Finger (123.4) and Fingers (123.45)

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Please knock it off. You pose impractical solutions, and then get upset when someone in the field tells you, with no knowledge in the field, where to go? If you don't like his replies to you in a thread he started, you are free to ignore it.

You've also taken things out of context, claiming that someone was argumentum ab auctoritate when he merely mentioned they were a scientist in another thread, so this is like the pot calling the kettle black.

Sorry, I will continue to call people out who engage in ad hominem attacks when directed at me.

Not only is that a logical fallacy, it is rude and a violation of the terms is service on this site.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Peter....you think you’re being polite while still not understanding Jim’s problem is not being polite. None of the suggestions offered here to “help Jim” here are practical nor reasonable. Jim has a critical problem that impacts his livelyhood. His problem is a reminder that regardless what people have been doing for years, decades even, it violates FCC rules. Would you have the same attitude if the local emergency frequencies were tied up with irrelevant conversation that also violated FCC rules....while in the midst of a disaster and your house is burning and you can’t get in contact with your family?

Jim’s aggravated...so what if you don’t like his attitude. Lots of us come here to vent. At least he has a better reason than most.

I understand his wanting to vent. Everyone needs to sometimes. I initially just provided a gentle reminder that it might be best not to do so by attacking people who are sympathetic to his plight and are at least trying to help. He just doubled down.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Really? What made that a personal attack?

Quoting someone while stating that people are clueless is accusing that person of being clueless. That is referring to a personal characteristic of the speaker, rather than addressing issue at hand, and thus formally an ad hominem fallacy. Certainly not close to the worst that we see here, but a violation of the terms of service on thus site.

 

[kgruber]

...............There are no other frequencies to be handed out. Every single frequency is allocated (often more than once)...................

Is that list published?

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Did anyone else notice the contortion of logic in that sentence?

Sorry, perhaps a bit of an awkward construction. If my meaning was not clear, I can clarify at greater length.

I think @weirdjim is quite upset about this with people stepping on his assigned frequency and thereby violating FCC regulations, causing a loss of time and money for his company.

I suspect that trying to think of some perhaps out of the box solutions might help him avoid these losses.

However, he appears to be so angry and feels so outraged that he is not able to consider those alternatives because he is fixated on how he is in the right.

Does that clarify that position?

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

I get the frustration but the reality is “fingers” has been stollen by the chatty pilots everywhere. You can’t change the world so maybe it’s time to change the test frequency.

I do wonder if the OP here has requested a frequency change? He never said he tried that.

 

[Larry in TN]

I get the frustration but the reality is “fingers” has been stollen by the chatty pilots everywhere. You can’t change the world so maybe it’s time to change the test frequency.

My solution would be for the FCC to designate a frequency for non-operational communication, i.e. a C.B. channel. Of course, that isn't going to happen.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

You're ignorant of the situation. Making a new company won't help. There are no other frequencies to be handed out. Every single frequency is allocated (often more than once).
A senator or representative isn't going to change this. Believe me, I've been that route trying to get the FAA to obey federal law. A senator can get you VIP tickets to a NASA launch or perhaps push your paper that's stalled somewhere in the existing system, but they're not going to effect major change in the way TWO government agencies operate for a single constituent gripe.

I've been all over this with the government on several issues. I've filed several petitions for rulemaking (one even managed to be issued). I've submitted comments on dozens more. I even managed to get referenced by name in a couple of the preambles. You're inventing "nonsense" where the situation is simple: STOP ILLEGALLY TRANSMITTING ON 123.45. Tell your friends (which is what Jim tried to do before people started dumping on him).

Now here is actually some thoughtful discussion. And if these facts are as stated, have strong implications in terms of if @weirdjim can use some other means to solve his problems, or not.

But may I ask how it is known that there are no other frequencies that can be allocated in that area?

The reason I ask is that if I just tune to some random frequency on the radio it is usually empty for fairly long stretches of time, like hours. I sometimes do this to have quiet in the headphones on a long VFR cross country flight.

