
frequencies. Just let me know before the 24th when I hit the road. I'll
also plan to monitor FRS 3, but that's only for an alibi :-)

Now, what's the airboss frequency @ OSH?

--
Bob (Chief Pilot, White Knuckle Airways)


"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> BTW, gang, it is looking better and better for 122.775 as "monitor"
> channel...
>
> Jim
>

[Scott]

RST Engineering wrote:


>
> The equation for "horizon" is given as: horizon (in miles) equals the
> square root of the antenna height in feet times two. Let's presume two
> handheld antennas, both at 6 feet above the ground. That's twelve feet of
> antenna height. Twice that is twenty-four. Square root of twenty-four is
> roughly five, so you might expect five miles of transmit range.


Huh? I lost the math. If both antennas are at 6 feet, wouldn't it
be the square root of 6 multiplied by 2? And I can't see
the formula you're quoting, but if there's no parentheses, I think the
sqr rt function gets done first, then the multiplication?? Details! ;)




> From thirty+ years of running a ham radio on the field in Oshkosh, I feel
> fairly confident in predicting that you would be able to talk from "Airshow
> central" near the main arch to any corner of the field. However, trying to
> talk from FondDuLac North (down at the approach end of runway 36) to the
> North 40 (down at the approach end of runway 09) would be a stretch.

More power, dude! Arr Arr Arr! A pair of 4CX250Bs might be in
order, but not exactly what I would call portable ;) As a good law
abiding ham, I think you should set an example and recommend FRS.
Besides, it seems more people here would own some FRS units than
aviation handhelds...

Scott
N0EDV
>
> Jim
>
>
>
>