Protecting 123.3

[John Bojack[_2_]]

We've got an expensive air-park type housing development in the area (you
know the type...expensive homes on the runway)....and they've 'adopted'
using 123.3 as their CTAF.

Question, isn't this in violation of the rules? If so, what should we
local glider pilots do about it?

Thanks,

J4

[[email protected]]

On Sep 4, 11:20 am, "John Bojack" > wrote:
> We've got an expensive air-park type housing development in the area (you
> know the type...expensive homes on the runway)....and they've 'adopted'
> using 123.3 as their CTAF.
>
> Question, isn't this in violation of the rules? If so, what should we
> local glider pilots do about it?
>
> Thanks,
>
> J4

Ive always wondered about 123.3 too. Ive never seen anything from the
FAA or FCC designating its use for glider air to air. some private
websites show that it is to be used for flight instruction,
ballooning, and gliders. according to http://www.fcc.gov/oet/spectrum/table/fcctable.pdf
it is not to be used for anything. maybe im reading it wrong.

[Burt Compton - Marfa]

See AIM Chapter 4, Air Traffic Control, Table 4-1-3 "Other Frequency
Usage Designated by the FCC". I'm looking at the 2007 ASA FAR/AIM
publication.

Quoting the FAA's Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM), 123.300 and
123.500 are listed for "Aviation Instruction, Glider, Hot Air Balloon
(not to be used for advisory service)."

Cindy Brickner at Caracole Soaring, California City, had a similar
issue with 123.3 recently and apparently got it resolved.

Cindy, over to you?

Burt Compton
Marfa, TX USA

[[email protected]]

On Sep 4, 1:31 pm, Burt Compton - Marfa > wrote:
> See AIM Chapter 4, Air Traffic Control, Table 4-1-3 "Other Frequency
> Usage Designated by the FCC". I'm looking at the 2007 ASA FAR/AIM
> publication.
>
> Quoting the FAA's Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM), 123.300 and
> 123.500 are listed for "Aviation Instruction, Glider, Hot Air Balloon
> (not to be used for advisory service)."
>
> Cindy Brickner at Caracole Soaring, California City, had a similar
> issue with 123.3 recently and apparently got it resolved.
>
> Cindy, over to you?
>
> Burt Compton
> Marfa, TX USA

OK Burt, apparently I need to review my AIM! or get better glasses :)

[Tim Taylor]

On Sep 4, 12:31 pm, Burt Compton - Marfa > wrote:
> See AIM Chapter 4, Air Traffic Control, Table 4-1-3 "Other Frequency
> Usage Designated by the FCC". I'm looking at the 2007 ASA FAR/AIM
> publication.
>
> Quoting the FAA's Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM), 123.300 and
> 123.500 are listed for "Aviation Instruction, Glider, Hot Air Balloon
> (not to be used for advisory service)."
>
> Cindy Brickner at Caracole Soaring, California City, had a similar
> issue with 123.3 recently and apparently got it resolved.
>
> Cindy, over to you?
>
> Burt Compton
> Marfa, TX USA


Does anyone have the FAR section as well for this. We are having
similar problems with an FBO that serves business jets and they all
call in from 20K feet to let them know they will be in 20 minutes,
check on rental cars, etc. Spoke politely to the owner who I could
tell was going to do nothing so it is time to speak to the FSDO in the
region.

Tim

[[email protected]]

On Sep 4, 4:20 pm, Tim Taylor > wrote:
> On Sep 4, 12:31 pm, Burt Compton - Marfa > wrote:
>
> > See AIM Chapter 4, Air Traffic Control, Table 4-1-3 "Other Frequency
> > Usage Designated by the FCC". I'm looking at the 2007 ASA FAR/AIM
> > publication.
>
> > Quoting the FAA's Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM), 123.300 and
> > 123.500 are listed for "Aviation Instruction, Glider, Hot Air Balloon
> > (not to be used for advisory service)."
>
> > Cindy Brickner at Caracole Soaring, California City, had a similar
> > issue with 123.3 recently and apparently got it resolved.
>
> > Cindy, over to you?
>
> > Burt Compton
> > Marfa, TX USA
>
> Does anyone have the FAR section as well for this. We are having
> similar problems with an FBO that serves business jets and they all
> call in from 20K feet to let them know they will be in 20 minutes,
> check on rental cars, etc. Spoke politely to the owner who I could
> tell was going to do nothing so it is time to speak to the FSDO in the
> region.
>
> Tim

its not in the FAR's, the frequency assignment comes from the FCC.
FSDO would be a good place to start though, referencing the AIM
section that Burt mentions.

