RadioReference on Facebook   RadioReference on Twitter   RadioReference Blog
 

Go Back   The RadioReference.com Forums > Amateur Radio > Amateur Radio General Discussion

Amateur Radio General Discussion General discussion forum for amateur radio topics not covered by the above forums.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #21 (permalink)  
Old 04-05-2014, 11:26 AM
Member
   
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: In the 'patch
Posts: 2,179
Default What are the most common 70m simplex frequencies that are used?

Quote:
Originally Posted by gewecke View Post
On the contrary, I just put those simplex suggestions in my radios since I prefer the quieter simplex frequencies over the "beep-boop" repeaters any day.
I'm by no means new, but I have become calloused to the 21st century repeaters since they seem to have every feature imaginable activated.

73,
n9zas

Ahh, yea, nothing better than a repeater with reverse burst, a 500ms tail, and no courtesy tones... Yea simplex is fun.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
__________________
Interoperatablity is not a technology it is an attitude!!!
Reply With Quote
Sponsored links
  #22 (permalink)  
Old 04-05-2014, 11:27 AM
aspicer's Avatar
Member
  Premium Subscriber
Premium Subscriber
Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Oakland Park,FL.
Posts: 22
Default National Grass Growing Frequency

Quote:
Originally Posted by Danny37 View Post
Wait 447 is used as a national calling in some regions?
In some regions they drink tea in the afternoon, in others they drink coffee in the morning and maybe afternoon. Doesn't change the simplex national calling frequency on UHF. Don't be silly. An no one hardly ever uses that ... so don't waste your time and your memories.

146.520 is quite active in Southeast Florida - I would imagine elsewhere in the US as well. Not much fun scanning that as the signals can be strong sometimes and other times not. If are scanning a lot of stuff between transmissions chances are you'll miss half of what's said. It's more of a stay parked there kind of thing. And listening is about as much fun as watching grass grow if you can't talk.
Reply With Quote
  #23 (permalink)  
Old 04-07-2014, 6:11 PM
w4rez's Avatar
Member
  Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 224
Default

I hear quite a bit of activity on both 446.000 and 146.520 from here near Kennesaw, GA. But then again I'm very close to a major interstate (I-75) near a major metro area.
__________________
Jeff
"Let's encrypt Animal Control! Fido might hear that we're coming to get him!!"
Reply With Quote
  #24 (permalink)  
Old 04-08-2014, 4:58 PM
gewecke's Avatar
Member
  Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Northwest Illinois
Posts: 5,769
Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by aspicer View Post
They probably weren't talking if they were experimenting with balloons. It was probably telemetry data. I doubt the hams were on balloons flying around talking simplex on 440.

It's like the balloon payments for your house ... they keep going UP!
Nope, two different hot air balloons taking air temp readings, altitude, rate of ascent and they may have been taking pics since they were talking about aperture settings at one point. Both ops were comparing their findings to each other. 73, n9zas
__________________
"Whatever doesn't kill you...will make you stronger"!
Reply With Quote
  #25 (permalink)  
Old 05-06-2014, 9:54 AM
Member
  Premium Subscriber
Premium Subscriber
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Indianapolis IN
Posts: 152
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fineshot1 View Post
Folks - bottom line is that band plans are determined by a regional coordination council. See list below on the NFCC website for what state you are in. The ARRL band plans are simply suggested and the regional councils determine this.
NFCC.US - NFCC Coordinators
Not to pick a fight, but band plans created by regional coordination bodies are likewise suggestions, as they have no official authority whatsoever, except in the case of repeater conflicts due to harmful interference. (97.205(c)). You should probably adhere to them unless you have a very good reason not to, but they do not carry any official force any more the the ARRL suggested band plan.

One humorous example of coordination bodies going "Barney Fife" is the Utah VHF Society basically commanding that nobody use tone squelch on a simplex frequency. Sorry, they don't have any business prescribing such things. It's none of their business. Coordination bodies only have very limited authority with respect to conflicts between repeaters due to harmful interference. Nothing else. Some of these coordination bodies are too big for their britches. Luckily I live in a state where this is not the case.

