"Somebody check your mike on the radio, please..."

[Jay Honeck]

If I hear this ONE more time on Unicom, I'm going to scream!

Is it *really* possible that one can be a certificated pilot, and *NOT*
know that it's impossible to receive AND transmit at the same time?

Is it *really* possible that a certicated pilot would transmit a
statement like this into the ether, expecting the guy with the stuck
mike to actually be able to HEAR what he's saying?

Sadly, the answer is "yes". We hear it almost every time there's a
stuck-mike situation.

Truly scary...

I'll take a hundred guys saying "Any other traffic, please advise..."
over THIS kind of stupidity.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jose]

> Is it *really* possible that a certicated pilot would transmit a
> statement like this into the ether, expecting the guy with the stuck
> mike to actually be able to HEAR what he's saying?

There are actually a few situations in which the aircraft with a stuck
mike might hear the transmissions. Granted they are not common, but
they are neither impossible nor contrived.

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Dave Stadt]

"Jose" > wrote in message
...
> > Is it *really* possible that a certicated pilot would transmit a
> > statement like this into the ether, expecting the guy with the stuck
> > mike to actually be able to HEAR what he's saying?
>
> There are actually a few situations in which the aircraft with a stuck
> mike might hear the transmissions. Granted they are not common, but
> they are neither impossible nor contrived.

And on a Unicom frequency those would be what?

> Jose
> --
> He who laughs, lasts.
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[A Lieberman]

On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 22:32:57 GMT, Dave Stadt wrote:

>> There are actually a few situations in which the aircraft with a stuck
>> mike might hear the transmissions. Granted they are not common, but
>> they are neither impossible nor contrived.
>
> And on a Unicom frequency those would be what?

Lets expand this a tad further..... any frequency.

The absolute time I could ever think that someone heard that they had a
stuck mike would be if they were listening in on a handheld radio,
otherwise, I cannot think of any situations.

Allen

[Jose]

hmmm... what I had in mind was a split (pilot/copilot) stack, but upon
further thought the transmitter would overwhelm the receiver, even
though the receiver is not switched off.

As Rosanne RosannaDanna would say, "never mind".

:) Jose
(Damn... that's the =second= time I was wrong!)
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jacob]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> If I hear this ONE more time on Unicom, I'm going to scream!
>
> Is it *really* possible that one can be a certificated pilot, and *NOT*
> know that it's impossible to receive AND transmit at the same time?
>

I've actually wondered about stuck mics. With the thousands of ancient GA
aircrafts flying in this country, I would think a mecahnical failure on the
PTT switch would not be very unlikely. If somebody's mic gets stuck on a
class B frequency (either the pilots fault or the mic breaking), would'nt
that be a big problem? How would they even track it?

[Harvey]

"Jose" > wrote in message
. ..
> hmmm... what I had in mind was a split (pilot/copilot) stack, but upon
> further thought the transmitter would overwhelm the receiver, even though
> the receiver is not switched off.
>
> As Rosanne RosannaDanna would say, "never mind".
>
> :) Jose
> (Damn... that's the =second= time I was wrong!)
> --
> He who laughs, lasts.
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

How about in a dual com situation, tx on com1 and rec on com2?

Harvey

[Peter Duniho]

"Harvey" > wrote in message
. ..
> How about in a dual com situation, tx on com1 and rec on com2?

I believe Jose's (revised :) ) observation still holds. If COM1 is
transmitting, and COM2 will receive the most powerful transmitter, then in
the case of the airplane transmitting that would be COM1, not someone else
telling them to unstick their mic.

And in fact, that's the only reasonable interpretation of what Jose wrote,
since the only receiver available to receive when the transmitter on one is
stuck is the other. Reception is automatically disabled when transmitting
for the transmitting radio, so it wouldn't receive the other pilot's
transmission in any case. (All this assumes exactly two radios, of
course...a common enough configuration).

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Jacob" > wrote in message
. com...
> I've actually wondered about stuck mics. With the thousands of ancient GA
> aircrafts flying in this country, I would think a mecahnical failure on
> the PTT switch would not be very unlikely.

It does happen, yes.

> If somebody's mic gets stuck on a class B frequency (either the pilots
> fault or the mic breaking), would'nt that be a big problem? How would they
> even track it?

It could be a problem. For the airplane with the stuck mic, it is
definitely a problem, since it effectively disables communication for that
airplane. For other users of the frequency, it just depends on how close
they are to each other and to the airplane with the stuck mic, and of course
the relative power of their transmitters. Many of the other users may still
be able to communicate with each other, at least in limited fashion, while
some may not.

I believe this would be a bigger problem at an uncontrolled airport, where
the users of the frequency are all very close to each other. In Class B
airspace, I can easily imagine situations in which the aircraft with the
stuck mic is far enough away from other aircraft that other transmissions
can get through to those other aircraft.

But yes, even in Class B airspace a stuck mic can be a big problem. I don't
know what you mean by "track it"; ATC would probably notice that they were
constantly receiving, and so would understand there's a stuck mic out there
somewhere. As for identifying the aircraft with the stuck mic, that might
be harder.

Theoretically, one could use direction finding equipment, but I doubt that's
practical in most cases; I think the DF information obtained through the FSS
would have to be correlated with radar data somehow, and I don't know how
well -- if at all -- those systems are linked. It could come down to
old-fashioned process of elimination; figuring out which aircraft can still
communicate, and eventually whittling the number of aircraft that can't
communicate down to one.

Pete

[Darrel Toepfer]

Peter Duniho wrote:

> Theoretically, one could use direction finding equipment, but I doubt that's
> practical in most cases; I think the DF information obtained through the FSS
> would have to be correlated with radar data somehow, and I don't know how
> well -- if at all -- those systems are linked. It could come down to
> old-fashioned process of elimination; figuring out which aircraft can still
> communicate, and eventually whittling the number of aircraft that can't
> communicate down to one.

