A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Why don't voice radio communications use FM?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #11  
Old September 7th 06, 06:41 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Mxsmanic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,169
Default Why don't voice radio communications use FM?

Greg Copeland writes:

The repeater initiates the call on your behalf. The repeater is queued
rather than the analog radio. Likewise, the reply goes to the repeater,
which then re-RXs ("repeats") as analog. For this to work, the analog and
digitial systems must have their own frequencies.


Is there a guarantee that transmissions will occur within a certain
period? Are these systems verified for safety-of-life applications?

Also, the concept of "emergency" call is also very useful. For example,
it places you at the top of the queue. Combine "emergency" with a GPS
source, plus data services, and now your squawking 7700, your GPS position
is sent with your PTT, and you now have priority with the controller.


Interesting.

This does bring to mind something else, though: If your channels are
so crowded that you need a system to queue messages and give priority
for emergencies, you need more channels. It's much safer to have
multiple channels that don't require queuing than it is to queue on a
single channel.

Also, how do you deal with analog users who have no queuing? They
will still walk over the simultaneous transmissions in digital and
analog.

An anachronism? No worse off than they are today.


Actually they would be, since practices extended to digital users
would naturally tend to affect analog users, even though they don't
have the same advantages. This would put them at a safety risk.

Until everyone
is converted, such features would simply be a perk to controllers; with
the potential to increase QoS for those that digitally participate.


Quality of service has to translate to increased safety in my book.
As I've said, if fancy queuing systems are required just to manage
traffic on the channel, then there are not enough channels, digital or
otherwise.

Oh, most definiately not web browsing. TAFs, METARS, in route weather,
PIREPs, TFRs, ATIS, ASOS, TWEB, NAV IDs, etc...


As long as someone is still actually flying the plane. A beautiful
digital display of weather 300 nm ahead doesn't help if it distracts
you from the mountainside looming just ahead through the cockpit
window.

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




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
UAV's and TFR's along the Mexico boarder John Doe Piloting 145 March 31st 06 06:58 PM
Air Force One Had to Intercept Some Inadvertent Flyers / How? Rick Umali Piloting 29 February 15th 06 04:40 AM
terminology questions: turtledeck? cantilever wing? Ric Home Built 2 September 13th 05 09:39 PM
I Hate Radios Ron Wanttaja Home Built 9 June 6th 05 05:39 PM
AirCraft Radio Communications [email protected] Rotorcraft 0 November 13th 03 12:48 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:05 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.