Airplane Radios
- Thread starter denseglow
- Start date
- Status
N
N_Jay
Guest
denseglow said:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Avionic+radios
As for AM vs. FM, most digital modulation has components of both.
Turbo68
Member
The Aviation Band has been on AM band for a long time and its the most suitable band for it and remember if they went digital it would cost billions of dollars and a lot of Airlines these days are on tight budgets and that probably would mean the end for some Airline companys and also Airports worldwide would have to change there systems and thats a massive job and at the end of the day the public will suffer because they will be no cheap airfares anymore and in Australia we also pay a fuel surcharge with Qantas plus a lot of hidden costs.
Regards Lino.
Regards Lino.
N
N_Jay
Guest
carmelof said:
You may want to look up "NEXTCOM".
Somehow when a plane costs millions of $, and it burns fuel that costs 10's of thousands of $, I don't think the cost of the avionics unit is going to change airfares.
???
They may be exploring the idea, but you won't see a digital implementation for a long time to come. Not everyone that owns an aircraft or an airport makes millions of dollars, the cost may seem small to someone with a 50 million dollar Gulf stream, but to the FAA it means everything, I can't even get new carpet put in the tower I work at, what makes you think that they are going to outfit every control facility in the US let alone the world with digital radios, and then require guys that fly light civil to do the same when they can hardly afford the fuel and maintenance costs? With a system like Nextcom, there will be very limited use and the analog AM system will be the back bone. They are forcing every aircraft to upgrade their ELT to the new 406mhz satellite system which is a fraction of the cost of a new digital radio, and everyone is screaming about that. There is nothing profitable about the airline industry, so if you don't think a major cost like this would get passed down to the consumer, then you need to look up "REALITY"
Hey do you think if jet blue had digital radios in their aircraft that they could have avoided the whole 12 hour stuck in a plane mishap?
N_Jay said:
They may be exploring the idea, but you won't see a digital implementation for a long time to come. Not everyone that owns an aircraft or an airport makes millions of dollars, the cost may seem small to someone with a 50 million dollar Gulf stream, but to the FAA it means everything, I can't even get new carpet put in the tower I work at, what makes you think that they are going to outfit every control facility in the US let alone the world with digital radios, and then require guys that fly light civil to do the same when they can hardly afford the fuel and maintenance costs? With a system like Nextcom, there will be very limited use and the analog AM system will be the back bone. They are forcing every aircraft to upgrade their ELT to the new 406mhz satellite system which is a fraction of the cost of a new digital radio, and everyone is screaming about that. There is nothing profitable about the airline industry, so if you don't think a major cost like this would get passed down to the consumer, then you need to look up "REALITY"
Hey do you think if jet blue had digital radios in their aircraft that they could have avoided the whole 12 hour stuck in a plane mishap?
Newark777
Member
If the change to digital occurs, it won't occur for years, or even decades. Look how long it is taking for rebanding to go through, and an aviation digital transition would be a much more laborious ordeal. A change to the aviation radios is not something you have to worry about anytime soon.
N
N_Jay
Guest
scott4957 said:
They are doing a whole lot more than just exploring.
http://www.faa.gov/nasarchitecture/blueprnt/2002Update/06-advisory-systems.htm
denseglow said:
Some manufacturers are:
Honeywell Avionics
Collins
Bendix-King
Narco Avionics
iCom
Aircraft Radio Corp (ARC)
DPD1
Member
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2005
- Messages
- 1,994
If you look closely at information that's released as "news" regarding what's going to be happening in the communications industry... Often times what it really is, is just fluff released by the manufacturer's PR machines and lobbyists, who constantly crank out stuff trying to make everybody believe that such and such system is in fact going to be the new standard system. When in reality, it's them trying to sell the government or an industry on a system. Lots of times they just give the stuff away as a demo in the beginning, hoping that it will catch on and become the standard by default. Often times it does not. I remember when cell phones started to go big, the companies behind the cell phone movement proclaimed two way radio would be dead within 10 years or less.
Dave
http://www.dpdproductions.com
- Custom Scanner, Aviation, MURS, GMRS, Marine & Ham Antennas -
Dave
http://www.dpdproductions.com
- Custom Scanner, Aviation, MURS, GMRS, Marine & Ham Antennas -
Newark777
Member
N_Jay said:
It's not as if everyone is going to be using digital radios as soon as NEXCOM is implemented. It looks like it will mainly be used for data at first, such as weather and other ACARS-like info. The actual transition of voice communications will be slow going.
