Heard on 123.45 last week

[g-mady]

Last week (in East Anglia region)

I heard on 123.45

In the classic American voice

"Any aircraft with a frequency for Shannwick at this time"


Now - Tell me if Im wrong as someone who only flys in the troposhere but what the **** are they doing up there about to cross the atlantic if they can find a frequency for a major Atlantic controller! Do they not carry VFR/IFR or comms guides???

MADY

[170']

Mady

He was asking if anyone had HF frequency that worked recently, due to sunspot activity taking out the common freq's. It can be quite a battle at times to get thru on HF. It's a fairly standard procedure.

What kind of classic accent do you have? http://www.pprune.org/forums/images/infopop/icons/icon6.gif

170'

[PPRuNe Radar]

Why would you need to have 123.45 selected over East Anglia ?? :}

[Bravo73]

PR,

Maybe he was trying to get through to Bristow on their Ops frequency... :} :E

[Helipolarbear]

Why not ask a legitimate ATC Service to confirm a Shanwick Freq on a pure 100% legit ATC frequency???? :cool:

[PPRuNe Radar]

That is an option ... as is using the published air-air interpilot frequency for Oceanic aircraft ... 123.45 ;)

[Skidkid]

From:

United Kingdom Aeronautical Information Circular
(AIC 16/2003)

"ICAO Annex 10 Volume V Para 4.1.3.2.1 states that 123.45 Mhz shall be designated for use as an Air-to-Air communications channel to enable aircraft engaged in flights over remote and oceanic areas, out of range of VHF ground stations, to exchange necessary operational information and to facilitate the resolution of operational problems.

Within the UK and Europe there are a number of VHF ground stations operating air traffic and operational control services on 123.45 MHz. There have been numerous reports of aircraft within the UK FIR using this frequency as an unauthorised Air-to-Air open communications channel. Attention is brought to the fact that the resulting interference from unauthorised use of this channel is potentially detrimental to flight safety."


Therefore, 123.45 Mhz should NOT be used as an air-to-air inter pilot frequency within radio range of either East Anglia, or any part of the UK and European FIR's.

Neither should it be used at any time as a general chat channel or for anything that is not "necessary operational information".

[SASless]

In the classic American voice

Pray tell Dear Chap....what might that sound like?:confused:


Therefore, 123.45 Mhz should NOT be used as an air-to-air inter pilot frequency within radio range of either East Anglia, or any part of the UK and European FIR's.

Should Not or Shall Not? "Should Not" is still permissive whereas "Shall Not" is imperative tense.

[[email protected]]

I suppose it makes a change from all and sundry airlines using 121.5 as a chat freq.

[g-mady]

170' - Thanks for the reply, it makes sense now.

PPRuNe Radar - No comment

Helipolarbear- That was half the reason for the post - if you need an important frequency dont you ask a decent air traffic service?

Skidkid - Question answered

SASless and 170' - The classic american accent refered to is a tom cruise with a hint of tommy lee jones style voice...the one that all good American pilots in films use...Are you American, do you know what I mean???

MADY

[fmgc]

if you need an important frequency dont you ask a decent air traffic service

Because he might have beenoutof VHF range, and you heard him because of ducting.

[Skidkid]

Thank you for the English lesson, SASless.

But, according to a teacher colleague of mine, the imperative tense shall only be used by those who have the controlling or ordering authority with regard to the subject.

Therefore ICAO, or the CAA, shall use "shall not".
I, as a minor cog in the aviation world, should use "should not".

But whether that's American English, Australian English, Western European English or English English, I haven't got a clue!

P.S. What's this thread doing on Rotorheads anyway!!

[170']

MADY

Yes and Yes :E

Skidkid..."Within the UK and Europe there are a number of VHF ground stations operating air traffic and operational control services on 123.45 MHz.".......What were they thinking, trying to use the "Chat Channel" for non chat purposes...Shame on them ;)

HelipolarB...The only people that know what freq is workable, are those in reasonably short range, hence a call on victor.
170

[Letsby Avenue]

I think Classic American comes with an extra adenoidal twang :}

[Helipolarbear]

Ain't that the truth...Y'all?:} Fly Safe Now, Y'hear:)

[rjsquirrel]

I can't tell you the number of poor folks who PM others to ask a question, because they are afraid the super-critical prigs that hang around pprune will pounce on them.

