Lossing HF radio
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: LHR
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Best bet is to either try some of the other HF frequencies listed on the back flight progress charts or if that fails 123.45 (the "chat frequency") and ask nicely for a relay from another aircraft still in touch with your station. As a last resort you could give 121.5 (guard frequency) and request a relay.
Hope that answers the question.
F33
Hope that answers the question.
F33
Last edited by Flap33; 2nd Apr 2004 at 06:07.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Blighty - On secondment
Posts: 329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On a recent Atlantic crossing (in a wee single engine a/c), inital HF commc were poor then becoming nill. Relayed two positions reports through the on guard freq. HF comms restored after pulling in the antenna and changing it for a spare I always carry.
Have used the satcom a couple of times over the last year. We have all the major ATCC's progammed in so it's easy - when you get through it makes you realise just how bad HF can be. Why can't the industry get cheaper calls (it's $15 min today) for flight safety reasons?
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 267
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
still makes me laugh! that cartoon showing an aeroplane with a speech bubble coming from the cockpit saying "HELLO INDIA. HELLO INDIA, THIS IS G-XXXX DO YOU READ? SELCAL XX-XX..........HELLO INDIA" and then a speech bubble coming from the back of the aircraft saying "Hi mum, its tracey! Hows the cat? This flight is lasting forever though.........no, they ran out of beef, I had to have the chicken" etc. etc.
if only the pax knew!!
if only the pax knew!!
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SAT 'Phone is okay as a last resort, but only useful for 'POS' reports. No requests for level/speed change etc. would be issued as the 'phones are not as a rule recorded nor can the I-D of the 'caller' be verified. CPDLC is a useful tool if you have it.
Rgds
T3
Rgds
T3
Join Date: May 2000
Location: US
Posts: 896
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tug3, I have a question regarding the "id of the caller can not be verified."
The identity can not be verified on HF either, correct? If you call on SATCOM, you will be giving the same information, only via a different medium.
No, HF frequencies are not secret, so someone could call on HF maliciously, just like is done too frequently on VHF.
What am I missing here?
Cheers,
Check 6
The identity can not be verified on HF either, correct? If you call on SATCOM, you will be giving the same information, only via a different medium.
No, HF frequencies are not secret, so someone could call on HF maliciously, just like is done too frequently on VHF.
What am I missing here?
Cheers,
Check 6
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Near LOACH intersection
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
15 dollars per minute? My God! I am paying 2.25 per minute down from 3.75 a year ago, though still too expensive to give the number to the Miss./Mrs. These things are the greatest!
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Check6
True what you say, neither medium is 100% proof against malicious acts. There are I feel more means of establishing credibility via radio than 'phone. (Put yourself in a controller's position and I'm sure you'll figure them out - assuming of course you're not one). I'm sure that SAT 'Phones will eventually become the norm for voice comms outwith VHF cover and any question of 'security/integrity' will be addressed.
Rgds
T3
True what you say, neither medium is 100% proof against malicious acts. There are I feel more means of establishing credibility via radio than 'phone. (Put yourself in a controller's position and I'm sure you'll figure them out - assuming of course you're not one). I'm sure that SAT 'Phones will eventually become the norm for voice comms outwith VHF cover and any question of 'security/integrity' will be addressed.
Rgds
T3