When the local FBO does it, I call them on the phone...

So nobody has ever froze and held the button down during a landing?

[Jimmy B.]

Jay Honeck wrote:
> If I hear this ONE more time on Unicom, I'm going to scream!
>
> Is it *really* possible that one can be a certificated pilot, and *NOT*
> know that it's impossible to receive AND transmit at the same time?
>
> Is it *really* possible that a certicated pilot would transmit a
> statement like this into the ether, expecting the guy with the stuck
> mike to actually be able to HEAR what he's saying?
>
> Sadly, the answer is "yes". We hear it almost every time there's a
> stuck-mike situation.
>
> Truly scary...
>
> I'll take a hundred guys saying "Any other traffic, please advise..."
> over THIS kind of stupidity.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
Actually, a lot of radios have a time out feature where if the mike is
keyed for more than a certain length of time, it disables the
transmitter and reverts to receive mode. I think when people are doing
this, they are just hoping that they'll catch it when it times out.
Now, how the offender is going to know it is his mike that is stuck is
another problem.

And I always reply when I hear someone ask if there is other traffic in
the area. Anyone who doesn't shouldn't be flying.

[Chris W]

Jacob wrote:

>How would they even track it?
>
>
With a directional antenna, it wouldn't be hard to track it. I'm not
sure what good it would do, unless the plane is on the ground and you
can have someone walk up and knock on the window.

--
Chris W
KE5GIX

Gift Giving Made Easy
Get the gifts you want &
give the gifts they want
One stop wish list for any gift,
from anywhere, for any occasion!
http://thewishzone.com

[Peter R.]

Peter Duniho > wrote:

> But yes, even in Class B airspace a stuck mic can be a big problem. I don't
> know what you mean by "track it"; ATC would probably notice that they were
> constantly receiving, and so would understand there's a stuck mic out there
> somewhere. As for identifying the aircraft with the stuck mic, that might
> be harder.

I was departing Teterboro (New Jersey, USA - an extremely busy general
aviation airport serving New York City) one busy afternoon when there
happened to be a stuck mike on the tower frequency.

Fortunately this fact was announced on the ground control frequency so all
departing traffic were able to receive the takeoff clearance on that
frequency.


--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Jay Honeck]

> I've actually wondered about stuck mics. With the thousands of ancient GA
> aircrafts flying in this country, I would think a mecahnical failure on
> the PTT switch would not be very unlikely. If somebody's mic gets stuck on
> a class B frequency (either the pilots fault or the mic breaking),
> would'nt that be a big problem? How would they even track it?

Usually, if you're close enough, you will start to hear conversation from
inside the plane -- often quite hilarious.

I remember one stuck-mike over Grinnell, IA. The guy was flying with two
other aircraft, and didn't know his mike was hot. He proceeded to
absolutely shred his "buddies" landing technique to his co-pilot, from high
above in the pattern, live on 122.8.

I'm sure he and his "buddies" weren't so close, after that.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[George Patterson]

Dave Stadt wrote:
> "Jose" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>>Is it *really* possible that a certicated pilot would transmit a
>>>statement like this into the ether, expecting the guy with the stuck
>>>mike to actually be able to HEAR what he's saying?
>>
>>There are actually a few situations in which the aircraft with a stuck
>>mike might hear the transmissions. Granted they are not common, but
>>they are neither impossible nor contrived.
>
> And on a Unicom frequency those would be what?

Any frequency, if a pilot has two radios and both are tuned to the same freqency.

George Patterson
If a tank is out of ammunition, what you have is a sixty ton portable
radio.

[Dave Stadt]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:ZSSff.391$8o6.371@trndny03...
> Dave Stadt wrote:
> > "Jose" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>>Is it *really* possible that a certicated pilot would transmit a
> >>>statement like this into the ether, expecting the guy with the stuck
> >>>mike to actually be able to HEAR what he's saying?
> >>
> >>There are actually a few situations in which the aircraft with a stuck
> >>mike might hear the transmissions. Granted they are not common, but
> >>they are neither impossible nor contrived.
> >
> > And on a Unicom frequency those would be what?
>
> Any frequency, if a pilot has two radios and both are tuned to the same
freqency.

Not.

> George Patterson
> If a tank is out of ammunition, what you have is a sixty ton
portable
> radio.

[George Patterson]

Jacob wrote:

> If somebody's mic gets stuck on a
> class B frequency (either the pilots fault or the mic breaking), would'nt
> that be a big problem? How would they even track it?

Class-B airports have several frequencies. For example, Boston has two approach
frequencies (four if you count the high frequency stuff that standard COMs don't
use). New York has nine. You're supposed to use one frequency if you're
approaching from one arc and another if in a different area, but a pilot who
finds one frequency blocked is likely to try another. In addition, most traffic
entering a class-B is likely to be on an IFR flight plan and already talking to
ATC. Any of these aircraft can be instructed to use an alternate approach
frequency instead of the blocked one. The controller would also cut a new ATIS
tape and provide the alternate approach frequency on that tape.

Aircraft landing at the class-B are told to contact the tower on a frequency
assigned by approach. If the tower frequency becomes blocked, approach can
simply assign a different frequency and the tower controller can then swicth over.

Of course, the guy with the stuck mic is likely to have some problems. He's
probably just lost communications in the middle of a class-B. It's also going to
be pretty obvious to the controller which plane has the problem when they call
him and nothing happens.

George Patterson
If a tank is out of ammunition, what you have is a sixty ton portable
radio.

