Sat Oct 23, 2021 8:18 pm
#1878060
We could call it JonnyCom; £7.50 a we... mon... ah, who knows.
terryws wrote:Why not a "Flyer Club" frequency?
T
Sooty25 wrote:It would help if more small airfields got their own frequencies to reduce the use of safetycom. As mentioned by @PaulisHome there are plenty available.
cotterpot wrote:Paulis home - Is that true? - We have a frequency with no operator
plus there is this but don't know how relevant
With the exception of providing Information for parachutists a Radio Operator's Certificate of Competence issued by the UK CAA is not required in order to use an aeronautical radio station when providing an OPC communications service; however Article 205 of the ANO is still relevant and places requirements upon operators to be competent. In addition some Recreation Aviation Organisations require members to meet their own competence requirements and reference should be made to the relevant organisation.
https://www.caa.co.uk/Commercial-indust ... -stations/
lobstaboy wrote:It doesn't make sense from a user convenience and safety point of view. It's an unfortunate consequence of the WT Act. Radio stations are the entities that are licenced to operate on a certain frequency (or frequencies) and you can't have a radio station without at least one qualified operator. So an aerodrome without a qualified radio operator can't have a radio station and so it can't have a frequency.
Similarly it is not legal for someone on the ground to use a handheld to transmit on Safetycom.
It's probably unfair to blame the CAA - it's Ofcom that says what the WT Act means.
All very stupid.
PaulisHome wrote:lobstaboy wrote:It doesn't make sense from a user convenience and safety point of view. It's an unfortunate consequence of the WT Act. Radio stations are the entities that are licenced to operate on a certain frequency (or frequencies) and you can't have a radio station without at least one qualified operator. So an aerodrome without a qualified radio operator can't have a radio station and so it can't have a frequency.
Similarly it is not legal for someone on the ground to use a handheld to transmit on Safetycom.
It's probably unfair to blame the CAA - it's Ofcom that says what the WT Act means.
All very stupid.
I still don't understand - because who said anything about a radio station?
What we need is airfields to have discrete frequencies that aircraft can use. That doesn't require the airfield to have a radio station.
[BTW - can you point to the relevant bit of the WT act? Not disputing what you've said - just interested].
Paul
lobstaboy wrote:Sorry, let me try again. The WT Act and Ofcom relate to radio stations - meaning entities licenced to transmit. For example your aircraft can be a radio station (etc)
HedgeSparrow wrote:lobstaboy wrote:Sorry, let me try again. The WT Act and Ofcom relate to radio stations - meaning entities licenced to transmit. For example your aircraft can be a radio station (etc)
I'm with @PaulisHome at present. Where does Safetycom fit in that scenario?
Similarly, why can't there be an equivalent for situational awareness between airborne radio stations within X miles of a particular location eg a farm strip?