Using other freqs to communicate between planes or ground?

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

Because in a relatively slow commuter aircraft, transiting horizon to horizon at
FL250 can take the better part of an hour. Chatting with your buddies along the
way pretty well takes care of what needs to be a quiet frequency for data
transmission.

Jim



zatatime
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:

-
-
-I'm not being sarcastic, but wondering why a transmission "hammers the
-frequency for an hour?"


Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com

Ohhh, I thought somehow one or two transmissions mucked up the works
that long, although I guess most people don't share just one or two
comments.

Thanks for the reply.

z


On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 16:05:04 -0700, Jim Weir
wrote:

Because in a relatively slow commuter aircraft, transiting horizon to horizon at
FL250 can take the better part of an hour. Chatting with your buddies along the
way pretty well takes care of what needs to be a quiet frequency for data
transmission.

Jim



zatatime
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:

-
-
-I'm not being sarcastic, but wondering why a transmission "hammers the
-frequency for an hour?"


Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com

The AIM and FCC list 122.750 MHz and 122.850 MHz for air to air (and
private airports not open to the public).

Gary G wrote:
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).

"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?

"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)

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

"Jay Masino" wrote in message ...
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




It'll get to the point of the CB radio stuff someday - used to be you needed a license for the CB, but that disappeared
when they were everywhere...

"Gary G"
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:

-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?

Absolutely not, unless the "unused" frequency is assigned by license to either
you or the ground station. There is only one air to air frequency for airPLANES
(122.75) and another one for rotorwing aircraft (123.025). (Ref 47CFR87 sub F)



-Is that legal?

Again, illegal as hell unless one of you has applied for and been granted the
FCC (not FAA) license for the frequency for the purpose intended in 14CFR87.

Jim


Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com

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.