Misuse of Frequency 123.45 Hz.

[User546]

I live in Oklahoma and I always use 123.45 as a air-to-air chat when I'm flying cross country with another airplane. Even if I'm by myself it's always entertaining to listen to the 80 year old pilots screaming into the frequency "BILL... YOU ON HERE??" "BILL, WHERE ARE YOU NOW... I JUST PASSED A RAILROAD OFF RIGHT SIDE, I BELIEVE I'M SOMEWHERE IN WEST KANSAS."

The other designated frequencies (122.75, and 122.85) always seem to be flooded with traffic, and its worthless to try and use.

I've always heard that 123.45 wasn't a "party line" but no one has ever shown me any definitive proof that it's not. I'm not too worried where I'm at with interfering with any trans-oceanic traffic.

 

[TankerPuke]

I too have grown weary of pilots using the freq while oceanic talking about their FRA or CDG layover It only became an issue once while over Greenland and we were trying to relay an emergency divert for an Otter to Shanwick.

PUKE
uke:

 

[VNugget]

I'm aware of this, but most people aren't. When I'm flying around with a smaller group I try to convince them that we use 122.75 instead, but with a larger group, forget about it.

By the way one time I was listening to 122.85 and there was an AWOS on it, WTF

 

[GVFlyer]

Those that say that use of 123.45 MHz as an air to air BS frequency is prohibited are correct.

The allocation (not assignment) charts in FCC and IRAC, clearly set forth that 123.325-123.475 is assigned to "Flight Test," as is 123.525-123.575. See 6050.32A, Appendix 2, Page 1. The AFTRCC was the moving force in getting that portion assigned for exclusive discrete frequencies within the FCC allocations, starting in the very early 1960's. It was intended to provide those frequencies to aircraft manufacturers (Gulfstream, Lockheed, Boeing, Learjet, Cessna etc.) to permit A/G communications and telemetry with test aircraft in flight.

It's pretty annoying to be out in W157A or W158C doing critical flight test and have some yahoo come up on one of our assigned frequencies and transmit to some other bubba, "I'm getting 138 true how fast are you goin'?"


Here's the current FAA oceanic guidance.

http://www.faa.gov/ntap/NTAP06APR13/PART3_SEC2.HTM

In the Pacific Region 123.45 MHz is used as a backup to 121.5 MHz


GV

 

[52560]

Msy Awacs

Over the years, I've heard that 123.45 for a BS freq is not to be used.. Nedless to say, I hear so many rumors from ingnorant pilots that I didn't know if there was any truth to that. I did hear someone come on that freq once and say that transmissions must cease on that freq or FCC violations would ensue. Didn't know if that was someone of authority, or just some d!ck head pilot. I was finally convinced that 123.45 should not be used when I was flying to MSY the Friday after Katrina. Before entering the restricted area, the NOTAM stated to contact AWACS on 123.45. Very interesting I thought.

 

[Check 6]

FN FAL, to whom are you calling a d.a.?

 

[GVFlyer]

Check 6

Reference 100 ft. over the Med - did you work for Corporate Jets, Inc (or their predecessor) out of Capodichino?

GV

 

[Check 6]

GV, you are close. I worked for Flight Intl. at Capodichino from October 1999 until January when the funding was cut off.

I suspect you were flying C-21A's out of ETAR during that time frame. If so, we have probably met.

 

[EMB Skillz]

You must cease all chit-chat immediately and use the proper chat forum. All other posts will be reported to the FCC and Moderators for disciplinary action.

 

[UnableDirect]

Try Jumbo...127.475...nobody on there but a bunch of freight dawgs in Calif.

Eric

128.90 is always quiet...

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

Unprofessional Comments

I don't care what your stupid ICAO treaty says, the FCC rules interstate commerce here in America, dumbass.

Statements like this make the writer look to be either very immature or to be at a loss for substance in their discussions. When that occurs, as is the case with FN FAL's comment, people resort to insults. I have seen these types of comments many times on other boards. I do believe, however, that comments like this are not as common an occurrence at FI because this is the board for professionals in search of professional information.

At least that is the way I see things here.

Questions/Comments are welcome......

 

[ReverseSensing]

However, I do believe that is not a common occurrence here because this is the board for professionals in search of professional information.

Hardee-har-har-har!!!!!!! I think I just coughed up my spleen from laughing so hard!

 

[gnx99]

We used 123.45 for traffic calls in the practice area when I was a CFI. We were told the FAA approved the use of the frequency for this purpose.

 

[Check 6]

Undaunted, probably a little of both. I am still standing by for an apology and a deletion.

GNX99, I suspect that the local Operations Inspector went beyond his authority, however helpful that he was trying to be.

 

[FN FAL]

Statements like this make the writer look to be either very immature or to be at a loss for substance in their discussions.

Questions/Comments are welcome......

Dude, CFR 47 is all substance I need.

US33
The band 123.1125-123.5875 MHz is for use by flight test and aviation instructional stations. The frequency 121.950 MHz is available for aviation instructional stations.​

Aviation instructional stations...the drop zone is using the frequency in the CONUS because they can, the skydiving instruction is aviation related instruction.

You think they just up and chose that frequency for their skydiving advisories because they woke up one morning and was miracled a super otter in a pageant?

 

[FN FAL]

Undaunted, probably a little of both. I am still standing by for an apology and a deletion.

Whatever. Stay on topic or grow some.

CONUS use of 123.45 has nothing to do with oceanic rules or use and your company ops manual is not the boss of us.

 

[PurpleInMEM]

I'm curious...

Why should I care?

Oh yeah, that's right, I shouldn't. And don't.

You people have a lot of time on your hands. Probably the kind of kids that would remind the teacher she forgot to give the class homework.

 

[FN FAL]

I'm curious...

Why should I care?

Oh yeah, that's right, I shouldn't. And don't.

You people have a lot of time on your hands. Probably the kind of kids that would remind the teacher she forgot to give the class homework.

That's why I became a pilot, so I would have time to waste. Besides, it's a good break from this 2,500 word paper I got to do on Racial Disparity and the Death Penalty and 1,000 words of final I got to do on Sunday.

 

[FN FAL]

We used 123.45 for traffic calls in the practice area when I was a CFI. We were told the FAA approved the use of the frequency for this purpose.

The FCC allocates it and Congress approves it in Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Frequency Allocation Tables.

And to top it off...here's ICAO's take on Air to Air and 123.45

http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache0x4ChKDQFQJ:dcaa.slv.dk:8000/icaodocs/Annex%252010/Volume%2520V/an10_V5_2ed.pdf+123.45+megahertz&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=10

Scroll down to page 13, tables 4-1, para's (f) comments and (g) specifically.

It says, "air to air" communications.

I guess ICAO is wrong too.

 

[kevdog]

123.45 is also used to give extended position reports in Africa, aircraft communication in the Caribbean, and some countries in South America. It's not only for oceanic flights.

One of the most annoying things I have ever heard on 121.5 was from a US Navy warship in international waters. It occupied the freq non-stop for about as long as we were in range (maybe an hour). That would be a job I would never want, the guy was asking every airplane around it to ID themselves and asked where they were going. 90% of the airplanes were not responding.

If your company has a company freq, then use it.