Flight Safety- Monitor 122.775 vs Flight Following

[warthog1984]

Flight Safety- Monitor Air to Air vs Flight Following

I saw this up in another thread and wanted to ask the folks here:

When flying VFR, do you monitor an air to air freq like 122.775 and squawk 1200 OR do you get Flight Following with a code? And why?

Training at a Class C and later a Class D, we always did flight following when available even at uncontrolled fields. At my current Class D, about 50% do flight following and 50% do 122.775- and neither group talks to each other.

What says the forum?

 

[SixPapaCharlie]

Flight following.
I like the people who can see me on their radar being able to talk to me.

 

[Jim_R]

What's 122.775?

I'm almost always on FF. I'm not afraid to talk on the radio, and like having help finding nearby traffic.

 

[txflyer]

FF with a code so we don't swap iron.

 

[TrevorHN47]

Flight following is the smart choice, but my school had a practice area frequency, so we monitored that if we were in those areas, and we made position reports for every maneuver. It depends on your situation. I would not monitor air to air unless it was used for practice areas specifically. Half the time people just use those to chat, and probably none of them would be able to say location.

 

[bobmrg]

If a problem develops, I want to be on frequency with someone who has been following me and knows exactly where I am.

Bob Gardner

 

[Everskyward]

Do you mean 122.75?

 

[jordane93]

If a problem develops, I want to be on frequency with someone who has been following me and knows exactly where I am.

Bob Gardner

Same for me. I go with FF

 

[warthog1984]

Do you mean 122.75?

You'd think so, but around here 122.775 has more people monitoring it. It's also the freq for the aerobatic box 20NM away.

More generally, any air to air frequency.

 

[frfly172]

When traveling in a group,for the hundred dollar hamburg,usually monitor 122.75. But for VFR cross country use flight following.

 

[Hank S]

When traveling in a group,for the hundred dollar hamburg,usually monitor 122.75. But for VFR cross country use flight following.

I almost always have flight following. When making a multi-ship lunch run, Com2 is on 122.75 to keep the group aware and to prevent NASCAR episodes. Rubbin' may be racin' but it don't do much for flying!

 

[flyingron]

122.775 is not a LEGAL frequency for idle chit chat any more than fingers (123.45) despite what the local idiots do in your area.

 

[FastEddieB]

Re: Flight Safety- Monitor Air to Air vs Flight Following

I saw this up in another thread and wanted to ask the folks here:

When flying VFR, do you monitor an air to air freq like 122.775 and squawk 1200 OR do you get Flight Following with a code? And why?

Flight following is a fine idea, but if you're not using it...

...is not 121.5 pretty much mandated by National Security NOTAM? At least "when able"?

In any case, it's what I monitor on cross countries if not talking to anyone else.

 

[coloradobluesky]

Neither. I put the radio on the airports ASOS that are in my path, then listen to their unicom. Sometimes I listen to Center or Approach or flighwatch or flightservice frequencies.

 

[Unit74]

Re: Flight Safety- Monitor Air to Air vs Flight Following

Flight following is a fine idea, but if you're not using it...

...is not 121.5 pretty much mandated by National Security NOTAM? At least "when able"?

In any case, it's what I monitor on cross countries if not talking to anyone else.

Mandatory when able? Words have meaning. If it's when able, it's not mandatory.

 

[JoeSelch]

Why would I monitor 122.775?

 

[oldShar]

If no one, besides certain localized venues, has even heard of a specific frequency, it would appear to be a lost cause to bother monitoring it.
I've received unsolicited advisories (numerous times) from Center on potential conflicts. If no one is on 122.775, who is going to give me an advisory and how are they going to know that they or someone else is in conflict?
If not Center, better to watch 121.5 (or 243 if you are equipped)

 

[Matthew]

I've wondered about the usefulness of monitorng an A to A freq, and missing the other 99% on 123.45.

 

[warthog1984]

I've wondered about the usefulness of monitorng an A to A freq, and missing the other 99% on 123.45.