Last edited by bill4long; 05-06-2014 at 10:08 AM..
Reply With Quote
Sponsored links
  #26 (permalink)  
Old 05-07-2014, 1:12 AM
Member
   
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: California
Posts: 4,580
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bill4long View Post
One humorous example of coordination bodies going "Barney Fife" is the Utah VHF Society basically commanding that nobody use tone squelch on a simplex frequency. Sorry, they don't have any business prescribing such things. It's none of their business.
Perhaps you should provide a link to their FAQ page that explains why it's a bad idea.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bill4long View Post
Coordination bodies only have very limited authority with respect to conflicts between repeaters due to harmful interference. Nothing else. Some of these coordination bodies are too big for their britches. Luckily I live in a state where this is not the case.
Actually, this is not entirely true. In many areas, the frequency coordinating groups have also been charged (by the local amateur community, thereby giving them the "authority") to produce local band plans that include simplex and weak signal assignments.
Reply With Quote
  #27 (permalink)  
Old 05-07-2014, 8:00 AM
Member
  Premium Subscriber
Premium Subscriber
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Indianapolis IN
Posts: 152
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zz0468 View Post
In many areas, the frequency coordinating groups have also been charged (by the local amateur community, thereby giving them the "authority") to produce local band plans that include simplex and weak signal assignments.
How would "the Amateur Community" go about doing that? Was there a vote taken? At any rate, they have no legal or official authority to dictate simplex frequencies. It's just that simple.
Reply With Quote
  #28 (permalink)  
Old 05-07-2014, 9:05 AM
WB4CS's Avatar
Member
  Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Northern Alabama
Posts: 827
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bill4long View Post
How would "the Amateur Community" go about doing that? Was there a vote taken? At any rate, they have no legal or official authority to dictate simplex frequencies. It's just that simple.
This is the correct answer. The "official authority" is FCC Part 97 rules. The only rule about coordination refers to repeaters. A repeater does not have to be coordinated, but if it interferes with a coordinated repeater the non-coordinated repeater must resolve the issue (IE: Move.)

Local frequency coordinators can suggest band plans but they cannot enforce them. As long as you're not causing interference to any ongoing transmissions (repeaters, packet stations, etc.) you can operate FM simplex anywhere from 144.100 to 148.00 on 2 meters, and anywhere between 420.00 and 450.00 on 70cm. Just as you can also operate CW on any amateur frequency, even in the FM simplex portion of the band.

Now, if you don't go by the local band plans you might make a few people mad but you're perfectly within the law of Part 97.
__________________
Brandon, WB4CS
Kenwood TM-V71A, TM-281A, TH-K20A. Yaesu FT-60R
Amateur radio is a hobby. We supplement emergency communications, not replace them.
Reply With Quote
  #29 (permalink)  
Old 05-09-2014, 12:14 AM
Member
   
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: California
Posts: 4,580
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bill4long View Post
How would "the Amateur Community" go about doing that? Was there a vote taken?
I don't know about your area, but in my area, yes, absolutely. Votes are taken. I attend the local frequency coordination general meetings, and yes, I get to vote.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bill4long View Post
At any rate, they have no legal or official authority to dictate simplex frequencies. It's just that simple.
I guess that would depend on the specific function taken on by the area coordinator. In my area, there are three frequency coordinator groups, taking care of various bands. All three will allow votes by the amateur community on various issues. Some of the issues dealt with include allocations for simplex frequencies.

For example, the two meter band has allocated many of the simplex frequencies allocated as repeater inputs and outputs. Not following the local bandplan put forth by the local amateur frequency coordinator could result in a simplex QSO taking place on a repeater input, which would cause harmful interference. Yes, the FCC would (and has) step in, side with the coordinator, and cause that simplex operation to shut down.

Let me put forth a few more things for your amusement...

97.3 Definitions.

(a) The definitions of terms used in part 97 are:

(22) Frequency coordinator. An entity, recognized in a local or regional area by amateur operators whose stations are eligible to be auxiliary or repeater stations, that recommends transmit/receive channels and associated operating and technical parameters for such stations in order to avoid or minimize potential interference.

97.205 Repeater station.

(c) Where the transmissions of a repeater cause harmful interference to another repeater, the two station licensees are equally and fully responsible for resolving the interference unless the operation of one station is recommended by a frequency coordinator and the operation of the other station is not. In that case, the licensee of the non-coordinated repeater has primary responsibility to resolve the interference.

