Misuse of Frequency 123.45 Hz.

[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.

 

[FL420]

Eureka! I think.

This subject seems to be a burr under everyone's saddle. Since most of my recent flying has been international and under RVSM, I was well-acquainted with the fact that ICAO recommended that ICAO signatory countries adopt 123.45 MHz as the inter-pilot air-to-air frequency in Oceanic Operating areas and when out of VHF range of ground stations. Recent(tonight) research reveals that all North and South American countries, Europe and Australia(and probably many others) have adopted the ICAO recommendation into their respective AIP's.

So, the question remains: Why do so many people think it's okay to use 123.45 MHz for air-to-air chatter in CONUS? After further research, I think I have a clue. Here goes.

Although the block of frequencies between 123.1125-123.5875 MHz was allocated by the FCC for use by flight test and aviation instructional stations, the specific frequency 123.45 was never assigned by the FCC or the FAA for any purpose. Because it was so easy to remember, I suspect it was hijacked by folks who wanted to fly(or try anyway) in formation, join up somewhere together, etc.

A few years ago a group titled the Aerospace Flight Test Radio Coordinating Council (AFTRCC) lobbied the FCC for some discrete frequencies to be used for flight test purposes. They were eventually successful in obtaining some discrete frequencies, 123.45 MHz being one of them. At least 12 military installations engaged in aviation flight test have been assigned 123.45 MHz. They are:

User......................City...................................Approx. Lat/Long
NASA..................Crows Landing, CA..........37N-121W
US Air Force.......Edwards AFB, CA............35N-118W
NASA..................Moffett Field, CA.............37N-122W
US Army.............Windsor Locks, CT...........42N-73W
US Navy..............Patuxent, MD....................38N-76W
US Army.............Lakehurst, NJ....................40N-74W
US Air Force.......Nevada Test Range, NV...37N-116W
NASA.................Cleveland, OH...................42N-82W
US Army.............Quonset, RI........................42N-71W
US Army.............Columbia, SC....................34N-81W
NASA.................Wallops Island, VA...........38N-75W
US Army.............Truax Field, WI.................43N-89W

Any unauthorized use of 123.45 MHz within VHF range of one of the above ground stations runs the risk of interfering with the flight test operations in progress, possibly to the detriment of safety.

I’m pretty sure(too lazy to prove it) that the FCC, which allocates frequencies, usually in blocks of frequencies, to governmental agencies and commercial entities, has adopted a position that any frequency that has not been specifically assigned to anyone is not to be used for communications. I did find proof that’s the case in Australia(Yeah, I know. Go ahead and take a shot.)

So……Use of 123.45 MHz in CONUS used to be tolerated if not authorized. Not necessarily any longer for the reasons stated above. Even though 122.75 and 122.85 aren’t as easy to use or remember as 123.45, they are assigned by the FCC for air-to-air use while 123.45 is assigned for other purposes.

Some links follow:
http://aerorfi.org/forum/read.php?f=1&i=167&t=167
aeroRFI.org is an association of Airline Pilots and Technicians, Communications Industry and Government representatives. Most of us are Amateur Radio Operators, Engineers or Radio Technicians. Our goal is cooperation with FAA, FCC, ICAO and Government Officials worldwide in their efforts to reduce radio interference within the aeronautical communication and navigation frequencies.
http://aerorfi.org/

A relevant thread on PPrune.
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=221032

Finally. I fully expect and even hope that folks disagree sometimes. The trick is to disagree without being disagreeable.

 

[GVFlyer]

Good post, FL420.


GV

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

FL420, yours is a truly great post.

Thank you for the information.

As I have said in an earlier post: This is the Board of professionals seeking information from professionals.

 

[User546]

I did hear someone come on that freq once and say that transmissions must cease on that freq or FCC violations would ensue.

Would they have any way to identify what aircrafts were using the frequency if they didn't state their call sign in the transmissions?

 

[ReverseSensing]

Would they have any way to identify what aircrafts were using the frequency if they didn't state their call sign in the transmissions?

They can probably track it through that microchip in your new plastic pilot certificate you're sitting on. Another good reason to leave it at home.