ATP Seminole Crash

I noticed in the NTSB accident report that they found that one of the transponders was set to 1200 which would be expected, but the other was set to 2000. I am wondering why one was set to 2000? Was this a special procedure for VFR departures from FLL or what? Could someone who has local knowledge please explain that if they know?
 
UndauntedFlyer said:
I noticed in the NTSB accident report that they found that one of the transponders was set to 1200 which would be expected, but the other was set to 2000. I am wondering why one was set to 2000? Was this a special procedure for VFR departures from FLL or what? Could someone who has local knowledge please explain that if they know?
Click to expand...
Crew Resource management. All ATP seminoles have two transponders. The one not being used is set to the assigned or selected altitude. Same reason you set your heading bug, one less thing to remember.
 
It seems that frequency 123.45 was being used as a CTAF frequency in the Alert Area. Can anyone reference a source that says 123.45 is FAA or FCC authorized for use in that area. I suspect that the use of 123.45 was just something everyone used but it was never officially approved or authorized by any government authority.

Any comments from local pilots would be appreciated regarding this subject.
 
UndauntedFlyer said:
It seems that frequency 123.45 was being used as a CTAF frequency in the Alert Area. Can anyone reference a source that says 123.45 is FAA or FCC authorized for use in that area. I suspect that the use of 123.45 was just something everyone used but it was never officially approved or authorized by any government authority.

Any comments from local pilots would be appreciated regarding this subject.
Click to expand...
Who cares? Or are you saying every single training flight that takes place is unsafe if there isn't a published practice area frequency (in which case someone needs to call the FAA and have the flight program at the university I went to shut down immediately...everyone used the flight school's ops frequency, and no one who didn't attend the school would know that).
 
Hmmm.....I actually have never flown a 79 seminole outside of standardization, but all the 2000 and above we have here at GKY do not have two transponders.
 
LoadMasterC141 said:
Hmmm.....I actually have never flown a 79 seminole outside of standardization, but all the 2000 and above we have here at GKY do not have two transponders.
Click to expand...

The 79's have two transponders and one 430. 2000's and up that have two 430's only have the one transponder.
 
Clocks said:
Who cares? Or are you saying every single training flight that takes place is unsafe if there isn't a published practice area frequency (in which case someone needs to call the FAA and have the flight program at the university I went to shut down immediately...everyone used the flight school's ops frequency, and no one who didn't attend the school would know that).
Click to expand...

In this case the accident pilots were flying in a designated Alert Area where the chart warned of high levels of training aircraft. This was shown so that extra caution and vigilance could be used by any pilot in that area. Use of 123.45 for a sort of CTAF procedure was pure rumor and was apparently unauthorized since that frequency is not listed as a discrete frequency for A291B or to be used for any type of air to air communication in that area or any anywhere else in the CONUS. Frequency 123.45 is often abused by GA pilots, and used for air to air when it is not authorized for that purpose. 123.45 is used simple because it is easy to remember and for no other reason. I guess the only correct frequency for air to air by airplanes, 122.75, as shown in the AIM, is just too difficult for the average pilot to remember, or so it seems.

Very simply, if a frequency is not listed for a specific use by pilots, then it is not authorized. Use of unauthorized frequencies is a violation of FCC regulations and indirectly a violation of FAA regulations too. No, I don't think the FAA or the FAA is going to come after anyone anytime soon, but if you use 123.45 and you use your N number, you are exposing yourself to possible certificate action. Use caution.
 
UndauntedFlyer said:
In this case the accident pilots were flying in a designated Alert Area where the chart warned of high levels of training aircraft. This was shown so that extra caution and vigilance could be used by any pilot in that area. Use of 123.45 for a sort of CTAF procedure was pure rumor and was apparently unauthorized since that frequency is not listed as a discrete frequency for A291B or to be used for any type of air to air communication in that area or any anywhere else in the CONUS. Frequency 123.45 is often abused by GA pilots, and used for air to air when it is not authorized for that purpose. 123.45 is used simple because it is easy to remember and for no other reason. I guess the only correct frequency for air to air by airplanes, 122.75, as shown in the AIM, is just too difficult for the average pilot to remember, or so it seems.