[Aluckyguess]

If he was listening and receiving on 2 different radios on the same channel.
I guess he, she would be talking to ones self.
"Jose" > wrote in message
...
>> Is it *really* possible that a certicated pilot would transmit a
>> statement like this into the ether, expecting the guy with the stuck
>> mike to actually be able to HEAR what he's saying?
>
> There are actually a few situations in which the aircraft with a stuck
> mike might hear the transmissions. Granted they are not common, but they
> are neither impossible nor contrived.
>
> Jose
> --
> He who laughs, lasts.
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[[email protected]]

>>>>Actually, a lot of radios have a time out feature <<<<

I think I read somewhere the Garmin 430/530 has this feature.

[Dale]

In article om>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:



> Sadly, the answer is "yes". We hear it almost every time there's a
> stuck-mike situation.


What I wonder is why the guy with the stuck mike doesn't realize it.
When you are no longer hearing radio traffic something is wrong. <G>

I once heard an approach controller talking to a guy with a weak
transmitter. The controller told them "you're very weak, turn the
volume up some". hmmmmm

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

[Michael Brown]

All of my vehicles at work are equipped with FM radios. One afternoon my
secretary had done something particularly annoying and I was complaining (to
put it mildly) about it to my assistant while we were driving down the road.
My cell phone rang and it was one of my other employees informing me that
the entire company could hear my rant. I told him that he was nuts because
I could hear others transmitting on the radio. In fact, this radio was
transmitting and receiving at the same time. Radio went into the shop and
the radio techs could not explain it. Radio went in the trash after that.

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> If I hear this ONE more time on Unicom, I'm going to scream!
>
> Is it *really* possible that one can be a certificated pilot, and *NOT*
> know that it's impossible to receive AND transmit at the same time?
>
> Is it *really* possible that a certicated pilot would transmit a
> statement like this into the ether, expecting the guy with the stuck
> mike to actually be able to HEAR what he's saying?
>
> Sadly, the answer is "yes". We hear it almost every time there's a
> stuck-mike situation.
>
> Truly scary...
>
> I'll take a hundred guys saying "Any other traffic, please advise..."
> over THIS kind of stupidity.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[Michael Ware]

MOST traffic?

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:r6Tff.1004$Lw6.943@trndny02...

> In addition, most traffic
> entering a class-B is likely to be ..... already talking to
> ATC.

> George Patterson
> If a tank is out of ammunition, what you have is a sixty ton
portable
> radio.

[Jay Honeck]

> All of my vehicles at work are equipped with FM radios. One afternoon my
> secretary had done something particularly annoying and I was complaining
> (to put it mildly) about it to my assistant while we were driving down the
> road. My cell phone rang and it was one of my other employees informing me
> that the entire company could hear my rant. I told him that he was nuts
> because I could hear others transmitting on the radio. In fact, this
> radio was transmitting and receiving at the same time. Radio went into
> the shop and the radio techs could not explain it. Radio went in the
> trash after that.

To heck with the radio -- what happened to the secretary?

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "Jay Honeck" > said:
>I remember one stuck-mike over Grinnell, IA. The guy was flying with two
>other aircraft, and didn't know his mike was hot. He proceeded to
>absolutely shred his "buddies" landing technique to his co-pilot, from high
>above in the pattern, live on 122.8.

I remember a stuck mike on Ottawa Terminal where an obvious instructor
type was telling his student "this is unusual, normally this frequency
isn't this quiet". And yet they didn't figure it out for the 10 minutes I
was on the frequency.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
....if Paul's really talking about truly average people, then they'd probably
die in either case, because common sense isn't.
-- Derick Siddoway

[George Patterson]

Michael Ware wrote:
> MOST traffic?

Yes, most will be IFR.

George Patterson
If a tank is out of ammunition, what you have is a sixty ton portable
radio.

[George Patterson]

Dale wrote:

> What I wonder is why the guy with the stuck mike doesn't realize it.
> When you are no longer hearing radio traffic something is wrong. <G>

Many people keep the radio turned down unless they need to listen to something.
Flying around New Jersey for an hour while listening to all the squeals and
stepped-on conversations is torture.

George Patterson
If a tank is out of ammunition, what you have is a sixty ton portable
radio.

[Michael Ware]

Kinda sounded like 'most will be talking to ATC'. IFR or VFR they will be
handled the same as far as comm. goes.

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:qI0gf.1335$%Z5.140@trndny07...
> Michael Ware wrote:
> > MOST traffic?
>
> Yes, most will be IFR.
>
> George Patterson
> If a tank is out of ammunition, what you have is a sixty ton
portable
> radio.

[George Patterson]

Michael Ware wrote:
> Kinda sounded like 'most will be talking to ATC'. IFR or VFR they will be
> handled the same as far as comm. goes.

If they're VFR, they almost certainly will *not* be talking to ATC before trying
to contact the class-B controller.

George Patterson
If a tank is out of ammunition, what you have is a sixty ton portable
radio.

[Gene Seibel]

It is silly, but many can't resist. Some radios have a small indicator
that shows when they are transmitting, but a big red light would be
nice. I had one stick many years ago on an old Genave radio.
Fourtunately, I was leaving the traffic area so it probably didn't
bother anyone for long. I noticed after about ten minutes, but by then
the output transistor had died and it wasn't working anyway. Some 2-way
radios we used in broadcasting had timers that shut them down after 5
minutes because they weren't designed for full time duty cycle. That
wouldn't be a bad idea either.
--
Gene Seibel
Confessions of a Pilot - http://pad39a.com/publishing/
Because I fly, I envy no one.

[George Patterson]

Dan Luke wrote:

> Why not?

Why should they be? It was certainly not my practice.

