Flight Safety- Monitor 122.775 vs Flight Following

[BillTIZ]

We used to call 121.5 and 243 "Navy Common" you could always pick up chatter on those freqs.

If I am not on FF for my primary freq while XC then I'll tune to the landing airport AWOS/ASOS/CTAF and see how far out I can pick it up and set up my radios for arrival. If the CTAF freq is all beeps squawks and squeals from to many airports on the same freq, I'll turn it down.

123.45 and 122.75 are not approved air to air freqs. In SoCal you may find an FBO ask you to get off their designated freq.

In glider country I'll monitor 123.3 and 123.5, designated air to ground freqs for glider and ballon chase crews.

 

[kayoh190]

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.

I don't understand how guard nazis are so quick to key the mic. They must spend their entire flight bent forward, hovering over the PTT. For me to broadcast over guard, I'd have to first put down my coffee/newspaper/flight attendant, slide my seat forward, select the other COM radio, then make an audible exhaling sound - making it clear how put out I am to have to reach up to the glareshield to push the PTT.

By the time all that happens, about thirty hyenas have already made the skies safer by screaming "GUUUAAAARRRDDD!" at some poor Skylane driver that fat fingered his KX-155.

 

[roncachamp]

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

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.

The air-to-air frequency for private fixed-wing aircraft is 122.75.

 

[roncachamp]

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.

47 CFR: Telecommunication

PART 87—AVIATION SERVICES

Subpart F—Aircraft Stations

§87.187 Frequencies.

The frequency 122.775 MHz is authorized for air-to-air communications for aircraft within the area bounded by the following coordinates (all coordinates are referenced to North American Datum 1983 (NAD83)):

34-22-00 N. Lat.; 118-30-00 W. Long.
34-35-00 N. Lat.; 118-15-00 W. Long.
34-27-00 N. Lat.; 118-15-00 W. Long.
34-16-00 N. Lat.; 118-35-00 W. Long.
34-06-00 N. Lat.; 118-35-00 W. Long.
34-05-00 N. Lat.; 118-50-00 W. Long.

 

[flyingron]

For those who are geographicall challenged. The area in Steve's post above is the aviation practice areas in the vicinity of Santa Clarita, CA.

The practice area uses 123.075 (below 2000') and 122.775 (below 4500) as a "CTAF" for the area.

 

[MAKG1]

47 CFR: Telecommunication

PART 87—AVIATION SERVICES

Subpart F—Aircraft Stations

§87.187 Frequencies.

The frequency 122.775 MHz is authorized for air-to-air communications for aircraft within the area bounded by the following coordinates (all coordinates are referenced to North American Datum 1983 (NAD83)):

34-22-00 N. Lat.; 118-30-00 W. Long.
34-35-00 N. Lat.; 118-15-00 W. Long.
34-27-00 N. Lat.; 118-15-00 W. Long.
34-16-00 N. Lat.; 118-35-00 W. Long.
34-06-00 N. Lat.; 118-35-00 W. Long.
34-05-00 N. Lat.; 118-50-00 W. Long.

It's on the LA TAC. You don't need to haul around the CFR in your airplane.

 

[roncachamp]

It's on the LA TAC. You don't need to haul around the CFR in your airplane.

I can carry the CFR just as easily as the LA TAC, the CFR has the advantage of being fully searchable.

 

[docmirror]

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.

Yup. Like that.

 

[MAKG1]

I can carry the CFR just as easily as the LA TAC, the CFR has the advantage of being fully searchable.

You're going to search the CFR by your position to figure out what air to air frequency to use?

Must be one hell of a PDF reader.

There are several air to air zones around LA, and they all use differrent frequencies.

 

[roncachamp]

You're going to search the CFR by your position to figure out what air to air frequency to use?

By my position?

There are several air to air zones around LA, and they all use differrent frequencies.

That's swell, but not the issue.

 

[denverpilot]

I don't understand how guard nazis are so quick to key the mic. They must spend their entire flight bent forward, hovering over the PTT. For me to broadcast over guard, I'd have to first put down my coffee/newspaper/flight attendant, slide my seat forward, select the other COM radio, then make an audible exhaling sound - making it clear how put out I am to have to reach up to the glareshield to push the PTT.



By the time all that happens, about thirty hyenas have already made the skies safer by screaming "GUUUAAAARRRDDD!" at some poor Skylane driver that fat fingered his KX-155.

ROFL!!!

 

[B350ATP]

1. Flight following always/whenever possible if VFR. Repeat, always/whenever possible. Never elect to NOT use flight following. If it is there, use it.

