Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
By Gasbag
#1878085
I think there are some rose coloured specs or blinkers on here about Unicom.
Having suffered many hundreds of hours all across the US listening to the “Is that you Walt? Haven’t seen you in ages, how’s Martha?” type rubbish -along with I have to admit, some text book calls- I really don’t think they are the paragon of virtue that some here think. The same problem of not announcing where you are I have heard people taking evasive action for someone in a circuit 100 miles away as they couldn’t see them!
More discipline please (Matron)!
ls8pilot liked this
User avatar
By Rob P
#1878115
My base uses the glider common frequency and most of my calls run ...

<click> "Tibenham traffic. Van's X-Ray Bravo re-joining from the south, five minutes to run" <click> pause <click> "Tibenham" <click>

Rob P :oops:
By PaulisHome
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1878145
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.


I agree. Unfortunately, the relevant part of the CAA require you to provide an AGCS if you want your own frequency. That means you have to have enough trained people.

Of course, that flies in the face of the fact that there are lots of airfields with their own frequency who rarely if ever have anyone on the radio, and what is actually required is not an AGCS, but simply a frequency on which pilots can co-ordinate between themselves.

There are lots of frequencies, and relatively few airfields that need that, so it wouldn't be a problem.

Paul
T6Harvard liked this
User avatar
By PeteSpencer
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1878147
Thanks to vintage atco, our strip had its own radio frequency (121.175) for a day when we hosted a visit of 388th BG Vets and their relatives in 2003: :wink:

Knettishall radio' did sound a bit grand!
kanga liked this
User avatar
By cotterpot
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1878150
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/
By PaulisHome
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1878173
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/


It is unfortunately true.

I know of one gliding club who applied for and got their own frequency, and had it taken away from them when it was discovered that they didn't have any/enough qualified operators. That's in the last year. I've been in communication with the CAA about the generality of it, and they're unmoving.

As I said in the earlier post, there are plenty of places with a frequency and no operator. It's just that they had to have had an operator to get it in the first place.

It doesn't actually make sense.

Paul
User avatar
By lobstaboy
#1878176
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.
By PaulisHome
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1878227
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
User avatar
By lobstaboy
#1878249
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


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 - and to be legal it must have a radio transmitting station licence and a radio operator licenced to use it.
The way the legislation is structured means that licences are granted to radio transmitting stations. Without a radio transmitting station there is nothing to grant a licence to. So no frequency can be allocated.
In other words they can't simply allocate a frequency to an airfield, it has to have a radio transmitting station and that necessitates a licenced operator.
(radio station here doesn't mean anything big with masts and aerials - it can be a person with a handheld as long as the paperwork is in place)
There isn't really a part of the act to refer to - it's a result of the structure and inbuilt assumptions.
I am not defending this state of affairs, far from it, just explaining a Yes, Minister! issue.
User avatar
By HedgeSparrow
#1878261
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?
User avatar
By lobstaboy
#1878263
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?


Safetycom fits because the licenced radio transmitting stations that can use it are in aircraft. No problem with that since they are licenced to transmit anywhere on the airband 118 to 137MHz. But no ground station can transmit on Safetycom. And the aircraft may not have a two way conversation since they are not generally licenced for air to air communications (except for a few situations which we've covered already).

Like I said, I'm not defending the way they are applying the rules, just giving a bit more background. @PaulisHome says he's asked them and they've said no. I guess that asking for multiple Safetycom frequencies (which is what you'd be asking for) doesn'tmake sense to them. (You also have to bear in mind that the government require Ofcom to make money from the issuing of licences - having multiple Safetycom doesn't support that aim).
Last edited by lobstaboy on Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:51 pm, edited 2 times in total.