Overused Frequencies

[Lowflynjack]

With ADSB being implemented, and the recent talk of sleep apnea, it seems the FAA is always trying to find ways to show (pretend) they're thinking of our safety. Not sure about you guys, but I think one of the biggest problems I face is overused frequencies.

For example, in Texas, 122.8 is used at the majority of small airports. Even when I'm in the Austin area, I can clearly hear radio calls being made in Port Aransas over 150 miles away! This means I'm hearing them and everything in between and with most of the other airports using this same frequency, it's often challenging to get a call in. Even when someone does make a call, it's often stepped on and you hear just enough to make you panic. Did he say he was on downwind at Taylor or maybe he was 10 miles out and going to enter on a downwind... yikes?

My question is, why not start using the many other frequencies out there? Is this something the FAA mandates to an airport or can the airport request the change? I really think this can be a safety issue. Are they concerned we would make radio calls on the wrong frequency?

The other option I've thought of would be adding a range feature to the radio where I could dial in a distance I wanted inbound calls to come from. Example, I'm getting close the airport, now I only want a range of 20 miles. Of course this will never happen as most of us have old radios with 1960s technology.

 

[Brad Z]

Transmission is line of sight, so two aircraft 1,500 or higher are within line of sight, even 150 miles away. Even at low power it's still possible to hear them. Thing is, at 150 miles away, you might hear them, but based on relative signal strength they won't be able to step on your transmission locally.

To open up more frequencies would require expanding the AM air band, which isn't going to happen, for a number of reasons.

 

[BGF_Yankee]

You have to bring the FCC into the mix on this. There is a range of frequencies designated for UNICOM. You'd have a similar problem with other frequencies most likely. I feel your pain...my area is the same way, but more often than not I find that it's the local yocal that wants to chat about everything, this that and the other on the radio...OR...it's the guy that has never heard of the internet and is calling LITERALLY every airport within a 100 nm radius on the radio to ask what their gas price is.

 

[Geico266]

One problem with changing frequencies at airports is it takes a long time for the local to get the message leaving lots of room for accidents and much confusion. Ask me how I know.

It certainly can be done, but it is eventful.

 

[BGF_Yankee]

One problem with changing frequencies at airports is it takes a long time for the local to get the message leaving lots of room for accidents and much confusion. Ask me how I know.

It certainly can be done, but it is eventful.

As an airport manager, as me how I know pilots don't check NOTAMS for the most part either But yes, I've seen a few airports around us that have changed UNICOM frequencies, and it causes all sorts of problems for many moons. But on the flip side here, the Memphis ARTCC changed their frequency in our area and told no one. No NOTAM, no chart updates, no nothing...we all had to find out on our own. This was October mind you. I mentioned it to someone at the Atlanta office a couple weeks back and low and behold there is now a NOTAM posted regarding the change...still no chart updates though.

 

[Lowflynjack]

I agree the guy 150 miles away isn't stepping on my transmission, but there are so many nearby airports around here that use 122.8 it's often just one big squeal! I also agree it takes a long time for pilots to get used to a change! Oh well, guess we'll just have to keep trying to squeeze in that call!

Transmission is line of sight, so two aircraft 1,500 or higher are within line of sight, even 150 miles away. Even at low power it's still possible to hear them. Thing is, at 150 miles away, you might hear them, but based on relative signal strength they won't be able to step on your transmission locally.

To open up more frequencies would require expanding the AM air band, which isn't going to happen, for a number of reasons.

 

[BGF_Yankee]

I also agree it takes a long time for pilots to get used to a change!

Truer words have never been spoken...

 

[labbadabba]

A good example of what you're talking about, I had the same thought yesterday when watching this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BelkXqrERAQ

I guess with Texas being so incredibly flat, those radio waves can travel forever.

 

[Lowflynjack]

Yep, the same airports he's dealing with we hear every time we fly! Stephenville, Cleburne, Taylor, Cameron, Burnet, and many more.

Maybe if we just changed the ones that we know will be busy on weekends, like the ones with food! Brenham for example is always busy but has 123.075 which is rarely used.

A good example of what you're talking about, I had the same thought yesterday when watching this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BelkXqrERAQ

I guess with Texas being so incredibly flat, those radio waves can travel forever.

 

[kgruber]

To open up more frequencies would require expanding the AM air band, which isn't going to happen, for a number of reasons.