George Patterson
If a tank is out of ammunition, what you have is a sixty ton portable
radio.

[Dan Luke]

"George Patterson" wrote:

> Why should they be?

They're using flight following.

> It was certainly not my practice.

It certainly is mine.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Michael Ware]

You mentioned 'entering class-B', IFR or not it's definitely to your benefit
to contact ATC well before you get there, if only for traffic advisories if
nothing else.

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:D_0gf.2543$BU2.2052@trndny01...
> Michael Ware wrote:
> > Kinda sounded like 'most will be talking to ATC'. IFR or VFR they will
be
> > handled the same as far as comm. goes.
>
> If they're VFR, they almost certainly will *not* be talking to ATC before
trying
> to contact the class-B controller.
>
> George Patterson
> If a tank is out of ammunition, what you have is a sixty ton
portable
> radio.

[Jose]

> Why should they be? It was certainly not my practice.

What =is= your practice when entering class B?

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jimmy B.]

wrote:
>>>>>Actually, a lot of radios have a time out feature <<<<
>
>
> I think I read somewhere the Garmin 430/530 has this feature.
>
As does the KX-155. As far as I know, all the new radios do.

[Darrell S]

A Lieberman wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 22:32:57 GMT, Dave Stadt wrote:
>
>>> There are actually a few situations in which the aircraft with a
>>> stuck mike might hear the transmissions. Granted they are not
>>> common, but they are neither impossible nor contrived.
>>
>> And on a Unicom frequency those would be what?
>
> Lets expand this a tad further..... any frequency.
>
> The absolute time I could ever think that someone heard that they had
> a stuck mike would be if they were listening in on a handheld radio,
> otherwise, I cannot think of any situations.
>
> Allen

Depends on the location of the hand mike. I've seen situations where the
pilots knee pushed the transmit button intermittently so the stuck mike
situation was not constant. In this case he might be able to hear the
"stuck mike warning" transmission. It's happened to me.

--

Darrell R. Schmidt
B-58 Hustler History: http://members.cox.net/dschmidt1/
-

[Henry K.]

You'll never have to worry about ME doing that, Jay!


Jay Honeck wrote:
> If I hear this ONE more time on Unicom, I'm going to scream!
>
> Is it *really* possible that one can be a certificated pilot, and *NOT*
> know that it's impossible to receive AND transmit at the same time?
>
> Is it *really* possible that a certicated pilot would transmit a
> statement like this into the ether, expecting the guy with the stuck
> mike to actually be able to HEAR what he's saying?
>
> Sadly, the answer is "yes". We hear it almost every time there's a
> stuck-mike situation.
>
> Truly scary...
>
> I'll take a hundred guys saying "Any other traffic, please advise..."
> over THIS kind of stupidity.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

[[email protected]]

Gene Seibel wrote:
Some 2-way
> radios we used in broadcasting had timers that shut them down after 5
> minutes because they weren't designed for full time duty cycle. That
> wouldn't be a bad idea either.

Most programmable communications transceivers have a timeout feature
(with selectable delay). Really helps in stuck mike situations (and
pulls the rug out from under long-winded people, too). All 2-way
transmitters should be so equipped.

David Johnson

[Jay Honeck]

"Henry K." > wrote in message
oups.com...
> You'll never have to worry about ME doing that, Jay!

Henry! Where ya been, man?!

Good to hear from you (so to speak) again. How's the plane/flying/life been
treating you?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[George Patterson]

Jose wrote:

> What =is= your practice when entering class B?

When entering a class-B, I call up approach at the appropriate time. I will not
be talking to ATC prior to that transmission.

George Patterson
If a tank is out of ammunition, what you have is a sixty ton portable
radio.

[Jose]

> When entering a class-B, I call up approach at the appropriate time. I will not be talking to ATC prior to that transmission.

An appropriate time is outside of class B, when approaching to enter.
This is the time we are discussing.

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Peter Duniho]

"Jose" > wrote in message
.. .
>> When entering a class-B, I call up approach at the appropriate time. I
>> will not be talking to ATC prior to that transmission.
>
> An appropriate time is outside of class B, when approaching to enter. This
> is the time we are discussing.

Better ratchet up that "wrong" counter one more. :p

George's comment was clearly with respect to the state in which the pilot is
*before* attempting to contact ATC. I think it's entirely plausible that
most VFR traffic would not already be in contact with ATC, prior to the
point in time at which they decide they need to contact ATC for the purpose
of entering the Class B airspace.

IFR traffic will be (but doesn't care about the boundaries of Class B
airspace anyway), and VFR traffic already in contact with ATC (because they
are using VFR radar advisories, for example) will, by definition, already be
in contact with ATC. But plenty of VFR traffic won't be, not until that
first call to ATC to ask to enter the Class B.

Pete

[George Patterson]

Peter Duniho wrote:

> IFR traffic will be (but doesn't care about the boundaries of Class B
> airspace anyway), and VFR traffic already in contact with ATC (because they
> are using VFR radar advisories, for example) will, by definition, already be
> in contact with ATC. But plenty of VFR traffic won't be, not until that
> first call to ATC to ask to enter the Class B.

Thanks. Somehow I just wasn't getting that across.

George Patterson
If a tank is out of ammunition, what you have is a sixty ton portable
radio.

[Dave Stadt]

"Henry K." > wrote in message
oups.com...
> You'll never have to worry about ME doing that, Jay!

Henry, I thought you had a radio with some whizz bang options to allow you
to tell when the frequency was busy so you wouldn't step on others
transmissions.

[Jose]

> I think it's entirely plausible that
> most VFR traffic would not already be in contact with ATC, prior to the
> point in time at which they decide they need to contact ATC for the purpose
> of entering the Class B airspace.