This thread managed to push that button quite nicely. I am very glad that all of you PERFECT pilots have the time and energy to criticize another captain so easily and speculatively. Your attitude is the wrong one for pprune or anywhere else. There is much we have to learn from each other, and unfounded criticism is not a way to open communication

You also managed to be sure we knew the guy was an American, because another facet of the pprune prig syndrome is that residents of that picturesque island with far too few flying machines and too much government think their method of preventing people from flying (which they call training and certification) is superior to anyone else's system, especially one that encourages folks to fly and possesses TWICE the aircraft per capita, and flies them TWICE as much, with a LOWER accident rate.

Can I suggest that when you find yourself getting that snotty, nose in the air attitude, you grab a beer and stay away from the keyboard until the feeling passes?

[PPRuNe Radar]

G-MADY

Hopefully the 'twang' didn't interrupt your chat :ok: :O

fmgc

I think you have the most likely answer. An aircraft somewhere over the Ocean relatively close to the European boundary asking for some information on the published interpilot frequency. Ducting also happens relatively commonly at other facilities, for example, hearing traffic calling in a French airfield circuit whilst on a UK Tower frequency. It's just an occasional quirk of physics.

Skidkid

Interestingly the only mandatory part of the CAA 'advice' is that the ICAO Doc states that 123.450MHz shall be designated as an air-air frequency in specific areas. None of the rest of their spiel gives any instruction, merely inferred guidance by raising the awareness of the problems which may be encountered. I assume their UK 'mandate' as to where it may be used comes from the allocation of the frequency in the AIP, or to individual company Ops facilities. If you are not using it in accordance with either of these, then your use is unauthorised.

The CAA SRG semantics on interpretation given to us in ATC are:

Shall, is to, are to, must: mean that the instruction is mandatory.

will: is only used for information or descriptive writing (usually describing a third parties expected actions) and is not an instruction.

may: means that the instruction is permissive, optional, or alternative.

should: means that it is strongly adviseable that the instruction is carried out; it is recommended or discretionary. It is applied where the more positive 'shall' is unreasonable but a good reason would be required for not following the instruction.

I would like to think these appeared somewhere in pilot documentation as well. Can't find them in the ANO or the AIP, but I can't guarantee they ain't in there somewhere.

[fmgc]

residents of that picturesque island with far too few flying machines and too much government think their method of preventing people from flying (which they call training and certification) is superior to anyone else's system, especially one that encourages folks to fly and possesses TWICE the aircraft per capita, and flies them TWICE as much, with a LOWER accident rate.

I would like to see confirmation of those statistics. What is your source?

[170']

rjsquirrel

Wait! He didn't say what I thought he did, did he?...
Stand by for incoming :ok:

[Skidkid]

PPRune Radar

I think you will find that the first paragraph (it's actually para 2 in the original AIC):

"ICAO Annex 10 Volume V Para 4.1.3.2.1 states that 123.45 Mhz shall be designated for use as an Air-to-Air communications channel to enable aircraft engaged in flights over remote and oceanic areas, out of range of VHF ground stations, to exchange necessary operational information and to facilitate the resolution of operational problems."

is a direct quote from the ICAO document and is, therefore, compulsory. The second paragraph (it's actually para 3 in the original AIC):

"Within the UK and Europe there are a number of VHF ground stations operating air traffic and operational control services on 123.45 MHz. There have been numerous reports of aircraft within the UK FIR using this frequency as an unauthorised Air-to-Air open communications channel. Attention is brought to the fact that the resulting interference from unauthorised use of this channel is potentially detrimental to flight safety."

is an additional statement by the CAA as to how it relates to the UK and European FIR's, and is the CAA 'advice'.

[g-mady]

You see, This is why I love rotorheads... I didn't expect to get an explanation but know I have:

1) An answer
2) A Steriotypical view of "all" Americans
3) A response from the LASORS supporters club

You just cant get this anywhere else on the web...