So, clearly the FCC recognizes the frequency coordination process, and has some teeth (albeit small ones) for enforcement. Those small teeth can be pretty sharp, though.

More:

97.101 General Standards.

(a) In all respects not specifically covered by FCC Rules
each amateur station must be operated in accordance with good engineering and good
amateur practice.

This one is a catch all that is used to deal with the folks that refuse to recognize otherwise voluntary bandplans and cause interference to those who do.

Again, small but sharp teeth that occasionally actually get used. It's considered good engineering practice to know and follow the local bandplans, whether or not you're running a repeater. Just because it's technically legal doesn't make it good engineering practice, and doesn't make it "right".
Reply With Quote
Sponsored links
  #30 (permalink)  
Old 05-09-2014, 12:17 AM
Member
   
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: California
Posts: 4,580
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WB4CS View Post
...Now, if you don't go by the local band plans you might make a few people mad but you're perfectly within the law of Part 97.
And read my post above. You might well do more than just get people mad. There IS a mechanism to make the band plans enforceable.
Reply With Quote
  #31 (permalink)  
Old 05-09-2014, 7:22 PM
elk2370bruce's Avatar
Member
   
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: East Brunswick, NJ
Posts: 1,989
Default

Since the OP is located in the NY/NJ Metro area, a listing of simplex frequencies from all over the nation does him no good at all. The metrocore is the best, and only place that can address his question. All the rest is white noise.
__________________
K C 2 P B J
Other useless license information.
List of my out-of-date radios.
Other data that nobody cares about.
Reply With Quote
  #32 (permalink)  
Old 05-09-2014, 10:29 PM
Member
  Premium Subscriber
Premium Subscriber
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Indianapolis IN
Posts: 152
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zz0468 View Post
And read my post above. You might well do more than just get people mad. There IS a mechanism to make the band plans enforceable.
You're assuming "good Amateur practice" entails following band plans from repeater coordinators who have no authority whatsoever to create enforceable band plans. You have no regulatory nor historical justification for assuming such.

Given the authority that Communications Acts of 1933 gives the FCC, the FCC can pretty much do whatever they want with regards to Amateur Radio, including revoking your license for arbitrary reasons. However, other than malicious interference or threats, or interference to other radio services, the FCC rarely gets involved with Amateur Radio.

Let's say some local repeater coordinator creates a band plan that says all IRLP simplex nodes should be on such and such frequencies, and someone chooses to ignore it, as long as there is no malicious interference, some Barney Fife can write all the letters he wants to the FCC complaining about it, the FCC isn't going to get involved. Period. Historically, they neither have the time nor the inclination to care about such things.

Last edited by bill4long; 05-09-2014 at 10:33 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #33 (permalink)  
Old 05-09-2014, 11:47 PM
Member
   
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: California
Posts: 4,580
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bill4long View Post
You're assuming "good Amateur practice" entails following band plans from repeater coordinators who have no authority whatsoever to create enforceable band plans. You have no regulatory nor historical justification for assuming such.
I just quoted several sections of the rules that provide for the regulatory justification. The historical aspect is out there... pay attention.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bill4long View Post
Let's say some local repeater coordinator creates a band plan that says all IRLP simplex nodes should be on such and such frequencies, and someone chooses to ignore it, as long as there is no malicious interference, some Barney Fife can write all the letters he wants to the FCC complaining about it, the FCC isn't going to get involved. Period. Historically, they neither have the time nor the inclination to care about such things.
The interference doesn't have to be malicious. It only has to exist, to be enforceable. It becomes malicious if the interfering station continues to interfere after being informed that his operations are a problem.

The point I'm trying to convey here is that there are a lot of new hams that come here seeking advice. The advice to ignore local bandplans and frequency coordination is bad advice. If you're going to fire up a transmitter somewhere, it's only sensible to make sure it fits in with what everyone else is doing. Coordinations and bandplans are how that's done.

