123.4 and 123.45 (Finger & Fingers)

Jim Rosenow said:
OK...air-to-air is 122.75. What if I want to communicate from a handheld (on the ground) to my wife in an airplane? Just curious...thanks!

Jim

...and what do I call myself if I'm not in an airplane? :)
Click to expand...

Depends. The frequencies 123.3 and 123.5 are used for "flight instruction" which is rather loosely defined. Unfortunately, they haven't given any direction on what a ground station should be using as ident AND there is a ground station application (and concomitant fee) to get the ground station. Having said that, you would be illegal to have your ground station identify as
"N1234XY Ground". That way if anybody objected (like the flight school at the airport where you are transmitting) they can at least call you to discuss the matter. If they are on .3 you can always go to .5 to keep them happy. Mind you I'm not condoning it but since we seem to have our fair share of cowboys in this thread you might as well join the herd.

You might want to read the section on 122.9 Multicom if you feel more comfortable violating that section.

There are a plethora of quasi-legal ways to communicate, but 123.4 and 123.45 are pretty iron-clad in regulation.

Jim
 
C-1 PILOT said:
Cant say if it’s still in use these days, but 123.45 “BEACH BALL” was used on the north and south shores of Long Island for over 25 years by GA pilots. Never heard a peep out of Grumman in Peconick or the FCC for that matter.
Click to expand...

And people on the freeways on the north and south shores of Long Island were doing 70-75 in the 65.. It is pretty juvenile to pass off improper behavior with the 2nd grade "But everybody was doing it" excuse.

There are 5 frequencies that the FCC can assign to a manufacturer and the mfg. does NOT get to pick and choose. There is a frequency coordinator for every square inch of the USA and they are charged with maintaining the best mix of frequencies for a given station in a given location. It is entirely probable that the Grumman Iron Works was not affected. I know for a fact that Boeing in Renton is on this frequency and I believe that we used .4 and .45 at Bellanca in Alexandria when we were doing brass tube antenna testing in their wood wings. I do not claim encyclopedic knowledge of who is assigned what frequencies.

Jim
 
Last edited:
Velocity173 said:
Who are the “professionals” that you hear violating this rule?
Click to expand...
I'll exempt students because they know no better, but anybody that has a ticket in their pocket from private on up should consider themselves professional. Just my HO.

Jim
 
The guard Nazis and idiot regional pilots on 121.5 are much bigger issue than people using fingers to chit chat.
 
C-1 PILOT said:
Cant say if it’s still in use these days, but 123.45 “BEACH BALL” was used on the north and south shores of Long Island for over 25 years by GA pilots. Never heard a peep out of Grumman in Peconick or the FCC for that matter.
Click to expand...
We always used UHF operating out of Navy Peconic :cool:

Nauga,
on cheap suit
 
nauga said:
We always used UHF operating out of Navy Peconic :cool:

Nauga,
on cheap suit
Click to expand...

In the 80’s we were told there were civilian contractor operations assigned 123.45 working out of Peconic. It was an issue back then as I remember. Nothing ever came of it. The banner tows used it all the time and they weren’t authorized to be on the frequency.
 
weirdjim said:
And people on the freeways on the north and south shores of Long Island were doing 70-75 in the 65.. It is pretty juvenile to pass off improper behavior with the 2nd grade "But everybody was doing it" excuse.

There are 5 frequencies that the FCC can assign to a manufacturer and the mfg. does NOT get to pick and choose. There is a frequency coordinator for every square inch of the USA and they are charged with maintaining the best mix of frequencies for a given station in a given location. It is entirely probable that the Grumman Iron Works was not affected. I know for a fact that Boeing in Renton is on this frequency and I believe that we used .4 and .45 at Bellanca in Alexandria when we were doing brass tube antenna testing in their wood wings. I do not claim encyclopedic knowledge of who is assigned what frequencies.

Jim
Click to expand...

You get no argument from me Jim.
 
Jim Rosenow said:
OK...air-to-air is 122.75. What if I want to communicate from a handheld (on the ground) to my wife in an airplane? Just curious...thanks!