You are correct, but I didn't read it that way. I read it as most VFR
traffic would not be in contact with ATC =as= they enter class B, or
within it.

> Better ratchet up that "wrong" counter one more. :p

Actually I thought I was wrong, but it turned out I was mistaken about
that. :)

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Stubby]

wrote:
> Gene Seibel wrote:
> Some 2-way
>
>>radios we used in broadcasting had timers that shut them down after 5
>>minutes because they weren't designed for full time duty cycle. That
>>wouldn't be a bad idea either.
>
>
> Most programmable communications transceivers have a timeout feature
> (with selectable delay). Really helps in stuck mike situations (and
> pulls the rug out from under long-winded people, too). All 2-way
> transmitters should be so equipped.

The guys who designed the original EtherNet anticipated this problem and
built an "anti-jabber" circuit to every node.

[Stubby]

wrote:
> Gene Seibel wrote:
> Some 2-way
>
>>radios we used in broadcasting had timers that shut them down after 5
>>minutes because they weren't designed for full time duty cycle. That
>>wouldn't be a bad idea either.
>
>
> Most programmable communications transceivers have a timeout feature
> (with selectable delay). Really helps in stuck mike situations (and
> pulls the rug out from under long-winded people, too). All 2-way
> transmitters should be so equipped.

The guys who designed the original EtherNet anticipated this problem and
built an "anti-jabber" circuit to every node.

[RST Engineering]

And if the stack has an audio panel worthy of the name, the opposite
transceiver's audio is cut off during transmit to prevent an unholy squeal
coming down the audio line of the receiver that is still operating.

Jim


"Jose" > wrote in message
. ..
> hmmm... what I had in mind was a split (pilot/copilot) stack, but upon
> further thought the transmitter would overwhelm the receiver, even though
> the receiver is not switched off.
ss.

[Jose]

> And if the stack has an audio panel worthy of the name, the opposite
> transceiver's audio is cut off during transmit to prevent an unholy squeal
> coming down the audio line of the receiver that is still operating.

You sure? I've operated split (on different frequencies), and not been
cut off when the other pilot was transmitting. Does the audio panel
know what frequencies each radio is using?

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[kgruber]

It has nothing to do with the audio panel. There is a "transmit
interconnect" wire between radios. It doesn't always get installed. I had to
have one retrofitted after completion of my Garmin 430---King KX-165A
installation.

Karl
"Curator" N185KG


"Jose" > wrote in message
. ..
>> And if the stack has an audio panel worthy of the name, the opposite
>> transceiver's audio is cut off during transmit to prevent an unholy
>> squeal coming down the audio line of the receiver that is still
>> operating.
>
> You sure? I've operated split (on different frequencies), and not been
> cut off when the other pilot was transmitting. Does the audio panel know
> what frequencies each radio is using?
>
> Jose
> --
> He who laughs, lasts.
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose]

> It has nothing to do with the audio panel. There is a "transmit
> interconnect" wire between radios. It doesn't always get installed. I had to
> have one retrofitted after completion of my Garmin 430---King KX-165A
> installation.

With such an installation, wouldn't each pilot be frustrated while the
other pilot is transmitting, defeating much of the purpose of the split?

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[[email protected]]

These are the same people who, when they receive a superfluous email
(like "remove me") from a mailing list, send a response to the entire
list asking "Why did I receive this?". :-)

[Dave Stadt]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> These are the same people who, when they receive a superfluous email
> (like "remove me") from a mailing list, send a response to the entire
> list asking "Why did I receive this?". :-)


Or ask for winds and active when there are 6 people in the pattern all
announcing for the same runway.

[RST Engineering]

Excuse me, I design audio panels for a living and have done so for almost 40
years. DOn't tell me it has nothing to do with the audio panel. It has
EVERYTHING to do with the audio panel.

Jim



"kgruber" > wrote in message
...
> It has nothing to do with the audio panel.

[Newps]

Jose wrote:

>> And if the stack has an audio panel worthy of the name, the opposite
>> transceiver's audio is cut off during transmit to prevent an unholy
>> squeal coming down the audio line of the receiver that is still
>> operating.
>
>
> You sure? I've operated split (on different frequencies), and not been
> cut off when the other pilot was transmitting. Does the audio panel
> know what frequencies each radio is using?
>

And I have the newest Garmin audio panel. The pilot and copliot can
each talk on different frequencies at the same time.

[Newps]

Jose wrote:

>> It has nothing to do with the audio panel. There is a "transmit
>> interconnect" wire between radios. It doesn't always get installed. I
>> had to have one retrofitted after completion of my Garmin 430---King
>> KX-165A installation.
>
>
> With such an installation, wouldn't each pilot be frustrated while the
> other pilot is transmitting, defeating much of the purpose of the split?

No, it works just fine. You can hear a little garbling if you are
talking on close frequencies like 122.75 and 122.8 The Garmin audio
panel does not shut down the receiver of the radio not being transmitted on.

[Darrel Toepfer]

Newps wrote:

> And I have the newest Garmin audio panel. The pilot and copliot can
> each talk on different frequencies at the same time.

We call that *intercom*...

If you have radios on different frequencies and are able to talk to each
other through them, you need new radios because those old ones have
really poor filtering/alignment...

[Allen]

"Darrel Toepfer" > wrote in message
. ..
> Newps wrote:
>
>> And I have the newest Garmin audio panel. The pilot and copliot can each
>> talk on different frequencies at the same time.
>
> We call that *intercom*...
>
> If you have radios on different frequencies and are able to talk to each
> other through them, you need new radios because those old ones have really
> poor filtering/alignment...

