FAA Plans to Change to Radios with 8.33 MHz spacing?

On Thursday, April 11, 2013 3:33:51 PM UTC-6, Paul Remde wrote:
Hi,



I imagine someone on this newsgroup can point me in the right direction on a

technical/FAA question.



Becker offers 2 versions of their AR6201 radio. The original version has

frequency spacing that can be set to either 25 mHz or 8.33 mHz. The new,

slightly lower cost option has frequency spacing fixed at 25 MHz It is my

understanding that the 8.33 MHz spacing is required in Europe, but not

currently in the USA. Customers are asking me whether the FAA has any plans

to go to the 8.33 MHz spacing in the near future - so they can be better

equipped to select the radio version that makes sense. At a recent soaring

seminar someone stated that they thought the FAA was going to require radios

with the 8.33 MHz spacing starting in 2020.



Can anyone help me?



Thank you in advance.



Paul Remde

Cumulus Soaring, Inc.

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_publi...-11-1403A1.pdf

http://www.uspa.org/Portals/0/Downlo...C-10-103A1.pdf

Don't know about the FAA, but the FCC permits some use under Part 87. Haven't found a mandate, yet.

Frank Whiteley

On Apr 11, 5:33*pm, "Paul Remde" wrote:
Hi,

I imagine someone on this newsgroup can point me in the right direction on a
technical/FAA question.

[well-formed question here]

Can anyone help me?

Apparently not, Paul. But it's always fun to watch the responses
wander off in bizarre directions, don't you think?

Good luck.

-Pat

I'm already starting to see a trade in used radios from Europe finding their way to North America. You might want to get a European source and start importing quality radios that are being swapped out now.

It really amuses me how so many people talk about "antique" comm systems.

Why would you need to switch to whoop-de-doo G4, digital, frequency hopping,
DEQPSK (old stuff), wahoo, smart-i-phone thingies, when a VHF-AM 5 watt
transceiver will carry your voice over a hundred miles?

Yeah... I know - you just gotta have real-time satellite photos of the
clouds down to 3.141592 meter resolution so you can keep your $300K glider
in the air for more than 30 minutes.

I'll stick with my antiques, thank you.

And, yes, I understand spectrum congestion.

And, for those who don't get it, I'm yanking your chains. ;-p


wrote in message
...
I'm already starting to see a trade in used radios from Europe finding
their way to North America. You might want to get a European source and
start importing quality radios that are being swapped out now.

On Thursday, April 11, 2013 2:33:51 PM UTC-7, Paul Remde wrote:
Hi,



I imagine someone on this newsgroup can point me in the right direction on a

technical/FAA question.



Becker offers 2 versions of their AR6201 radio. The original version has

frequency spacing that can be set to either 25 mHz or 8.33 mHz. The new,

slightly lower cost option has frequency spacing fixed at 25 MHz It is my

understanding that the 8.33 MHz spacing is required in Europe, but not

currently in the USA. Customers are asking me whether the FAA has any plans

to go to the 8.33 MHz spacing in the near future - so they can be better

equipped to select the radio version that makes sense. At a recent soaring

seminar someone stated that they thought the FAA was going to require radios

with the 8.33 MHz spacing starting in 2020.



Can anyone help me?



Thank you in advance.



Paul Remde

Cumulus Soaring, Inc.

Yes Google would answer all your questions. 8.3 kHz ain't happening in the USA anytime soon. And one issue there is the FAA in their "wisdom" have been playing with Nextcom, a VDL based future digital voice system. (VDL is one of the existing digital link technologies that was also a potential ADS-B carrier, but is effectively not used for ADS-B).

http://www.aviationtoday.com/av/comm...XCOM_1201.html

and see

http://www.roger-wilco.net/8-33-khz-...-what-is-this/

Presumably would be introduced in transport category and other high-flying aircraft. Yes the same folks that thought going dual-link ADS-B was a good idea... your tax dollars at work, sigh. It would not surprise me to eventually see 8.3 kHz spacing in the USA, and that would actually be a good think IMNSHO vs. trying to go digital.

Any mentions of cellular communication standard here are irrelevant, terrestrial type cellular systems don't work well with aircraft in the air and "spamming" multiple cells. For digital links there are technology (like VDL) that are already fairly well understood. FM based systems (like FRS, which is low-power and also irrelevant here) are also non-starters, being FM does not inherently solve bandwidth issues and FM suffers from capture effect/overtalk issues (why we use AM to start with).

Darryl

and FM suffers from capture effect/overtalk issues (why we use AM to start with).

Darryl

Darryl,
Please explain these terms. I always thought aviation used the
outdated AM because that's what they started with many years ago.
After having used 2 meter FM radios for many years I find them to be
vastly superior to aircraft band AM radios.

This would be a great solution then to the team flying dilemma. Simply purchase a modern radio and fly on channels entirely unused on the USA.

Im ordering one today.

Sean
F2

On 4/24/2013 12:43 PM, soartech wrote:
and FM suffers from capture effect/overtalk issues (why we use AM to start with).

Darryl

Darryl,
Please explain these terms. I always thought aviation used the
outdated AM because that's what they started with many years ago.
After having used 2 meter FM radios for many years I find them to be
vastly superior to aircraft band AM radios.

The advantage of AM is that when two people talk at once you hear them
both. With FM, you get the strongest signal or, when both signals are
nearly equal in strength, you hear neither. I'll take AM for aviation
radio. For ham VHF/UHF, it's FM/SSB/digital. :-)

Tony "6N", W1DYS

On Wednesday, April 24, 2013 4:31:35 PM UTC-7, Tony V wrote:
On 4/24/2013 12:43 PM, soartech wrote:

and FM suffers from capture effect/overtalk issues (why we use AM to start with).



Darryl



Darryl,

Please explain these terms. I always thought aviation used the

outdated AM because that's what they started with many years ago.

After having used 2 meter FM radios for many years I find them to be

vastly superior to aircraft band AM radios.



The advantage of AM is that when two people talk at once you hear them

both. With FM, you get the strongest signal or, when both signals are

nearly equal in strength, you hear neither. I'll take AM for aviation

radio. For ham VHF/UHF, it's FM/SSB/digital. :-)



Tony "6N", W1DYS

What he said...

Darryl

On Apr 24, 4:31*pm, Tony V wrote:
The advantage of AM is that when two people talk at once you hear them
both. With FM, you get the strongest signal or, when both signals are
nearly equal in strength, you hear neither.

Plus, for weak signals, AM offers better signal to noise ratio. In
less technical terms, if pilot A has to really struggle to hear and
understand pilot B using AM, then pilot A would not hear anything if
they were using FM.

Bart