Yes, that is the standard rhetoric.

But I don't believe it. Where is the study of the 760 frequencies in use and their locations? I've never seen it and doubt it exists.

My contention is that there are enough frequencies available in those 760 to EASILY assign each airport their own discreet freq.

I don't think the FCC/FAA cares about congested frequencies or non-commercial aviation.

The FCC should put these people in charge of assigning frequencies.

 

[Palmpilot]

A good example of what you're talking about, I had the same thought yesterday when watching this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BelkXqrERAQ

I guess with Texas being so incredibly flat, those radio waves can travel forever.

Yes, the radio waves travel forever, but the inverse square law still applies even over flat land, i.e., the signal power drops off as the square of the distance. So if the other pilot says the name of an airport a hundred miles away, for example, that tells you that you can't block him from being heard by pilots in his vicinity, and he can't block you from being heard by pilots in your vicinity.

 

[MAKG1]

The FCC should put these people in charge of assigning frequencies.

You want the FCC to depend on people who "discover" algorithms known for decades to solve an unrelated optimization problem?

Using genetic algorithms to approximately optimize the Traveling Salesman Problem is about as timely as the moon landings.

You can make distant radio chatter go away by turning the squelch up. Or just listen to the "XXX traffic" postscript to each message.

Yes, there are a lot of shared frequencies. Half Moon Bay and Watsonville share 122.8, and the latter has a lot more traffic, including a skydiving operation. "Jumpers Away" is not something you want to hear when you switch to CTAF for an airport that isn't supposed to have jumpers 'cause it's under a low Class B shelf.

But honestly, it's not THAT hard to deal with.

 

[ateamer]

Sometimes you can hear jumpers away calls on 122.8 from Watsonville, Cloverdale and another airport (Madera?) within a couple minutes of each other.

 

[JohnWF]

A while back our local airport manager got the UNICOM frequency changed because he was tired of hearing all the chatter on 122.8 and got it changed to 122.7. Then he set up a portable received in his office so he could hear 122.8 also !!

It took a long time before locals and visiting folks finally settled on 122.7.

 

[Unit74]

One problem with changing frequencies at airports is it takes a long time for the local to get the message leaving lots of room for accidents and much confusion. Ask me how I know.

It certainly can be done, but it is eventful.

Dealing with that now at the brand new KCXW. They closed CWS and now all traffic is at CXW. There will be traffic in the pattern not saying a damn thing. Swap over to 122.8 and they are calling all their turns. I can't tell you how many times I have had to notify other pilots they are on the wrong frequency.

As a side note, last week a King Air landed on CWS WITH the big white flashing X on the runway. Seriously. Nobody said pilots were smart! Just brave.

 

[James331]

Don't go giving the busy bodies ideas.

122.8 ain't that bad, I've flown all over the U.S. and few other places, you just have to pay attention, BFD

 

[Palmpilot]

You want the FCC to depend on people who "discover" algorithms known for decades to solve an unrelated optimization problem?

Using genetic algorithms to approximately optimize the Traveling Salesman Problem is about as timely as the moon landings.

You can make distant radio chatter go away by turning the squelch up. Or just listen to the "XXX traffic" postscript to each message.

Yes, there are a lot of shared frequencies. Half Moon Bay and Watsonville share 122.8, and the latter has a lot more traffic, including a skydiving operation. "Jumpers Away" is not something you want to hear when you switch to CTAF for an airport that isn't supposed to have jumpers 'cause it's under a low Class B shelf.

But honestly, it's not THAT hard to deal with.

I was taught to say the airport name at both the beginning and end of my transmissions. I think it makes it easier to determine if a specific call is a factor.

 

[weirdjim]

Transmission is line of sight, so two aircraft 1,500 or higher are within line of sight, even 150 miles away. Even at low power it's still possible to hear them. Thing is, at 150 miles away, you might hear them, but based on relative signal strength they won't be able to step on your transmission locally.

I get 110 miles line of sight. Radio Horizon (in miles) is equal to the square root of (2 times the altitude of the aircraft in feet). At this altitude, both aircraft will graze the surface at 55 miles of the horizon.

To open up more frequencies would require expanding the AM air band, which isn't going to happen, for a number of reasons.

They already did, about 20 years ago. We got the full MHz between 136 and 137 which added 40 more 25 kHz. channels. I have yet to find out how the FCC doled these frequencies out, but general aviation sure as hell didn't get any of them.