Very simply, if a frequency is not listed for a specific use by pilots, then it is not authorized. Use of unauthorized frequencies is a violation of FCC regulations and indirectly a violation of FAA regulations too. No, I don't think the FAA or the FAA is going to come after anyone anytime soon, but if you use 123.45 and you use your N number, you are exposing yourself to possible certificate action. Use caution.
Click to expand...

Without using the AIM, can you show me where the use of 12345 is a violation of a regulation? Aircraft radios do not require licensing you know...
 
The AIM only says what frequencies are authorized. So logic says that using freqencies that is not authorized is not allowed and thereby prohibited. It is a fact that 123.45 has been offically reserved by other users so when it is used by someone other that an authorized user that would be the same as initiating air to air (for personal use or as a CTAF freq) on the FLL tower or MIA clearance deliver or United Airlines Operations' frequency. Use of a non-authorized frequency by a non-authorized person certainly can not be OK with the FCC or any other authority such as the FAA since such use would affect the safety of flight by the authorized users of those frequencies for their authorized purposes. So to me that means it is prohibited.

So is that a "careless and reckless operation" as prohibited by 91.13? Well is it careless and reckless to jam FLL approach or MIA clearance delivery or UAL operations with your air to air communications? I would think so. As I have said, using 123.45 as an unauthorized user is a direct violation of FCC rules and an indirect violation of FAA rules (14 CFR 91.13)

The key to this regarding A-291B is whether there is any official publication (Chart, A/FD, other pub) that says for pilots in the Alert Area (or even outside the Alert Area) to use 123.45 for CTAF purposes or even any other purposes such as air to air. I do not believe there is, so therefore use of 123.45 is not authorized anywhere in the CONUS by GA unless specifically authorized.

Further comments are appreciated.
 
UndauntedFlyer said:
The AIM only says what frequencies are authorized. So logic says that using freqencies that is not authorized is not allowed and thereby prohibited. It is a fact that 123.45 has been offically reserved by other users so when it is used by someone other that an authorized user that would be the same as initiating air to air (for personal use or as a CTAF freq) on the FLL tower or MIA clearance deliver or United Airlines Operations' frequency. Use of a non-authorized frequency by a non-authorized person certainly can not be OK with the FCC or any other authority such as the FAA since such use would affect the safety of flight by the authorized users of those frequencies for their authorized purposes. So to me that means it is prohibited.

So is that a "careless and reckless operation" as prohibited by 91.13? Well is it careless and reckless to jam FLL approach or MIA clearance delivery or UAL operations with your air to air communications? I would think so. As I have said, using 123.45 as an unauthorized user is a direct violation of FCC rules and an indirect violation of FAA rules (14 CFR 91.13)

The key to this regarding A-291B is whether there is any official publication (Chart, A/FD, other pub) that says for pilots in the Alert Area (or even outside the Alert Area) to use 123.45 for CTAF purposes or even any other purposes such as air to air. I do not believe there is, so therefore use of 123.45 is not authorized anywhere in the CONUS by GA unless specifically authorized.

Further comments are appreciated.
Click to expand...

What you are forgetting is that the AIM is non-regulatory. Lots of the AIM can be found in FARs, but in the case of "authorized" frequencies there is nothing listed.

Also, using 123.45 is not an FCC violation. Air to air communication does not require licensing, and there are not regulations that restrict use of radios in an aircraft. Ground to air communication however, does require a permit. I suppose the FAA could get you for careless and wreckless if you were doing something on an approach frequency or something of that sort. But no aircraft is going to fly to a class B, C, or D airport and use 122.8 as their "unicom" frequency. That airspace requires a clearance or two way comms. Remember that even at class E airports you are not required to make radio calls. You could use 123.45 and make reports in the pattern if you wanted to I suppose. You aren't going to get violated for being wreckless when you are perfectly in the right, not making radio calls or using a different frequency.

