PDA

View Full Version : Air To Air Chat


Duchess_Driver
4th Jun 2011, 22:46
I have had a rummage around the forum and can see some chatter (no pun intended!) on the air to air frequencies for chatting amongst touring groups but it all dates from some time ago - nothing recent.

Can somebody advise what (if any) air to air chat frequencies are still usable in the UK, France, Germany, Spain and The Netherlands.

I know its a touchy subject....

flybymike
4th Jun 2011, 22:54
Unofficially it always used to be 123.45 but officially I didn't say that...

Duchess_Driver
4th Jun 2011, 23:05
IIRC that was 'officially' NOTAMED out moons ago....

flybymike
4th Jun 2011, 23:11
Nah, they couldn't officially notam it out cos it never officially existed.;)

Genghis the Engineer
4th Jun 2011, 23:24
AIC on use of 123.45 in the UK. (http://www.ead.eurocontrol.int/eadbasic/pamslight-57353BEDF8DC1D6EE91DF0141DD8E8A4/7FE5QZZF3FXUS/EN/AIC/Y/044-2010/EG_Circ_2010_Y_044_en_2010-06-17.pdf)

An interesting point here - I was delivering some refresher training on RT for my microlight club the other night (they are not regular users, so benefit from an occasional refresher!), and covering emergencies gave the standard "call the frequency currently in use", when I was asked about Unicom.

Presumably, Unicom 135.475, the microlight A/G frequency 129.825 (http://www.bmaa.org/catalogue_item.php?catID=3888&prodID=22169), or the "chat" frequency 123.45 are all about as useful as a chocolate teapot in an emergency - in most cases anyhow. These are presumably the exceptions where you should immediately switch to guard in an emergency?

Anybody got any thoughts on that?

G

WorkingHard
5th Jun 2011, 07:35
Genghis the Engineer - any idea why 123.45 was not adopted as the unicom frequency here in the UK. Was it the CAA being obtuse or was there a valid reason?

Thanks

ShyTorque
5th Jun 2011, 07:51
Because it's allocated elsewhere.

what next
5th Jun 2011, 08:11
...Germany...

122.800 MHz (AFAIK also in Austria).

wsmempson
5th Jun 2011, 08:19
122.8 won't amuse stapleford much....

ShyTorque
5th Jun 2011, 08:45
Best read this:

http://www.ead.eurocontrol.int/eadbasic/pamslight-877A9AA814260FC4C3D24BC245047F86/7FE5QZZF3FXUS/EN/AIC/Y/044-2010/EG_Circ_2010_Y_044_en_2010-06-17.pdf

JW411
5th Jun 2011, 16:46
Back in the 1980's, I flew from a field in Germany which had the allocated frequency 123.45.

Life could be very difficult at times - usually when we had to listen to the American baseball scores etc.

Stephen Furner
5th Jun 2011, 17:27
ShyTourque an interesting read like Duchess Driver I also believed 123.45 had been specifically closed to use for air to air communication. Looking at some old band allocation web sites it is actually shown as an “illegal air to air” frequency. This has been a significant communications gap for some time now. Good to see it is now open for use.

There is also a need for legal integration with ground based communications for air to ground chat and co-ordination. In the voluntary SAR world in the UK there is no air ground communications for aircraft supporting a ground based search. As far as I can see at the moment it is either this or the illegal use of a mobile phone or handheld intended for ground use.

patowalker
5th Jun 2011, 17:45
This has been a significant communications gap for some time now. Good to see it is now open for use.

... in remote and oceanic areas out of range of VHF ground stations.

flybymike
5th Jun 2011, 18:02
That is not how I read it. The remote oceanic area bit seems to just relate to the spec for the equipment used. It does not say that 123.45 is only to be used in those areas. As usual the drafting is crap, and one wonders whether sometimes it is deliberately done that way just so that various possible interpretations may be put on it, to suit any particular circumstance or argument.

BEagle
5th Jun 2011, 19:14
Well it means what it says. 123.450 MHz is not for the Le Touquet lunch club to prattle away to eachother, it is for 'operational information' purposes in remote / oceanic areas....

....apart from Spams yakking about their damned rounders scores and 'ride reports', of course...:uhoh:

Why would touring gaggles need to jibber-jabber to each other anyway? If you want to fly in formation, learn to do so properly.

Pannie
6th Jun 2011, 11:11
I have never done formation flying, are you saying it is done in silence?

stiknruda
6th Jun 2011, 11:21
Pannie - my formation aerobatic team just uses std handsignals and knows the routine. I do expect them to "check in" on any frequency change - these are published RT freq's.

