Why don't voice radio communications use FM?

Mxsmanic wrote:
Larry Dighera writes:

You'll have to cite a source for this nugget of knowledge.

FAA AIMs and CFRs make it pretty clear that communications involving a
controller are pilot-controller exchanges, not pilot-pilot exchanges.

Are you familiar with Common Traffic Advisory Frequency (CTAF)?

Yes, but it and similar schemes don't involve a controller, so
obviously the communication is between aircraft directly.


But you just said that all communications are air-ground. You can't
back pedal.

On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 16:04:01 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote in :

Larry Dighera writes:
However, you're not supposed to listen to other pilots; you're
supposed to listen to controllers. All conversations are air-ground,
not air-air.

You'll have to cite a source for this nugget of knowledge.

FAA AIMs and CFRs make it pretty clear that communications involving a
controller are pilot-controller exchanges, not pilot-pilot exchanges.

While that may be true, it in no way relates to your statement quoted
above.

Stating "you're not supposed to listen to other pilots" is just plain
wrong. Pilots listen to other pilot transmissions to increase their
situational awareness.


Are you familiar with Common Traffic Advisory Frequency (CTAF)?

Yes, but it and similar schemes don't involve a controller, so
obviously the communication is between aircraft directly.

Thank you.

"Mxsmanic" wrote:


However, you're not supposed to listen to other pilots; you're
supposed to listen to controllers.

Utter nonsense.

It will be entertaining to see what bs you come up with next.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

On 2006-09-03, Mxsmanic wrote:
However, you're not supposed to listen to other pilots; you're
supposed to listen to controllers. All conversations are air-ground,
not air-air.

Err... whiskey-tango-foxtrot!?

Of course you're supposed to listen to other pilots. Even when IFR, you
get a picture of what and where the other traffic is so you can think
ahead and anticipate what sort of clearance you're going to get, say,
when entering the terminal area.

Others have pointed out the CTAF so I won't labour that point.
Air-to-air communications is a matter of course, and very useful.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Vaughn Simon writes:

Actually, not much does change in aviation compared with other fields of
human endeavor.

I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing. It does worry me that
the things that change in aviation are things that I'd rather see
stable. I have my doubts about fly-by-wire systems or glass cockpits,
which seem to be increasingly designed for the convenience of
programmers who grew up with Windows rather than for the convenience
of pilots.

But changing to FM would require a new radio to be
simultaneously installed in every cockpit in the world. The only way to
accomplish that would be for every plane with a new radio to transmit in
"parallel" (as someone already suggested) for a period of years on both
the new
mode and the old mode. What are the chances of AOPA allowing that to
happen?

I don't see why it would be so objectionable. It isn't even necessary
that the AM be phased out. The FM would simply be available to those
who wish to use it, for the added clarity it provides.

Why screw around with FM. It is old technology, not much beter than AM,
and there are much better technologies that would cure the communication
problems and lack of frequency availibility.

Dave Stadt writes:

Why screw around with FM. It is old technology, not much beter than AM,
and there are much better technologies that would cure the communication
problems and lack of frequency availibility.

Such as?

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

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Dave Stadt writes:

Why screw around with FM. It is old technology, not much beter than AM,
and there are much better technologies that would cure the communication
problems and lack of frequency availibility.

Such as?

Such as VOIP actually, or other digital technologies that are now quite
common, cheap, and "off the shelf". In police and fire communications, FM is
quickly giving away to digital modes. My bad for previously talking about FM as
if it were the only possibility.

A digital-capable radio does not care if it is transmitting voice or data, so it
could someday allow truly automated flight control. For example, you might be
able to get clearance into controlled airspace automatically and have it show up
as a green dotted line on your MFD, to be acknowledged with the mere push of a
button.

Vaughn Simon writes:

Such as VOIP actually, or other digital technologies that are now quite
common, cheap, and "off the shelf". In police and fire communications, FM is
quickly giving away to digital modes.

I doubt that they are using VoIP, though, which is notoriously
unreliable.

I'm not sure that cheap, common or "off-the-shelf" should be the top
criteria for choosing a replacement for AM radio. I think "safe"
should be the highest priority. If it improves safety, it's good; if
it doesn't, it's bad (unless it can improve something else _without_
compromising safety).

A digital-capable radio does not care if it is transmitting voice or data, so it
could someday allow truly automated flight control. For example, you might be
able to get clearance into controlled airspace automatically and have it show up
as a green dotted line on your MFD, to be acknowledged with the mere push of a
button.

But then you won't need pilots. Actually, it is nearly possible to do
without them today--but radio communication is still one of the
sticking points.

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

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Vaughn Simon writes:

Such as VOIP actually, or other digital technologies that are now quite
common, cheap, and "off the shelf". In police and fire communications, FM is
quickly giving away to digital modes.

I doubt that they are using VoIP, though, which is notoriously
unreliable.

You should a bit of reading before you make such comments. I happen to be in
the public safety communications field, and we are right now phasing out our old
trunked FM system for a VOIP system. We have already scrapped our old phone
systems in favor of VOIP and that is working just fine. If VOIP were
"notoriously unreliable" we would hardly use it for public safety
communications.

Vaughn

On 2006-09-03, Mxsmanic wrote:
I doubt that they are using VoIP, though, which is notoriously
unreliable.

You're confusing VOIP (voice carried on top of IP packets), which is as
reliable as any other internet protocol with the reliability of a data
stream over the general Internet (note: capital I). VOIP itself is no
less reliable than any other data transmission.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de