Permit to use aircraft radio frequencies on ground

Roy Smith wrote:

Gord Beaman wrote:
Well, CJ, I wouldn't want you to pass up a good thing because of
incorrect info so perhaps you should check out about this
'illegal' thing. They have cell phones installed in the seat
backs of some commercial airliners for the use of passengers
(I've seen them but haven't used one) so they sure aren't
illegal,

These are not cell phones. They are attached to a ship-board
communications system which uses a satellite link (or possibly dedicated
ground stations) to patch you through to the terrestrial phone network.
Different system completely from cell phones.

Yes...dedicated ground stations...as I said Roy...actually I
believe that they utilize regular cel towers some of which are
equipped with somewhat different receiver systems...also there's
many fewer of them than regular cel service because of the
generally much longer range of the airbourne units.

It's quite a large budding service...there was a big writeup
about it in...?...'life' maybe?...awhile ago...


--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

Gord Beaman wrote:
Roy Smith wrote:

Gord Beaman wrote:
Well, CJ, I wouldn't want you to pass up a good thing because of
incorrect info so perhaps you should check out about this
'illegal' thing. They have cell phones installed in the seat
backs of some commercial airliners for the use of passengers
(I've seen them but haven't used one) so they sure aren't
illegal,

These are not cell phones. They are attached to a ship-board
communications system which uses a satellite link (or possibly dedicated
ground stations) to patch you through to the terrestrial phone network.
Different system completely from cell phones.

Yes...dedicated ground stations...as I said Roy...actually I
believe that they utilize regular cel towers some of which are
equipped with somewhat different receiver systems...also there's
many fewer of them than regular cel service because of the
generally much longer range of the airbourne units.

I would not be surprised if they used some of the same towers, but
just because they're on a cell phone tower doesn't make them a cell
phone. Towers are a limited resource and most of them are shared by
all sorts of unrelated servics (often even direct competitors).

The terrestrial cell phone infrastructure is optimized for phones on
the surface which are either stationary or moving at relatively low
speeds (i.e. highway speed or less). The antenna coverage, cell
overlap, signal propigation patterns, and switching algorithms are all
designed around these assumptions.

Using a cell phone in an airplane not only gives the phone line of
sight to many more cells than the system was designed for, but the
high speed motion also causes it to switch from cell to cell faster
than normal. Both of these break design assumptions and degrade the
system. That's why the FCC bans cell phone use from airplanes.

Systems designed for aviation use may share some of the basic cell
system ideas (and even some of the physical infrastructure like
towers), but the ground station grid and switching algorithms are
optimized for their intended use.

(Roy Smith) wrote:

Systems designed for aviation use may share some of the basic cell
system ideas (and even some of the physical infrastructure like
towers), but the ground station grid and switching algorithms are
optimized for their intended use.

Of course, so what are we arguing about?...I never did claim that
they're compatible with each other...these special cell phones
are merely special cell phones...they operate just 'like' the
common cell phone in that they allow the 'customer' to move from
'cell' to 'cell' and they switch the customer to the new 'cell'
precisely as the common cell system does except at -longer
intervals- because of the wide cell tower spacing (and certainly
on different channels from the common system).

As you say, these special phones cannot use the standard cell
system because of their generic differences (mostly in range)
etc. BUT...they're cell phones nonetheless simply because they
allow the customer to move from cell to cell...which is the
reason that the word 'cell' was coined in the first place.

It's pretty easy to see the problem...a terrestrial cellphone can
almost never 'get into' more than one cell facility at a time yet
a cell phone on an aircraft can 'see' dozens of them because of
antenna height, thus creating havoc in the system...that's -why-
using the common unit on an aircraft is illegal.
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

(Roy Smith) writes:

Yes...dedicated ground stations...as I said Roy...actually I
believe that they utilize regular cel towers some of which are
equipped with somewhat different receiver systems...also there's
many fewer of them than regular cel service because of the
generally much longer range of the airbourne units.

I would not be surprised if they used some of the same towers, but
just because they're on a cell phone tower doesn't make them a cell
phone. Towers are a limited resource and most of them are shared by
all sorts of unrelated servics (often even direct competitors).

Well, in reality, the towers and sometimes the RF gear is owned
by a company such as American Tower, Inc. and oh yes, they stack
as many carriers as they can on one piece of iron.

(And it's more than tower space; co-location means they can share
generator backup, fiber feeds, etc..)

As for if airborne is "cellular" -- that depends on whose
definition you want to use. Is it Jill Winecooler 'cellular'?
Nope. But can it share the name? You decide.
--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

David Lesher wrote:

(Roy Smith) writes:

Gord sed:
Yes...dedicated ground stations...as I said Roy...actually I
believe that they utilize regular cel towers some of which are
equipped with somewhat different receiver systems...also there's
many fewer of them than regular cel service because of the
generally much longer range of the airbourne units.

I would not be surprised if they used some of the same towers, but
just because they're on a cell phone tower doesn't make them a cell
phone. Towers are a limited resource and most of them are shared by
all sorts of unrelated servics (often even direct competitors).

Well, in reality, the towers and sometimes the RF gear is owned
by a company such as American Tower, Inc. and oh yes, they stack
as many carriers as they can on one piece of iron.

(And it's more than tower space; co-location means they can share
generator backup, fiber feeds, etc..)

As for if airborne is "cellular" -- that depends on whose
definition you want to use. Is it Jill Winecooler 'cellular'?
Nope. But can it share the name? You decide.