2. 121.5 on Comm-2 unless safety reasons such as flying near (but not "in") a non-controlled field TPA, then I will monitor that Unicom. But 121.5 on Comm-2 otherwise. Never elect to not monitor 121.5 absent justified operational/safety reason. If there is WX a few center sectors ahead, that I am headed to, I might monitor center freq for that sector on Comm-2, to get an idea of what is going on. Etc. 121.5 otherwise

My policy is above

 

[docmirror]

Judging by this poll, it won't be long before FF is regulatory. N Korea here we come!

 

[flyingcheesehead]

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.

Are you able? Then it's mandatory.

Are you unable (ie, you have one radio and you're using it to talk to ATC)? Then it's not.

Words do have meaning... But it's pretty simple to interpret these.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

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?

Depends what else you were doing.

Whenever I have dual flip-flop radios, I have them both set to monitor no matter what is set to transmit. ATIS, Clearance, Ground all happen on Com2. I have Com1 tuned to Tower on active and Departure on standby. When I get to the runway, I flip the transmit knob over to Com1, tune in 121.5 on Com2, and call the tower for departure on 1. As I'm handed off from ATC facility to facility, I just keep things up on Com1.

Com2 is used for things like ATIS, FSS, monitoring CTAF prior to being turned over by ATC, and monitoring any other CTAFs I deem necessary (usually drop zones if I'm in cruise, what else would you need them for?). But this leaves me with guard on the active on Com2 a good 90% of the time with very effort or loss of comm ability for me.

Piece o' cake, not sure why everyone complains about it. I'll be happy when I get warned away from a POTUS TFR.

 

[Unit74]

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

Are you able? Then it's mandatory.

Are you unable (ie, you have one radio and you're using it to talk to ATC)? Then it's not.

Words do have meaning... But it's pretty simple to interpret these.

Too funny.... It's still ambiguous. Again, "when able" is not mandatory. Shall, must, will, etc are requirements. When able is simply not. It leaves the choice in the PICs hands if you will do it or not.

You cannot read between the lines in the law. It must be used as it is read. Simple as that.

 

[Unit74]

Imooniac

I understand that totally. But I manage my flights a wee bit different. I always remain on my assigned frequency and use com 2 for all my other moving around on the dial. It's rare that I'm not doing something on com 2 though.

 

[dukeblue219]

Judging by this poll, it won't be long before FF is regulatory. N Korea here we come!

Sorry, I'm not going to fly around in busy airspace not talking to anyone just to "exercise my right to do so" or some nonsense.

The most likely way we will end up with some kind of mandatory flight following is a couple back-to-back newsworthy accidents when a nordo plane flies into a medevac chopper, or lands on a schoolbus or something. Won't have anything to do with the nordo part, but the public will grab onto it and politicians will call for change.

On the other hand, voluntarily using the services available to us to their fullest capacity is prudent, safe, and not going to ruffle anyone's regulatory feathers.

 

[dukeblue219]

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

Too funny.... It's still ambiguous. Again, "when able" is not mandatory. Shall, must, will, etc are requirements. When able is simply not. It leaves the choice in the PICs hands if you will do it or not.

The text doesn't say when able. It says shall. You either are capable or you are not. If you are capable, then you shall. I'm not seeing the ambiguity. If you have a COM2 receiver that works, and is not being used for something else, then it shall be tuned to 121.5 or you are violating the NOTAM as written.

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

 

[docmirror]

Sorry, I'm not going to fly around in busy airspace not talking to anyone just to "exercise my right to do so" or some nonsense.

The most likely way we will end up with some kind of mandatory flight following is a couple back-to-back newsworthy accidents when a nordo plane flies into a medevac chopper, or lands on a schoolbus or something. Won't have anything to do with the nordo part, but the public will grab onto it and politicians will call for change.

On the other hand, voluntarily using the services available to us to their fullest capacity is prudent, safe, and not going to ruffle anyone's regulatory feathers.

It's for the children! Of course that's what will happen. It's how we got the modern day IFR system across the US when two airliners met over some western state and both tumbled to the ground. We must give up essential liberty for safety. The age old refrain.


I doubt you're sorry at all.

 

[AdamZ]

It depends. If I'm on my own and flying somewhere specific I'll get FF. I often will fly on Sundays mornings with a group for a $100 breakfast, in that situation I will be on air to air with my group.

Simply being on the air to air doesn't tell me anything, I can pick up people flying 100 miles away. Whats key is knowing where you are in relation to others and others in relation to you.