I shall have to give my next topic some serious thought (as I dont like where this thread is heading):D


PS - This is just like a thread a few months ago "HOW MANY ROTORHEADS DOES IT TAKE TO CHANGE A LIGHTBULB"

1) one to discuss why the choice of bulb?
2) one to look up in lasors
3) another to discuss the spelling and grammer of the last post
4) 2 "oldies" (word used loosley) to say they didn't have bulbs when they flew!!!


Brilliant

G-MADY

[Skidkid]

Actually, it's AIC's not LASOR's. ;)

Oh, and AIC 48/2004 is well worth a look as well, but you'll be pleased to know that I'm not going to quote it here. :\

[SASless]

RJS,

Now of course the commonsense and logical cure to all of this is to declare the one frequency (123.45) as the worldwide air-air common frequency.

Commonsense and Logic are not the UK CAA's or most European Aviation Authority's strong suit by far. All we have to do is recall the advent/Demise of JAA and the coming of EASA to understand that mindset.

For those of you that doubt RJ's stats....when you discuss UK air traffic....do remove all of the foreign registered aircraft and their movements from the data would you....after all they are "foreign" aircraft.

How many airfields went for car parks and industrial sites over the past five years?

[NickLappos]

For fmgc, here is what I posted on 13 May 2004, which I will bet RJ Squirrell remembered. I would look the data up for you again, but I am too lazy to do your homework, so I will not:

The harsher British and European standards are born of the social concept of Government as Royal Protector, where Government knows more, and deems it satisfactory to decide what its citizens can do.

The US philosophy grew of distaste for governmental power, so the philosophy is that government only restricts where needed and only as much as can be proven to be effective. In the end, government works for us, and it shows.

Some tidbits to keep this thread alive:

In the US, airmen meet fewer requirements, so they can't memorize morse code (oh, gee!) with 7500 hours of flight, including 1000 in combat and 125 in night combat, I can't read morse code. It is a secret I have carried all these years, and I will have it carved on my headstone, "He was a crappy pilot, he couldn't read morse code"

In the US, it costs less than half the cost per hour to fly any given aircraft. That is because we don't have all those burdens that keep the CAA people employed, we actually spend it on ourselves. And on more flying, fools that we are.

The number of registered aircraft in the US is eye watering, and the number of pilots is also. Per capita it is substantially more than in Europe. And the accident rate is actually a little lower.


But the harsher training standards are "better" after all.

Here is how that harshness plays out:
Per capita, the US has 2.79 times the number of pilots and 2.9 times the number of aircraft. Accident rates are virtually identical.

[[email protected]]

Nick, I think you will find that in the UK, the government does exactly what industry pays it to do - just like in the US and most other countries of the world where 'democracy' means that the people with the money get to decide what happens, not the poor folks.

I would also surmise that a major reason for the low cost of aviation in the US is simply fuel prices - the same reason you have 5 litre V8s and we have 2 litre diesels.

Oh my God Sasless, you don't mean we allow Johnny Foreigner to fly in our British air do you??? I shall write to the Times.

[NickLappos]

crab,
If you run by any British airport, you will see a nice guy running the lift gate, drinking coffee, in a blue uniform. In the tower (oh yes, we MUST have a towwer, because who would possibly decide if the crown will let you takeoff) you have at least three more guys, cheerfully drinking coffee. One calls the local air traffic control to see if the lords of aviation will allow you to taxi, another calls the local radar to see if you might be allowed to actually fly. This crowd of strap-hangars goes all the way to London, where your good aviation sterling pays people to study theory and decide if you need flotation to fly over cowponds, and if you need to learn morse code in swahili, and lots of other fun things. You cannot see them, but this army is tied to your wings, and helps kill the lift. Nice fellows, though.

Ask the people who desert the UK to fly elsewhere, the cost to fly in Britain is twice that of the US, and if you think it is because of fuel alone, your calculator is missing several buttons, or your collective does not go quite to the top stop, my friend!

[aeromys]

Why was the Pilot talking in American anyway? Isn't the international language of aviation English?