Jim

...and what do I call myself if I'm not in an airplane? :)
Click to expand...

You apply for a mobile station license and it will be assigned a call sign.

I’ve never seen FCC too fired up about proper ground station call sign use, but they have and do fine people for not having the station license.
 
By the way if you don’t have a copy of an ancient browser with Java 1.6, don’t bother trying to apply for an aeronautical fixed license. The frakking FCC website won’t work.

Most pro radio shops will charge something to do it for you and keep an old computer around to do it.

I have helped a couple of personal friends with doing it for an airshow and some glider stuff but I hate it. If I offered to help do it for a fee, the fee would not be cheap.

It wastes a number of hours of my time every year, so you’d better be a good friend or paying heavily. Ha.
 
As arcane as ULS is, you don't need too ancient of a browser. Firefox ESR 52 is the official one.
 
denverpilot said:
By the way if you don’t have a copy of an ancient browser with Java 1.6, don’t bother trying to apply for an aeronautical fixed license. The frakking FCC website won’t work.

Most pro radio shops will charge something to do it for you and keep an old computer around to do it.

I have helped a couple of personal friends with doing it for an airshow and some glider stuff but I hate it. If I offered to help do it for a fee, the fee would not be cheap.

It wastes a number of hours of my time every year, so you’d better be a good friend or paying heavily. Ha.
Click to expand...
While I do not condone illegal operation, Nate, you've got to believe that one or two "Honey, I'm over the house, can you see me" to a handheld on the ground on 122.9, 123.3, 123.5, or 122.9 isn't going to be an earthshaking event.

The same communication on 123.4 or 123.45 that destroys an hour or two of hard data and flight test may not be earthshaking to you, but if I am in the middle of a critical antenna test OR a type acceptance test on a new device, it sure as HELL is critical to me. And I've had my share of them over the last 40 years.

Make you a deal ... teach me how to do the new fixed license application and I'll do it for free to any EAA member AND I'll write it up as a Kitplanes article so my colleagues can do it legally. I simply do the "renew" gig every 5 years and pay the (grumble, *****, moan) fee and that's all it takes.

I'll probably persuade my Kitplanes editor that I should submit it to Sport Aviation a few months later as a public service with a reference to the prior publication.

Jim
 
Last edited:
flyingron said:
As arcane as ULS is, you don't need too ancient of a browser. Firefox ESR 52 is the official one.
Click to expand...

The AF license is NOT handled by ULS. It’s handled by a sub-interface that ULS hands off to.

Feel free to try it if you like, Jim. I’ve been applying for AF licenses now for a number of years.

I guarantee you, you won’t get past loading the digital form completion step with any version of Java that’s been released recently.

It has absolutely nothing to do with the browser.

[edit: I just realized this was Ron I was replying to and not Jim, but the information is still correct.]
 
Last edited:
weirdjim said:
Make you a deal ... teach me how to do the new fixed license application and I'll do it for free to any EAA member AND I'll write it up as a Kitplanes article so my colleagues can do it legally.
Click to expand...

I can do you one better. There’s an FAA doc on how to apply for the FCC license (after you have FAA frequency coordination approval first) for air shows. You can probably find it with Google or I can link it. It’s an AF license. Even FAA realized the FCC site is impossible to navigate for anyone doing an airshow.

So, it has step by step instructions for everything in the Java app you have to use that is linked to from inside ULS.

You won’t be able to get the Java app to load without a ten year old copy of Java.

That’s where my friend got stopped years ago and called me. I figured out how to get an ancient Java version on to an even more ancient laptop who’s only job each year is to be pulled out the closet and fill out his AF application.

It’s not the instructions that are hard to come by.

It’s the idiot coder who wrote the Java app who didn’t say “greater than” instead of “equals to” in his app checking to see what version of Java it’s running under.

And yes. I wrote this problem up in a letter explaining that it was a simple fix for any Java coder and to please pass the information I gathered troubleshooting it along to the software team for the App. That was five years ago.

I figure even with government stupidity it should have made its way to someone clueful’s desk by now.