Perhaps the real problem here is a great inefficiency in frequency allocations by the regulatory body. This would not surprise me.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

Sorry, I will continue to call people out who engage in ad hominem attacks.

Not only is that a logical fallacy, it is rude and a violation of the terms is service on this site.

Then please don't contribute to a pointless name-calling argument. Look at the bottom of my post, and note the little link that reads "Report". click that button and report the ad-homenim attack to a moderator. I find them to be responsive in either responding to the "offense", or indicating that they received the message and doesn't rise to the level of offense to take action.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

In my experience, people change the subject to “personal attacks” when they really have no kowledge of the facts of the topic even when it’s been explained to them by knowledgable persons multiple time and instead propose “solutions” which are not at all practical and with no attempt to even try to understand what has already been explained to them.

That’s odd. Have you run into that situation before? I would think that such a set of conditions is quite rare.

Admit it, you do not choose to respond to the substantive points and instead resort to ad hominem attacks.

As Capn Jack suggested, how about addressing the substantive points or try to understand the other parties perspective and where you may reasonably differ in opinion?

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Then please don't contribute to a pointless name-calling argument. Look at the bottom of my post, and note the little link that reads "Report". click that button and report the ad-homenim attack to a moderator. I find them to be responsive in either responding to the "offense", or indicating that they received the message and doesn't rise to the level of offense to take action.

Normally I just initially start by gently pointing out to people that there is no reason to be rude, to avoid needing to report them. Seems a bit extreme and not friendly.

But in @weirdjim’s case he just doubled down on it.

In extreme cases, yes I will report and have found the moderators fairly responsive also.

What do you think about the issue of whether there are any other frequencies which could be used and whether they are allocated efficiently?

 

[DaleB]

 

[timwinters]

Indeed. One could argue it would have been wiser to use the frequency for safety sake, and explain to them their mistake once out of the aircraft. Or you could throw fingers and scream and yell at each other.....

Three response points:

1. Violating a regulation in the name of safety is quite honestly a concept that is foreign to me. <rolls eyes and shakes head>

2. I was quite safe while following one or two aircraft to the parking area, thank you. That's well within my piloting skill set and I didn't need the help of a wannabe ATC, very small handed nimrod to safely accomplish that.

3. I didn't scream at him, he screamed at me. I simply let him know that he was #1 in my books.

 

[nauga]

Could it be the pilots are transmitting from remote areas???

Not likely around here, particularly when they are WVR of the ground station, but in the remote (get it?) chance they are, if they are stepping on a flight test station's comms they are still non-compliant with the "out of range of VHF ground stations" part.

Nauga,
loopholed

 

[Bell206]

I never suggested that he should be required to change the way he does something to accommodate others who don't follow the rules.

But you did just that as shown below and once again in Post 78. So instead of suggesting ways to stop the offenders you only offer suggestions requiring him to change his ways and spend more money. What I find ironic is that in your posts in the covid lockdown thread you spend a lot of time vehemently pursuing those lockdowns as coercive. Why not follow your own advice from this thread and apply it to the covid thread... simply change your location to where there are no lockdowns instead? Seems you and Jim have more in common than you think except he has the side of rule and law and you oppose the rule and law in the covid thread. And the webs we weave.

Could you set up another company and do a separate petition for another frequency?

Do you know your Senators or local Representatives and have donated to their campaign?

 

[jimhorner]

Had to hit the "show ignored content" button to see who you and Jim were arguing with. Yep, figures. I have a very select few ignored, but he is one...and for exactly the reason that you and Jim stated. His posts proved that to me long ago.

I had to do a bit of googling to figure out how to ignore someone, but, like you, I’ve done it for this person. Ahhh, much better! Thanks for the suggestion!

 

[nauga]

I had to do a bit of googling to figure out how to ignore someone, but, like you, I’ve done it for this person. Ahhh, much better! Thanks for the suggestion!

