Air to Air Chat?

[alex90]

Good Evening!

I am planning a few flights with a few friends who are all pilots, we're hoping to get a few people in each plane and fly somewhere around the south-east of the UK. We weren't planning on flying in formation as not all of us have had training (and surprisingly we're not THAT stupid).

We would be keen to communicate with one another during the flight, as we won't be very far from one another, and may want to checkup on one another's progress if we can't see them.

To my amazement, however, having searched through PPRUNE, I have found old threads, all of which state that in the UK there is no such frequency... Is that still true in 2016? Is there no air to air 'chat' frequency available for licensed pilots to use whilst flying? How do formation pilots manage to chat to one another? Are they just close enough to see hand signals? Or is there an un-official channel that won't be frowned upon if used? How do you guys do it? Or have you just bought off-the-shelf talkie walkies and just use those in ad-hoc to normal plane VHF frequency?

Thanks!
Alex90

[kindupnorth]

123.450 ;)

[Mach Jump]

123.450 ;)

No frequency is approved for this purpose in the UK.

123.450 is commonly used, but that frequency is already allocated to a specified purpose, and you may severely p**s off some people if you use it in certain areas.

This subject has come up before in the threads, and an experienced Air Traffic Controller on here suggested that, although still not official, 123.4 would be a better choice, as it was not, to his knowledge, assigned to any purpose at present.


MJ:ok:

[piperboy84]

Ask the weight shifters, they seem to spend an inordinate amount of time gabbing to each other while flying.

[Monocock]

128.9 seems to be where the microlight guys discuss the view, and 118.00 is often used for banter.

Neither are specifically allocated to free chat, but both are used as such.

Just don't use real names or callsigns. :}

[TheOddOne]

I wish the CAA and OFCOM had the resources to pursue and prosecute those irresponsible people who use frequencies that have been assigned as silent safety frequencies for 'chat'. Unfortunately, they don't, so I would exhort you all the PLEASE NOT use them for any purpose.

Why not use a mobile phone? Mine works extremely well through the Bluetooth on my headset.

TOO

[Fly4Business]

These Air2Air frequencies for short distance chat are throughout Europe decreasingly usable. With the 833 mandate many upgraded to quite powerful radios and blow their chats miles over miles.

Do you want all England listen to your coffee chat?

I met a gyrocopter group lately which used small power free-band radios PMR446 from motorcycles to do the Air2Air chat separately from the main radios and found that quite feasible.

Another option could be one of the non-protected training frequencies for the appropriate aircraft category, i.e. Glider (when I was young we used 130.125) or Microlight (129.825) or even the shared Glider/Hangglider/Parachute (129.900). As far as I am aware of, there is no motor aircraft training frequency in the UK, or?

Idea, what happens if you ask Flight Information Service for a second frequency for Air2Air?

[alex90]

Why not use a mobile phone?
Have you tried getting consistent signal on any of the normal phone networks in the UK on the ground? In the air - I get anything between 2 bars and 0 bars, often the latter, especially when flying towards Ashford area (maybe its just O2 being rubbish). Having to keep trying to call again and again as and when signal comes back seems to me, to be an unnecessary distraction.

It would be so much easier if there was a frequency dedicated for chat, then I could have box 1 on the chat frequency, and box 2 keeping a "listening watch" on any ATC / service I may be getting. The range would be more than good enough for such an occasion, reliable (well... as reliable as the radios are), no messing around with phones... I think this would increase safety if not anything else.

I have just gone on: http://www.airscene.co.uk/tinc and looked up a few frequencies, 118.000 pops up as "Nationwide - Civilian Air-Air" in addition to a few aerobatic / air display teams. Does anyone have any information with regards to this?

Thanks,
Alex90

[Heston]

128.9 seems to be where the microlight guys discuss the view

I think the cousins at Lakenheath might take a dim view of that. I think Mono means the microlight frequency 129.825 - but it is not for air to air chat (although lots of folk use it for that which seriously pi55es off everyone else).

