[aprssig] KC2TUA/KC2UFG Balloon - 146.400

[Wes Johnston, AI4PX]

I understand that there is a world outside of these 58 (!!??) states...
<grin>  And I do realize that the ballon TX was on 146.40 and that was the
point being argued on the sig here.

Straight from the ARRL...
http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/bandplan.html

146.40-146.58Simplex
Notes: The frequency 146.40 MHz is used in some areas as a repeater input.
This band plan has been proposed by the ARRL VHF-UHF Advisory Committee.
So yes, you're right... but... my complaint was about a repeater in the
Shelby NC area which was (and may still be) on 146.46 / 147.06 .  That's
nonstandard.  The discussion here just triggered a memory of that odd input
split for me.  The folks that operated on that repeater seemed to think they
owned the 146.46 input frequency which we were "borrowing" whilst at the
Shelby hamfest.  We moved to 146.42 simplex.  When you setup a repeater on a
frequency that is not the norm, you've gotta expect problems - which is why
I said they needed to run pl tone on the input to prevent encroachment.
IMHO  <grin> operating a repeater on such an unusual split is akin to
walking thru the bad part of town at 3am on a saturday night and wondering
why you got mugged.

Poor old APRS operating on the packet subband at 145.79, getting heat from
OSCAR folks, settling in the middle of the low end of 144, now some repeater
with an unusual split mad at aprs... I've stirred this pot enough....
<smile>

Wes
---
Where there's silence, there is no Hope.


On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 5:24 PM, Ron <ve1aic at yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> Wes I very very much disagree.
> This was an high-altitude international flight, so whatever SERA (or you )
> thinks about the repeater plans is irrelevant.
>
> Both ARRL and RAC 2m Bandplans still show 146.40 as a repeater input, with
> reference to checking with local coordination bodies...and no where is it
> considered "non-standard".
>
> Quote From RAC 2m Bandplan:
> (5) The frequencies 146.40, 146.43, 146.46 MHz continue to be used as
> repeater inputs in some areas. Consult with your local coordination body.
>
> (6) Thirteen (13) Channels on a 15 kHz channel raster 146.415, 146.430,
> 146.445, 146.460, 146.475, 146.490, 146.505, 146.520, 146.535, 146.550,
> 146.565, 146.580, 146.595 MHz.
>
> Therefore I would think anyone planning such a flight would steer clear of
> such (#5) channels. Instead one might consider one of the 'splinter'
> channels (#6) if its necessary to operate in this section.(eg:146.415)
>
> However, there are many channels assigned for various packet/digital modes
> that would be much more appropriate than a simplex (voice) channel.
>
> Its hard enough for packet and APRS users to respectfully carve out a
> sliver of 2m band space without people plopping their gear wherever and with
> whatever mode they feel like.
>
> 73, Ron
> VE1AIC
> MARCAN Frequency Coordinator
>
>
> >Wes Johnston, AI4PX wes at ai4px.com
> > I've got to weigh in on the part of this partaining to the repeater
> input.
> > A 147.000(-) repeater is a nonstandard split.  We used to use 146.46 as
> > simplex only to find out that there is a 147.06 repeater around Shelby NC
> > that uses 146.46 as the input.  I can remember being quite upset that
> they
> > were aggrivated with us for walking all over their (non standard)
> repeater
> > input.  Although this is a subject for different reflector, me thinks
> groups
> > like SERA should cull the list of paper repeaters to free up frequency
> pairs
> > so these folks wouldn't have to use the non standard splits to start
> with.
> >
> > AHEM... however due to this nonstandard split where the input frequency
> > CLEARY falls in the simplex portion of the band, I'd say the burden here
> is
> > on the repeater owner to use PL tone input to protect from encroachment
> > simpex users (and in this case 1200 AFSK packet).
> >
> > Wes
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> aprssig mailing list
> aprssig at tapr.org
> https://www.tapr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aprssig
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.tapr.org/pipermail/aprssig_lists.tapr.org/attachments/20090323/9fd8fa47/attachment.html>