If only that were possible on our approved mission freqs.

Nauga,
and HAVE SLOW

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

But you did just that as shown below and once again in Post 78. So instead of suggesting ways to stop the offenders you only offer suggestions requiring him to change his ways and spend more money. What I find ironic is that in your posts in the covid lockdown thread you spend a lot of time vehemently pursuing those lockdowns as coercive. Why not follow your own advice from this thread and apply it to the covid thread... simply change your location to where there are no lockdowns instead? Seems you and Jim have more in common than you think except he has the side of rule and law and you oppose the rule and law in the covid thread. And the webs we weave.

Let’s see - in the Covid-19 thread I maintained that the coercive orders were going to be ineffective and that the evidence has shown that they were.

In this thread I have maintained that it might be more practical to simply avoid the rule breakers than than to try and fight them.

Please notice that I have not suggested in either case that trying to coerce people is likely to be an effective solution to the problems at hand.

In general, I advocate for freedom of people to do as they choose so long as they don’t clearly endanger others. Sort of live and let live.

Now clearly a free for all will not work on the airwaves in crowded situations and there need to be some rules and allocations. I suspect that would be better handled by a market mechanism, but that is not the situation we have.

@weirdjim had obtained an allocation through the proper channels and people are violating his allocation and causing him some losses. It is a violation of his property rights under our current regulatory system.

Is he rightfully angry about that - I would say yes. Will his abusing people who are mostly on his side and perhaps naively trying to help him help him avoid those losses - I would say probably not.

But what do you think about the issues raised regarding whether there would be other frequencies to be used and perhaps they are not allocated very effectively by our current regulatory regime?

 

[Grum.Man]

There are many many murders in Chicago, maybe murder should be made legal in Chicago? Just sayin...

Apples to oranges huh? Do you call the highway patrol every time someone passes you doing 70 in a 65?

 

[nauga]

But what do you think about the issues raised regarding whether there would be other frequencies to be used and perhaps they are not allocated very effectively by our current regulatory regime?

How long would you be willing to stand down while your petition to change frequencies is processed?

Nauga,
whose time is money

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

So instead of suggesting ways to stop the offenders you only offer suggestions requiring him to change his ways and spend more money.

Not quite accurate. I actually did suggest that he might try local outreach and that it might reach the local offenders more usefully.

But it does strike me as being really hard to stop the offenders when the offense is so common.

I don’t know what else he can do to try and stop the offenders other than what he says he will try. Strikes me as as tilting at windmills, but he is certainly within is legal rights to do so.

 

[nauga]

In this thread I have maintained that it might be more practical to simply avoid the rule breakers than than to try and fight them.

In this thread you are also complaining about rule breakers (TOS) rather than simply avoiding them.

Nauga,
and consistency

 

[Velocity173]

Not likely around here, particularly when they are WVR of the ground station, but in the remote (get it?) chance they are, if they are stepping on a flight test station's comms they are still non-compliant with the "out of range of VHF ground stations" part.

Nauga,
loopholed

Well when you have a frequency that allows two exceptions to flight test, there isn’t anything that will solve the problem. When one transmission on voice (123.45) breaks a data link on another freq (123.4) it’s amazing that anything could be accomplished with that setup.

This has been going on for the OP for the past 40 years. Until the OP gets assigned a discrete freq like Scaled and others have done, he’ll continue to experience interruptions.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

How long would you be willing to stand down while your petition to change frequencies is processed?

Nauga,
whose time is money

As a business person I would look at this from a pragmatic point of view. I often have to do this with legal cases. I divide them into those I am going to fight for the principle despite the cost and those I will fight if they pay.

Now maybe @weirdjim is in the first case. He wants to fight for what is right and try to to get these slackers to follow the regs. If he wants to do that, I can sympathize, but it is wise to then realize the price you are going to pay and to have a realistic view of the chances of success.

