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 |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
Why don't voice radio communications use FM?
Dan Luke writes:
******** again. I have a radio that does actively remove noise--it has a button to turn the feature on and off, and it works quite well. What kind of noise does it remove, and how does it distinguish noise from signal? -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
Why don't voice radio communications use FM?
"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. |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
Why don't voice radio communications use FM?
On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 13:33:36 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote in : 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. Are you familiar with Common Traffic Advisory Frequency (CTAF)? |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
Why don't voice radio communications use FM?
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. |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
Why don't voice radio communications use FM?
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. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
Why don't voice radio communications use FM?
"Mxsmanic" wrote: Dan Luke writes: ******** again. I have a radio that does actively remove noise--it has a button to turn the feature on and off, and it works quite well. What kind of noise does it remove, and how does it distinguish noise from signal? It removes a lot of the static noise. I do not know the technical details of how it does it. However, the freqencies of human speech do not cover the audible spectrum, and all extraneous frequencies may be filtered quite easily. Even frequencies at the upper and lower ends of human speech may be filtered with minimal effect on intelligibility. Perhaps it's as simple as that. -- Dan C172RG at BFM |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
Why don't voice radio communications use FM?
"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 |
#98
|
|||
|
|||
Why don't voice radio communications use FM?
"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 |
#99
|
|||
|
|||
Why don't voice radio communications use FM?
Vaughn Simon writes:
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. Wait and see. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
#100
|
|||
|
|||
Why don't voice radio communications use FM?
Dan Luke writes:
It removes a lot of the static noise. I do not know the technical details of how it does it. However, the freqencies of human speech do not cover the audible spectrum, and all extraneous frequencies may be filtered quite easily. Even frequencies at the upper and lower ends of human speech may be filtered with minimal effect on intelligibility. Perhaps it's as simple as that. A noise-reduction system can make some assumptions about what is _probably_ noise and what is _probably_ signal, but in most cases it will drop at least part of the signal. You need at least about 4 KHz for speech, but some sibilants have components that go as high as 8 KHz or so, and if you chop off the high frequencies the sibilants may be lost. Thus, 'f' and 's' might start to sound the same, because the difference between them is in the high frequencies. Using fixed phraseology helps a lot, because it is highly redundant. However, there is still the potential for confusion in relatively random, non-redundant communications, such as strings of digits or letters. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 |