Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
User avatar
By Irv Lee
#1662628
@CloudHound Yes but as the pilot will have a cut up lapl slotted into his multi page licence holder and is flying to a future rating expiry date signed in it rather than rolling validity, and using a self declare medical on a flight from the Channel Islands to the mainland in an easa aircraft, there might not be room on the charge sheet for the 8.33 issue
Last edited by Irv Lee on Fri Jan 04, 2019 9:47 am, edited 1 time in total.
Kittyhawk, Nick, Paul_Sengupta and 7 others liked this
User avatar
By GrahamB
#1662630
riverrock wrote:My French is far from perfect but does this mean that the deadline for the French is later than ours?
https://www.aerovfr.com/2018/02/radio-8 ... inferieur/
Have we again gold plated early?

No gold plating by the CAA, it's EU law, the French are just exercising their right to delay a bit. You can get the AIC in English on the DGAC-SIA site, or SkyDemon.

Don't forget it's thanks to AOPA and the CAA that we managed to get a rebate on some of the costs; the French didn't. It wouldn't surprise me if the quid pro quo were a timely implementation by the CAA.

The whole bloody thing is an exercise in gold plating, but at an EU level, as demonstrated by the US not needing to go to 8.33Khz.
kanga liked this
User avatar
By kanga
#1662675
GrahamB wrote:..

The whole bloody thing is an exercise in gold plating, but at an EU level, as demonstrated by the US not needing to go to 8.33Khz.


.. because the 28 (soon 27 ? :wink: ) sovereign member Nations of the EU are more 'sovereign' than the notionally sovereign 50 States (and some Territories) of the US. In the latter, the Federal Government (FCC, but coordinated with FAA) has insisted on administering the issue of all (not just Air-Ground VHF Band) frequency allocations including 'deconfliction'* at a central, Federal, level; whereas EU Governments have insisted on continuing to do it on a piecemeal, National, level. In UK, of course, we have the additional, possibly unique to UK, further complication of both OfCom and CAA being required by Treasury to charge fees (and make a profit) on users for the administration of our national schemes.

*AIUI, it is because of (some) EU member Governments' refusal to surrender to EASA/Eurocontrol the right to control traffic (FIRs still follow national boundaries; they do not follow State boundaries in US) and so allocate relevant Air-Ground frequencies that more such frequencies are needed to prevent mutual interference from traffic working adjacent ground stations. With central coordination as in US, those extra frequencies would not have been necessary.

So the 'gold-plating' is not by the EU itself, but on the insistence of at least some Governments of member Nations on their right to do their own things. Of course, some may applaud such a decision not to surrender such sovereignty, whatever the complications and expense which may arise. :roll:
T67M, Cowshed liked this
User avatar
By skydriller
#1662689
riverrock wrote:My French is far from perfect but does this mean that the deadline for the French is later than ours?
https://www.aerovfr.com/2018/02/radio-8 ... inferieur/
Have we again gold plated early?


Indeed it has been delayed to 2020, BUT I believe its airspace dependant, there are now some frequencies coming online that are 8.33 here in France, as I have seen a NOTAM to that effect for ATIS and Gnd at Bordeaux..

Additionally, I am informed that the French are now getting some form of rebate similar to the UK this year.

Regards, SD..
By riverrock
#1662705
On USA vs Europe - we have a much higher density of flights, as well airports with their own ACSs compared to USA, concentrated in a circle with a circumference between Oxford and Frankfurt. That includes 4 of the 15 busiest airports in the world within radio range of each other when aircraft are at cruise altitudes. Apparently organising a single new en-route frequency / channel can require changing at least 5 other providers and it has been getting exponentially harder to do this - hence the need for 8.33.
kanga liked this
By chevvron
#1662714
kanga wrote:
GrahamB wrote:..

The whole bloody thing is an exercise in gold plating, but at an EU level, as demonstrated by the US not needing to go to 8.33Khz.


.. because the 28 (soon 27 ? :wink: ) sovereign member Nations of the EU are more 'sovereign' than the notionally sovereign 50 States (and some Territories) of the US. In the latter, the Federal Government (FCC, but coordinated with FAA) has insisted on administering the issue of all (not just Air-Ground VHF Band) frequency allocations including 'deconfliction'* at a central, Federal, level; whereas EU Governments have insisted on continuing to do it on a piecemeal, National, level. In UK, of course, we have the additional, possibly unique to UK, further complication of both OfCom and CAA being required by Treasury to charge fees (and make a profit) on users for the administration of our national schemes.

*AIUI, it is because of (some) EU member Governments' refusal to surrender to EASA/Eurocontrol the right to control traffic (FIRs still follow national boundaries; they do not follow State boundaries in US) and so allocate relevant Air-Ground frequencies that more such frequencies are needed to prevent mutual interference from traffic working adjacent ground stations. With central coordination as in US, those extra frequencies would not have been necessary.