For this issue, I would treat it as the other case. I would set aside my anger over my right to the allocation being violated and ask what is the most cost effective way to get the tests done. I am not an expert, but since you asked my opinion, here are some of the solutions I would attempt in roughly the order of proceeding:

Try to move the tests to a time of day to avoid the yahoos.

Have someone on the radio to warn people periodically while testing and to ask interlopers to get off, heterodyning them if needed.

Request a frequency change from the FCC.

Ask my Senator or Representative to call the FCC and see if they could perhaps expedite the request.

Setup a small LCC at low cost and make another application for a frequency.

Get with local pilot groups and spread the word about the problems with this illegal use of the testing frequency.

I don’t know that I would ever think that trying to find the interlopers and get an FCC enforce action against them was likely to be cost effective. But I suppose it could have enough of a chance of working and, if not that expensive, I might try it after a few such interruptions. If I thought there was a repeat offender, I might try contacting them and giving them a warning first.

I think some of the acrimony in this discussion occurs between those who think that the regs must be followed at nearly all costs and those who just take a pragmatic attitude about them.

There are a lot of things I feel pretty strongly principled about in life, but FCC frequency allocation regulations are not one of them. So I fall into the second camp on this issue. They should and need to be followed and that is certainly what I do and teach, but it does not strike me as a significant matter of human freedom.

 

[Bell206]

Let’s see - in the Covid-19 thread I maintained that the coercive orders were going to be ineffective and that the evidence has shown that they were.
In this thread I have maintained that it might be more practical to simply avoid the rule breakers than than to try and fight them.

You completely missed the analogy... again. So I'll dispense with the analogies for now.

I suspect that would be better handled by a market mechanism, but that is not the situation we have.

FYI: When dealing with federal laws, regulations, and rules anything dealing with marketing is never an option. Best to leave it out of the discussion entirely.

But what do you think about the issues raised regarding whether there would be other frequencies to be used and perhaps they are not allocated very effectively by our current regulatory regime?

Not applicable to the discussion. The only time any federal regulation or rule filters down to where the general public has input is through the Notice for Proposed Rule Making process via the Administrative Procedure Act. Since were not discussing a NPRM on changing the existing, rules this is system that must be used, i.e., 123.45 for testing purposes only in this case. So any discussion is meaningless from the perspective that adding a frequency is a viable option to correct this OPs issue.

 

[nauga]

As a business person I would look at this from a pragmatic point of view. I often have to do this with legal cases. I divide them into those I am going to fight for the principle despite the cost and those I will fight if they pay.

You didn't answer the question.

Nauga,
who ain't askin' for much

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

In this thread you are also complaining about rule breakers (TOS) rather than simply avoiding them.

Nauga,
and consistency

You are correct. But please do note that that has mostly been because I gently pointed out to @weirdjim there was no reason to be rude and that this might be counterproductive. Then others started in with the same sort of personal attacks, rather than addressing the substantive issues.

The use of ad hominems and logical fallacies is in general one of the issues I tend to care more about. Probably not surprising given how I spent my life. I don’t care as much personally about violations of FCC frequency allocation regulations. It is a matter of personal values and choices.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

You didn't answer the question.

Nauga,
who ain't askin' for much

Wasn’t this an answer? I am not trying to avoid your question, so perhaps you can clarify the question?

I don’t know that I would ever think that trying to find the interlopers and get an FCC enforce action against them was likely to be cost effective. But I suppose it could have enough of a chance of working and, if not that expensive, I might try it after a few such interruptions. If I thought there was a repeat offender, I might try contacting them and giving them a warning first.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

You completely missed the analogy... again. So I'll dispense with the analogies for now.

Thanks as that does not seem to be a very effective means of communication between us.

So any discussion is meaningless from the perspective that adding a frequency is a viable option to correct this OPs issue.

Agreed, it won’t help the OP. I just think of it as the larger and more interesting issue personally.

 

[DaleB]

I had to do a bit of googling to figure out how to ignore someone, but, like you, I’ve done it for this person. Ahhh, much better! Thanks for the suggestion!

