![]() |
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. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 20:02:19 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
Why is it that comm radios fail but nav radios do not? Receivers are simpler than transmitters? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Bonehenge (B A R R Y) wrote:
On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 20:02:19 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll" Why is it that comm radios fail but nav radios do not? Receivers are simpler than transmitters? Nav radios fail too! Transmitters are usually less complex than the matching receiver, but they also handle much more power. More power means more stress on the components, which in turn leads to a higher failure rate. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Bonehenge (B A R R Y)" wrote in message ... Receivers are simpler than transmitters? If it's just your transmitter that has failed you have not experienced a two-way radio communications failure. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 09/26/07 12:02, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Bonehenge (B A R R Y)" wrote in message ... Receivers are simpler than transmitters? If it's just your transmitter that has failed you have not experienced a two-way radio communications failure. Say What? ;-) If you lose either TX or RX, then you don't have two-way communications. Therefore you have two-way radio communications failure and should operate according to 91.185. -- Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane, USUA Ultralight Pilot Cal Aggie Flying Farmers Sacramento, CA |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Mark Hansen" wrote in message ... Say What? ;-) If it's just your transmitter that has failed you have not experienced a two-way radio communications failure. Better the second time? If you lose either TX or RX, then you don't have two-way communications. Therefore you have two-way radio communications failure and should operate according to 91.185. If you lose just transmitter or just receiver you can still communicate one-way. Two-way radio communications failure means loss of both transmitter and receiver. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 09/26/07 13:39, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Mark Hansen" wrote in message ... Say What? ;-) If it's just your transmitter that has failed you have not experienced a two-way radio communications failure. Better the second time? If you lose either TX or RX, then you don't have two-way communications. Therefore you have two-way radio communications failure and should operate according to 91.185. If you lose just transmitter or just receiver you can still communicate one-way. Two-way radio communications failure means loss of both transmitter and receiver. That's ridiculous. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Mark Hansen wrote in
: If you lose just transmitter or just receiver you can still communicate one-way. Two-way radio communications failure means loss of both transmitter and receiver. That's ridiculous. "Bugsmasher 34 Romeo, if you read, squawk 4221" |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 09/27/07 11:44, John Godwin wrote:
Mark Hansen wrote in : If you lose just transmitter or just receiver you can still communicate one-way. Two-way radio communications failure means loss of both transmitter and receiver. That's ridiculous. "Bugsmasher 34 Romeo, if you read, squawk 4221" Yes, you could also use smoke signals, rock your wings, etc. - However, if you think that losing your transmitter during an IFR flight is not considered a "two way radio communications failure" as used in 91.185 you're fooling yourself. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article ,
John Godwin wrote: Mark Hansen wrote in : If you lose just transmitter or just receiver you can still communicate one-way. Two-way radio communications failure means loss of both transmitter and receiver. That's ridiculous. "Bugsmasher 34 Romeo, if you read, squawk 4221" In my case, it was, "N17AV, if you read this transmission, turn left 30 degrees and ident", which was soon followed by, "Radar contact, continue along previously cleared route". Or words to that effect. Our route was POU V157 HAARP HPN. Once you get to the bend in V157, you're very close to the ILS-16 localizer. We decided to just go for the localizer as soon as we got there. The moment we left the airway, we heard, "N17AV, you appear to be flying the ILS-16, cleared approach". We flew the approach. We didn't see any light signals from the tower, nor did we waste any effort looking for them. We landed, and taxied off the runway. Our handheld VHF, which didn't work for **** in the air, was able to talk to ground. We taxied back to the ramp with them and that was the end of that. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]() If you lose either TX or RX, then you don't have two-way communications. Therefore you have two-way radio communications failure and should operate according to 91.185. If you lose just transmitter or just receiver you can still communicate one-way. Two-way radio communications failure means loss of both transmitter and receiver. This argument reminds me of the debate of which is the inner or outer knob on our GPSs. Kobra |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Bose X - $995 and holding... | [email protected] | Piloting | 23 | November 30th 05 12:57 AM |
Holding pattern reporting | Yossarian | Instrument Flight Rules | 14 | July 4th 05 10:57 AM |
Stupid Newbie Pattern Question | Lakeview Bill | Piloting | 76 | June 11th 05 02:54 PM |
Holding at CHS | Stuart King | Instrument Flight Rules | 3 | November 10th 03 07:52 PM |
Holding Pattern Entries | Dan Luke | Instrument Flight Rules | 17 | July 11th 03 05:18 AM |