The simple fact is that air to air "chat" is not allowed on any of the VHF airband frequencies.

[patowalker]

It actually says:
118.000
Nationwide
Air-Air Display Coordination

[Fostex]

I once heard two microlighters starting to have a chat on a radar/approach frequency. Was rather cringeworthy to listen to it and their subsequent telling off by the controller.

[Gentoo]

Can't you use the frequencies that lorry drivers and non-flying people use for chat?

[golfbananajam]

@patowalker

It actually lists 118.000 as being
1. Civilian air-air
2. Marlboro aerobatic display
3. Crunchie flight team
4. Air-Air display co-ordination


it goes on to list
123.400 as air-air
123.450 as air-air common
123.5 as air-air

All the above listed as nationwide

BUT it does state that Airscene makes no guarantee regarding the accuracy of the content.

[flybymike]

I wish the CAA and OFCOM had the resources to pursue and prosecute those irresponsible people who use frequencies that have been assigned as silent safety frequencies
I'm genuinely curious.

What is a "silent safety frequency" and for what purpose has it been "assigned"?

In what way are those who use these "silent safety frequencies" being irresponsible, and what danger or safety risk does the unauthorised use of these "safety frequencies" pose to other users (who themselves might appreciate the use of an air to air frequency for safety reasons)?

[dont overfil]

I believe 118.000 is listed as the international air to air frequency so would be available world wide and can not be allocated to anyone.
118.00 is the AFIS frequency for Exuma International airport.

[chevvron]

There are numerous frequencies allocated for non ATC use in the band 118.0 - 138.0. These are often 'company' frequencies or occasionally 'trials' frequencies, the latter being used infrequently. 126.4 is a 'trials' frequency as are 118.750 and 130.5.
But I didn't tell you, right?

[Jan Olieslagers]

118.00 is the AFIS frequency for Exuma International airport.
Also, less far away for most of us, it is the published frequency for EBNM Namur Suarlée.

[alex90]

What is a "silent safety frequency" and for what purpose has it been "assigned"?
Are those the frequencies that are used for fallback when someone is blocking a frequency for a substantial amount of time without being aware of the fact, and everyone else switches to those frequencies to continue communicating with ATC?

BUT it does state that Airscene makes no guarantee regarding the accuracy of the content.
If you're not a complete idiot, and start transmitting on someone's frequency without listening out to check it isn't currently being used. Make a blind call, perhaps even stating intentions to "communicate air-air for a period of x minutes, if anyone on frequency objecting to it, please reply now", could that essentially be a "responsible" use of a frequency not currently in use? In which case you could quite easily stop transmitting should the frequency become active?

Sorry just trying to find a work-around if at all possible. Alternatively, could one contact a "company frequency" and request to use it for a single time / day / whatever? Would that be possible? I am not one to knowingly do something in breach of regulations, and not one to knowingly break the law. So trying to find perhaps a lawful / correct method of communication through the aeroplane's VHF box?

I have heard a lot of chatter on frequencies when I have tuned the VHF in the clubhouse - so to say that it doesn't happen, and that it doesn't happen safely would be ludicrous in my mind!

[Council Van]

123.45

From the United Kingdom Aeronautical Information Circular

"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."


I suspect that the SE of England would not really qualify as being remote and a trip across the Solent to Bembridge is far from being an oceanic crossing.

[150 Driver]

Isn't the obvious - and from the above legal - workaround that if you are flying the same routes you will be on the same frequency anyway.

So when aircraft 1 reports position ("G-ABCD overhead Anytown 2000 ft") you'll know where they are.

I appreciate that means you can't exchange pleasantries on the view or insult each other's takeoff skills but...then again maybe that's a good thing.

[Genghis the Engineer]

129.825 is the microlight common use frequency. Not for air-to-air chat, but certainly acceptable for formation practice and circuits at farmstrips, albeit that most have gone over to safetycom for that purpose now.

Phone text messaging is fairly reliable.