I even detailed the exact clickpath to the error and an explanation of how to fix it.

All the stupid Java app even does is fill out a form. It could be replaced with a native web app in about an hour worth of work by any decent web coder.

I even tried to move this into a VM. Oracle no longer has the absolutely dead version of Java needed available for download, even on their “archived versions” site.

FCC simply needs to update their form generator app and bring it into the modern world. You know why they probably haven’t? “Metrics”. The call center doesn’t get enough complaints about that part of the website because the number of AF station licenses applied for is nearly zero.

Meanwhile, IF it worked... you need a letter of coordination from the local FSDO who kicks it to the regional FAA frequency coordinator, before you can apply to the FCC. That’s hoop number one. Takes a month to a couple of months usually each year, for an airshow.

For mom and pop to apply for a fixed license to call mom and say you picked up donuts? I doubt FAA regional will approve it very quickly if at all. But someone could get lucky. It needs to have a “safety” purpose.
 
P.S. The FCC portion of that document is in the Appendix, section 8. Ironic.
 
denverpilot said:
The AF license is NOT handled by ULS. It’s handled by a sub-interface that ULS hands off to.

Feel free to try it if you like, Jim. I’ve been applying for AF licenses now for a number of years.

I guarantee you, you won’t get past loading the digital form completion step with any version of Java that’s been released recently.

It has absolutely nothing to do with the browser.
Click to expand...

I don' wanna' get into a catfight over what software to use. Just tell me how to apply for ground station licenses (mostly for EAA chapters that can then authorize their members to use the chapter license).
Jim
 
weirdjim said:
I don' wanna' get into a catfight over what software to use. Just tell me how to apply for ground station licenses (mostly for EAA chapters that can then authorize their members to use the chapter license).
Jim
Click to expand...

I did. See document linked above. Good luck.
 
weirdjim said:
It all depends on whether you are talking about Sally's ribs or the ribs at Sally"s/ :cheerswine:
Click to expand...

Fair enough. In that case, if you have to ask where Sally’s ribs are, then I really “meant how are the ribs at Sally’s!” ;-)
 
What is wrong with accepting license assignments and restrictions. We seem to fight so hard for something that is wrong. ATITPPA
 
ejensen said:
What is wrong with accepting license assignments and restrictions. We seem to fight so hard for something that is wrong. ATITPPA
Click to expand...

I think lost pilots are just clueless about FCC licenses and restrictions because FCC gives aviation so much leeway they never see it.

In anything else in life that uses radios, everyone in those pursuits knows to apply for and follow FCCs regs, however dumb they might be.

Just like all sorts of pilots follow and have no problems with FAA regs, no matter how dumb they might be.

See thread on Presidential TFRs. Or worse, the asinine Disney ones. Pretty dumb stuff, accepted as normal by those who deal more with FAA than FCC in their hobby or work.
 

Actually, I have a 'restricted radiotelephone operator' license....back in the early 70's it was a required part of the pilot package. I realize that does not authorize a ground station, of course.

Thanks for the info, Jim W....it's just odd I can sit in one airplane on the ground and talk to her legally in the air....step outside on the hand-held...illegal. FAA/FCC/F?? have done stranger things, tho!

Jim
 
Last edited:
In the age of ADSB it’s going to be a LOT easier to tell who’s been where. If someone really feels strongly and wants to make some noise about this they’ll have the tools.
 
My first thought about the OP? Who cares? My thoughts now after reading much of the tread? Not me. Guys up here use 123.45 all the time. Probably more than 122.75. As long as they keep the chit chat off of the local CTAF frequencies I’m happy.
 
Jim Rosenow said:
...and what do I call myself if I'm not in an airplane? :)
Click to expand...

In the marine world, all portables were linked to a legal base station. Your call would be (legal base station callsign) PORTABLE. or PORTABLE 1, PORTABLE 2, etc. if there was more than one portable unit working.

This is admittedly ancient information. Things may have changed.

-Skip
 
So it sounds to me like we now have a PoA Blue Falcon and he is banging the drum.
 