This is my frustration with the different practices used around here- pilots and ATC are only talking to a subset of the other planes flying and talking.

Why?

 

[Greg Bockelman]

I've wondered about the usefulness of monitorng an A to A freq, and missing the other 99% on 123.45.

Well, 123.45 isn't a legal frequency for Air to Air over the CONUS. Yeah, yeah. I know. People do it anyway.

 

[airdale]

Re: Flight Safety- Monitor Air to Air vs Flight Following

Mandatory when able? Words have meaning. If it's when able, it's not mandatory.

FDC 4/4386 SPECIAL NOTICE, NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM INTERCEPT PROCEDURES.
...
ALL AIRCRAFT OPERATING IN UNITED STATES NATIONAL AIRSPACE, IF CAPABLE, SHALL MAINTAIN A LISTENING WATCH ON VHF GUARD 121.5 OR UHF 243.0.
...

If a problem develops, I want to be on frequency with someone who has been following me and knows exactly where I am.

Amen. I have never before even heard the idea that someone would monitor the air to air frequency unless it was for prearranged conversation with another specific aircraft.

My Comm 1 is on ATC, either filed IFR or for flight following. Comm 2 is not on 121.5 as often as it should be but I am trying to do better. Heard & reported an ELT over Indiana a couple of weeks ago. This monitoring is now more important because the SARSAT constellation is no longer monitoring 121.5.

 

[slinger]

Re: Flight Safety- Monitor Air to Air vs Flight Following

Flight following is a fine idea, but if you're not using it...

...is not 121.5 pretty much mandated by National Security NOTAM? At least "when able"?

In any case, it's what I monitor on cross countries if not talking to anyone else.

 

[Matthew]

Well, 123.45 isn't a legal frequency for Air to Air over the CONUS. Yeah, yeah. I know. People do it anyway.

I've been on legal A to A befote, for various reasons, and found it fairly quiet. But a quick switch to 123.45 got me hearing a lot of chatter.

 

[MAKG1]

There are a handful of locations with a CHARTED air to air frequency. For example, 7 miles south of KTOA (see skyvector). There is another about halfway between KVNY and KCMA. Use the charted frequency if you're in one of those areas. Otherwise, it's a bad idea.

 

[FastEddieB]

Re: Flight Safety- Monitor Air to Air vs Flight Following

Mandatory when able? Words have meaning. If it's when able, it's not mandatory.

I won't argue.

If they'd like me to do it, it's just as easy to comply as to parse words*.

As an aside, just today on the way home from a Fly-In at Gainesville, GA, I was monitoring 121.5, as is my habit. A VERY loud ELT signal came through in the vicinity of Dahlonega, GA. I found an ATL Center frequency, reported it, and they thanked me. It had been reported by others, but the reports were helping them triangulate an approximate position.

Not a huge deal (unless somebody had actually crashed and I helped expedite their rescue, which I admit is unlikely), but it's just kinda nice when things work like they're supposed to.


* But if one really feels a need to argue, airsdale rightly pointed out it's not "WHEN ABLE", but "WHEN CAPABLE". Argue on, if it suits anyone.

 

[poadeleted20]

122.775 is not a legal air-to-air frequency. And even if it were the right freq for that (122.75), it's not there for the purpose of collision avoidance.

 

[poadeleted20]

Re: Flight Safety- Monitor Air to Air vs Flight Following

Flight following is a fine idea, but if you're not using it...

...is not 121.5 pretty much mandated by National Security NOTAM? At least "when able"?

The exact words in FDC 4/4386 (which is, as an FDC NOTAM, regulatory) are:

ALL AIRCRAFT OPERATING IN UNITED STATES NATIONAL AIRSPACE, IF CAPABLE, SHALL MAINTAIN A LISTENING WATCH ON VHF GUARD 121.5 OR UHF 243.0.