Personally, I think you should use the designated frequencies whenever you are able. I've seen frequencies 122.75, and 122.85 used for practice areas, and the FAA seems to have no issues with that procedure. If there is an issue with it perhaps they should make a regulation about radio use...
 
juxtapilot said:
What you are forgetting is that the AIM is non-regulatory. Lots of the AIM can be found in FARs, but in the case of "authorized" frequencies there is nothing listed.

Also, using 123.45 is not an FCC violation. Air to air communication does not require licensing, and there are not regulations that restrict use of radios in an aircraft. Ground to air communication however, does require a permit. I suppose the FAA could get you for careless and wreckless if you were doing something on an approach frequency or something of that sort. But no aircraft is going to fly to a class B, C, or D airport and use 122.8 as their "unicom" frequency. That airspace requires a clearance or two way comms. Remember that even at class E airports you are not required to make radio calls. You could use 123.45 and make reports in the pattern if you wanted to I suppose. You aren't going to get violated for being wreckless when you are perfectly in the right, not making radio calls or using a different frequency.

Personally, I think you should use the designated frequencies whenever you are able. I've seen frequencies 122.75, and 122.85 used for practice areas, and the FAA seems to have no issues with that procedure. If there is an issue with it perhaps they should make a regulation about radio use...
Click to expand...

Sorry, but I can not buy your view on this. 123.45 is reserved for other uses just as is MIA approach control frequency, reserved for their exclusive use. Surely you don't think pilots could tie up that frequency with their air to air chatter do you? Using 123.45 is not authorized for anyone to use but those who have applied to the FCC for its use and is then approved.

123.45 is already reserved.

Frequency 123.45 Hz is frequently being misused by GA aircraft for air to air communications. The only correct frequencies for this type of communications are 122.75.

While many GA pilots continue to incorrectly use 123.45 for air to air communications (for whatever reason) they should be aware that that frequency is designated by the FCC for use by other aircraft during oceanic operations and for some specific operations within the Continental USA.

123.45 is used by all air carrier aircraft as they coast out (Atlantic and Pacific) for international flights.

If 123.34 is used by GA aircraft for communications while flying in non-costal areas this is not correct but doesn’t really cause any problems that I am aware of. A problem does occur when GA aircraft actively use this frequency for air to air communication in coastal areas. All air carriers and any other aircraft that are beginning or completing their oceanic crossings are switching to or still using 123.45 Hz at that point. GA pilots using 123.45 Hz for air to air communications in those costal locations should be aware that every transmission made by them is being monitored by many aircraft.

Improper use of VHF frequencies could result in violations by the FCC/FAA so be aware of this.

http://www.faa.gov/ats/aat/ifim/ifim0111.htm

GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR OCEANIC OPERATIONS.
Frequency 121.5 MHz is not authorized for routine use; 123.45 should be used for air-to-air communications.


AERONAUTICAL INFORMATION MANUAL
Air-to-air communications: 122.750

This subject seems to be a burr under everyone's saddle. ICAO recommended that ICAO signatory countries adopt 123.45 MHz as the inter-pilot air-to-air frequency in Oceanic Operating areas and when out of VHF range of ground stations. Recent(tonight) research reveals that all North and South American countries, Europe and Australia(and probably many others) have adopted the ICAO recommendation into their respective AIP's.

So, the question remains: Why do so many people think it's okay to use 123.45 MHz for air-to-air chatter in the CONUS? After further research, I think I have a clue. Here goes.

