Larry Dighera writes:

I believe you'll find Mr. Weir* will take issue with your statement
above.

He is welcome to do so.

So you are proposing that the worldwide aviation community re-equip
all their aircraft and facilities with FM, and that all aviation
stakeholders bear the cost of those conversion, so that you won't hear
a hiss?

I suggest that a less noisy method of communication be found and
implemented, so as to increase safety by improving the reliability of
voice radio communication.

Do you really believe that what you propose will pay dividends
commensurate with its cost?

Yes.

In the case of transponders, they were not necessary to operate within
the NAS.

At one time, transponders were not needed at all. Then they were. So
obviously things can change.

In the case of VORs replacing Radio Range and NDBs, those are not
_two-way_ communications, so they are in a different class than
aviation radio communications.

They still require new equipment at both ends of the communications
link.

Concurrent operation of differing radio based communication systems is
possible, but to concurrently operate two incompatible aviation
communication systems isn't practicable, because it would require
_all_ air and ground systems to be equipped with both AM and FM
equipment simultaneously and instantly.

Why?

If not, FM transmissions
would not be received by those stations not equipped with FM
receivers, and vice versa.

Since everything would be transmitted in both AM and FM by stations
equipped for FM, they would always be receivable by stations equipped
only for AM.

For situational awareness, it is vital for all participants to know
what the others in the vicinity are doing by hearing their
instructions and intentions over the radio.

Which is one reason why things like message queuing are potentially
dangerous.

For example, when I'm VFR
en route, and hear a military transport "cleared for the approach" to
an airport across whose instrument approach path I'm about to
traverse, although the transmission isn't directed to me, it provides
me with safety information that may be vital to my visually acquiring
conflicting air traffic.

You can do even better by flying IFR, but you can also get by with
visual contact only. Every increment in technology ideally provides
an increment in safety, but it's best to avoid designing systems that
increment safety for those who have them but reduce safety for those
who do not.

You'll find it difficult to find a pilot who regards today's NAS as
armaturely designed. Are you familiar with TERPS?**

No.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.