He did not say the pilot and co-pilot could talk to each other on different
frequencies. What he meant is the pilot could be talking to Tower while the
co-pilot could be talking to Unicom (or some other combination :)

Allen

[Jose]

>> And I have the newest Garmin audio panel. The pilot and copliot can each talk on different frequencies at the same time.
>
>
> We call that *intercom*...
>
> If you have radios on different frequencies and are able to talk to each other through them, you need new radios because those old ones have really poor filtering/alignment...

"can each talk" is different from "talk to each other"

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[kgruber]

I would never try to tell you anything, Jim. I'd just throw it out in a
trough and listen to you come squealing.

Karl
"Curator" N185KG


"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
...
> Excuse me, I design audio panels for a living and have done so for almost
> 40 years. DOn't tell me it has nothing to do with the audio panel. It
> has EVERYTHING to do with the audio panel.
>
> Jim
>
>
>
> "kgruber" > wrote in message
> ...
>> It has nothing to do with the audio panel.
>
>

[Newps]

Darrel Toepfer wrote:
> Newps wrote:
>
>> And I have the newest Garmin audio panel. The pilot and copliot can
>> each talk on different frequencies at the same time.
>
>
> We call that *intercom*...
>
> If you have radios on different frequencies and are able to talk to each
> other through them, you need new radios because those old ones have
> really poor filtering/alignment...

That's not what I said or meant to say. The Garmin audio panel allows
the two pilots to each talk on a separate radio, on different freq's, at
the same time.

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 10:16:15 -0700, Newps > wrote
in >::

>The Garmin audio panel allows
>the two pilots to each talk on a separate radio, on different freq's, at
>the same time.

That's not what it says here:
http://www.garmin.com/products/gma347/

The GMA 347 audio panel builds upon the successful attributes of
the GMA 340 while adding benefits such as automatic squelch,
digital clearance recorder, and a full-duplex telephone interface.

The GMA 347's automatic squelch option makes the entire audio
experience quieter and clearer. Since there are some occasions
when pilots wouldn’t want an automatic squelch—such as high-noise
environments—the GMA 347 also retains the manual squelch
adjustment feature. Garmin has also added three more unmuted,
unswitched inputs with individual volume control.

The GMA 347’s automatic digital clearance recorder helps pilots
manage the demands of a busy cockpit. The unit continuously
captures the last two and one half minutes of audio switched
through the panel. If a pilot misses a frequency change or
clearance, he or she can replay the necessary information by
simply pressing the “play” button.

In addition, the GMA 347 has a full-duplex telephone interface
with intercom isolation and disable capability. This feature
allows private telephone calls by the pilot or copilot, or
multi-party calls with crew and/or passengers.

Pilots will also appreciate the integration of the G1000’s
“configuration module” into the GMA 347. If the audio panel is
ever removed, all of the pilot’s preferred settings are
automatically loaded into the unit.

Garmin part number: 010-00275-01

[Javier Henderson]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 10:16:15 -0700, Newps > wrote
> in >::
>
>> The Garmin audio panel allows
>> the two pilots to each talk on a separate radio, on different freq's, at
>> the same time.
>
> That's not what it says here:
> http://www.garmin.com/products/gma347/

(...)

The so-called "split" function exists on the KMA28, made by PS
Engineering, as well as of course the PS Engineering branded audio
panels with built-in intercoms.

I've a KMA28, and on a few occasions I've been talking to ATC on the
pilot side, while a friend would be calling an FBO on their ARINC
frequency to arrange for a car, or whatever.

For some reason, I can't connect to Garmin's website right now, so I
can't see if the 340/347 have this split function or not.

-jav

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 12:39:12 -0500, Javier Henderson
> wrote in >::

>The so-called "split" function exists on the KMA28, made by PS
>Engineering, as well as of course the PS Engineering branded audio
>panels with built-in intercoms.
>
>I've a KMA28, and on a few occasions I've been talking to ATC on the
>pilot side, while a friend would be calling an FBO on their ARINC
>frequency to arrange for a car, or whatever.

I find it interesting that the PS Engineering KMA28 documentation
fails to mention this 'split function':
http://www.ps-engineering.com/pdf/Manuals/PXE7300%20Manual.PDF

[Peter R.]

Larry Dighera > wrote:

> That's not what it says here:
> http://www.garmin.com/products/gma347/
>
> The GMA 347 audio panel builds upon the successful attributes of
> the GMA 340
<snip>

The GMA340 certainly has this feature. I use it all the time in my
Bonanza. If the 347 is built upon the successful attributes of the GMA340,
then Garmin most likely included this feature in that unit as well.

--
Peter

[RST Engineering]

Nobody ever said anything about "talking" on different frequencies. There
are a few dozen spurious responses on the best designed receiver that will
take your ears off when the other person transmits on the other transceiver.
It takes one hell of a lot of engineering to keep #1 transmitter from
blowing the socks off of the #2 receiver.

Jim




"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Jose wrote:
>
>>> And if the stack has an audio panel worthy of the name, the opposite
>>> transceiver's audio is cut off during transmit to prevent an unholy
>>> squeal coming down the audio line of the receiver that is still
>>> operating.
>>
>>
>> You sure? I've operated split (on different frequencies), and not been
>> cut off when the other pilot was transmitting. Does the audio panel know
>> what frequencies each radio is using?
>>
>
> And I have the newest Garmin audio panel. The pilot and copliot can each
> talk on different frequencies at the same time.

[Newps]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 10:16:15 -0700, Newps > wrote
> in >::
>
>
>>The Garmin audio panel allows
>>the two pilots to each talk on a separate radio, on different freq's, at
>>the same time.
>
>
> That's not what it says here:
> http://www.garmin.com/products/gma347/

I have the 340.

