AVSIG: CATF question wwswsigarch.jpg (7236 bytes)

✈ . . . . . . ✈ . . . . . ✈ . . . . ✈ . . . ✈ . . ✈ . ✈ . . ✈ . . . ✈ . . . . ✈ . . . . . ✈ . . . . . . Touch-and-Go to our Live Forum (This is a Read-only Archive of the 2004-2017 AVSIG Forum)


AVSIG Discussion Sections >> FAA Topics

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | >> (show all)
Kcid LlirreM
Top Gun


Reged: 05/15/04
Posts: 4768
Loc: Chuckey, TN
CATF question
      #321139 - 07/19/11 09:03 PM

Our airpark (04tn) uses 122.9 as the CATF, the standard frequency for uncontrolled airports with no other communications. However GCY airport, the county airport 7 NM west of us uses 122.7 as their CATF. I have suggested to the owners that it would enhance safety if we also were using 122.7 as the CATF, thereby hearing the nearby traffic and they would hear us and we would know each others intentions.

Does this sound like a good (or bad) idea to you all.

Dick


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Ward Miller POU-NY
Top Gun


Reged: 05/05/04
Posts: 10508
Loc: New York
CATF question [Re: Kcid LlirreM]
      #321144 - 07/19/11 09:45 PM

Dick, I think having separate frequencies is the better choice.

Here in the upstate NY region we have many airports using the 122.8 CATF.
Listening for 10 minutes we can probably hear aircraft from a dozen
airports. And many of them with identical runway configurations. So we
might be in the pattern at 44N and hear someone declare, "Base to final,
runway 35". Without an airport ID. So we fruitlessly scan for that
aircraft, rather than doing our regular scan everywhere.

If every pilot always gave the airport ID, it might sometimes be useful
information. But absent the airport ID, that is often the case, the vague
information is more distracting than useful.

Looking at it another way, when on CATF and near an airport, I am more
interested in traffic in that airport's airspace than traffic in a nearby
airport's airspace.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Kcid LlirreM
Top Gun


Reged: 05/15/04
Posts: 4768
Loc: Chuckey, TN
Re: CATF question [Re: Ward Miller POU-NY]
      #321150 - 07/19/11 11:43 PM

Ward,

Thanks for the comments. Around here neither airport is very busy and we hear more traffic from other airports on 122.9 than on the 122.7 of the Greene County airport.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
sreyoB yrraL
AVSIG Member


Reged: 05/16/04
Posts: 9442
Re: CATF question [Re: Kcid LlirreM]
      #321157 - 07/20/11 12:21 AM

CTAF

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Scott Dyer [HPN/NY]
Top Gun


Reged: 01/11/03
Posts: 20065
CATF question [Re: Kcid LlirreM]
      #321162 - 07/20/11 06:56 AM

Dick -- I like your idea of a change to the 122.7 CTAF for your field, given
the proximity of GCY, for the reasons you state. Given the low level of
freq. usage down by you, I don't see a practical downside.

--------------------
www.scottdyercfi.com


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Stephanie Belser-2
Top Gun APC


Reged: 04/28/04
Posts: 7139
Loc: KFAM
Re: CATF question [Re: Kcid LlirreM]
      #321165 - 07/20/11 08:22 AM

Dick,

When 1B1 changed its Unicom freq from 122.8 to 123.05, it was probably a solid year (and two sectional editions) before it was not unusual to hear pilots announcing on 122.8.

Having different frequencies strikes me as being better. You get up to about 3,000' AGL in these parts and 122.8 might as well be a continual squeal of noise on a nice VFR weekend.

And you don't want to get me started on the jet drivers calling on 122.8 from 15,000' to make sure that there is a limo waiting for the muckety-muck riding in the cabin.....


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Bruce Gorrell [EQY]
Top Gun


Reged: 04/29/04
Posts: 7864
Loc: Charlotte, NC
Re: CATF question [Re: Stephanie Belser-2]
      #321224 - 07/20/11 08:23 PM

Well, 122.8 IS a unicom frequency, not a CTAF frequency.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Scott Dyer [HPN/NY]
Top Gun


Reged: 01/11/03
Posts: 20065
CATF question [Re: Bruce Gorrell [EQY]]
      #321251 - 07/21/11 07:14 AM

Bruce - 122.8, and others, such as 122.7, 122.725, 122.975 and 123.0, are
designated as UNICOM frequencies but can also be published as the CTAF for an
airport. From table 4-1-1 in the AIM.

--------------------
www.scottdyercfi.com


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
John Gaitskill, 0A7
Top Gun


Reged: 05/15/04
Posts: 1412
Loc: hendersonville, nc
Re: CATF question [Re: Bruce Gorrell [EQY]]
      #321255 - 07/21/11 09:33 AM

The chart shows many airports with a little C by 122.8, meaning it's to be used for common traffic advisories.

I haven't seen a big problem with high altitude conversations about the limo. They seem to keep it short.
It's much worse when people use the word "approximately" then say 6.2 miles from the airport, as well as other long winded communications for their traffic announcements. I encourage my students to say "Hendersonville traffic Skyhawk 5 north inbound Hendersonville" If they are 5.5 or 4.9 it doesn't matter. They don't need to tell it's going to be a full stop, and I don't need the N number. The type of plane to look for is most important to me.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
John Gaitskill, 0A7
Top Gun


Reged: 05/15/04
Posts: 1412
Loc: hendersonville, nc
Re: CATF question [Re: Kcid LlirreM]
      #321256 - 07/21/11 09:34 AM

I'm not sure you could use 122.7 without a base station. I thought 122.9 was used at airports with anyone on the ground to respond. The FCC may have some requirements for that.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | >> (show all)



Extra information
0 registered and 31 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  Mike Overly 

Print Topic

Forum Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is disabled
      UBBCode is enabled

Rating:
Topic views: 5483

Rate this topic

Jump to

Contact Us AVSIG

Powered by UBB.threads™ 6.5.5

Logout   Main Index    AVSIG Aviation Forum