[Mark A. Matthews]

In article >,
"John Bojack" > wrote:

> We've got an expensive air-park type housing development in the area (you
> know the type...expensive homes on the runway)....and they've 'adopted'
> using 123.3 as their CTAF.

You're looking for 47CFR87.319-47CFR87.323, which covers stations using
123.300MHz and 123.500MHz.

If the airpark is using it for unicom, ask to see their ground station
license. If they refuse to show it to you, refer to the local FCC field
office, who will ask to see their station license. It will specify the
frequencies they are licensed to use.

Field offices are listed off this website: http://www.fcc.gov/eb/rfo/

[jodom]

On Sep 5, 2:42 am, "Mark A. Matthews" > wrote:
> In article >,
> "John Bojack" > wrote:
>
> > We've got an expensive air-park type housing development in the area (you
> > know the type...expensive homes on the runway)....and they've 'adopted'
> > using 123.3 as their CTAF.
>
> You're looking for 47CFR87.319-47CFR87.323, which covers stations using
> 123.300MHz and 123.500MHz.
>
> If the airpark is using it for unicom, ask to see their ground station
> license. If they refuse to show it to you, refer to the local FCC field
> office, who will ask to see their station license. It will specify the
> frequencies they are licensed to use.
>
> Field offices are listed off this website:http://www.fcc.gov/eb/rfo/


They don't need a ground station license unless they have a ground
station there. Best just to work it out politely if it's really a
problem.

(BTW, you mention that it's an expensive development. If it were a
trailer park with a grass strip, would it be okay?)

[Tim Taylor]

On Sep 4, 3:54 pm, wrote:


>
> its not in the FAR's, the frequency assignment comes from the FCC.
> FSDO would be a good place to start though, referencing the AIM
> section that Burt mentions.

Thanks, I found the correct reference in the FCC code Part 87, subpart
K sections 87.319 and 87.323. It appears to be very specific that
what they FCC terms "portal-to-portal" service should not be occurring
on 123.3 or 123.5. I am beginning the process to work with the two
FBO's and the FCC to get them to change frequency of operations of air
to ground support operations. Both FBO's have used 123.3 and 123.5
for many years so it may not be easy, but if we don't work to hold on
to 123.3 and 123.5 we will be over run in the near future by jet
traffic setting up rental cars, fuel and catering.

I would love to hear Cindy's take on this and experiences she has had.

Tim

P.S. I know the UT, WY, MT and ID pilots are dealing with this, are
the Colorado pilots hearing the Bozeman, MT jet traffic (Yellowstone
Jet Center, 123.3 and Arlin's Aircraft Service, 123.5)?

[shawn]

Tim Taylor wrote:

> P.S. I know the UT, WY, MT and ID pilots are dealing with this, are
> the Colorado pilots hearing the Bozeman, MT jet traffic (Yellowstone
> Jet Center, 123.3 and Arlin's Aircraft Service, 123.5)?

Not that I've heard, or heard of over Boulder. Bozeman and Yellowstone
pretty far over the horizon though.

Shawn

[Frank Whiteley]

On Sep 5, 4:23 pm, shawn > wrote:
> Tim Taylor wrote:
> > P.S. I know the UT, WY, MT and ID pilots are dealing with this, are
> > the Colorado pilots hearing the Bozeman, MT jet traffic (Yellowstone
> > Jet Center, 123.3 and Arlin's Aircraft Service, 123.5)?
>
> Not that I've heard, or heard of over Boulder. Bozeman and Yellowstone
> pretty far over the horizon though.
>
> Shawn

Boulder soaring pilots talk enough on 123.3 to keep everyone else
away;^) Then there's the drop zone in Longmont doing wind checks, and
Owl Canyon tows. Only jet traffic I recall is a soaring pilot
reporting on thermal height or checking on ops. CSA uses 123.5 north
of I-80 pretty much.

Frank

[shawn]

Frank Whiteley wrote:
> On Sep 5, 4:23 pm, shawn > wrote:
>> Tim Taylor wrote:
>>> P.S. I know the UT, WY, MT and ID pilots are dealing with this, are
>>> the Colorado pilots hearing the Bozeman, MT jet traffic (Yellowstone
>>> Jet Center, 123.3 and Arlin's Aircraft Service, 123.5)?
>> Not that I've heard, or heard of over Boulder. Bozeman and Yellowstone
>> pretty far over the horizon though.
>>
>> Shawn
>
> Boulder soaring pilots talk enough on 123.3 to keep everyone else
> away;^)

How do you think we get thermals going before OC ;-)



Shawn