Using other freqs to communicate between planes or ground?

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.

"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

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

"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.

"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

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" 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.

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.

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.