The subject of taking lunch chatter off CTAF has come up on another thread. People have suggested 122.75 and 123.45 as alternatives. Surely these are better alternatives than clogging up the CTAF.

That said, my understanding is that neither of these are chatter frequencies either.

122.75 is in AIM 4.1.11 as the air to air frequency. (122.85 used to be listed also, now is no longer). 123.45 is designated air to air for over the atlantic, but isn't listed in the AIM (http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publicat ... 202004.pdf).

In none of those cases does the AIM suggest that these are appropriate for an extended conversation coordinating lunch plans. The best place to do this is on the ground before you leave. 122.75, for example, is commonly used by flight schools to coordinate activities over practice areas. It is not uncommon for those communications to be disrupted by someone a hundred miles away using that frequency to chat with their buddy. Maybe it's a minor safety hazard, but it's still not sanctioned use of the frequency.

I always use 122.725 or 122.775 for air to air chatter frequencies. Not sure if it's any more appropriate than .75 but it's always quieter.

The flight school in southern Manitoba that I attended used 122.75 in the practice area, and we were frequently interrupted by chatter south of the border. It was fairly annoying. Here in Alberta we use 123.45. I have yet to hear anybody on it except the person/s I am chatting with.

Zzz wrote:I always use 122.725 or 122.775 for air to air chatter frequencies. Not sure if it's any more appropriate than .75 but it's always quieter.

122.725 is a Unicom frequency (AIM 4.1.11).

122.775 is Canadian Unicom. It also appears to have been assigned for special use air to air in the US, though I can't find any official source to cite.

And before anyone says we shouldn't worry about Canada, remember that 11 states share a border with them (so surely some of us fly in the neighborhood) and something ridiculous like 90% of the Canadian population (and thus, probably, a lot of the airports) are within radio range of the US.

A1Skinner wrote:The flight school in southern Manitoba that I attended used 122.75 in the practice area, and we were frequently interrupted by chatter south of the border. It was fairly annoying. Here in Alberta we use 123.45. I have yet to hear anybody on it except the person/s I am chatting with.

Two flight schools in NW Minnesota and NE North Dakota use 122.75 and 122.85 for practice area announcements. That's probably part of what you were hearing in southern MB. These are BUSY practice areas, indeed, and frankly, some of the instructors and students around tend to be "Chatty Cathys"......

In the US, 122.75 and 122.85 have for decades been designated as air to air frequencies. The expectation is that those frequencies, particularly 122.75 is where you will communicate with other airborne aircraft. The problem comes when pilots seem to think that they need to carry on a chit chat conversation with each other over ANY VHF frequency. If you want to do the "Come back good buddy" gig, install a CB radio in your airplane, but keep that kind of crap off the aviation frequencies, please.

As to 123.45, it is a north atlantic and polar crossing air to air frequency. When I was in Fairbanks, I did a fair amount of flying with european air crews on layovers, and several of them asked me why they were hearing all this chit-chat on their polar air to air frequency. If you're in the lower 48, your comm might not get that far, but lots of folks in AK use that frequency for chit chat.

The point is, these are NOT CB radios. There is simply no legitimate reason to have long conversations on ANY of the VHF comm frequencies, regardless of what those frequencies are assigned for.

Sermon over.

MTV

mtv wrote:In the US, 122.75 and 122.85 have for decades been designated as air to air frequencies.

Check the AIM again. I discovered this morning while researching that 122.85 was delisted sometime in the 2000's (i.e. it was in the 1999 AIM, but is not in the 2013 one).

Agreed on the rest of your note.

I started using 122.77 some years ago when 22.75 as real busy. It was great until somebody official-sounding on freq told me not to. Haven't been back since

mtv wrote:

A1Skinner wrote:The flight school in southern Manitoba that I attended used 122.75 in the practice area, and we were frequently interrupted by chatter south of the border. It was fairly annoying. Here in Alberta we use 123.45. I have yet to hear anybody on it except the person/s I am chatting with.

Two flight schools in NW Minnesota and NE North Dakota use 122.75 and 122.85 for practice area announcements. That's probably part of what you were hearing in southern MB. These are BUSY practice areas, indeed, and frankly, some of the instructors and students around tend to be "Chatty Cathys"......