I'll get my coat.........:p

[[email protected]]

Nick, so all the guys and gals who get airborne every day from small airfields and private sites need permission from a guy in a tower and a guy with a radar? Oh dear I'd better start a thread on the GA forum telling them that or they will carry on breaking your imaginary rules.

And so US airports are all unmanned, have no ATC and your airspace is unregulated so that no ATC clearance is required - JFK must be a laugh a minute.

I know it is not just fuel costs alone - the weather factor in many parts of the US helps enormously to entice pilots to train there but you can't tell me that licensing and admin costs are the biggest difference.

[g-mady]

Why was the Pilot talking in American anyway? Isn't the international language of aviation English?
I'll get my coat.........:p

No need for the coat - My thoughts exactly!

This thread is turning into something I never imagined!

MADY

[212man]

Crab, don't mention the price of houses, cars, clothes, food, petrol (gasoline; oh, you did that already!) and the other costs of squeezing 60 million people onto a dime/thruppeny bit. God, those CAA licensing guys are buggers aren't they?;)

[SASless]

Now...Now...Nick....naughty...naughty!

Everyone knows Morse is a basic flying skill that must be mastered....or is it the UK charts are so cluttered with QFE and QNH notations there is no room for the Morse identifiers like the US charts? After all...is not the human memory less fallible than reading the morse right off the chart while listening to it? That discounts those sites that have gone low tech and have voice id's that go...."Teabag VOR...Teabag VOR...Teabag VOR...Teabag VOR" continuously unless out of service for maintenance.

So what if it costs double.....hell...the standards are double that of the USA...right? Ever done a Type rating ride in an hour and a half in the USA? Ever draw out a schematic of each system on the aircraft for the TRE as we do on our Type rides?

Why should one not Book In and Out with the Tower any time you wish to go aviating? Heavens....and how can you land or takeoff at an airport without a control tower or crash services being on duty? Don't forget the Hi-Vis vest either....Christ on a crutch.....mass graves filled with pilots who failed to have one of those things on while preflighting in front of the hangar!

As I said before....Noses Up Lads! Defend that system to the very end.

[PPRuNe Radar]

The US system is great :ok: and I really mean that. The taxpayer and airline traveller pays for it all, even for us foreigners :D Or the FBO picks up the tab from the profit he makes ;)

Skidkid

I am not sure you have dealt with the depths of semantics in our industry to any great extent, reading your post. Yes, ICAO makes it 'mandatory' for 123.450 to be designated an interpilot frequency outside VHF ground station coverage. No, it doesn't make it 'mandatory' for it not to be used anywhere else in VHF ground station coverage areas. Hence it is used by facilities in such locations, eg Danish sector oilrigs, authorised by the appropriate CAA.

That's keeping it relatively simple of course. ICAO 'rules' are only ever standards, guidance and/or recommendations, they have no legal force. That is for each State to legislate, or file a difference against. Many, including the UK, do.

[Skidkid]

PPRuNe Radar

Having been flying for the last 33 years in private, military and professional civilian roles I am only too aware of the "depths of semantics in our industry". As a professional pilot I read the rule books and, in this case, I find the rules quite clear.

ICAO Annex 10 Volume V Para 4.1.3.2.1 states that:

"123.45 Mhz shall be designated for use as an Air-to-Air communications channel to enable aircraft engaged in flights over remote and oceanic areas, out of range of VHF ground stations......"

UK AIC 16/2003 makes it quite clear that this has been adopted by the UK CAA and that it applies to the UK FIR. Therefore, 123.45 MHz shall/should NOT be used as an Air-to-Air channel within radio range of the UK FIR.

If you re-read my posts you will see that I did not say that it was:

.....'mandatory' for it not to be used anywhere else in VHF ground station coverage areas.

You are right that the appropriate CAA may also allocate 123.45 MHz for other uses within their FIR but, in all of instances that I can find, they are allocated as Ground-to-Air channels. That is why AIC 16/2003 was issued in order to protect these channels.

"Within the UK and Europe there are a number of VHF ground stations operating air traffic and operational control services on 123.45 MHz. There have been numerous reports of aircraft within the UK FIR using this frequency as an unauthorised Air-to-Air open communications channel. Attention is brought to the fact that the resulting interference from unauthorised use of this channel is potentially detrimental to flight safety."

