North Sea Freq ?
Guest
Posts: n/a
But IFALPA has now achieved its aim to establish a single VHF common frequency for comms between aircraft over remote and oceanic areas out of range of VHF ground stations "to exchange necessary operational information and to facilitate the resolution of operational problems".
I suppose this means that Bristow Aberdeen will have to seek another company frequency? - there was enough non-essential chat between planks blocking the frequency over the North Sea when it was used as an unofficial fixed wing chat frequency, let alone now it's approved for such.
I suppose this means that Bristow Aberdeen will have to seek another company frequency? - there was enough non-essential chat between planks blocking the frequency over the North Sea when it was used as an unofficial fixed wing chat frequency, let alone now it's approved for such.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Bristows use 123.45, because it's cheap in fact it costs them nothing. If they moved to another frequency they would have to pay for it which certainly goes against the current management thinking of spend nothing, invest in nothing and if you do have to buy something make sure it's the cheapest piece of sh*t on the market which won't last.
They'd be more likely to equip their aircraft with Barbie Doll Walkie Talkies before getting a dedicated frequency.
They'd be more likely to equip their aircraft with Barbie Doll Walkie Talkies before getting a dedicated frequency.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Going back to the original question, I think you'll find that the rig frequencies are promulgated in the AIP (available on line at ais.org.uk) and are determined by areas.
Ref the company frequency, maybe they could use HF; useful when out of VHF range anyway. Oh no! I forgot, they took all the sets out the a/c to save weight, silly me.
------------------
Another day in paradise
Ref the company frequency, maybe they could use HF; useful when out of VHF range anyway. Oh no! I forgot, they took all the sets out the a/c to save weight, silly me.
------------------
Another day in paradise
Guest
Posts: n/a
Can anyone tell me where this use of 123.45 originated from? Is this an authorised use or an assumed one?
Genuine reason for asking - it has been recently suggested as an air to air frequency for multi-aircraft emergency services operations to replace another that has been withdrawn.
Ta!
Genuine reason for asking - it has been recently suggested as an air to air frequency for multi-aircraft emergency services operations to replace another that has been withdrawn.
Ta!
Guest
Posts: n/a
The only reason Bristow got rid of the HF sets was to save $ something they are getting good at and then they are surprised the workforce’s morale is low!
I wonder sometimes which school of man-management the directors went because they are so good at it but that is another story …
To ad to 212man’s explanation the deck frequency-area pairing is not always the case i.e.: in the East Shetland basin the Shell rigs are on the same area frequency (122.25 or 129.95) but this is not the case for the other oil company’s rigs there who have their own freq.
Merry X-mas to everybody out there and lot’s of safe flying in 2001.
I wonder sometimes which school of man-management the directors went because they are so good at it but that is another story …
To ad to 212man’s explanation the deck frequency-area pairing is not always the case i.e.: in the East Shetland basin the Shell rigs are on the same area frequency (122.25 or 129.95) but this is not the case for the other oil company’s rigs there who have their own freq.
Merry X-mas to everybody out there and lot’s of safe flying in 2001.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Years ago, 123.45 was used as the (non official)international chit-chat frequency. In some countries, small airfield use it so they do not have to apply for an expensive licence.
123.45 did not have any official allocation, and therefore people used it for "casual chats". I wonder where we now stand from a legal point of view. Anyhow, it is still being used to pass on personnal messages.
Merry Christmas everyone
123.45 did not have any official allocation, and therefore people used it for "casual chats". I wonder where we now stand from a legal point of view. Anyhow, it is still being used to pass on personnal messages.
Merry Christmas everyone
Guest
Posts: n/a
Skycop
This supposed withdrawl of this air to air freq for emergency service aircraft came about as a result of a discussion between the Home Office Police Aviation advisor and somebody from NATS. As far as NATS were concerned it had been withdrawn some years ago??!! As far as I can ascertain no AIC was published on the subject and the CAA were obviously not aware of it either or else it wouldn't still be in the PAOM Part I.
Obviously NATS believe in the "Mushroom Club".
It does pose the question that if one hasn't officially been told you can't use it, then you can't get in trouble for doing so.
[This message has been edited by Marco (edited 26 December 2000).]
This supposed withdrawl of this air to air freq for emergency service aircraft came about as a result of a discussion between the Home Office Police Aviation advisor and somebody from NATS. As far as NATS were concerned it had been withdrawn some years ago??!! As far as I can ascertain no AIC was published on the subject and the CAA were obviously not aware of it either or else it wouldn't still be in the PAOM Part I.
Obviously NATS believe in the "Mushroom Club".
It does pose the question that if one hasn't officially been told you can't use it, then you can't get in trouble for doing so.
