Comparison of Air band Receivers

[Andrew Sarangan]

Following the previous discussion of scanners, I did a comparison of
three different scanners (Uniden, Radioshack and ICOM) by recording
clips from each unit using the same outdoor antenna.

I was surprised by how much the ICOM-A6 outperformed the other models,
but the picture (audio in this case) is worth a thousand words. It
could be of use to anyone considering purchasing these for aviation
use.

You can find the recordings here.
http://www.sarangan.org/aviation/scan_audio/Scanner/compare/

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 20:57:27 -0700 (PDT), Andrew Sarangan
> wrote:

> I did a comparison of
>three different scanners (Uniden, Radioshack and ICOM) by recording
>clips from each unit using the same outdoor antenna.
>
>I was surprised by how much the ICOM-A6 outperformed the other models,


I would guess the price of the Icom was significantly in excess of the
other two...

See if a dealer will let you record the Vertex VXA-220 Pro VI:
http://www.vertexstandard.com/indexVS.cfm?cmd=DisplayProducts&ProdCatID=204&encProdID=DA07CE6217CCD6F284F47B698B8EB483&DivisionID=2&isArchived=0
It has 8.33 kHz synthesizer steps for the new narrow-band channel
plan. Do the others?

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:

> See if a dealer will let you record the Vertex VXA-220 Pro VI:
> http://www.vertexstandard.com/indexVS.cfm?cmd=DisplayProducts&ProdCatID=204&en
> cProdID=DA07CE6217CCD6F284F47B698B8EB483&DivisionID=2&isArchived=0
> It has 8.33 kHz synthesizer steps for the new narrow-band channel
> plan. Do the others?

8.33 is only applicable in Europe.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Andrew Sarangan]

On Apr 13, 12:57 am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 20:57:27 -0700 (PDT), Andrew Sarangan
>
> > wrote:
> > I did a comparison of
> >three different scanners (Uniden, Radioshack and ICOM) by recording
> >clips from each unit using the same outdoor antenna.
>
> >I was surprised by how much the ICOM-A6 outperformed the other models,
>
> I would guess the price of the Icom was significantly in excess of the
> other two...
>

Yes it is more expensive. But prior discussions on this newsgroup lead
me to believe that transceivers are more expensive mainly because they
have transmit capability, but for listening just about any scanner
would do. My goal was to find out if that was really true.


> See if a dealer will let you record the Vertex VXA-220 Pro VI:http://www.vertexstandard.com/indexVS.cfm?cmd=DisplayProducts&ProdCat...
> It has 8.33 kHz synthesizer steps for the new narrow-band channel
> plan. Do the others?

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 06:54:37 -0400, Bob Noel
> wrote:

>In article >,
> Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
>> See if a dealer will let you record the Vertex VXA-220 Pro VI:
>> http://www.vertexstandard.com/indexVS.cfm?cmd=DisplayProducts&ProdCatID=204&en
>> cProdID=DA07CE6217CCD6F284F47B698B8EB483&DivisionID=2&isArchived=0
>> It has 8.33 kHz synthesizer steps for the new narrow-band channel
>> plan. Do the others?
>
>8.33 is only applicable in Europe.

So it appears, but who knows what the future will bring:

http://research.faa.gov/downloads/redac/minutes/minutes_04292003.pdf
The Europeans are channel splitting to 8.33 kHz and using VDL Mode
3 for voice communications. This is different from the U.S.
approach and the FAA should work with the Europeans to identify a
common solution.




http://mae.pennnet.com/articles/article_display.cfm?Section=ARCHI&C=News&ARTICLE_ID=199450&KEYWORDS=FAA%20radio&p=32
FAA and airlines at odds over next-generation aviation
communications
WASHINGTON — Leaders of the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) are delaying indefinitely their nationwide rollout of the
new Controller-Pilot Data Link Communications (CPDLC) system,
which has been undergoing tests at Miami International Airport
since October 2002.

FAA officials say they are delaying the program for two reasons:
the airlines are unable to make the necessary investment in the
cockpit, and the FAA's new prime objective of increased security.
...

Avionics companies are responding by trying to cover all possible
bases with multimode radios capable of talking to VDL2, 8.33 kHz,
and VDL3. But they and the airlines have voiced concerns about
that approach, as well.