[zebedee]

Nick, perhaps I've been asleep, but I'm not used to hearing you rant - normally your arguments are reasoned and quitely stated. Obviously this one gets right up your nose!
Can we just consider two things for a moment?
First is relative sizes - in the US and Oz you have to go a long way to risk bumping into someone else. Not so in Europeland.
Second is the predominant weather - even in Summer it's hard to see where you are going in most of Europe, whereas USA and Oz are blessed with wall-to-wall horizons a lot of the time.
I'm no fan of the UK CAA, but I'm not sure "we'll let you do what you like until you f#%k up, then we'll have you" is a good way to go in that environment.
Zeb
P.S: It's not relevant to the discussion, but more than 12000 (no combat, lots of night) if you must know. And yes, I can read Morse.

[NickLappos]

zebedee,

You are right, it is a rant, but I like it anyway, and after all, that is what counts, not precision!

BTW, if you think weather is why a greater number of American pilots own and operate their greater number of aircraft (per capita) then I invite you to a nice flight from Bridgeport Connecticut to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania at 2100 on a typical winter night, and again on some August afternoon at 1500 hours.

European weather is actually a nice training ground to help a pilot practice and get ready for real flying, zebedee!

[zebedee]

Grumpy old b@$tard!

:rolleyes:

[SASless]

Zeb,

That is not true.....Nick is not old.




Nick,

Ever been over the Appalachin Mountains in the winter (day or night)? That weather provoked Ernie Gann to talk of it in his books.

Ever been around Anchorage, Alaska and counted airplanes?

Of course no one has ever gotten bumped around when the Thunderstorms start marching across the country from Denver to New York shedding tornado's as they go by.

Ask the GOM'ers about fog in the Gulf during the winter too.

Of course....there is always the Pacific Northwest that combines mountains, coastal areas, and a bit of rain/fog/mist/snow during the winter months from late September till May. Ever try to get into Olympia Airport after 4:30 in the evening?

It is a big wide open expanse of ground and in most parts, not very crowded. The other half is very crowded.

I did the North Sea bit....and yes the weather is impressive but benign usually so long as you did not look at the water very much. If you think the North Sea is cold....wait till you watch ice floes drifting by under the rig in Alaska.

One summer in the Aleutians proved to be educational....first time I ever saw fog blow by at 60 knots (or more). Seeing four frontal passages in one day in the Shetlands was also a bit remarkable.

[[email protected]]

And I just bet the weather in Texas is sooo much bigger and worse than anywhere else in the world.......I've got a black dog.........but my black dog's blacker than your black dog......etc etc

[SASless]

Crab,

Not so....try on Oklahoma for storm chasing as a hobby sometime....makes Texas look like a walk in the park.

[[email protected]]

So the only place you can get really bad weather is .....in the USA...... discuss


Hmmm .... nothing wrong with guys chasing tornados in RVs...absolutely normal behaviour. Those long winter nights in Oklahoma must just flyyyyy by.

[ShyTorque]

Right, you lot - that's it! I'll say only two things.

Firstly, I agree with Nick. I often look up unfamiliar Morse code idents, just to be certain.

Secondly, I'm off down the pub - far better than listening to you lot bicker! Anyone coming along? Don't tell me, I've just started an argument about beer and which side of the Atlantic brews the best stuff....:rolleyes:

[topendtorque]

No arguments from me, or anyone in OZ i reckon baby, see below, some bastard over there has already stolen the best.




Last Update: Tuesday, April 11, 2006. 6:00pm (AEST)

The company says the sale exceeds the value of the income it gets from the brand in Europe. (ABC TV)

Foster's sells European unit for $750m
Australian beer and wine maker Foster's Group has sold its brand in Europe to its brewing and distribution partner, Scottish and Newcastle, for $750 million.
Foster's will use the sale to pay off debt.
Its shares are up more than 3 per cent to $5.67.
The company says the sale exceeds the value of the income it gets from the Foster's brand in Europe.
Chief executive Trevor O'Hoy says it is an outstanding price for the brand, leaving the company free to promote its other premium beer brands in Europe.