[This message has been edited by Marco (edited 26 December 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
SkyCop, you could try 123.1 as listed in back of RAF "yellow book" instead of Unicom. (Incidentally, the old Unicom freq is still currently listed in that publication!)
Marco, the standard AIC on emegencies in UK, (can't remember the number), used to list Unicom until about 18 months ago. Then the reference to it was simply removed without telling anyone!
This state of affairs will blunder on until Max Headworthy gets a grip or 2 police choppers collide.
Marco, the standard AIC on emegencies in UK, (can't remember the number), used to list Unicom until about 18 months ago. Then the reference to it was simply removed without telling anyone!
This state of affairs will blunder on until Max Headworthy gets a grip or 2 police choppers collide.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Marco - Your sentiments mirrored ours exactly; except when trying to talk to some one else who disagreed, if you see what I mean........Anyway the confusion has been cleared up by the CAA and NATS insomuch as it has been officially confirmed that VHF UNICOM 130.425 has been withdrawn and that any flight safety issues that arise as a result are unimportant as one can only assume that they don't raise much revenue!
Skycop, the Midlands area police helicopters have a local agreement where we use one of the police VHF channels for pilot to pilot comms before even attempting any sort of handover.
Skycop, the Midlands area police helicopters have a local agreement where we use one of the police VHF channels for pilot to pilot comms before even attempting any sort of handover.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Marco,
Yes, I had heard some years ago that it had been withdrawn and I appear have the same recent fax that you got.
Letsby,
WRT your profile, which Midlands is that? Are they all thick in your part of the world?
The point is, everyone that there are lots of different ideas on how it should be done. However, has anyone actually been successful in making air-to-air contact where two aircraft planned or happened to be on the same VHF frequency? I believe that we have a real flight safety problem here. We all plan to operate in the bits of airspace that no-one else often can or wishes to use but we consistently go like bees round a honey pot to certain jobs e.g. Tracker. Just when we are likely to be in the same place our attention gets drawn towards events on the ground...the sooner we get a common frequency the better. A mid-air would do our industry immense harm.
Yes, I had heard some years ago that it had been withdrawn and I appear have the same recent fax that you got.
Letsby,
WRT your profile, which Midlands is that? Are they all thick in your part of the world?
The point is, everyone that there are lots of different ideas on how it should be done. However, has anyone actually been successful in making air-to-air contact where two aircraft planned or happened to be on the same VHF frequency? I believe that we have a real flight safety problem here. We all plan to operate in the bits of airspace that no-one else often can or wishes to use but we consistently go like bees round a honey pot to certain jobs e.g. Tracker. Just when we are likely to be in the same place our attention gets drawn towards events on the ground...the sooner we get a common frequency the better. A mid-air would do our industry immense harm.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Marco,
just found it in the AIP sect 3.4.3 para 2.3. It is actually meant as a common departure frequency for use at non radio helicopter landing sites and the official call prefix is DEPCOM. I'll be suprised if anyone actually uses it. It's the same frequency as the old Gt Yarmouth company one and I can't recall ever hearing anyone on it, mind you I think it had only just been announced then (1995).
------------------
Another day in paradise
just found it in the AIP sect 3.4.3 para 2.3. It is actually meant as a common departure frequency for use at non radio helicopter landing sites and the official call prefix is DEPCOM. I'll be suprised if anyone actually uses it. It's the same frequency as the old Gt Yarmouth company one and I can't recall ever hearing anyone on it, mind you I think it had only just been announced then (1995).
------------------
Another day in paradise
Guest
Posts: n/a
Depcom freq still used for heli sites, suggest North Sea Wallahs use what they like until someone tells them otherwise. Only problem I can sea (cheap pun) is that they may hear the odd conversation between airliners on job prospects and pay...could be quite sad if the chopper pilot is working his a@@e off IMC at the time.
Keep to the AIC guidelines and you can't go wrong....mmmmmmm!
Keep to the AIC guidelines and you can't go wrong....mmmmmmm!
Guest
Posts: n/a
From the North Sea ATC side, different areas of the NS are given different rig freqs. Some end up being traffic areas (Piper, Beryl). I thought that all the rigs in the area used that freq to talk to the decks.
In the ESB there are a few deck freqs, 2 of which are also ATC freqs. This is due to change as the ESB is going to get bigger so to overlap the Sumburgh SSR, and go down to just 122.25. This was all supposed to happen last month, and may well happen in the next few. Don't know about the deck freqs though.
[This message has been edited by Concrete (edited 05 January 2001).]
In the ESB there are a few deck freqs, 2 of which are also ATC freqs. This is due to change as the ESB is going to get bigger so to overlap the Sumburgh SSR, and go down to just 122.25. This was all supposed to happen last month, and may well happen in the next few. Don't know about the deck freqs though.
[This message has been edited by Concrete (edited 05 January 2001).]