Stellar idea, and I've done the same.

 

[SToL]

Just because we have a 760 channel radio in the airplane does NOT mean that we are licensed/legal to use all of them.

Jim, I feel for you but this is not as clear cut as you'd like it to be. This deserves a bit of clarification.

Every operator of an aircraft within the US is 'LICENSED' to use every frequency within the aviation band.

Whether that licensed operator is using an individual frequency within that band legally or not, would depend on things such as, interfering with other traffic on that frequency, or interfering with what the frequency is intended for. Examples of this would be, like you suggested, using 121.5, or approach or tower frequencies, et all, for other than their intended use. However, at all times, any operator of an aircraft is licensed to use those frequencies.

Ground stations are not licensed for use of the entire aviation band, like aircraft operators are. Ground stations must specifically apply for use, through an FCC assigned Radio Frequency Coordinator. Coordinators attempt to find individual frequencies within the area of operation that 'should' have the least amount of traffic on it. There is no guarantee that you will never experience interference. It simply should be minimal, and the assignee, does not 'own' that frequency.

There's a reason people get numerous warnings before they ever see a fine when transmitting on aircraft frequencies. That is because they are licensed to use them all. How do you fine someone doing something they are licensed to do? That is where the 'interference' comes in. Licensed or not, you are not allowed to interfere with other radio traffic.

So, a pilot using 123.45 is not illegal. A pilot interfering with other traffic on 123.45 is illegal, as is interfering with any traffic, on any frequency.

In your case, I presume you make a radio call, indicating testing in progress. Otherwise, you need to tell them you are a licensed Radio Ground Station assigned to that frequency currently performing test, and kindly ask them to move to a different frequency. They will not be fined unless it is a repetitive blatant disregard for interfering with other traffic.

I wish you the best.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

FYI: When dealing with federal laws, regulations, and rules anything dealing with marketing is never an option. Best to leave it out of the discussion entirely.

My point was that it might be interesting to consider the idea that the OP’s problem, at a fundamental level, is due to an inefficiency in the allocation of the frequency spectrum. And that this inefficiency may be caused by using a regulatory regime rather than a market mechanism to allocate a scarce resource. Perhaps that is the heart of the issue.

EDIT: in light of @Stol’s post just above, I revise. It appears the OP’s problem is due to his misunderstanding of the regulations combined with an irascible temperament. Apparently he has caused all this acrimony amongst many people while having almost no legal leg to stand on.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

So, a pilot using 123.45 is not illegal. A pilot interfering with other traffic on 123.45 is illegal, as is interfering with any traffic, on any frequency.

Thanks. Finally some actual factual discussion! Kudos.

 

[Vance Breese]

Having participated in radar flight tests where timing and precise location are everything I can understand Jim’s frustration.

My mother maintained that telling others how to behave or telling them they had bad manners was a demonstration of very bad manners.

I have learned when people accuse others of bad manners it may be best for them to step away from the mirror.

As a flight instructor I am grateful to POA for reminding me of the regulations so I don’t pass on incorrect information to my clients.

I find in most threads on POA there are a few who are knowledgeable that I can learn from. It is not hard to filter out the rest.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

Normally I just initially start by gently pointing out to people that there is no reason to be rude, to avoid needing to report them. Seems a bit extreme and not friendly.

But in @weirdjim’s case he just doubled down on it.

In extreme cases, yes I will report and have found the moderators fairly responsive also.

Then, if he bothers you enough to have it as a sub-thread, either ignore the conversation or make a report to the mods.

What do you think about the issue of whether there are any other frequencies which could be used and whether they are allocated efficiently?

According to the original post, that really isn't the issue. The issue is people using radio frequencies for purposes other than what is intended by the regulations. There are frequencies set aside for "chatter" which I may use within the regulations. For me, that would be 122.75 MHz.

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media...to-,general aviation helicopters: 123.025 MHz.