.....

 

[weirdjim]

Yes, that is the standard rhetoric.

But I don't believe it. Where is the study of the 760 frequencies in use and their locations? I've never seen it and doubt it exists.

Title 47 Code of Federal Regulations part 87 lists each and every one of them.

My contention is that there are enough frequencies available in those 760 to EASILY assign each airport their own discreet freq.

I don't think the FCC/FAA cares about congested frequencies or non-commercial aviation.

The FCC should put these people in charge of assigning frequencies.

.....

 

[weirdjim]

The other option I've thought of would be adding a range feature to the radio where I could dial in a distance I wanted inbound calls to come from. .

That is exactly what the squelch control is for.

Jim

 

[el con]

Richard has it right, don't know how many pilot don't use airport name on both ends of transmission.
Someday's here in Mi.and in Wi. you can hear 3,4,5 or more airports on 122.8
Heck here in Grand Rapids we can hear Wi and Oh. In. and Mi. all at the same time .
Some pilots flying in there own little world don't put the name on the front and back and it's a little dicey.Everybody on down wind or on final at the same time not knowing where everyone else is, thinking your under or over them about to collide when they're at a whole different airport altogether.
We have some 122.9 123.0 and 123.07 but 122.8 is always busy and the stepping on screeching is more than annoying.
I keep my head on a swivel but trying to look 360 degrees then up down,high wing/low wing scenario could give you vertigo

 

[Pilawt]

Before our CTAF was changed a few years ago our airport had the same CTAF as a regional airport 65 nm away. We'd often have to wait while bizjets descending out of the flight levels to the other airport were putting in their pre-landing orders for fuel, Prist, pizza, lav service, lodging, ground transportation, feminine companionship, tee times and anything else they or their pax could think of.

 

[Henning]

With ADSB being implemented, and the recent talk of sleep apnea, it seems the FAA is always trying to find ways to show (pretend) they're thinking of our safety. Not sure about you guys, but I think one of the biggest problems I face is overused frequencies.

For example, in Texas, 122.8 is used at the majority of small airports. Even when I'm in the Austin area, I can clearly hear radio calls being made in Port Aransas over 150 miles away! This means I'm hearing them and everything in between and with most of the other airports using this same frequency, it's often challenging to get a call in. Even when someone does make a call, it's often stepped on and you hear just enough to make you panic. Did he say he was on downwind at Taylor or maybe he was 10 miles out and going to enter on a downwind... yikes?

My question is, why not start using the many other frequencies out there? Is this something the FAA mandates to an airport or can the airport request the change? I really think this can be a safety issue. Are they concerned we would make radio calls on the wrong frequency?

The other option I've thought of would be adding a range feature to the radio where I could dial in a distance I wanted inbound calls to come from. Example, I'm getting close the airport, now I only want a range of 20 miles. Of course this will never happen as most of us have old radios with 1960s technology.

Try turning your squelch all the way up, it will block some of the distant calls.

 

[Lowflynjack]

It actually is that bad... it's exactly that bad! I think it's funny when people think they can solve a problem by saying something like "pay attention". I do pay attention. That has nothing to do with the radio squealing when transmissions are stepped on. I have made all of my calls starting with 10 miles out only to find someone is on a 45 with me! They were making calls and so was I but we didn't know we were being stepped on (resulting in some heated conversations on ground!). We're a pretty busy airport and with three or four other busy airports nearby it is a problem. Maybe a problem I'll just have to deal with... or I'll just pay attention I guess!

I do like the idea of turning up the squelch. Don't know why I didn't think of that! Will try that next time.

Don't go giving the busy bodies ideas.

122.8 ain't that bad, I've flown all over the U.S. and few other places, you just have to pay attention, BFD

 

[Mike I]

AIM 4-1-11:

NOTE-
1. In some areas of the country, frequency interference may be encountered from nearby airports using the same UNICOM frequency. Where there is a problem, UNICOM operators are encouraged to develop a “least interference” frequency assignment plan for airports concerned using the frequencies designated for airports without operating control towers. UNICOM licensees are encouraged to apply for UNICOM 25 kHz spaced channel frequencies. Due to the extremely limited number of frequencies with 50 kHz channel spacing, 25 kHz channel spacing should be implemented. UNICOM licensees may then request FCC to assign frequencies in accordance with the plan, which FCC will review and consider for approval.

