Using other freqs to communicate between planes or ground?

"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!

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....00123.45000000

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.

"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.

"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 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.

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

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.

"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.

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

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.