Although the block of frequencies between 123.1125-123.5875 MHz was allocated by the FCC for use by flight test and aviation instructional stations, the specific frequency 123.45 was never assigned by the FCC or the FAA for any purpose. Because it was so easy to remember, I suspect it was hijacked by folks who wanted to fly(or try anyway) in formation, join up somewhere together, etc.

A few years ago a group titled the Aerospace Flight Test Radio Coordinating Council (AFTRCC) lobbied the FCC for some discrete frequencies to be used for flight test purposes. They were eventually successful in obtaining some discrete frequencies, 123.45 MHz being one of them. At least 12 military installations engaged in aviation flight test have been assigned 123.45 MHz. They are:

User......................City.................... ...............Approx. Lat/Long
NASA..................Crows Landing, CA..........37N-121W
US Air Force.......Edwards AFB, CA............35N-118W
NASA..................Moffett Field, CA.............37N-122W
US Army.............Windsor Locks, CT...........42N-73W
US Navy..............Patuxent, MD....................38N-76W
US Army.............Lakehurst, NJ....................40N-74W
US Air Force.......Nevada Test Range, NV...37N-116W
NASA.................Cleveland, OH...................42N-82W
US Army.............Quonset, RI........................42N-71W
US Army.............Columbia, SC....................34N-81W
NASA.................Wallops Island, VA...........38N-75W
US Army.............Truax Field, WI.................43N-89W

Any unauthorized use of 123.45 MHz within VHF range of one of the above ground stations runs the risk of interfering with the flight test operations in progress, possibly to the detriment of safety.

The FCC, which allocates frequencies, usually in blocks of frequencies, to governmental agencies and commercial entities, has adopted a position that any frequency that has not been specifically assigned to anyone is not to be used for communications.

So……Use of 123.45 MHz in CONUS used to be tolerated if not authorized. Not necessarily any longer for the reasons stated above. Even though 122.75 and 122.85 aren’t as easy to use or remember as 123.45, they are assigned by the FCC for air-to-air use while 123.45 is assigned for other purposes.

Some links follow:
http://aerorfi.org/forum/read.php?f=1&i=167&t=167
aeroRFI.org is an association of Airline Pilots and Technicians, Communications Industry and Government representatives. Most of us are Amateur Radio Operators, Engineers or Radio Technicians. Our goal is cooperation with FAA, FCC, ICAO and Government Officials worldwide in their efforts to reduce radio interference within the aeronautical communication and navigation frequencies.
http://aerorfi.org/

A relevant thread on PPrune.
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=221032
 
UndauntedFlyer said:
The AIM only says what frequencies are authorized. So logic says that using freqencies that is not authorized is not allowed and thereby prohibited. It is a fact that 123.45 has been offically reserved by other users so when it is used by someone other that an authorized user that would be the same as initiating air to air (for personal use or as a CTAF freq) on the FLL tower or MIA clearance deliver or United Airlines Operations' frequency. Use of a non-authorized frequency by a non-authorized person certainly can not be OK with the FCC or any other authority such as the FAA since such use would affect the safety of flight by the authorized users of those frequencies for their authorized purposes. So to me that means it is prohibited.

So is that a "careless and reckless operation" as prohibited by 91.13? Well is it careless and reckless to jam FLL approach or MIA clearance delivery or UAL operations with your air to air communications? I would think so. As I have said, using 123.45 as an unauthorized user is a direct violation of FCC rules and an indirect violation of FAA rules (14 CFR 91.13)

The key to this regarding A-291B is whether there is any official publication (Chart, A/FD, other pub) that says for pilots in the Alert Area (or even outside the Alert Area) to use 123.45 for CTAF purposes or even any other purposes such as air to air. I do not believe there is, so therefore use of 123.45 is not authorized anywhere in the CONUS by GA unless specifically authorized.

Further comments are appreciated.
Click to expand...


Why dont you start your own thread and give this one back that you have hijacked.
 
The Skymates accident occurred in Nov 2007, this one in Dec 2008...13 months difference. Following that logic, I guess in about 13 months!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top