lobstaboy wrote: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.
I'm not arguing with this - just trying to understand it.
So there's no actual legislation - it's merely CAA / Ofcom interpretation? But they clearly don't need a specific radio for Safetycom or any of the gliding frequencies, so I don't see why they couldn't do the same for an airfield.
But I think you're right about it being at least in in the inbuilt assumptions - I was met with a degree of incomprehension when I tried to argue the point.
Paul