Larry Dighera writes:

You haven't adequately demonstrated the need for a less noisy method
of aviation communications, in my opinion.

I'm not trying to demonstrate need, I'm trying to demonstrate
desirability.

But yours is the
first complaint about white noise present in aviation radio
communications impacting air safety, that I have heard in my 36 years
of being an airman, and I question its validity.

It's not just white noise; it's the poor quality of audio generally.

Would you buy a book on tape or CD with the same audio quality as
aviation radio communications? If not, why not?

Can you provide a cost estimate for equipping all ground and air based
communications radios throughout the world?

No. But it's a gradual process, so there is no single huge
expenditure. And it isn't all paid for by the same entity.

Can you provide a
reasonable analysis of how that enormous sum of money will be repaid
by the increased level of safety it may provide? Frankly, I don't see
the justification for what you propose.

It's hard to put a price on safety. Some people care a lot about it,
some people care very little about it.

The only reason aviation is at all safe in the first place is that a
lot of people spend a lot of money to make it that way. They do so
without necessarily being able to put a dollar value on the safety
they gain.

You seem reasonably bright and to be reasonably well informed about
communications through language, and I admire your perseverance in
promoting your beliefs, but just to make you aware, you are probably
perceived by the pilots reading your articles as someone lacking
firsthand knowledge about aviation communications, someone like an MS
Flight Simulator game player.

So? I expect my discussions to be judged on their own merits, not on
subjective opinions formed about me personally by others. Anyone who
depends on the latter won't be able to hold an interesting discussion,
anyway.

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