 

[FastEddieB]

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

The text doesn't say when able. It says shall. You either are capable or you are not. If you are capable, then you shall. I'm not seeing the ambiguity. If you have a COM2 receiver that works, and is not being used for something else, then it shall be tuned to 121.5 or you are violating the NOTAM as written.

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

Nice, concise summary.

With which I concur.

Let me add when my ROTAX went on heavy rough mode over thinly populated south central Georgia, it was nice being able to just mash the transmit button and already have 121.5 in there. One less thing to futz with when I was trying to find a halfway decent landing spot in a pretty heavily forested area. I used the "E" word, and after the engine smoothed back out and I backtracked to the nearest airport, no follow up report was requested.

As an aside, a friend who is a Cirrus instructor was in the air and heard the call - he also monitors 121.5 and has his students do so as well. Landed behind me with an offer of help. Not needed, but nice nonetheless.

 

[Unit74]

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

The text doesn't say when able. It says shall. You either are capable or you are not. If you are capable, then you shall. I'm not seeing the ambiguity. If you have a COM2 receiver that works, and is not being used for something else, then it shall be tuned to 121.5 or you are violating the NOTAM as written.

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

There. Fixed it for you. Should be clear as day now.

Who decides if it's capable? Is it a PIC choice or SHALL we dedicate a single radio to guard?

I have no problem monitoring IF CAPABLE, however, there is ambiguity in IF CAPABLE therefore it cannot be enforced whatsoever. That's all I'm saying. Boiled down, it looks more like a request than any kind of statutory requirement.

If I like to monitor air to air on comm 2 all of the time, or listen to AWOS for each muni airport I'm over, am I still capable? Rather, should I not monitor the AWOS in leu of 121.5 then?

How about this..... ALL VEHICLES OPERATING IN UNITED STATES NATIONAL ROADWAYS, IF CAPABLE, SHALL STOP AT ALL STOP SIGNS.

Flip the script but keep it regulatory and how does it read? If I'm not capable of stopping, is it no longer a crime? The way it reads, that would be correct.

That's all I'm trying to say. Although it's a good idea, it's unenforceable. As written, it leaves the PIC with a choice to comply or not.

 

[Jim_R]

Judging by this poll, it won't be long before FF is regulatory. N Korea here we come!

Good grief. Next thing you know, the dang gummint's gonna start paving the roads and painting stripes and telling me how fast I can drive, too! When will it end???

I fly around a Class B, and many of my destinations are controlled fields. I like the assistance provided by ATC.

If I were flying a J3 500 feed above wheat fields and just buzzing around for fun, I probably wouldn't.

The few folks I know who don't use FF seem to simply be uncomfortable talking on the radio. They tend to avoid controlled airports, too, for the same reason.

Regardless of the reason someone might choose not to use FF, I don't understand why anyone would be upset that someone else chooses to use it.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

The most likely way we will end up with some kind of mandatory flight following is a couple back-to-back newsworthy accidents when a nordo plane flies into a medevac chopper, or lands on a schoolbus or something.

When's the last time that has happened? When was the last time that has happened just once?

Do not make me equip my airplane with something I do NOT need for the flying I do.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

The few folks I know who don't use FF seem to simply be uncomfortable talking on the radio. They tend to avoid controlled airports, too, for the same reason.

And while I'm sure they scoff at those who avoid grass fields, anyone who avoids either grass or towered or anything else is really missing out. When you're comfortable flying anywhere, there's an awful lot of fun experiences to be had!

 

[dukeblue219]

When's the last time that has happened? When was the last time that has happened just once?

Do not make me equip my airplane with something I do NOT need for the flying I do.

Hey, I'm in no way suggesting that flying NORDO is particularly dangerous, nor am I at all advocating any requirements for radio contact.

My point is that voluntary use of the radio is not a slippery slope that leads to "big government" mandating ATC contact on all flights, and I won't be made to feel guilty for using the radio. In the unlikely event that such a regulation was proposed, I think the likely cause would be public outage over some accident caused by a coincidentally-NORDO pilot, not because we're all happily getting along on FF.

I've seen similar with complaints over the SFRA -- the best way to improve the SFRA rules is to work the system, abide by the regs that ARE in existence, and propose common sense improvements. Yet there are those who believe our "acceptance" of the SFRA is a black & white surrender of rights, and that we ought to all mass up and violate the boundary at once in civil disobedience.

 

[dukeblue219]

It's for the children! Of course that's what will happen. It's how we got the modern day IFR system across the US when two airliners met over some western state and both tumbled to the ground. We must give up essential liberty for safety. The age old refrain.


I doubt you're sorry at all.

