Radio protocol for non-operational air-to-ground

[Keith]

Hi,

 

I'm in the process of doing my cross-country training, and I've got a question about whether you can/should use the VHF to talk to people on the ground about non-flying matters - and if so, how?

 

For example, if I'm going to be flying over an area in the bush where some mates are camping (and they have a handheld VHF), and I want to ask how they are going, what's the protocol?

 

I've read that 123.45MHz is a "chat" frequency for non-operational air-to-air comms, but not sure if this is appropriate for air-to-ground.

 

Cheers,

 

Keith

 

 

[BigPete]

I'd say it's your best bet - If you want to use the aircraft radio. If you're down low, and use 123.45 then it won't go far (line of sight) anyway.

 

regards

 

 

[Guest basscheffers]

If you're down low, and use 123.45 then it won't go far (line of sight) anyway.

Well, if you are at 1000ft and the handheld at 6ft, the line of sight is 81KM! (not counting mountains in the way, of course.) The limiting factor will be the transmitter ERP.

That brings me to the next question: what is the output power of a run-of-the-mill VHF radio?

 

 

[Guest brentc]

Range wise, I can get about 6-8kms reliable from ground to air on my Vertex if the aircraft is at around 500ft agl with no major obstructions, so you shouldn't have a problem range wise.

 

That being said though, legally speaking you'd need a licence for the ground station as it's not located within a school or airfield facility so in theory your non-aviation use would be unlikely to be legal. A licence for the ground station is not required if it's in use by a flying school / charter company, airfield etc.

 

If I were you I'd use 123.45 or the lesser known 120.85. If you wanted 'real' privacy, you could try using a spare frequency with .25 seperation (if your radio supports it) eg. 123.475 (but not legal)

 

Most handhelds are 5 watts these days.

 

 

[slartibartfast]

Just the facts ma'am

 

All your questions are answered here.

 

I recommend you read it carefully. Air to air communications may be made on 123.45 but "are restricted to the exchange of information relating to aircraft operations".

 

And this important gem:

 

Note that an aircraft station may only be operated (i.e. transmitting) when it is on-board an aircraft, thus you cannot operate your handheld transceiver unless you are in an aircraft and identify yourself with that aircraft's station call-sign. If any condition of the ASCL is breached (for example, transmitting on a frequency not encompassed by the class licence) the operator is no longer authorised to operate under the class licence. In this instance, the operator would be liable for prosecution by the ACA.

 

and:

 

.....ground stations may be licensed by ACA for operation in the aviation VHF band by aero clubs, flying schools and parachute clubs; or by other organisations providing an aerodrome Unicom service. In the regulations such ground stations are called aeronautical stations.

 

 

[Ben Longden]

Might pay to whack a UHF CB radio in the AC instead....

 

I wonder if there are any regs against using a CB for non aviation conversations from air to ground...

 

Ben

 

 

[Keith]

As my mates on the ground don't fit any of the categories listed that would let them use the VHF frequencies legally, I reckon I might try the UHF/CB handheld as suggested - or tell them to camp under a telstra mobile tower and get them on the mobile!

 

Thanks for the great feedback (no pun intended).

 

Cheers,

 

Keith

 

 

[Guest brentc]

It's not like me to condone something illegal, however I really don't think anyone would care if you spoke to them for a brief period on the discrete frequency, particularly 120.85 ;)

 

 

[Ben Longden]

Using the CTAF or area freqs, I can see a 'bit' of a problem, but would they get into strife using the 'numbers'?

 

Ben

 

 

[John Brandon]

Using the CTAF or area freqs, I can see a 'bit' of a problem, but would they get into strife using the 'numbers'?Ben

Yes, if caught. Transgressions of the Class Licence should not be encouraged or condoned, it brings our association into disrepute. I wrote the material that Slarti referred to avoid such transgressions, which, by the way could also be most unrewarding for the transgressor. Use the CB band if you must transmit to non-aeronautical stations.

cheers

 

John

 

 

[Yenn]

I have often wondered how I would go if I got seriously lost or injured bushwalking and used the handheld to get help. No doubt I would have committed an offence but what would the penalty be.

 

 

[trevorp]

Good point John, lets try and keep every thing to the highest of standards.

 

When ever ive been in small ga aircraft that as performed air to ground comms, they all ways had and used uhf.

 

And Ian, im sure if you was in genuine saftey probs , i to would break the law. i would take the chance as i think you would have to be pretty damm unlucky to find a court that would condem you unless you had some other crimenial intentions associated with your actions.

 

The 120.85 freq, is that a designated ch for aircraft to aircraft chit chat, or is it a local practice u use with locals in your area. i guess formation pilots must use a desegenated freq. My instuructor[i'm still a student] told me about the 123.45, [glider pilots use quite a bit] but still only for aviation related talk and not to clutter up airways. I guess monitoiring correct freq should be main proritey.

 

cheers Trevor.

 

 

[John Brandon]

I have often wondered how I would go if I got seriously lost or injured bushwalking and used the handheld to get help. No doubt I would have committed an offence but what would the penalty be.

I would very much doubt that broadcasting for help as a private citizen in an emergency, by whatever means is at hand, could be classified as an offence. You have a valid reason for carrying your airband transceiver if you like to listen to the traffic while bushwalking and, providing you don't use your aircraft station identity in the emergency broadcast [which could confuse everyone], I see no problem whatsoever.

cheers

 

John

 

 

[Guest brentc]

I suggested 120.85 because it's used much less than 123.45 so more chance of getting a word in, however both for the same use. Sometimes 123.45 is so chocked-up down our way it's impossible to use it.

 

 

[Yenn]

Up our way 126.7 can get well loaded. We had somebody some time ago who seemed to be reading a novel, rather than giving the required CTAF info.

 

If we all gave the recommended CTAF verbiage the frequency would sometimes get cluttered and the recommendations require far too much.