[Newps]

RST Engineering wrote:

> Nobody ever said anything about "talking" on different frequencies. There
> are a few dozen spurious responses on the best designed receiver that will
> take your ears off when the other person transmits on the other transceiver.
> It takes one hell of a lot of engineering to keep #1 transmitter from
> blowing the socks off of the #2 receiver.

The Garmin audio panel allows two seperate conversations to take place
at the same time and if you weren't sitting right next to him you
wouldn't know he was talking on the other radio. I will have to tune in
the ATIS on one radio and see if by transmitting on the other if that
mutes the ATIS in my headset.

[Newps]

>
>
> Larry Dighera wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 10:16:15 -0700, Newps > wrote
>> in >::
>>
>>
>>> The Garmin audio panel allows the two pilots to each talk on a
>>> separate radio, on different freq's, at the same time.
>>
>>
>>
>> That's not what it says here:


It has it. Look at the picture. The comm 1/2 button is what you push.
When that is lit up the pilot is connected to comm 1 and his PTT
transmits on comm1. The copilot is then connected to comm 2 and
transmits on comm 2, all this regardless of how you had the comms setup
prior to pushing the button. Another feature of the audio panel,
although I'll never use it, is that when you press the spkr button and
then press the PTT switch you don't transmit on the radio at all but
over the planes radio speaker so the rest of the passengers can hear you.

[Mike Adams]

Larry Dighera > wrote:

> On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 12:39:12 -0500, Javier Henderson
> > wrote in >::
>
>>The so-called "split" function exists on the KMA28, made by PS
>>Engineering, as well as of course the PS Engineering branded audio
>>panels with built-in intercoms.
>>
>>I've a KMA28, and on a few occasions I've been talking to ATC on the
>>pilot side, while a friend would be calling an FBO on their ARINC
>>frequency to arrange for a car, or whatever.
>
> I find it interesting that the PS Engineering KMA28 documentation
> fails to mention this 'split function':
> http://www.ps-engineering.com/pdf/Manuals/PXE7300%20Manual.PDF

I also have the KMA-28, and it's the same as the PMA-7000, and does have the split mode. Here's some
better links:
https://www3.bendixking.com/static/catalog/viewproductdetails.jsp?pid=48
http://www.ps-engineering.com/docs/PMA7000PG.pdf

For me, the split mode works as advertised, and is OK, but is subject to cross-talk between the two
comm radios. On my plane, the two antennas are side by side, and only about 2 or 3 feet apart, so I do
get some interference. (Not to mention the two radios being side by side in the stack, so that's another
possible cause.)

Mike

[Javier Henderson]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 12:39:12 -0500, Javier Henderson
> > wrote in >::
>
>> The so-called "split" function exists on the KMA28, made by PS
>> Engineering, as well as of course the PS Engineering branded audio
>> panels with built-in intercoms.
>>
>> I've a KMA28, and on a few occasions I've been talking to ATC on the
>> pilot side, while a friend would be calling an FBO on their ARINC
>> frequency to arrange for a car, or whatever.
>
> I find it interesting that the PS Engineering KMA28 documentation
> fails to mention this 'split function':
> http://www.ps-engineering.com/pdf/Manuals/PXE7300%20Manual.PDF

I had no idea this topic was of so much interest to you.

Here you go:

"The split mode, pioneered by PS Engineering, is still available, but
now uses an intuitive push button selection. To make operation simpler,
Com 1 priority is provided to the pilot, in split mode, with copilot
selection of Com 2 or 3."

Enjoy.

-jav

[Javier Henderson]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 12:39:12 -0500, Javier Henderson
> > wrote in >::
>
>> The so-called "split" function exists on the KMA28, made by PS
>> Engineering, as well as of course the PS Engineering branded audio
>> panels with built-in intercoms.
>>
>> I've a KMA28, and on a few occasions I've been talking to ATC on the
>> pilot side, while a friend would be calling an FBO on their ARINC
>> frequency to arrange for a car, or whatever.
>
> I find it interesting that the PS Engineering KMA28 documentation
> fails to mention this 'split function':
> http://www.ps-engineering.com/pdf/Manuals/PXE7300%20Manual.PDF

BTW, you pointed to a CD player installation and operation manual.

-jav

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 12:52:50 -0500, "Peter R." >
wrote in >::

>Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
>> That's not what it says here:
>> http://www.garmin.com/products/gma347/
>>
>> The GMA 347 audio panel builds upon the successful attributes of
>> the GMA 340
><snip>
>
>The GMA340 certainly has this feature.

Indeed page 4 of the Gramin GMA340 audio panel Pilot's Guide documents
Split COM operation.* I wouldn't have thought the COM receiver would
possess adequate selectivity to prevent adjacent channel splatter when
the receiving and transmitting antennas are in such close proximity.


*
http://www.garmin.com/manuals/GMA340AudioPanel_PilotsGuide.pdf

Transceivers

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Audio level is controlled by the selected COM radio volume control
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Selection of either COM1, COM2, or COM3 (13) for both MIC and
audio source is accomplished by pressing either COM1 MIC, COM2 MIC, or
COM3 MIC (14). The active com audio is always heard on the
headphones.

Additionally, each audio source can be selected independently by
pressing COM1, COM2, or COM3 (13). When selected in this way, they
remain active as audio sources regardless of which transceiver has
been selected for microphone use.

When a microphone is keyed, the active transceiver's MIC button
LED blinks approximately once per second to indicate that the radio is
transmitting.

Split COM 9Not Available on Dual ADF)
-------------------------------------

Pressing the COM1/2 button (15) activates the Split COM function.
When this mode is active, COM1 is dedicated solely to the pilot for
MIC/audio while COM2 is dedicated to the copilot for MIC/audio. The
pilot and copilot can simultaneously transmit in this mode over
separate radios. Both pilots can still listen to COM3, NAV1, NAV2,
DME., ADF, and MKR as selected. The Split COM mode is cancelled by
pressing the COM 1/2 button a second time.