So the 'gold-plating' is not by the EU itself, but on the insistence of at least some Governments of member Nations on their right to do their own things. Of course, some may applaud such a decision not to surrender such sovereignty, whatever the complications and expense which may arise. :roll:

I was told long ago (when requesting extra frequencies for the Farnborough Airshow) that frequency allocations in the UK were co-ordinated by the International Telecommunications Union via the CAA in order to ensure adjacent countries didn't allocate frequencies which interfered with each other.
Mind you it didn't work sometimes as one year the CAA gave us a '136' mHz frequency already in use as an airline ops frequency at Luton! :roll:
By riverrock
#1662728
riverrock wrote:Eurocontrol coordinate it across the EU for both frequencies and Mode-A codes. https://publish.eurocontrol.int/service ... management
ITU says which frequencies are for "Aviation".

I should say - coordination doesn't necessarily mean "allocate".
"Network managers" (OFCOM now for us?) use these Eurocontrol resources to ensure that allocation wont involve conflict. Issue is that it is near impossible to allocate new channels without conflict in central areas, so Eurocontrol help coordinate the changes required to the channels allocated to other stations (potentially in multiple countries) to allow a new station to get a channel. Changes, and we are talking about 5+ now, can take many months to be propagated (NOTAMS, AIP changes etc) so have become pretty difficult. The system is at pretty much max capacity, until the majority of the 25khz channels can become 8.33, when capacity triples.
User avatar
By ls8pilot
#1662795
T67M wrote:Is it only me who finds it odd that the BGA has 5 channels allocated and has request a further 4 channels, but powered aircraft still don't have even one channel allocated for coordination of formation flights?


Sounds like a good idea.

I assume the BGA pay something for these channels (although I might be wrong) - there are also channels for balloons, microlights, parachuting etc. The BGA is funded by a levy on each club (based on number of members), so a typical club will pay a several thousand pounds/annum to the BGA.

I guess the issue is that there is no single "sporting" body for GA, although maybe LAA could take this up? Especially with the additional channels available it would be one return on the investment in 8.33kHz radios if there were a small number of general use channels for GA use.
By Crash one
#1663254
I wish someone could explain why there is need for dedicated radio frequencies depending on aircraft type?
Microlight frequencies, glider frequencies, para drop, safetycom in the vicinity of airfields without a dedicated freq, etc.
I can understand the need for a freq per airfield, or enroute information but why on Earth a separate freq depending on type of aircraft when all these types are flying in the same airspace?
How on earth can anyone build a situation picture when listening to only one of them?
Can I have a dedicated freq for yellow Emerauds?
Serious question!
By Crash one
#1663267
Irv Lee wrote:
Crash one wrote:How on earth can anyone build a situation picture when listening to only one of them?

Electronic Conspicuity!


Tongue in cheek there I would guess.
And how many different protocols are there with that debacle?
By Crash one
#1663272
Come to think of it, why (seriously why, cos I’m not a tech wiz kid) can EC not use a dedicated aviation freq to transmit position?
We would all receive a load of garble in the headset if we set it on the radio but the electronics would understand it?
User avatar
By ls8pilot
#1663292
Crash one wrote:I wish someone could explain why there is need for dedicated radio frequencies depending on aircraft type?
Microlight frequencies, glider frequencies, para drop, safetycom in the vicinity of airfields without a dedicated freq, etc.
I can understand the need for a freq per airfield, or enroute information but why on Earth a separate freq depending on type of aircraft when all these types are flying in the same airspace?
How on earth can anyone build a situation picture when listening to only one of them?
Can I have a dedicated freq for yellow Emerauds?
Serious question!


If you listen to the gliding frequencies on a summers day you will know why! They are very busy with all sorts of messages - only a small proportion of which would be useful to build situational awareness.

Different frequencies are used for different purposes (competition start/finish, lead and follow, general cross country, local flying, circuits etc). The issue is the average radio from 4000ft has a range which covers about half the country, so even if every pilot makes 1 transmission / hour you get swamped.
By chevvron
#1663304
ls8pilot wrote:If you listen to the gliding frequencies on a summers day you will know why! They are very busy with all sorts of messages - only a small proportion of which would be useful to build situational awareness.

Different frequencies are used for different purposes (competition start/finish, lead and follow, general cross country, local flying, circuits etc). The issue is the average radio from 4000ft has a range which covers about half the country, so even if every pilot makes 1 transmission / hour you get swamped.

Have to agree there. When I did a gliding course at Little Rissington we used 129.975 as an a/g channel but there were a lot of people doing cross country flying using it too and blocking it.
The BGA say that 129.975 should only be used for local flights in the vicinity of an airfield, not for cross country flying.