Using other freqs to communicate between planes or ground?

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.

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.

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?

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.

"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.

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.

"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)

"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.

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

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