 

[Henning]

Unicom is a different subject from CTAF though...

 

[Mike I]

You're right. That's what I get for posting on little sleep.

 

[bobmrg]

Let us go back to yesteryear, when a Narco Superhomer was state of the art and the comm side had four or five crystals (can't remember for sure): 121.5 (duh), 122.8 for unicom, 122.2 for FSS, and 122.1 for duplex comms. We managed to live through those years. You could buy a crystal for a specific frequency at the radio shop if you visited a certain tower frequently enough to make it worthwhile.

This is not a question for the FAA, but for the FCC: It is the FCC that issues station licenses to ground stations.

Bob Gardner

 

[Henning]

Let us go back to yesteryear, when a Narco Superhomer was state of the art and the comm side had four or five crystals (can't remember for sure): 121.5 (duh), 122.8 for unicom, 122.2 for FSS, and 122.1 for duplex comms. We managed to live through those years. You could buy a crystal for a specific frequency at the radio shop if you visited a certain tower frequently enough to make it worthwhile.

This is not a question for the FAA, but for the FCC: It is the FCC that issues station licenses to ground stations.

Bob Gardner

After reading the Unicom article though, I wonder if it is up to the airport manager to identify the problem and request a better frequency for the location. This may be a problem that can be addressed, it just requires filing for changes.

 

[weirdjim]

Let us go back to yesteryear, when a Narco Superhomer was state of the art and the comm side had four or five crystals (can't remember for sure): 121.5 (duh), 122.8 for unicom, 122.2 for FSS, and 122.1 for duplex comms.

The Cessna 120-Heavy managed to come by a VC-27Z in the Superhomer days and had (gasp) 27 transmit channels. Of course if they were at the opposite end of the band, getting them all to sing at one alignment setting was difficult in the extreme.

Jim

 

[Jay Honeck]

For example, in Texas, 122.8 is used at the majority of small airports. Even when I'm in the Austin area, I can clearly hear radio calls being made in Port Aransas over 150 miles away!

Although I agree with your point 100%, if you're hearing someone in Port Aransas on 122.8, they're on the wrong frequency. (We're 122.9 around here...)

If you could search the old Usenet archives, and check out the rec.aviation groups, you would find me arguing this exact same point 20 years ago. There is NO reason at all for all of our adjacent airports to be on the exact same frequencies. It creates a real headache for everyone and can be a real safety hazard at times.

Why has nothing been done, when the solution is so obvious? It all comes down to bureaucratic laziness. Changing this sort of stuff would be "work".

You're also right about another thing: The FAA isn't concerned about this sort of thing in the slightest. There's absolutely no upside to them doing anything to help private pilots using uncontrolled airfields, and there's no downside to them ignoring the problem.

 

[Henning]

Whose responsability is it to instigate the change? Have you asked your airport manager to have it changed? I suspect it may be up to them to instigate the change.

 

[Jay Honeck]

Whose responsability is it to instigate the change? Have you asked your airport manager to have it changed? I suspect it may be up to them to instigate the change.

Well, that's just completely silly, if true.

Something that is a cross-airport, regional problem needs to be handled at the regional (or higher) levels of the FAA in order to coordinate and facilitate logical changes. Otherwise, nothing will happen, or, worse, illogical changes will be made.

Which, of course, points to you being 100% correct, given that nothing has happened, ever.

 

[Henning]

Well, that's just completely silly, if true.

Something that is a cross-airport, regional problem needs to be handled at the regional (or higher) levels of the FAA in order to coordinate and facilitate logical changes. Otherwise, nothing will happen, or, worse, illogical changes will be made.

Which, of course, points to you being 100% correct, given that nothing has happened, ever.

Read the bit above about the UNICOM, that's what gives me the suspicion. If you think about, it does make sense. Who else is in a better position to 1, know that a problem exists there, and 2, what frequency to use instead that seems clearest?

See if you can get them to request a change, can't hurt....

 

[Jay Honeck]

Read the bit above about the UNICOM, that's what gives me the suspicion. If you think about, it does make sense. Who else is in a better position to 1, know that a problem exists there, and 2, what frequency to use instead that seems clearest?

See if you can get them to request a change, can't hurt....[/

Actually, I currently live in an area of rare common sense. Port Aransas, TX is 122.9, while my home 'drome, Ingleside, just 9 nm away, is on 122.7.