G

[horizon flyer]

Correction on 118.00 list in a few tables as an air to air frq but only in UK with it allocated to a few places and operations. Not well defined legaly.

123.45 is an international air to air frq but only over remote areas and oceans with no contact to a ground station, so not legal over southern England.

Only other international frqs are as expected 121.5 also 123.1 SAR frq used during an emergency if needed.

Always thought it a bit stupid there is no reserved air to air haling frq.

[snapper1]

'Phone text messaging is fairly reliable.'

Can you do that and maintain good lookout?

[TheOddOne]

Probably at least as well as the van driver who was doing 80 on the A30 yesterday whilst texting!
TOO

[Genghis the Engineer]

'Phone text messaging is fairly reliable.'

Can you do that and maintain good lookout?

There's a passenger ?

G

[FullWings]

Another option could be one of the non-protected training frequencies for the appropriate aircraft category, i.e. Glider (when I was young we used 130.125) or Microlight (129.825) or even the shared Glider/Hangglider/Parachute (129.900). As far as I am aware of, there is no motor aircraft training frequency in the UK, or?
Expect a less than cordial response if you start yakking on any of those frequencies.

One of the better solutions is to use non-airband radios aka walkie-talkies. That way you can communicate with each other and monitor ATC at the same time plus you won’t annoy anyone else.

[alexbrett]

And if you've got a music input to the aircraft intercom you can probably even hook the walkie talkie up so you get the audio in your headset...

[alex90]

And if you've got a music input to the aircraft intercom you can probably even hook the walkie talkie up so you get the audio in your headset...

Could probably also put in a second PTT button on the yoke too! :-) So is the general consensus that in the UK FIRs - the only "available method" of having air to air chat is by using non-airband walkie-talkie.

I was just wondering what people did here and if there was any non-official or official air - air chat frequency!

[PA28181]

So to sum up then, options are,

1: Use your phone to send text messages,
2: Buy whatever number of hand-held "walkie-Talkie's" need for formation flights?
3:Rewire the aircraft's inter-com/yoke with exta PTT button so you can attach the above "walkie-Talkie"
4:Use signal flags
5:Carrier pigeons
6:Signal mirror's
7:Smoke signals (no that would be really stupid)
8:Pick a recently closed aerodrome (there are a fair few) and use theirs. Ipswich has always been my favourite. Solved...

9: Petition the CAA/Ofcom for a reality check and allocate a frequency.................

............................................................ .....

[chevvron]

So to sum up then, options are,

1: Use your phone to send text messages,
2: Buy whatever number of hand-held "walkie-Talkie's" need for formation flights?
3:Rewire the aircraft's inter-com/yoke with exta PTT button so you can attach the above "walkie-Talkie"
4:Use signal flags
5:Carrier pigeons
6:Signal mirror's
7:Smoke signals (no that would be really stupid)
8:Pick a recently closed aerodrome (there are a fair few) and use theirs. Ipswich has always been my favourite. Solved...

9: Petition the CAA/Ofcom for a reality check and allocate a frequency.................

............................................................ .....
You forgot :
10: Use Verey Pistol signals

Ref 8: It was suggested 123.4 could be pinched ex Lyneham.

[Reverserbucket]

I find cross-country navigation dreadfully dull and wonder if any of you chaps could recommend a yoke or preferably a coaming mount for my ipad Pro - it's got a 12.9-inch Retina display so is perfect for watching films (I like Western's and anything with Jean Claude van Damme) and with my new Bose Bluetooth enabled A20 ear defenders that my partner bought me for Valentine's Day, I can sit back and relax (whilst keeping half an eye on the GPS of course!) and while away the boredom.

Thanks for the suggestions!

[PA28181]

You will be in trouble not taking the forum seriously, as I do, I got into a bit of a pickle many years ago and was admonished on another well known flying forum when asking best way to cover my logbook with some left over wallpaper to make it nice like when I was at school.