In the US, 122.75 and 122.85 have for decades been designated as air to air frequencies. The expectation is that those frequencies, particularly 122.75 is where you will communicate with other airborne aircraft. The problem comes when pilots seem to think that they need to carry on a chit chat conversation with each other over ANY VHF frequency. If you want to do the "Come back good buddy" gig, install a CB radio in your airplane, but keep that kind of crap off the aviation frequencies, please.

As to 123.45, it is a north atlantic and polar crossing air to air frequency. When I was in Fairbanks, I did a fair amount of flying with european air crews on layovers, and several of them asked me why they were hearing all this chit-chat on their polar air to air frequency. If you're in the lower 48, your comm might not get that far, but lots of folks in AK use that frequency for chit chat.

The point is, these are NOT CB radios. There is simply no legitimate reason to have long conversations on ANY of the VHF comm frequencies, regardless of what those frequencies are assigned for.

Sermon over.

MTV

Guilty!

We use marine VHF in Hawaii too. My aircraft(s) had marine radios 337ed in the audio panel. Mostly for SAR, fish spotting, inter-island canoe racing. FAA, USCG and other folks had no issues with communications on marine common channels when it was required for SAFETY. Have a handheld VHF Marine Radio in the Scout when boat/seaplane traffic issues are in the equation.

In Australia pilots (and 4x4s ) use UHF on GA aircraft (and trucks) for normal ops, because of the isolation.

Generaly speaking, radios are for safety in my opinion. If a need to chat I call my wife.

There's a distinction between "chatting" and discussing the mission at hand. Talking about Marv's hangar build is chatting, but comparing notes about what's on the ground, plans for approaching a backcountry strip, trading ideas for the approach, weather talk, or anything relevant to the plan in motion is OK in my opinion, as long as it doesn't impede CTAF communications. The actions I'm referring to are not CTAF communications around an airport, but any other type of coordination communication between aircraft flying together.

For whatever it is worth, while participating in competition events 30 years ago, the value of air-to-air communications between pilots was a very significant benefit. We used both 123.3 and 123.5 . Although the type of flying and specific communications in a soaring contest was completely different, the principle would hold true at a JC fly-in just the same. Very significant safety benefits and many many mid-air collisions avoided, from my own personal experience.

Simple comments like "Jim, do you have me in sight under your left wing?", or "Turning left in three seconds" is not chatter of course. When it gets busy, the other people will put a stop to irrelevant or extended radio chatter very quickly with a sharp comment.

rw2 wrote:

mtv wrote:In the US, 122.75 and 122.85 have for decades been designated as air to air frequencies.

Check the AIM again. I discovered this morning while researching that 122.85 was delisted sometime in the 2000's (i.e. it was in the 1999 AIM, but is not in the 2013 one).

Agreed on the rest of your note.

Well, we still have FAA authorization to use it for that purpose. And actually, it was always listed slightly different than.75.

It's not otherwise assigned, near as I can tell.

MTV

EZFlap wrote:Simple comments like "Jim, do you have me in sight under your left wing?", or "Turning left in three seconds" is not chatter of course. When it gets busy, the other people will put a stop to irrelevant or extended radio chatter very quickly with a sharp comment.

That's true sometimes. I've seen many times, however, where you literally could not get a word in any way you tried....sharp or not. If you don't believe that, attend a fly in sometime and monitor 123.45.

It can be really frustrating sometimes.

We can all take a clue from military aviators. Robin Olds was quoted as saying "All I ever want to hear from that kid on my wing is.... "Two" meaning I acknowledge and will comply, "Bingo" meaning he's out of fuel, and "Lead's on fire". NOTHING else.

MTV

mtv wrote:

rw2 wrote:

mtv wrote:In the US, 122.75 and 122.85 have for decades been designated as air to air frequencies.

Check the AIM again. I discovered this morning while researching that 122.85 was delisted sometime in the 2000's (i.e. it was in the 1999 AIM, but is not in the 2013 one).

Agreed on the rest of your note.

Well, we still have FAA authorization to use it for that purpose. And actually, it was always listed slightly different than.75.

It's not otherwise assigned, near as I can tell.

Where do you see that authorization? In the past they were both listed in the same spot (AIM 4.1.11), but no more.

