Air to Air Chat?
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: NE Scotland
Age: 44
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: LONDON
Posts: 366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"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?)
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?)
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 ......
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 ......
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Hindhead
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Uk
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Uk
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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
: 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.
Regarding
Personally nothing would wind me up more than the need to keep chatting to other pilots in the air.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: 7nm N of LARCK
Posts: 221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
123.45 - better than Safetycomm for air to air
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.
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.
Although of somewhat dubious legality, 123.450 Mhz
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: The Home of the Gnomes
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
2 Posts
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.
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.