It says "if capable", not "if you wish," or "if practical", or "if convenient", or "if you feel like it". Just heard another plane this afternoon fly into a bust in the DC area because the pilot didn't hear the repeated calls on 121.5 telling him/her s/he was approaching and then entering airspace in which s/he was not authorized to be.

 

[poadeleted20]

Neither. I put the radio on the airports ASOS that are in my path, then listen to their unicom.

What's the point unless you're flying through their traffic pattern at TPA?

 

[airdale]

Re: Flight Safety- Monitor Air to Air vs Flight Following

... A VERY loud ELT signal came through in the vicinity of Dahlonega, GA. I found an ATL Center frequency, reported it, and they thanked me. It had been reported by others, but the reports were helping them triangulate an approximate position.

Not a huge deal (unless somebody had actually crashed and I helped expedite their rescue, which I admit is unlikely), but it's just kinda nice when things work like they're supposed to.

Actually, it is maybe not huge but it could have been big. Most initial 121.5 ELT reports come from airliners in the flight levels (who are monitoring guard as they are supposed to). A report from that altitude narrows the search down to just a few states. It is the low-altitude bugsmasher reports that begin to locate the ELT into a feasible search area.

 

[gismo]

What's the point unless you're flying through their traffic pattern at TPA?

Sometimes you get to hear one pilot ranting about the (perceived) misbehavior of another. Although that's rare, it might be less boring than listening on 122.775 whatever that is.

BTW I picked the last choice. If I'm going anywhere I usually file IFR and if it;s just a local flight I don't bother with FF.

 

[Jim_R]

What's the point unless you're flying through their traffic pattern at TPA?

I hear all sorts of useful info that gives me clues about aircraft outside the TP and at different altitudes. "Bugsmasher 123 departing rwy xx, leaving the area to the east." "Cessna 234 10 miles west at 3000 inbound for landing so-and-so". "Pipeline patrol abc transiting east to west 3 miles south of KABC at 1000."

If I'm crossing at 8000 on an IFR plan, maybe it's not so useful. If I'm VFR and trapped below a 3000' layer, then it can be quite useful, indeed.

 

[poadeleted20]

I hear all sorts of useful info that gives me clues about aircraft outside the TP and at different altitudes. "Bugsmasher 123 departing rwy xx, leaving the area to the east." "Cessna 234 10 miles west at 3000 inbound for landing so-and-so". "Pipeline patrol abc transiting east to west 3 miles south of KABC at 1000."

If I'm crossing at 8000 on an IFR plan, maybe it's not so useful. If I'm VFR and trapped below a 3000' layer, then it can be quite useful, indeed.

Point taken, but unless you're close to TPA going over, there's no reason to believe you'll get any more useful information than if you got flight following from ATC, and lots of reasons to expect less.

 

[Unit74]

What defines "if capable" ? If I'm on approach control, also monitoring 122.8 for local traffic, should I be required to bust out a handheld as week since it's on board?

When capable is very much so ambiguous. Your capable is not my capable. Not trying to be a joker, but tying up one comm on 121.5 is not practical unless you have three panel mounted. Between towers, ASOS, ATIS, CTAF, FSS, center.....when am I supposed to be capable of monitoring 121.5?

I had an 80 mile flight today each way and did have it on for about 15 minutes, but that was all I was capable of? Is that good enough for the FAA?

 

[denverpilot]

What's the point unless you're flying through their traffic pattern at TPA?

Out east and north of here it'll tell you where to look for Great Lakes descending like a bat out of hell out of the Flight Levels to that airport's pattern.

Not so common where you live. I know. Just sayin'. Most of our uncontrolled larger fields have "airliner" service. They're in a hurry and they'll be doing a straight-in 99.9999% of the time. Low flight levels straight to final.

 

[dukeblue219]

Never used an air-to-air frequency. If I'm VFR I'm typically on FF, but if not, I'll usually have com1 on something -- if nothing else is in the area it will be the nearest ARTCC freq. I prefer to be listening to something rather than dead air. I keep com2 on 121.5.