There are frequencies designed for air-to-air and we should use them. Fair enough.

That said, I don't think anyone needs to be writing their congressman about this one. Heh.
 
Just wondering what is stopping the air to ground testing people from simply telling Sally's patrons to get the F off the frequency?
 
Timbeck2 said:
Just wondering what is stopping the air to ground testing people from simply telling Sally's patrons to get the F off the frequency?
Click to expand...
I guess it's easier to identify and prosecute them. o_O
 
Ryan F. said:
There are frequencies designed for air-to-air and we should use them. Fair enough.

That said, I don't think anyone needs to be writing their congressman about this one. Heh.
Click to expand...

Assigned by FCC yes and nobody should be calling anyone unless it interferes with safe operations of the licensee.
 
Timbeck2 said:
Just wondering what is stopping the air to ground testing people from simply telling Sally's patrons to get the F off the frequency?
Click to expand...

By the time the outlaw has spoken and could be scolded the data has already been ruined.
 
denverpilot said:
I can do you one better. There’s an FAA doc on how to apply for the FCC license (after you have FAA frequency coordination approval first) for air shows. You can probably find it with Google or I can link it. It’s an AF license. Even FAA realized the FCC site is impossible to navigate for anyone doing an airshow.

So, it has step by step instructions for everything in the Java app you have to use that is linked to from inside ULS.

You won’t be able to get the Java app to load without a ten year old copy of Java.

That’s where my friend got stopped years ago and called me. I figured out how to get an ancient Java version on to an even more ancient laptop who’s only job each year is to be pulled out the closet and fill out his AF application.

It’s not the instructions that are hard to come by.

It’s the idiot coder who wrote the Java app who didn’t say “greater than” instead of “equals to” in his app checking to see what version of Java it’s running under.

And yes. I wrote this problem up in a letter explaining that it was a simple fix for any Java coder and to please pass the information I gathered troubleshooting it along to the software team for the App. That was five years ago.

I figure even with government stupidity it should have made its way to someone clueful’s desk by now.

I even detailed the exact clickpath to the error and an explanation of how to fix it.

All the stupid Java app even does is fill out a form. It could be replaced with a native web app in about an hour worth of work by any decent web coder.

I even tried to move this into a VM. Oracle no longer has the absolutely dead version of Java needed available for download, even on their “archived versions” site.

FCC simply needs to update their form generator app and bring it into the modern world. You know why they probably haven’t? “Metrics”. The call center doesn’t get enough complaints about that part of the website because the number of AF station licenses applied for is nearly zero.

Meanwhile, IF it worked... you need a letter of coordination from the local FSDO who kicks it to the regional FAA frequency coordinator, before you can apply to the FCC. That’s hoop number one. Takes a month to a couple of months usually each year, for an airshow.

For mom and pop to apply for a fixed license to call mom and say you picked up donuts? I doubt FAA regional will approve it very quickly if at all. But someone could get lucky. It needs to have a “safety” purpose.
Click to expand...

If it' a Java app, seems like it would be simple to just write a quick page to generate the same data it does. A little packet sniffing, a little bytecode decompiling, problem solved?
 
arnoha said:
If it' a Java app, seems like it would be simple to just write a quick page to generate the same data it does. A little packet sniffing, a little bytecode decompiling, problem solved?
Click to expand...

Secured connection. Have fun with that if you feel like doing that much work.
 
denverpilot said:
Secured connection. Have fun with that if you feel like doing that much work.
Click to expand...

Secure or not shouldn't matter. It's from the in-browser app, so I'm guessing it's just an HTTPS endpoint. That means it looks the same whether the browser is feeding the server or the app is, unless they've done something clever. Which I doubt. Still seems like less work than getting Java 6 running!

Actually, seriously, you have the link to the jar?
 
Jim

You don't need to use the aviation bands for the data and I'm sure you are well aware of that. If it's so important, your company must have their own frequency allocation. All your arguments remind me of a dog biting at a stream of water from a hose. Funny to watch, but the dog really doesn't like that damn water.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top