Of course...and the term is no longer 'cellular' anyway it seems,
they now seem to prefer 'Mobile phones' so I guess it's a moot
point, but ISTM that the aircraft cel system is a helluva lot
closer to the terrestrial cel system than anything else.
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 16:09:21 -0500, C. J. Clegg
wrote:

We have a small consulting company that owns an airplane that is used
for business trips. From time to time it would be useful to be able
to contact the airplane from our office which is not located on any
airport. What do we need to do to get authorization to install an
aircraft band radio at our office and use it to contact the company
airplane?

Thanks...

We've got one in our office.

Long story short, you can review the myriad of regulations and
sub-agencies involved, obtain/complete all the required paperwork and
apply to the FCC for an assigned operating frequency and a license.

Or, you can contact AIRINC. They are in the business of obtaining all
the necessary information, filling out all the required paperwork, and
getting you a frequency and a site license.

Their fees are reasonable (but not cheap), both initially, and
annually.

Through AIRINC, you also can set up a system that will allow you to
contact your aircraft virtually anywhere, however, it is much more
expensive.

The system we have in place is as you describe, a licensed aviation
band transceiver that allows two-way communication with our company
aircraft that are in the vicinity of the radio station.

Regards;

TC

{posted at Jer's request; he has ...an oil leak on his
server, yea, that's it..}




Of course...and the term is no longer 'cellular' anyway it seems,
they now seem to prefer 'Mobile phones' so I guess it's a moot
point, but ISTM that the aircraft cel system is a helluva lot
closer to the terrestrial cel system than anything else.

No. "Mobile phones" is an entirely separate service, running
in the 152 Mhz and 450 Mhz bands... this is what we had BEFORE
cell phones. :-)

I was a "Mobile phone" dispatcher when I was at university...
1970 - 1974. :-)

Best regards,

Jer/ "Flight instruction and mountain flying are my vocation!" Eberhard

--
Jer/ (Slash) Eberhard, Mountain Flying Aviation, LTD, Ft Collins, CO
CELL 970 231-6325 EMAIL jer'at'frii.com WEB http://users.frii.com/jer/
C-206 N9513G, CFII Airplane&Glider, FAA-DEN Aviation Safety Counselor
CAP-CO Mission&Aircraft CheckPilot, BM218 HAM N0FZD, 221 Young Eagles!
--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

The most often used ruse is to have somebody in the office get some sort of
instructor license...the most often used is the "basic ground instructor"
and the exam is like a private exam on steroids. There is no practical;
pass the written and you am one.

Then you file the appropriate form with the FCC for an "aviation school"
frequency, either 123.3 or 123.5, whichever is the least used frequency in
your area. If you don't abuse the privilege and start yakking uselessly on
the frequency, you will be good to go for a long time.

Jim





wrote in message
...
On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 16:09:21 -0500, C. J. Clegg
wrote:

We have a small consulting company that owns an airplane that is used
for business trips. From time to time it would be useful to be able
to contact the airplane from our office which is not located on any
airport. What do we need to do to get authorization to install an
aircraft band radio at our office and use it to contact the company
airplane?

On Sun, 9 Jan 2005 15:57:42 -0800, "RST Engineering"
wrote:

The most often used ruse is to have somebody in the office get some sort of
instructor license...the most often used is the "basic ground instructor"
and the exam is like a private exam on steroids. There is no practical;
pass the written and you am one.

Then you file the appropriate form with the FCC for an "aviation school"
frequency, either 123.3 or 123.5, whichever is the least used frequency in
your area. If you don't abuse the privilege and start yakking uselessly on
the frequency, you will be good to go for a long time.

Honestly, I don't remember what exactly our station license consists
of. Basically, it states that we will use the assigned frequency for
inter-company communication-such as passenger/manifest info, fuel
requests, pilot/ground communication, etc.

Everybody in the office has at least a PPL, not being a radio guy, I
would assume that eliminates the need for a licensed "operator" on the
ground.

In our area, it ended up being a pretty "quiet" freq, with very little
communication other than ours.

Not saying that the way we did was the only way it can happen, just
that it was the easiest way to do it "officially", and we expected to
pay AIRINC for making it easier.

Regards;

TC

David Lesher wrote:


{posted at Jer's request; he has ...an oil leak on his
server, yea, that's it..}




Of course...and the term is no longer 'cellular' anyway it seems,
they now seem to prefer 'Mobile phones' so I guess it's a moot
point, but ISTM that the aircraft cel system is a helluva lot
closer to the terrestrial cel system than anything else.

No. "Mobile phones" is an entirely separate service, running
in the 152 Mhz and 450 Mhz bands... this is what we had BEFORE
cell phones. :-)

I was a "Mobile phone" dispatcher when I was at university...
1970 - 1974. :-)

Best regards,

Jer/ "Flight instruction and mountain flying are my vocation!" Eberhard


Yes, you're quite correct in what you say about the old 'Mobile
phones'.

I was the chief (only) tech for a small communications company
where we installed 'Key telephone systems' and Mobile Car
Phones', BUT I was just pointing out that the cellular phone
companies 'now' call them 'mobile phones' (again?).

I have a brand new handout sheet here for the kind of cel phone
that I'm interested in exchanging for my present one...remember
that I said NEW handout...it calls them 'mobile phones'...I'll
scan it and email it to you if you cannot take my word for it...
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)