When in the Split COM mode the copilot ma make PA announcements
while the pilot continues using COM1 independently. When the PA
button is pressed after the Split COM mode is activated, the copilot's
mic is output over the cabin speaker when keyed. A second press of
the PA button returns the copilot to normal Split COM operation.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
If the COM radios utilize a "transmit interlock" system, the Split COM
function may require that the feature is enabled. Refer to the
radio's installation manual for guidance. GARMIN makes no
expressed of implied guarantees regarding the suitability of Split COM
feature in a given installation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 13:53:10 -0500, Javier Henderson
> wrote in >::

>
>BTW, you pointed to a CD player installation and operation manual.

An error caused by my haste.

Unfortunately, subsequent searches failed to locate useful KMA28
documentation. The closest I could come was this:
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/kma28.php

[Allen]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 10:16:15 -0700, Newps > wrote
> in >::
>
>>The Garmin audio panel allows
>>the two pilots to each talk on a separate radio, on different freq's, at
>>the same time.
>
> That's not what it says here:
> http://www.garmin.com/products/gma347/
>
> The GMA 347 audio panel builds upon the successful attributes of
> the GMA 340 while adding benefits such as automatic squelch,
> digital clearance recorder, and a full-duplex telephone interface.
>

Split Com - Copilot may transmit and receive on COM2 while Pilot transmits
and receives on COM1

from the GMA 340 spec which the GMA 347 "builds upon"

Allen

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 11:23:08 -0700, Newps > wrote
in >::

>
>
>Larry Dighera wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 10:16:15 -0700, Newps > wrote
>> in >::
>>
>>
>>>The Garmin audio panel allows
>>>the two pilots to each talk on a separate radio, on different freq's, at
>>>the same time.
>>
>>
>> That's not what it says here:
>> http://www.garmin.com/products/gma347/
>
>I have the 340.

I referred to the GMA347, because in Message-ID:
> you stated:

And I have the newest Garmin audio panel.

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 08:28:12 -0700, Newps > wrote
in >::

>You can hear a little garbling if you are
>talking on close frequencies like 122.75 and 122.8 The Garmin audio
>panel does not shut down the receiver of the radio not being transmitted on.

That is remarkable receiver selectivity performance. What com
equipment do you have installed? Is it Garmin as well?

[RST Engineering]

Not only is it remarkable selectivity, but crossmod, intermod, and all the
rest of the *mods combined with the antennas less than 5 feet apart, a 10
watt transmitter and a 1 microvolt receiver. One might be tempted to call
it a miracle.

Jim



"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
..
>
> That is remarkable receiver selectivity performance. What com
> equipment do you have installed? Is it Garmin as well?
>

[Darrel Toepfer]

Larry Dighera wrote:

> I find it interesting that the PS Engineering KMA28 documentation
> fails to mention this 'split function':
> http://www.ps-engineering.com/pdf/Manuals/PXE7300%20Manual.PDF

Thats for the CD player...

These do it:
http://www.ps-engineering.com/pac24.shtml
http://www.ps-engineering.com/pma7000b.shtml
http://www.ps-engineering.com/pma7000cd.shtml
http://www.ps-engineering.com/pma8000SR.shtml

Page 3:
http://www.ps-engineering.com/docs/PMA8000B_PG.pdf

[Newps]

Larry Dighera wrote:

> On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 08:28:12 -0700, Newps > wrote
> in >::
>
>
>>You can hear a little garbling if you are
>>talking on close frequencies like 122.75 and 122.8 The Garmin audio
>>panel does not shut down the receiver of the radio not being transmitted on.
>
>
> That is remarkable receiver selectivity performance. What com
> equipment do you have installed? Is it Garmin as well?
>

No, just a pair of crappy Narco Mk 12D's.

[Newps]

RST Engineering wrote:

> Not only is it remarkable selectivity, but crossmod, intermod, and all the
> rest of the *mods combined with the antennas less than 5 feet apart, a 10
> watt transmitter and a 1 microvolt receiver. One might be tempted to call
> it a miracle.

I remember some of this vaguely from when I was active with amateur
radio but all that info is long gone. How does it work then?

[RST Engineering]

Very well, thank you. A dissertation on *mod would take me the better part
of a semester to convey, as it does now. My Spring semester classes are
still open (www.sierrracollege.edu) if you'd like to partake.

Jim







"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> RST Engineering wrote:
>
>> Not only is it remarkable selectivity, but crossmod, intermod, and all
>> the rest of the *mods combined with the antennas less than 5 feet apart,
>> a 10 watt transmitter and a 1 microvolt receiver. One might be tempted
>> to call it a miracle.
>
> I remember some of this vaguely from when I was active with amateur radio
> but all that info is long gone. How does it work then?
>

[Henry K.]

I do have a homemade radio level meter plugged into the headset jack to
tell me when there's traffic on the frequency. Works well.

[Jon Woellhaf]

"Henry K." > wrote in message
oups.com...
>I do have a homemade radio level meter plugged into the headset jack to
> tell me when there's traffic on the frequency. Works well.

Please elaborate.

[Henry K.]

I can't describe the circuit, being an electronic dumbo. A friend who
is a ham made up a circuit board inserted into a Radio Shack case about
the size of a cigarette pack. A 9v battery drives it. It is Velcroed to
the top of my C150's glare shield. One cable plugs into the headset
jack and there is one large LED on the case that flickers when there is
traffic on the frequency. Cost less than $10 in parts to put together.