I'm done quibbling with you about it. I'm glad you're out of range for just about everything I do. I don't have to listen to your simplex IRLP node on my repeater input. =)

Last edited by zz0468; 05-10-2014 at 12:57 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #34 (permalink)  
Old 07-09-2014, 6:02 PM
   
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 1
Default

Hello everyone! I have not been on the air for a while and getting back into it slowly. I am also a pilot and about to complete our third experimental plane which will have a 2m/70cm dual band radio installed.

When airborne and not in the "jurisdiction" of a local coordinating body, which simplex freq would you guys recommend moving to after making contact on 446.000?

The plan right now is to install a FT-400DR. I'm hoping with the scope it will be easier to find unused freqs for simplex.

What are your thoughts for best practices (frequencies) when operating on simplex from altitude?

Thanks!
Jon
Reply With Quote
  #35 (permalink)  
Old 07-09-2014, 8:53 PM
Member
  Premium Subscriber
Premium Subscriber
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Indianapolis IN
Posts: 152
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jonerau View Post
What are your thoughts for best practices (frequencies) when operating on simplex from altitude?
Having done a fair amount of aviation ham radio work, I would say 146.52 is your best bet.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored links
  #36 (permalink)  
Old 07-10-2014, 12:23 AM
Member
   
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: California
Posts: 4,580
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jonerau View Post
When airborne and not in the "jurisdiction" of a local coordinating body, which simplex freq would you guys recommend moving to after making contact on 446.000?
I'd just keep it on 446.000 and not change.
Reply With Quote
  #37 (permalink)  
Old 07-10-2014, 12:26 AM
Member
   
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: California
Posts: 4,580
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bill4long View Post
Having done a fair amount of aviation ham radio work, I would say 146.52 is your best bet.
Based on my experiences running aeromobile, I agree. 146.52 is a blast from 7500 feet.
Reply With Quote
  #38 (permalink)  
Old 07-10-2014, 2:24 AM
rescuecomm's Avatar
Member
   
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: West of Greenville, SC
Posts: 907
Default

I have not worked anyone on 446.000 other than prearraigned testing. On 146.520, I worked a guy on a mountain top while mobile on a Sunday morning. Seems like more hams listen to 146.520 than 446.000. UHF is shorter ranged watt per watt than VHF and could explain why you don't hear anyone.

Bob
__________________
Amateur Extra Class
Travelers Rest, SC
Reply With Quote
  #39 (permalink)  
Old 07-10-2014, 5:19 AM
Member
  Premium Subscriber
Premium Subscriber
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Indianapolis IN
Posts: 152
Default

It's also fun to try and hit far away repeaters when I'm aeromobile. Given how most repeaters use PL these days it's a feasible idea. The only real problem I've ever had aeromobile is the noise in the cockpit getting into the microphone, depending on what kind of aeromobile I was in. (Most have been quite noisy.) I eventually resorted to headset with a noise cancelling mic, the same that is used on the aviation radios. All in all, it's quite fun. And I'm not a pilot so I don't have to be concerned about flying the plane.
Reply With Quote
  #40 (permalink)  
Old 07-10-2014, 1:43 PM
Member
   
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: California
Posts: 4,580
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bill4long View Post
...The only real problem I've ever had aeromobile is the noise in the cockpit getting into the microphone, depending on what kind of aeromobile I was in. (Most have been quite noisy.) I eventually resorted to headset with a noise cancelling mic, the same that is used on the aviation radios...
I was lucky enough to own my own airplane, and had the radio built into the panel. If you do this often enough, I have a suggestion for you...

Get a portable intercom system from Sporty's Pilot Shop, like the Transcom II, and a headset. Sigtronics makes some good affordable ones.

The intercom has AUX inputs and outputs to the headset, and can connect to the radio. Adjust the mic gain on the radio way way down, so that you have to close talk the headset microphone. If you pad the audio down inside the Transcomm II box, you can leave the radio itself alone so it works normally outside the aircraft. You end up with pretty decent sounding audio. Yeah, the engine noise is still there, but it ends up way down in the back ground.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
70m, common frequencies, ham, simplex

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 1:55 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
All information here is Copyright 2012 by RadioReference.com LLC and Lindsay C. Blanton III.Ad Management by RedTyger
Copyright 2011 by RadioReference.com LLC Privacy Policy  |  Terms and Conditions