Hope this helps,

Stik

toptobottom
6th Jun 2011, 12:11
Isn't the best thing is to simply find a frequency that isn't going to interfere with any other within range :ok:

I've used 122.95 (is that an obselete Unicom frequency?) for discrete air2air r/t for over 10 years without a problem. Yet :E

Genghis the Engineer
6th Jun 2011, 13:52
Isn't the best thing is to simply find a frequency that isn't going to interfere with any other within range :ok:

I've used 122.95 (is that an obselete Unicom frequency?) for discrete air2air r/t for over 10 years without a problem. Yet :E

Oshkosh Unicom, Vienna ATIS, San Francisco Unicom, Libby Army Airfield Ops (USA), Gulfstream Ops at Long Beach, Birr Airfield Ireland, , Great Lakes Flight Centre Canada - and in the UK both Bristow Helicopter Operations, and the Helicopter operations frequency for uncontrolled sites.

So, your chat may just tramp across Bristows trying to co-ordinate a search and rescue operation. Unlikely, but I doubt you'd enjoy explaining your rationale in court.

G

Whopity
6th Jun 2011, 14:13
Isn't the best thing is to simply find a frequency that isn't going to interfere with any other within range Apart from being illegal, how would you know what it was likely to interfere with? That is the reason why frequency planning and allocation exists, to to ensure that genuine users are free from the likelihood of being interfered with by ignorant pratts.

toptobottom
6th Jun 2011, 14:33
Genghis - I can google a frequency and get a list of worldwide allocations too. Hence, I would only use a frequency that is out of range of the location I was in. In fact, I think it was a Denham colleague of yours who suggested it...

Whopity - you sound like a friendly chap! BTW, since you raised the ignorance point, 'prat' only has one 't'.

Monocock
6th Jun 2011, 14:59
118.00

Have used it for years with no issues. Just don't use callsigns, a/c types or people's names.

Genghis the Engineer
6th Jun 2011, 15:08
Genghis - I can google a frequency and get a list of worldwide allocations too. Hence, I would only use a frequency that is out of range of the location I was in. In fact, I think it was a Denham colleague of yours who suggested it...

Whopity - you sound like a friendly chap! BTW, since you raised the ignorance point, 'prat' only has one 't'.

So you had googled it and determined that you were tramping on an allocated helicopter frequency, and didn't care?

I've never actually flown from Denham, although plan to change that (perhaps belatedly given I live 25 minutes drive from the place) in about a fortnight. I did discover recently that there's a place on the airfield that does some damned fine freshly made pizzas.

G

toptobottom
6th Jun 2011, 15:22
...tramping on an allocated helicopter frequency, and didn't care?

Every frequency is allocated, that's why you do some research and take care not to disrupt operational users by only using it out of range. I think the 'Mountain Flying Course' folk use Denham's frequency in the Welsh mountains, for example..

Where's this pizza place then?!

IO540
6th Jun 2011, 15:22
Everybody I know uses 123.45. No names, no tail numbers.

From decent altitudes, say 5000ft, one can sometimes hear some French chat.

toptobottom
6th Jun 2011, 15:24
monocock

Just don't use callsigns, a/c types or people's names

Exactly. And obviously listen out for bona fide users before and during any air2air R/T.

gasax
6th Jun 2011, 15:24
IIRC 123.45 used to be a Bristow's company frequency. In fact there are a significant number of companies which have their 'own' frequencies - part of the reason that 360 and then 720 channels were not enough.

And of course on the horizon the potential requirement to change to 8.33 - unless of course the OFCOM proposals mean a lot of allocated frequencies are returned.... which might open things up quite a lot!

Genghis the Engineer
6th Jun 2011, 15:46
Where's this pizza place then?!

An Airfield Cafe called "The Crew Room" next door to The Pilot Centre who recommended it to me when I dropped in to talk about a bit of training I needed.

Chatting to the owner, he told me that he'd previously run a pizzeria, but had moved to Denham for a quieter life - but carried on making a few pizzas by demand from customers who had heard about what he used to do. Nice chap, excellent pizzas, sensibly priced as well I thought.

G

toptobottom
6th Jun 2011, 17:05
Sounds good - I'll be visiting Denham in the next couple of weeks, so if you'll be around then, I'll buy you a pizza. Either PM me or give me a buzz on 123.45 :E

flybymike
6th Jun 2011, 17:22
That is the reason why frequency planning and allocation exists, to to ensure that genuine users are free from the likelihood of being interfered with by ignorant pratts.

Perfectly charming. No wonder Pprune has its detractors.

Danscowpie
6th Jun 2011, 19:15
123.450 is allocated to at least two fully licenced ATC units in the UK and two on the Northern Coast of Europe.
Any pilot who has the common sense (not much of it around here:rolleyes:) will know that high pressure, good weather conditions enhance the strength of VHF transmissions. Even in average conditions, there is considerable interference for pilots in the circuit.