[piperboy84]

and anything with Jean Claude van Damme)

Bars pulled of your shoulders, buttons of tunic, headset broke across the knee and drummed out of the clubhouse in front of jeering fellow members for that one.

[Reverserbucket]

And not before being stripped of my flyingsuit whilst being forced to eat my Raybans.

My point is that air-to-air chat, unless for a specific operational reason is unnecessary and should not be encouraged. It only serves to diminish airmanship and degrade safety whilst encouraging others to practice poor habits. The aeronautical VHF radio spectrum is saturated now and under threat of being 'narrowed' by a European Commission keen to provide bandwidth to commercial entities prepared to pay a premium for its use and if we abuse such 'low-volume' frequencies as described (no pun intended), we truly risk losing them. Ramifications of that could well result in further frequency spacing adjustments to maximise the remaining bandwith, requiring avionics modifications and additional, burdensome costs to GA.

As for covering logbooks - I find old 1/2 mil charts do the trick nicely ;)

[abgd]

Am I correct in thinking there are legal restrictions in using 'walkie talkies' from aircraft? Not sure where I get this idea from - I think hang-gliding days where we used CB radios (I think) and I was told it was legal for my instructor to talk to me from the ground, but not vice-versa.

To be fair, a loose formation of microlights could probably generate quite a high level of useful chitter-chatter even if that isn't always the case.

[Genghis the Engineer]

To be fair, a loose formation of microlights could probably generate quite a high level of useful chitter-chatter even if that isn't always the case.

Probably essential, as they're likely to only have one map and one GPS with an out of date database between them.

I've never heard of a problem with walkie-talkies, and can't see why pax can't text each other - just not helpful for the pilot to get involved.

G

[rans6andrew]

I can't help thinking that a chat frequency would be a real safety benefit especially when flying as a loose formation. Several times I would like to have been allowed to warn others in my vicinity of "chinook at 11 O'clock climbing towards" or "gliders circling ahead" or even "kinnell, that was close, where is the other one" (fast jets always fly in pairs!) but it seems that we shouldn't.

Ho hum.

[150 Driver]

I can't help thinking that a chat frequency would be a real safety benefit especially when flying as a loose formation. Several times I would like to have been allowed to warn others in my vicinity of "chinook at 11 O'clock climbing towards" or "gliders circling ahead" or even "kinnell, that was close, where is the other one" (fast jets always fly in pairs!) but it seems that we shouldn't.

Ho hum.

Umm, isn't that why we get an ATC service ?

[Jan Olieslagers]

Umm, do you get one? Always? Everywhere? One that is guaranteed to tell you of all traffic nearby?

[PA28181]

Umm, isn't that why we get an ATC service ?

In class "G" don't think so.

Extremely lucky to get the very basic "Traffic Service" providing "controller workload" isn't too high, maybe a couple of aircraft in the sky at a time.:mad:

[davew1]

Umm, do you get one? Always? Everywhere? One that is guaranteed to tell you of all traffic nearby?

Isn't that the whole point of safetycom, for local traffic to let others know routing, alt etc..?

[Jan Olieslagers]

Perhaps - the concept of SafetyCom is not known round here, at least not under that name, so I can't say. But whatever it is or is meant for, I reckon that chatter is not its first purpose.

[PA28181]

"Safetycom" is definitely not a recognised chat frequency, it has specific conditions attached.

How difficult can it be for "our" regulators ie: CAA, Ofcom, to actually provide this, maybe when all these vor's are abandoned could these be utilised as an air-air? (Not 100% sure this is technically poss?)

[Romeo Tango]

AIUI unlicensed (or licensed for that matter) walkie-talkies are not legally allowed to be used in the air. Anyway installing a completely new radio system when there is already an existing one installed seems daft.

The perfect solution would be to have an internationally designated short range chat frequency that, when selected on a modern microprocessor controlled radio, transmits at reduced power. That would take a few decades to implement though ......

[malcolmf]

One frequency for air to air in the UK would be rendered pretty much useless by the amount of users. The range at 3000 feet would be far too much. It's bad enough over the remote oceanic areas!

