vhbra241
Member
What happened to the frequency listing for the Oakland ARTCC. It disappeared and has not come back.
Oakland ARTCC
- Thread starter vhbra241
- Start date
- Status
ka3jjz
Wiki Admin Emeritus
Interesting - the page title is there but little else - here's the URL
Oakland (ZOA) Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC) Scanner Frequencies and Radio Frequency Reference
Mike
Oakland (ZOA) Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC) Scanner Frequencies and Radio Frequency Reference
Mike
ka3jjz
Wiki Admin Emeritus
Frankly I think it would be better if the FAA listings were dropped in their entirety and restore the DB entries. A link to the FAA listings would be appropriate, along with the warning about their accuracy.
If we're only supposed to have validated information in the database, it kinda flies against the process, as we all know those FAA listings are iffy in their accuracy....Mike
If we're only supposed to have validated information in the database, it kinda flies against the process, as we all know those FAA listings are iffy in their accuracy....Mike
I have seen many people blast the FAA listings for the accuracy. I have been using the FAA listings from their 56 day database for years. Are they 100% accurate, NO. Are they very close, my scanner is receiving ARTCC comms on nearly all listed for the ZJX area. Have I found ARTCC frequencies still active that are not on the list, YES. Taking into account the number of frequencies the FAA lists verses the errors, what is the actual error percentage?
I have seen on this forum as well as others if someone lists a set of frequencies and just 1 frequency is in error they'll blast the entire list (or website) has being junk or outdated. I have seen this from experience. A website I use nearly everyday gets blasted all the time even though it contains frequencies that make my scanner sing with tons of comms just as that website said. I think when it comes to saying if a site is accurate or not, its not fair to blast an entire list because there might be a few errors. Its called Percent Error. I haven't seen any site 100% accurate, including RR. I haven't seen any site 100% in error. While I haven't been into scanning for a long time, I can see some people have axes to grind with some website. That hurts the entire scanning community.
I have used ARTCC frequncies that were submitted by other listeners. Again, while the scanner picks up a lot of comms on user submitted frequencies what I have found is that many people submitting ARTCC frequencies will submit an ATC frequencies thinking its an ARTCC, or they don't know the difference.
Which is better? User submitted ARTCC frequencies or FAA listed frequencies? To answer that question you need to look at the Percent Error. Sharpen your pencil, not your axe.
I have seen on this forum as well as others if someone lists a set of frequencies and just 1 frequency is in error they'll blast the entire list (or website) has being junk or outdated. I have seen this from experience. A website I use nearly everyday gets blasted all the time even though it contains frequencies that make my scanner sing with tons of comms just as that website said. I think when it comes to saying if a site is accurate or not, its not fair to blast an entire list because there might be a few errors. Its called Percent Error. I haven't seen any site 100% accurate, including RR. I haven't seen any site 100% in error. While I haven't been into scanning for a long time, I can see some people have axes to grind with some website. That hurts the entire scanning community.
I have used ARTCC frequncies that were submitted by other listeners. Again, while the scanner picks up a lot of comms on user submitted frequencies what I have found is that many people submitting ARTCC frequencies will submit an ATC frequencies thinking its an ARTCC, or they don't know the difference.
Which is better? User submitted ARTCC frequencies or FAA listed frequencies? To answer that question you need to look at the Percent Error. Sharpen your pencil, not your axe.
profiledescent
Member
It's like anything else, you need to gather data from several sources, then cross check and verify.
Example, and I'm not slamming or axing ARRL. ARRL's repeater directory comes out annually. Everyone knows it's full of dead pairs and other errors or omissions. But hey, that's what the repeater councils are sending them to publish, so you have to crosscheck with local club websites, coordination websites, operator reports, reapeaterbook.com, and alike. Repeaterbook.com is an interesting source. They have gleaned data from every source they can find, then us end users log in and confirm whether a site/freq is up or down.
Same for air band. It's not like we were paying money to Jeppesen and getting bad charts. After all, it's a hobby.
Example, and I'm not slamming or axing ARRL. ARRL's repeater directory comes out annually. Everyone knows it's full of dead pairs and other errors or omissions. But hey, that's what the repeater councils are sending them to publish, so you have to crosscheck with local club websites, coordination websites, operator reports, reapeaterbook.com, and alike. Repeaterbook.com is an interesting source. They have gleaned data from every source they can find, then us end users log in and confirm whether a site/freq is up or down.
Same for air band. It's not like we were paying money to Jeppesen and getting bad charts. After all, it's a hobby.
vhbra241
Member
Thanks to all for your attention to this!
- Status