And then Rockport, 15 nm away, is on 123.05.

As a result, we rarely have a problem here. But in Iowa and Wisconsin, where I spent most of my flying years, 122.8 was everywhere, and we usually heard nothing but a nearly solid squeal on Saturday morning.

 

[James331]

AIM 4-1-11:

It actually is that bad... it's exactly that bad! I think it's funny when people think they can solve a problem by saying something like "pay attention". I do pay attention. That has nothing to do with the radio squealing when transmissions are stepped on. I have made all of my calls starting with 10 miles out only to find someone is on a 45 with me! They were making calls and so was I but we didn't know we were being stepped on (resulting in some heated conversations on ground!). We're a pretty busy airport and with three or four other busy airports nearby it is a problem. Maybe a problem I'll just have to deal with... or I'll just pay attention I guess!

I do like the idea of turning up the squelch. Don't know why I didn't think of that! Will try that next time.

With how low you're flying and the other guy... I'd wager one of you has a bad radio, or more likely had to volume down or something, the closer you get to the airport the stronger your signal to other planes at said airport.

I find it hard to believe there is soo much chatter, on 22.8 in TX, shy of a stuck mic on freq, you couldn't communicate with another plane in the pattern. Do you normally talk to approach for flight following? Have you done many operations around say Houston or any of the busy big areas around there?

What's the airport identifier where this happened?

 

[Lowflynjack]

If someone thinks they make a good transmission and we heard it, yet they were stepped on, it can create a safety issue. Beyond that, as the video someone shared shows, even the constant screech we have to listen to as everyone steps on someone else is annoying. It causes us to turn down our radios. There are enough frequencies we shouldn't have this issue. I understand it's asking for change and some people will argue about it. It was just a thought.

How often I fly around Houston or Dallas has nothing to do with how busy a non-towered frequency is.

I find it hard to believe there is soo much chatter, on 22.8 in TX, shy of a stuck mic on freq, you couldn't communicate with another plane in the pattern. Do you normally talk to approach for flight following? Have you done many operations around say Houston or any of the busy big areas around there?

What's the airport identifier where this happened?

 

[mkosmo]

And then Rockport, 15 nm away, is on 123.05.

As a result, we rarely have a problem here. But in Iowa and Wisconsin, where I spent most of my flying years, 122.8 was everywhere, and we usually heard nothing but a nearly solid squeal on Saturday morning.

It seems like half of the state is on 122.8 or 123.0. I'm happy that the airport I'm based at uses 123.05, because I only ever sometimes hear Rockport or Danbury traffic on top of West Houston... but when I'm flying out near Angleton, 123.0 is just plain crowded.

 

[mkosmo]

I find it hard to believe there is soo much chatter, on 22.8 in TX, shy of a stuck mic on freq, you couldn't communicate with another plane in the pattern. Do you normally talk to approach for flight following? Have you done many operations around say Houston or any of the busy big areas around there?

What's the airport identifier where this happened?

I've been there, too, but on 123.0. I was flying and around Grawunder (06R) briefly and could hardly get a call in. Same at Jones Int'l (T51) on 22.8. It's repeatedly been a problem at LBX on 123.0, too.

Just got take a look at how many airports are on 22.8 and 23.0. It's a lot... and when the weather gets nice, everybody loves to go fly, so you can imagine how packed it gets in an area with as much population and pilot density as the Houston-Dallas-San Antonio megalopolis.

 

[weirdjim]

OK, here it is from the horse's mouth. Or, since it is a federal agency, perhaps from a different orifice of the horse ...

§87.217 Frequencies.

(a) Only one unicom frequency will be assigned at any one airport. Applicants must request a particular frequency, which will be taken into consideration when the assignment is made. The frequencies assignable to unicoms are:
(1) 122.950 MHz at airports which have a full-time control tower or full-time FAA flight service station.
(2) 122.700, 122.725, 122.800, 122.975, 123.000, 123.050 or 123.075 MHz at all other airports.
(b) 121.500 MHz: emergency and distress only.



What we did at Grass Valley Intentional Peapatch is maintained a listening watch for a week on each of the frequencies and did an informal "tally" of each transmission that we heard. When we applied for 122.725 we supplied this tally as supporting data showing that this frequency was the least used in our part of the world. No problems.


Jim