[Milsurplus] Re: Beginning of use of UHF aero radios

[D C Macdonald]

While I am not certain as to whether that allocation
still exists, I would not be surprised to learn that it did.

I expect that as long as ATC functions can be squeezed
into the current VHF allocation there will be no civilian
rush to populate any UHF allocation.  The FAA maintains
many UHF and VHF ground-to-air receivers and transmitters
plus the linear amps for same.  I work on them every day
here at the FAA Logistic Center (depot overhaul shops)
in Oklahoma City.

Europe has gone (or is going) to channelization of only
8.333 kHz between channels in tht VHF spectrum due to
severe crowding.  Obviously adjacent channels would not be
assigned to locations that were close enough to be
normally subject to interference.

This is the same reasoning which some states used in the
decision to go to 20 kHz separation between coordinated
frequencies on the amateur 2 meter (144-148 MHz) band.
Most areas still use a 15 kHz spacing within the 2 meter
band, but 45 kHz actual spacing would be the absolute
minimum separation between closely spaced operating
locations.

Mac, K2GKK
wi

----Original Message Follows----
From: gfdubois at juno.com
To: milsurplus at mailman.qth.net
Subject: [Milsurplus] Re: Beginning of use of UHF aero radios
Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2004 14:57:25 -0800

In Docket 6651 (1945), the FCC still had three proposals for the "lower"
frequencies, including the FM Broadcast band at 50 to 68 MC. But the band
225 - 328.6 and 335.4 - 400 MC was allocated for Fixed and Mobile
service, with the US allocation showing "Government (military) with
adequate channels to be reserved for civil aviation."  In a follow-up
Order in the same docket, the US allocation was listed as "Government, 75
Aero channels for Non-Gov."
Well, that part never happened, did it?


George