[150 Driver]

In class "G" don't think so.

Extremely lucky to get the very basic "Traffic Service" providing "controller workload" isn't too high, maybe a couple of aircraft in the sky at a time.:mad:

OP was talking about SE England. Maybe I've just been lucky but I've always got traffic service when asked. I know this isn't perfect but that plus Mk1 eyeball being used is preferable to messing around with a mobile phone, walkie talkie etc etc

Personally nothing would wind me up more than the need to keep chatting to other pilots in the air. One of the reasons I like flying is the enforced solitude, no mobile phones, social media or incessant chatter.

Maybe I'm just a miserable git.

[foxmoth]

Several times I would like to have been allowed to warn others in my vicinity of "chinook at 11 O'clock climbing towards" or "gliders circling ahead" or even "kinnell, that was close, where is the other one" (fast jets always fly in pairs!) but it seems that we shouldn't.

Nothing to stop you requesting this info be passed on by the controller, " XXXX, please advise G-XX of Chinook at 11 O'Clock, heading our way" as your other aircraft will be on the frequency anyway they will get the info as soon as you transmit it.

[150 Driver]

Nothing to stop you requesting this info be passed on by the controller, " XXXX, please advise G-XX of Chinook at 11 O'Clock, heading our way" as your other aircraft will be on the frequency anyway they will get the info as soon as you transmit it.

My point exactly. It is also then helpful to the Chinook. Chinook might not have spotted you and then knows you're around somewhere; alternatively confirms to Chinook that you have seen it and are unlikely therefore to fly blindly into it.

[Jan Olieslagers]

This specific Chinook situation could perhaps even be handled with an "inter-pilot" transmission on the FIS frequency? Though I must say I have yet to come across a real occurrence of interpilot transmission.

Regarding Personally nothing would wind me up more than the need to keep chatting to other pilots in the air. : I totally concur - and this is exactly why I think a dedicated chatter frequency would be a good thing. I hear too much chatter for my liking on my local FIS frequency - even if I realise it must be worse elsewhere.

[Whiskey Kilo Wanderer]

Although of somewhat dubious legality, 123.450 Mhz has become the de facto air to air frequency for the ‘same way / same day’ type formation flying. As mentioned above, the range of VHF signals can be quite extensive. I recall hearing crews on two ‘Heavy’ aircraft discussing where they were going to eat when they got in to Singapore. From the conversation they were somewhere over the Middle East at the time, we were heading up the East Coast of Germany…

It’s preferable to use 123.45 instead of Safetycomm for air to air. Safetycomm is proving a really good idea amongst the farm strip fraternity, even in the crowded South East of England. It does get busy with legitimate traffic and can do without the air to air stuff.

[Whopity]

Although of somewhat dubious legality, 123.450 MhzNothing dubious about it at all, the use of any frequency, other than that for which it is allocated, is as illegal as Radio Caroline.

[Blink182]

Radio Caroline is now fully legal.....broadcasting on the internet, and very good it is too.

[Tay Cough]

Nothing to stop you requesting this info be passed on by the controller, " XXXX, please advise G-XX of Chinook at 11 O'Clock, heading our way" as your other aircraft will be on the frequency anyway they will get the info as soon as you transmit it.

So what if I want to call my partner in crime into right echelon? I can't use hand signals necessarily as he may be in trail and I'd prefer not to use a third party as it can easily cause distraction - and I have yet to hear any formation do that....

We use a quiet frequency where possible. If not, we transmit on whichever ATC frequency we are using. If it's done properly, the leader will transmit briefly. The only reply he will expect to hear is "Two" (apart from the occasional controller who hasn't been paying full attention when the formation checks in and transmits "say again" every time :=).

No need for chatter.

[chevvron]

Radio Caroline is now fully legal.....broadcasting on the internet, and very good it is too.
In late 1985, I saw Radio Caroline in Banjul; derelict on the mudflats.