123.45 Abuse
Thread Starter
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
From: Dorset
123.45 Abuse
I'm sure many saw on the front of GASIL the stern words regarding use of 123.45 as a general chat frequency.
I do agree with what they are saying (and haven't even thought of doing this) but what I would add is - how typically short-sighted of the CAA/Radio Agency. There are good (safety) reasons to have plane to plane communications and to prevent abuse of a certain frequency, why not provide a general frequency rather than just b*llock those who do need to pass, say plane to plane info on a multi-ship fly out? These exist on maritime bands etc.
I do agree with what they are saying (and haven't even thought of doing this) but what I would add is - how typically short-sighted of the CAA/Radio Agency. There are good (safety) reasons to have plane to plane communications and to prevent abuse of a certain frequency, why not provide a general frequency rather than just b*llock those who do need to pass, say plane to plane info on a multi-ship fly out? These exist on maritime bands etc.
Last edited by Pudnucker; 4th July 2006 at 15:44.
niknak
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
From: UK
123.450 is allocated to several airfields, and isn't for the waffle, bull!!!! and blather that you quite frequently hear on it.
Whatever frequency may be allocated for "chat", if you fly above 2000ft on a fine summer day, you'd only have to listen in for a few minutes to appreciate the amount of breakthrough from other aircraft/ground stations many miles away.
IF it genuinely is a real safety issue, as you imply, then the information can be passed through any ATC unit or D & D.
Whatever frequency may be allocated for "chat", if you fly above 2000ft on a fine summer day, you'd only have to listen in for a few minutes to appreciate the amount of breakthrough from other aircraft/ground stations many miles away.
IF it genuinely is a real safety issue, as you imply, then the information can be passed through any ATC unit or D & D.
Joined: Nov 2005
Aviation Qualifications: PPL
Posts: 12,458
Likes: 368
From: Wildest Surrey
In the gliding fraternity, 129.975 is allocated as a 'local' frequency for A/G in the vicinity of a gliding site, but most glider pilots use it as a general chat frequency (air to air) too.
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,795
Likes: 0
From: New South Wales
Of course aircraft sometimes have a need to talk to each other in the air and of course people will find ways to do it. Even if some people bollock on endlessly that doesn't remove the basic need. The CAA sticks its head in the sand and everyone carries on regardless.
Just don't use callsigns. Names are a much better idea. All in all, the system works.
QDM
Just don't use callsigns. Names are a much better idea. All in all, the system works.
QDM
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,235
Likes: 0
From: Niort
In our neck of the woods 123.45 is a Bristow's COMPANY frequency. Needless to say there is a significant amount of shall we say 'non-business' related communications?
Type CAA - look what these naughty boys have been doing....
Touring in formation we usually have a fallback frequency (after the double and triple transmissions on the frequecy we are working.
To be blunt if the CAA are OK with companies have chat frequencies their arguments for the rest of us not havin them are pretty weak.
During the enforced change from 720 to 760 frequencies some enterprising soul reviewed the number of allocated frequencies and if memory serves came up with a number around 350. Given the upper airspace chaps have been forced into 8.33 spacing there is a huge amount of space on the spectrum at the moment.
The so-called 'safety frequency' is a start on the path to realism - but late and drudgingly as all CAA 'developments'.
I know Bristows hate the chat interruption on 'their' frequency but we should have ours - and then everyone would be OK.
Type CAA - look what these naughty boys have been doing....
Touring in formation we usually have a fallback frequency (after the double and triple transmissions on the frequecy we are working.
To be blunt if the CAA are OK with companies have chat frequencies their arguments for the rest of us not havin them are pretty weak.
During the enforced change from 720 to 760 frequencies some enterprising soul reviewed the number of allocated frequencies and if memory serves came up with a number around 350. Given the upper airspace chaps have been forced into 8.33 spacing there is a huge amount of space on the spectrum at the moment.
The so-called 'safety frequency' is a start on the path to realism - but late and drudgingly as all CAA 'developments'.
I know Bristows hate the chat interruption on 'their' frequency but we should have ours - and then everyone would be OK.
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
From: UK,Twighlight Zone
Originally Posted by chevvron
Idiot now everyone will use it.
But then as the majority of Microlight pilots do not have an RT licence I guess they must be immune from the rules.......
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 429
Likes: 5
From: West Wiltshire, UK
I know a heck of a lot of microlight pilots, and most that I know have both RT operators licences and licences for their radios as well.
I would hazard a guess that a few may not, but given that the authorities had a clamp down on radio licensing on microlights a few years ago, I suspect that most are now actually legal.
Mind you, radio discipline amongst some microlighters can be pretty poor, a few minutes spent listening to 129.825 will show just how poor...................