 

[Jim_R]

Point taken, but unless you're close to TPA going over, there's no reason to believe you'll get any more useful information than if you got flight following from ATC, and lots of reasons to expect less.

If everyone has transponders and encoders, yes. More than once, I have had ATC call "traffic, x o'clock, no altitude information available" and been able to put two and two together from something I heard on the CTAF.

Rare? Yes. But it's happened more often than I've heard anything important to me on 121.5 (to-date, never).

 

[NoHeat]

I had an 80 mile flight today each way and did have it on for about 15 minutes, but that was all I was capable of? Is that good enough for the FAA?

For most 80 mile flights, I don't see how you could easily do more than 15 minutes of guard monitoring. Listening to guard is practical to me only during low-work-load cruise, and an 80 mile flight is so short you didn't have much.

If you're near the SFRA or other airspace where you could be intercepted, that would be different.

 

[poadeleted20]

If everyone has transponders and encoders, yes. More than once, I have had ATC call "traffic, x o'clock, no altitude information available" and been able to put two and two together from something I heard on the CTAF.

Rare? Yes.

It's extremely rare compared to the times you get valuable information you get from ATC. Your choice whether you want passing CTAF's on #1 or getting Flight Following from ATC, but if I'm above about 1500 AGL, I'm on ATC, not CTAF.

But it's happened more often than I've heard anything important to me on 121.5 (to-date, never).

While it's your choice between CTAF and ATC for #1, maintaining a listening watch on 121.5 on your second radio is a legal requirement, and has been for 10 years now.

 

[poadeleted20]

For most 80 mile flights, I don't see how you could easily do more than 15 minutes of guard monitoring. Listening to guard is practical to me only during low-work-load cruise, and an 80 mile flight is so short you didn't have much.

If you have only one radio, that may well be true. But with two radios, other than when I'm checking ATIS/AWOS, #2 is on 121.5 the entire time I'm in the air, and it doesn't matter if I'm home near DC or out in Boondock WY.

If you're near the SFRA or other airspace where you could be intercepted, that would be different.

Problem is "airspace where you could be intercepted" crops up sporadically all over the country all the time, and every time POTUS travels somewhere, somebody (or several somebodies) bust his TFR -- and that makes headlines we don't need. I've also heard people warned off R-areas on 121.5, and in that case, what's going to intercept you might be a 500-lb bomb or 155mm artillery shell.

 

[flyingron]

While I tend to be on 121.5 on the alternate radio, there are times I am not. I tune the destination AWOS well in advance of arrival and leave the CTAF up even while I'm still on the frequency with ATC (for either IFR or FF). Nice to know what's going on in the pattern before you blast into it.

The major reason for tuning CTAFs around here is to find out if the meat bombs are falling from the sky (I cross over or near several active jump operations). Of course, these are also reported on ATC. The bombs tend to be problematic WELL above pattern altitude. They're typically under canopy by 4000 AGL and easier to spot, though it's still a bit unnerving to be in the same space with them.

I'll tune 122.75 if we're trying to coordinate something between ships or occasionally if bored, but I've NEVER hard any USEFUL traffic information on such. However, more often than not, I'll just turn on the XM for diversion and I can leave the radios tuned for more official uses (ATC, 121.5, etc...).

As for 121.5, occasionally you hear some alerts where someone is busting a restricted area or TFR. You pick up an ELT from time to time. Periodically, you find ATC looking for some plane that missed a handoff. But the most common use is someone inadvertently transmitting on 121.5 instead of his other radio followed by thirty people screaming ON GUARD at him.

The most egregious thing I ever heard was a bizjet actually using 121.5 to contact his destination to make arrangements for his arrival. This did result on a bunch of people chewing him out over the air. This guy probably thought 121.5 was like channel 16 on the marine VHF where it serves as both the distress and calling frequency (but even still a prolonged discussion should have switched to another channel).