A well planned trip shouldn't need any air to air chat, if you don't appreciate why, use your mobile phones in flight - far more appropriate for those have no consideration for others in the quiet coach.:suspect::E

Monocock
6th Jun 2011, 20:38
A well planned trip shouldn't need any air to air chat, if you don't appreciate why, use your mobile phones in flight - far more appropriate for those have no consideration for others in the quiet coach

:ugh::ugh:

toptobottom
6th Jun 2011, 21:00
A well planned trip shouldn't need any air to air chat, if you don't appreciate why, use your mobile phones in flight - far more appropriate for those have no consideration for others in the quiet coach


Even if a mobile worked, it's not really the safest or easiest way to communicate with another aircraft. I've had plenty of occasions to use a private r/t frequency, for example when being marshalled at a private site event with dozens of other machines, or flying in formation, or pointing out to my mate that his baggage door had suddenly popped open mid-channel, or checking the location of other aircraft in a mountainous area in poor viz, or telling the missus I'm 5 mins away, so flick the switch on the kettle and put the landing lights on :p

wsmempson
6th Jun 2011, 21:30
123.450 is used by these guys

"North Sea Marathon East Kin... Details
469 123.450 North Sea Marathon West Kin... Details
470 123.450 North Sea Rolf Oil Field deck Details
471 123.450 Unst (Saxa Vord) Ops"

Genghis the Engineer
6th Jun 2011, 21:44
Perhaps one of these provides a cheap solution for talkative touring pilots? (http://www.amazon.co.uk/tag/walkie%20talkie/products)

G

stickandrudderman
6th Jun 2011, 22:34
GtE, will you be parking in the open or nestling up next to my Falco?

Genghis the Engineer
6th Jun 2011, 22:45
GtE, will you be parking in the open or nestling up next to my Falco?

Two tin cans and a piece of string?

G

flybymike
6th Jun 2011, 23:20
The link to the AIC on the previous page doesn't seem to work any more but I could have sworn it said that 123.45 was no longer allocated in the UK

flybymike
6th Jun 2011, 23:36
Thanks Air Police. I thought that was what I had read.

Danscowpie
7th Jun 2011, 18:18
Oops:eek:

Out of date information on my part.

I shall now go and sit on barbed wire and wear sackcloth whilst I consider the enormity of my sin, sorry chaps.... meanwhile, all of those of you who used to use 123.45 when it was an authorised ATC frequency can do the same.:E

magpienja
7th Jun 2011, 22:13
When I'm out in my workshop my scanner is always on....one of the frequency's programmed in is 123.45...its quite a busy freq with all the jet jocks talking about the most mundane subjects...so a few more should not cause a prob I would have thought.

toptobottom
7th Jun 2011, 23:30
to enable aircraft engaged in flights over remote and oceanic areas out of range of VHF ground stations to exchange necessary operational information

I hadn't read the AIC :O but isn't this exactly what I and others have been saying...?!

flybymike
7th Jun 2011, 23:42
to enable aircraft engaged in flights over remote and oceanic areas out of range of VHF ground stations to exchange necessary operational information

I hadn't read the AIC but isn't this exactly what I and others have been saying...?!
A literal interpretation of the AIC appears to indicate that whilst ICAO designate the frequency for use in remote or oceanic areas, the CAA do not appear to make any such stipulation.

BEagle
8th Jun 2011, 07:17
Any smartarsed barrack room lawyers who think that they can twist the wording of the AIC to suit their own purposes should also note:

3 Frequency Monitoring
3.1 In common with other frequency assignments, the CAA will monitor frequency 123.45 MHz at intervals for compliance with the published procedures.

So if a gaggle of flying tourists start yakking away on 123.45, they should be aware that Others May Be Listening....

Once again, 123.45 MHz is not a 'general' air-to-air frequency in UK airspace.

IO540
8th Jun 2011, 09:03
What frequency should one use?

One needs to use "something" when flying in an informal photo-shoot formation for example, to assist forming up in a safe manner, and afterwards.

gasax
8th Jun 2011, 09:16
This is just another of those aviation situations.

It is illegal - why? Because!!

Just like the vast majority of other legal requirements there is no safety justification, indeed in many ways there is actually evidence that some of these things would improve safety.

The CAA 'will monitor the frequency' - and do what I wonder? Without names or callsigns what will they do - issue another AIC saying it is illegal to say that using this frequency is illegal? Pass legislation removing this frequency from the band???

Flying in Canada there are local frequencies where pilots announce their local, intentions, positions etc. The radio is fairly disciplined and very useful - especially where flying VFR through a pass or similar. It offer salmost the sort of service we sometimes used to get from Flight Information.

When I commented that these sort of transmissions would be illegal in the UK my instructor looked at me and said 'that is a pretty dumb rule'.

Which largely sums up much of this sort of stuff. Once companies have to pay for their dedicated frequencies courtesy of OFCOM I suppose we may seem more of a push to enforce these silly rules - even though there will probably be many more vacant channels.....