Why don't voice radio communications use FM?

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 22:42:37 -0000, Jim Logajan
wrote in :

Which ones? (I'd like to know what avionics use MS Windows so I can know
which planes not to get into ;-) )


What's the matter? You're not afraid of the BSOD* on IFR final to
minimums are you? :-)


* http://bsod.org/faqen.php

You just made my blood run cold. Can you even imagine? lol

"Mxsmanic" wrote

If there is a controller on the channel, they are.

The first rule of digging your way out of a deep hole, is to first stop
digging.

Give it up.
--
Jim in NC

"Vaughn Simon" wrote

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.

And your strategy for implementing such a new system, besides requiring
everyone to replace their radios is......?

Even if you got everyone to agree, and pay the money for the new equipment,
the electronics industry could not supply the necessary hardware, except
over a period of a couple years, minimum. In the meantime, we all use
what......?
--
Jim in NC

He's got a ton of it to spread around.


He must be Skylune ;-)

I think it is finally time to cut my losses with Mxsmanic, and toss him into
the kill file. His/her posts are close to half tonight's total posting
volume, and ALL they are is pure BS.

I really have better things to do with my time. I bet everyone does.

I would hope to see most agree on this subject, and not respond to his/her
posts, so we that wish to see the BS no longer, don't have to see the BS in
someone's replies, again.

Wishful thinking, anyway. g
--
Jim in NC

I suspect that the (incorrect) sense that FM is better than AM comes
from broadcast stations. I think broadcast FM uses more channel space
than broadcast AM, and it is =that= which gives higher fidelity, for the
most part.

Don't be fooled. It's the bandwidth, not the encoding.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Morgans,

I would hope to see most agree on this subject, and not respond to his/her
posts, so we that wish to see the BS no longer, don't have to see the BS in
someone's replies, again.


Oh come on, it's so much fun to jerk the chains of these people ;-)

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Peter R. writes:

The Apollo/Garmin MX20 is powered by Windows NT. I have had two "BSODs" in
the three years I have been behind the unit, and both were related to the
WSI downlinked weather being displayed on the unit.

That is worrisome.

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

Jose writes:

Don't be fooled. It's the bandwidth, not the encoding.

It's the encoding. Most interference plays with amplitude, not
frequency.

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

Jose writes:

Actually, doesn't more transmitter power effectively accomplish that?
(the signal is essentially repeated N times, at the same time)

Yes.

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

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.