The modern day IFR system is a surrender of liberty in exchange for safety?

I mean, I guess so in a literal sense, but who could be opposed to the very existence of the IFR system we have now?

 

[B350ATP]

interesting responses.

I would hate the day to arrive which the government mandates whether I should wear a seat belt in my own car. Who do they think they are ?

 

[docmirror]

We've got another thread going right now lamenting the sorry state of GA, with fewer pilots, lower hours flown, better safety. Mode C veil, transponders, ADS-B out, SFRA, pop-up TFRs, permission from the feds to leave the US by GA, CG/FBI/DHS assault style intercepts inside the middle of the US, airport barbed wire fences. All done in the name of safety. Some of it might be justified, I'm sure. No one would like to drive on a road without a centerline, and some control at intersections. But - what about the current state of speed enforcement? Speed cameras? How about the capturing of ALL license plates, no matter that there is no warrant?

Nah - no slippery slope going on.

 

[Jim_R]

And so we have a requirement that you have to talk to ATC on the radio in busy airspaces that are clearly defined. It makes sense, the same way that obeying traffic rules makes sense.

You're welcome to fly around outside those airspaces without talking on the radio, the same way 13 year-old kids can drive their dad's truck on the back 40 out in farm country.

No one is too worried that one day Johnny Law is going to come busting through the cornfield to haul Joe Bob off to jail. I haven't seen any indication that the FAA is going to get around to mandating that every plane in the air has to be on the radio talking to ATC, either.

Sometimes the only slippery slope is the sweaty skin underneath the tin foil.

 

[warthog1984]

Thank you all for your replies. I know thread drift has occurred, but your answers have helped with my decision as to which frequencies to monitor to avoid inadvertent violation of the plane/non-plane interface.

 

[kenjr]

same here FF and then I'll tune in weather from stations along my route to keep an eye on what's going on weather wise. Occasionally I'll tune in flightwatch on my other radio and chat with them about what's going on in front of me or along my route if need be...

 

[JoshH]

I voted 122.775 (although it's 122.75 in my area), but my use-case is a bit atypical. I'm typically flying in one of two aerobatic practice areas where the local instructors/schools teach people to use this frequency. Of course this doesn't remove the need to keep the eyeballs looking around for traffic, I'd expect almost 0% of non-local aerobatic/training traffic to be on frequency. However, it has been quite helpful to call on frequency - or listen as I approach - and learn that someone is in one area so we can coordinate, or I choose the other area, depending on circumstances.

Technically, I do use FF when traveling XC, but I do that so infrequently I didn't choose "both". If I were flying XC I'd tend to use FF but I'm in/around complex airspace so this would ease transitions as well as provide the occasional traffic advisory. But I wouldn't count on FF to keep me separated, there have been times when even in the sticks (but in radar contact) I've seen traffic before I've been advised by center/approach.

 

[petrolero]

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.

Non-standard freq - sounds like a good reason for the rest of us to use FF.

Anyway, Why is it an "or" question? You have two radios, why not do both? FF and A2A.

I don't think A2A is useful on a cross country. I don't make it a habit to self-announce my position every few miles and I doubt anyone else does. FF or, preferably, IFR for XCs.

But in the practice area, 122.75 is an absolute must around Denver. FF can advise of traffic but can't tell you that the traffic is going to begin a steep turn in 3...2...1... But A2A can (sometimes).

 

[Henning]

Typically FF with a code or if not I'll dial in the ATIS/AWOS for my destination with tower on STBY #1 and 121.5 on #2 and maybe the local ARTCC frequency there as well if I know it. Usually though I'm on frequency with someone.

 

[alfadog]

I like radios turned down so I can't hear them when not in required communication situations.

 

[flyingron]

I like radios turned down so I can't hear them when not in required communication situations.

Why not tune them to 121.5 instead.

I used to turn them down when I left them on 122.8 or whatever. I found myself forgetting to turn them back up again.

 

[alfadog]

Why not tune them to 121.5 instead.

I used to turn them down when I left them on 122.8 or whatever. I found myself forgetting to turn them back up again.

Yes, I think that is a good idea. I never forget to turn them up because I have a habit of checking the unsquelched volume level before transmitting

 

[gismo]

Yes, I think that is a good idea. I never forget to turn them up because I have a habit of checking the unsquelched volume level before transmitting

What if you set the freq for monitoring the CTAF without transmitting? Might that lead to forgetting to turn the volume back up? I've managed to leave the volume down a couple of (embarrassing) times and resolved to not turn it down anymore but I don't have an easy way to open the squelch on my primary radio either.