Heard on 123.45 last week
 

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

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/...cons/icon6.gif

170'

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

PR,

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

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

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

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".

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


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

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

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

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

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!!

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

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

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

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?

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.

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

rjsquirrel

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

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'.