Peeking into the 2005 FAR/AIM, it looks like 122.85 is still OK:
AIM 4-1-11 b 2, table 4-1-3
air-to-air 122.750, 122.850
air-to-air (GA helos) 123.025
aviation instruction, glider, balloon 123.300, 123.500

hotrod150 wrote:Peeking into the 2005 FAR/AIM, it looks like 122.85 is still OK:
AIM 4-1-11 b 2, table 4-1-3
air-to-air 122.750, 122.850
air-to-air (GA helos) 123.025
aviation instruction, glider, balloon 123.300, 123.500

2012 doesn't have it. http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publicat ... IM/aim.pdf

hotrod150 wrote:Peeking into the 2005 FAR/AIM, it looks like 122.85 is still OK:
AIM 4-1-11 b 2, table 4-1-3
air-to-air 122.750, 122.850
air-to-air (GA helos) 123.025
aviation instruction, glider, balloon 123.300, 123.500

Out of the latest FAR AIM

TBL 4-1-3
Other Frequency Usage Designated by FCC

Use

Frequency

Air-to-air communication
(private fixed wing aircraft).

122.750

Air-to-air communications
(general aviation helicopters).

123.025

Aviation instruction, Glider, Hot Air Balloon (not to be used for advisory service).

123.300
123.500

You guys are still beating this one up??

Seems like a pretty simple solution to me. I guess the freq we use when we have a lot of planes on one of our circuits is still top secret. We have never heard another on it and I seriously doubt that anyone has heard us. If so, I would imagine they are entertained while flying out in that lonely space.

AKT

Maybe this will help shed some light on this conversation. If your interested in seeing the latest aviation frequency designations, go straight to the folks who assign & license them (FCC)... but as AkTahoe said, as long as you aren't disturbing the peace on a little used frequency, you'll likely go unnoticed. I know this is a shocker, but it appears the AIM can be out of sync with FCC regs based on the revision cycles. Here's what I found in the latest FCC update:

http://www.ecfr.gov/

Re: 122.85 - This is a Mulitcom frequency that has also been assigned air-to-air & air-to-ground support functions:

§ 87.187 Frequencies.
(bb) "The frequencies 121.950 MHz, 122.850 MHz and 127.050 1 MHz are authorized for air-to-air use for aircraft up to and including 3 km (10,000 ft) mean sea level in the vicinity of Grand Canyon National Park in Arizona..."
(4) "The frequency 122.850 MHz is authorized for aircraft over and within five nautical miles of the shoreline of the Hawaiian Island of Hawaii..."

§ 87.241
(c) The frequency 122.775 MHz and, secondary to aeronautical multicom stations, the frequency 122.850 MHz are available for assignment to aviation support stations. These frequencies may be used for communications between aviation service organizations and aircraft in the airport area.

It also notes that 123.45 is currently an unused frequency available for "assignment to flight test land and aircraft stations." (87.303)

MTNWEST wrote:Maybe this will help shed some light on this conversation. If your interested in seeing the latest aviation frequency designations, go straight to the folks who assign & license them (FCC)... but as AkTahoe said, as long as you aren't disturbing the peace on a little used frequency, you'll likely go unnoticed. I know this is a shocker, but it appears the AIM can be out of sync with FCC regs based on the revision cycles. Here's what I found in the latest FCC update:

http://www.ecfr.gov/

Re: 122.85 - This is a Mulitcom frequency that has also been assigned air-to-air & air-to-ground support functions:

§ 87.187 Frequencies.
(bb) "The frequencies 121.950 MHz, 122.850 MHz and 127.050 1 MHz are authorized for air-to-air use for aircraft up to and including 3 km (10,000 ft) mean sea level in the vicinity of Grand Canyon National Park in Arizona..."
(4) "The frequency 122.850 MHz is authorized for aircraft over and within five nautical miles of the shoreline of the Hawaiian Island of Hawaii..."

§ 87.241
(c) The frequency 122.775 MHz and, secondary to aeronautical multicom stations, the frequency 122.850 MHz are available for assignment to aviation support stations. These frequencies may be used for communications between aviation service organizations and aircraft in the airport area.

It also notes that 123.45 is currently an unused frequency available for "assignment to flight test land and aircraft stations." (87.303)

It would appear that says that you can use 122.85 only near the grand canyon and hawaii or by assignment. So that would make the AIM in sync, right? It is no longer a general air to air frequency?