N
N_Jay
Guest
Newark777 said:
Very true.
But while it has taken longer then the proponents predicted, it will come faster then the detractors expect.
Newark777
Member
KE7JFF said:
I see it as almost an MDT for pilots, where voice is still the regular form of communication, but additional info can be sent digitally.
For example, I imagine it would be much easier to pull up ATIS info on a digital display, rather than tuning to the correct frequency and listening to it.
Newark777 said:
They actually already have some type of system for WX like that, don't know what it is though, every control facility I have worked at has had an ATIS, D-ATIS or an AWAS, all of which require you to monitor a frequency with one of your radios.
As far as NEXCOM, say what you like, but I have been in the industry for many years, it is not going to happen over night, not even close. In fact I would be willing to bet it will be so long, that a more advanced system is used once they do decide to implement something. Believe me I'm a tech geek as much as the rest of you, but the FAA doesn't think the same way, I have equipment in the tower I work in right now that is 40-50 years old, why the hell would they start using digital radios prior to updating other essential equipment. Flight safety comes first, ever hear someone coin the phrase "if it works don't fix it"? It's a good rule of thumb to follow, and the FAA does so. Don't sell your air band radios any time soon, AM voice is here to stay for quite some time.
Scott
Declared_Hostile
Member
scott4957 said:
Exactly. How long have they been diddling around with surface movement radar and runway incursion detection for airports, upgrading various ancient gear in the ATC centers (exactly how many times did they have to scrap their new system and start all over?) or how about wind shear detector radar? I hardly think yanking out the entire communications infrastructure to “upgrade” to some dubious new standard cooked up by some industry and government desk jockeys who thought they had to justify their existence is going to happen any time soon. Then again we are dealing with the government. Slap on the Homeland Security or Tear Rizzum on it and they'll throw all sorts of money at it and do it logical or not.
Nexcom sounds more like a answer to a question that nobody asked.
SkipSanders
Silent Key
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2002
- Messages
- 1,059
One of the claims made for 'why aircraft stay AM' is that the 'capture effect' on FM works against aircraft safety.
The idea is, if aircraft 'step on each others' transmissions, in am, you still hear BOTH, just with a heterodyne tone, so you don't miss either transmission. With FM, 'capture' tends to supress the weaker signal nearly completely, and it's lost.
Now, whether or not that's the REAL reason (which is usually economic), it's one of the claims that's been made.
The idea is, if aircraft 'step on each others' transmissions, in am, you still hear BOTH, just with a heterodyne tone, so you don't miss either transmission. With FM, 'capture' tends to supress the weaker signal nearly completely, and it's lost.
Now, whether or not that's the REAL reason (which is usually economic), it's one of the claims that's been made.
N
N_Jay
Guest
SkipSanders said:
Often claimed to be a "reason", as far as I can tell, only an "excuse"!
(Meaning, no verifiable information that it was ever used in a decision).
Lexxx
Member
I think you have to be careful not to confuse voice and data links between the ground and aircraft.
The biggest change on the horizon is computer data links between air traffic control centers and airbourne aircraft. This may be the digital push you're reading about.
The basic concept is that a controllers computer on the ground sizes up conflictions, pilot requests, separation standards etc., and communicates directly to a computer in the aircraft. If the pilot likes the received clearance he hits 'Enter'.
It does away with voice entirely, at least that's the theory. The ground computer knows the aircraft type of course and therefore operating characteristics, and issues clearances accordingly based on the position of all the other aircraft it is aware of.
These feasibilty studies being done by the FAA may be more to do with digital computer data links than voice communications, and of course this would apply to the airlines more than general aviation. As has been suggested, all this is a long way off I think.
Peter
www.ykf.ca
The biggest change on the horizon is computer data links between air traffic control centers and airbourne aircraft. This may be the digital push you're reading about.
The basic concept is that a controllers computer on the ground sizes up conflictions, pilot requests, separation standards etc., and communicates directly to a computer in the aircraft. If the pilot likes the received clearance he hits 'Enter'.
It does away with voice entirely, at least that's the theory. The ground computer knows the aircraft type of course and therefore operating characteristics, and issues clearances accordingly based on the position of all the other aircraft it is aware of.
These feasibilty studies being done by the FAA may be more to do with digital computer data links than voice communications, and of course this would apply to the airlines more than general aviation. As has been suggested, all this is a long way off I think.
Peter
www.ykf.ca
- Status
Similar threads