VP
I would hazard a guess that a few may not, but given that the authorities had a clamp down on radio licensing on microlights a few years ago, I suspect that most are now actually legal.
Mind you, radio discipline amongst some microlighters can be pretty poor, a few minutes spent listening to 129.825 will show just how poor...................
VP
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
From: Oxford, UK
In the gliding fraternity, 129.975 is allocated as a 'local' frequency for A/G in the vicinity of a gliding site, but most glider pilots use it as a general chat frequency (air to air) too.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Safety Com
CAA issued an American stylee unicom freq called Safety Com for use at umanned airfields.
It's 12 er 9 er no ....
It's 921 no, no ......
It's 192 oh bugger!
It's 129.9945633 no ......
Just a minute - I'll get it in a mo - don't hassel me it's.......
129. no maybe it's 139 oh ........................
bollox 123.45 and don't use your reg
Sir George Cayley
It's 12 er 9 er no ....
It's 921 no, no ......
It's 192 oh bugger!
It's 129.9945633 no ......
Just a minute - I'll get it in a mo - don't hassel me it's.......
129. no maybe it's 139 oh ........................
bollox
123.45 and don't use your reg Sir George Cayley
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 665
Likes: 8
From: Essex
I cant resist it, what an example of posters demonstrating their inexperience,.....
The CAA, have they not, have indicated that they intend to prosecute people using 123.45 incorrectly.
Stop it................................
UV
The CAA, have they not, have indicated that they intend to prosecute people using 123.45 incorrectly.
Stop it................................
UV
Guest
Posts: n/a
So the ironic nature of my post's whizzed past you eh UV?
The point is that by publishing a forgetable frequency and protecting the obvious one against all logical debate the CAA are inviting abuse.
Don't forget it was not that long ago they insisted on Manchester Approach and Tower freqs swapping 119.4 and 118.625 because the former interferred with a small Kentish strip. It cost Manch and its ATC provider £10,000 to change and inform industry.
Finally, the CAA do not prosecute for radio abuse. The Radiocommunications Agency do this.
Sir George Cayley
The point is that by publishing a forgetable frequency and protecting the obvious one against all logical debate the CAA are inviting abuse.
Don't forget it was not that long ago they insisted on Manchester Approach and Tower freqs swapping 119.4 and 118.625 because the former interferred with a small Kentish strip. It cost Manch and its ATC provider £10,000 to change and inform industry.
Finally, the CAA do not prosecute for radio abuse. The Radiocommunications Agency do this.
Sir George Cayley
Thread Starter
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
From: Dorset
Originally Posted by niknak
IF it genuinely is a real safety issue, as you imply, then the information can be passed through any ATC unit or D & D.
I think if I had tried that on Saturday/Sunday while flying up to white waltham and back, the Farnborough controller would have shot himself....
Joined: Nov 2005
Aviation Qualifications: PPL
Posts: 12,458
Likes: 368
From: Wildest Surrey
It was complaints from France that led to the CAA ban.
There are, as Gasax says, are large number of VHF airband frequencies not used in the UK presumably because they are used in adjacent countries like France, Holland, Belgium etc. You probably don't realise, but DAP section of CAA have to reach international agreement before allocating any frequency for UK use.
There are also frequencies in the airband not in regular use for ATS purposes; not just Ops frequencies but for 'trials' use by people like Qinetiq.(eg 126.4; 118.750)
There are, as Gasax says, are large number of VHF airband frequencies not used in the UK presumably because they are used in adjacent countries like France, Holland, Belgium etc. You probably don't realise, but DAP section of CAA have to reach international agreement before allocating any frequency for UK use.
There are also frequencies in the airband not in regular use for ATS purposes; not just Ops frequencies but for 'trials' use by people like Qinetiq.(eg 126.4; 118.750)
Thread Starter
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
From: Dorset
Interesting that there are similar views. I think what narks me off more than anything is that it seems that airliners, microlights, companies etc etc etc are allocated frequencies for their exclusive use (and often used for passing the same "Blather, Bull!!!! and Chitchat" that we're accused of passing) and as usual, the Radio Agency/CAA have buried their heads in the sand.
Interestingly, for those with the "Greater than Thou" attitude to this, I was stepped on by a couple of airliners yakking about the football results over the weekend. So AGAIN, we've been ignored and it seems AGAIN that others can get away with it while the authorities find it easy to pick on us!!
Interestingly, for those with the "Greater than Thou" attitude to this, I was stepped on by a couple of airliners yakking about the football results over the weekend. So AGAIN, we've been ignored and it seems AGAIN that others can get away with it while the authorities find it easy to pick on us!!