Which uhf channel?

bill12 · Guru

Which uhf channel?

chopit · Senior Member

Here's a link to a site that may help.

www.uhfcb.com.au/80-Channel-UHF-Information.php

Big Gorilla · Guru

I stay on Channel 40...

bill12 · Guru

Yes, that's the one I use, also. 28 is the traffic ch. for road works on the Bruce hway, and 18 is the caravaners channel, or so I am told.Will try to test the new radio as soon as I get on the road.It works on my old handheld.AllI need is someone with an 80 ch. Thanks, Bill

jules47 · The Happy Helper

Never heard anybody talking on CH 18 - we use ch 40, good to know what is happening in front, what is coming as in wide loads etc!, road works, general communication.

rockylizard · Guru

bill12 wrote:
Yes, that's the one I use, also. 28 is the traffic ch. for road works on the Bruce hway, and 18 is the caravaners channel, or so I am told.Will try to test the new radio as soon as I get on the road. It works on my old handheld. All I need is someone with an 80 ch. Thanks, Bill

Gday...

You won't necessarily need 'someone with a 80channel unit' ... anyone with a UHF - 40 or 80 - will do ... a 40 channel will talk to an 80 channel and vice versa.

Put it on CH40 and ask for a call check - you will find it works same as your old 40channel.

Cheers - John

Duh · Guru

On a couple of my recent trips, I have noticed farmers using CH18 while in the field and also in one country town a grain terminal was using it to communicate with trucks they were loading. I am wondering if this is because there is so little traffic using CH18?

spice · Senior Member

If you are travelling the Pacific Highway between Newcastle and
Brisbane the road channel is 29, Rod

Bunkerbob · Senior Member

The reason they use 29 on that part of the highway is there is sometimes overchat from the Newell highway who still use 40. 40 is normally the truckies channel and 18 for the caravans. I am in south west WA and have found that most of the farmers here use different channels for their own use obviously sorted out over time. I normally turn them off when approaching a large city as their are idiots who take them over. Not a saint but give us a break.

Wombat 280 · Guru

I use 18 or put it on scan for no particular reason. I wish UHF users would take a lesson or two in the protocols of using a radio correctly. One thing that most users do is talk at the mic rather than across it and all the listener gets is a wind storm distorting any transmission , then there are those who start talking before pushing the transmit button hence when the radio comes on line the initial call sign is lost.

VKPORTABLE · Senior Member

Channels 1-8 / 41-48 Repeater Output
Channels 31-38 / 71-78 Repeater Input

Channel 5/35 Emergency Channel (Don't stake your life on this, emergency monitoring is very few and far between)

Channel 10 - 4WD
Channel 18 - Supposed Caravan/Motor-home Channel (Never heard anyone on it)
Channel 29 - Pacific & Bruce Highway
Channel 40 - Road Channel

I've also heard 4WD's travelling in groups on Channel 12.

Since the 80 channel system is still relatively new you won't hear much activity above channel 40 at this stage, maybe a few farmers etc who have brought new radios and so on.
At this stage there are no repeaters licensed for the new repeater channels (41-48) and there most likely won't be for a long time yet.

Some National Parks have specific channels for operation whilst in the park confines, unfortunately for whatever reason a fair number of people do not change to these channels, stubbornly staying on the road channel, motor-home channel or what-have-you.

KFT · Guru

I scan 5,18,40 when travelling and have often heard groups of caravanners using 18 and have communicated with a few as well.

I noticed a group of workers on the railway line south of here using channel 35 for their worksite comms but did not say anything for fear of being abused.

the biggest problem is nobody polices the incorrect use of reserved channels so they just keep on doing it.

frank

VKPORTABLE · Senior Member

Frank;

Yep, unless there happens to be an ACMA inspector in the area at the time nothing much is going to really happen. If they were causing interference to a Channel 5 repeater and could be identified then it may be followed up.

Since CB is a class licence these days it's not high on the list of priorities for inspectors, they have limited resources - as far as I am aware all inspectors are east-coast based. They have a lot to do and not much man-power to do it with unfortunately. The days of having inspectors scattered across states is long gone.

KFT · Guru

G'day Stewart,

yes I am afraid you are right. It is a shame we have to put up with the language and misuse of channels through a few thoughtless people.

there is no ch 5 repeater in range of where they were operating so I suppose no real harm done this time.

maybe one day!!!

frank

PeterD · Guru

KFT wrote:
It is a shame we have to put up with the language

The wording of the clause in the act is "alarmed and affronted." The problem with any bad language in legislation is someone has to stand up in court and state they were alarmed and/or affronted. We still have not have had anyone prepared to do that. If you can positively identify the offender and prepared to attend court then feel free to make history (as they say.)

VKPORTABLE · Senior Member

Sadly the radio-communications act has no provisions for 'anti-social' behaviour. I had a chat with a ACMA inspector about same kind of matter, different band and there's really not a lot they can do. So someone can tell you to Get &*&%$# and there isn't a real lot that you can do about it.

Proving a said person was indeed transmitting at a said time isn't all that easy in court - unless you have access to expensive voice/transmission analysis equipment, there are few people in the country that have these machines, ACMA is one I know of. I would doubt a 'recording' of the event wouldn't be passed as evidence in court, and even if it was a good defence lawyer could make mince meat of it reasonably easy. With computer editing software these days it would be very easy for someone with the intent to monitor and record 'normal' conversations, then edit them to appear to be something different. And you would still have to prove that person X was actually transmitting (microphone in hand) at the time, and it wasn't someone else playing a recording of Mr. X.

If you (as in one of us) were to pursue court action against a person using a radio, then it would be civil action would could prove awful expensive and drawn out, and probably get thrown out pretty fast due to the fact of not been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the said person was actually transmitting.

Not responding to them is the best course of action - acknowledgement only provides them with the response they are seeking.