Using other freqs to communicate between planes or ground?

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.

"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.

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

Jim Weir wrote:

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.

Thanks. Thought that would be the case, but I got the impression they were a little
lax on enforcing some of their other rules. Glad to know they can move when
necessary.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

The answer is yes. You can use any other frequency that you are authorized
to use, such as CB, Ham (If you are licensed), or the family radio band
(those little handhelds at walmart).


"Jay Beckman" wrote in message
news:5Oyfd.18870$SW3.479@fed1read01...

"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)

Hi Gary,

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.

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 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.

Jay Beckman
Chandler, AZ
PP-ASEL
Still nowhere to go but up!

"Gary G" wrote in message
...
Is that legal?

No. The FCC rules call out specific frequencies for use in specific
situations, including air-to-air, air-to-ground, radio testing, etc. You
are not permitted to use, for example, a tower frequency that you believe to
be unused in the area for some other purpose.

Is it ok?

Define "ok". Many pilots use 123.45 as a "junk" frequency for the purposes
you mention, but it's not a permitted frequency. It's unlikely you'll
interfere with anyone else using that frequency, and it's unlikely you'll
ever get caught. But don't you think it would be better to stick to an
approved frequency?

(Let's assume your monitoring other freqs that you need to).

I have no idea what that has to do with it.

Pete

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.