"We, the manufacturers, can put multimode inside a single box, but
is it cost-effective to add additional technology to the same box
when we haven't resolved all the interoperability issues?" asks
Richard Heinrich, director of strategic initiatives at radio
designer Rockwell Collins in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. "Our goal is to
serve the community by offering them one product with multiple
functionality; the community needs to decide what that
functionality needs to be."




http://airlineprocurement.com/magazine/article.html?articleID=1183&print=Y
Doubts about the grand plan increased as 2000 came and went
without a completed Nexcom, and European 8.33-kHz radios became
more and more prevalent in international aircraft. Airlines began
to question whether there was truly a need to buy yet another new
radio for the now-projected 2009 rollout of Nexcom (few converted
radios support Nexcom, nor necessarily do new 8.33-kHz radios).

"Europe had backed itself into a corner," says Melvin Reese,
director-communication and surveillance for Eurocontrol. "We had
converted so many 25-kHz radios to 8.33 kHz that there was no way
to back out to a 25-kHz system like Nexcom." Europe required the
8.33-kHz radios for flights above 24,500 ft. starting in 1999 and
will continue the rollout next January[2006] with 8.33 kHz spacing
for flights above 19,500 ft. Reese says about half of the US
airline fleet already is equipped with radios that can handle both
the 25-kHz and 8.33-kHz spacing.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:

> >8.33 is only applicable in Europe.
>
> So it appears, but who knows what the future will bring:

8.33 was needed in Europe NOW. They couldn't wait for
the higher capacity that would (eventually) be available from
VDL whatever mode.

Long term, 8.33 doesn't provide the capacity that we'll eventually
need in the NAS.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 22:46:13 -0400, Bob Noel
> wrote:

>In article >,
> Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
>> >8.33 is only applicable in Europe.
>>
>> So it appears, but who knows what the future will bring:
>
>8.33 was needed in Europe NOW. They couldn't wait for
>the higher capacity that would (eventually) be available from
>VDL whatever mode.
>
>Long term, 8.33 doesn't provide the capacity that we'll eventually
>need in the NAS.

What does? At least 8.33-kHz triples the current number of available
channels, but it would seem that the FAA agrees with you. However
Eurocontrol required the 8.33-kHz radios for flights above 24,500 ft.
starting in 1999 and lowered that to flights above 19,500 ft. in 2006,
so if one extrapolates, it would seem that 8.33-kHz radios will be
mandatory at even lower altitudes there before long.

With the majority of the US airliner fleet equipped with 8.33-kHz
radios, and the FAA's indefinitely delaying their nationwide mandate
of the new Controller-Pilot Data Link Communications (CPDLC) system, I
believe there's a significant probability that 8.33-kHz radios could
see use in the NAS if congestion continues to increase.

[Marco Leon[_5_]]

"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
...
> Following the previous discussion of scanners, I did a comparison of
> three different scanners (Uniden, Radioshack and ICOM) by recording
> clips from each unit using the same outdoor antenna.
>
> I was surprised by how much the ICOM-A6 outperformed the other models,
> but the picture (audio in this case) is worth a thousand words. It
> could be of use to anyone considering purchasing these for aviation
> use.
>
> You can find the recordings here.
> http://www.sarangan.org/aviation/scan_audio/Scanner/compare/

Wow Andrew, what a difference. Of course the two you chose to compare to the
ICOM A6 were the two that I happen to have... grrrr.

Thanks (I think) for doing the comparison.

Marco

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:

> >Long term, 8.33 doesn't provide the capacity that we'll eventually
> >need in the NAS.
>
> What does? At least 8.33-kHz triples the current number of available
> channels,

It doesn't quite triple the current number. They still have to be careful
of adjacent channels.



> but it would seem that the FAA agrees with you. However
> Eurocontrol required the 8.33-kHz radios for flights above 24,500 ft.
> starting in 1999 and lowered that to flights above 19,500 ft. in 2006,
> so if one extrapolates, it would seem that 8.33-kHz radios will be
> mandatory at even lower altitudes there before long.

Yep - eventually they'll run out of 8.33 channels that aren't splashed
by the 25 kHz radios. Then they will have to get rid of all the 25 kHz
radios.

>
> With the majority of the US airliner fleet equipped with 8.33-kHz
> radios

eh? The only US aircraft needing 8.33 radios are those that have
to go to Europe. Most of the US fleet doesn't go anywhere near
Europe.

>, and the FAA's indefinitely delaying their nationwide mandate
> of the new Controller-Pilot Data Link Communications (CPDLC) system, I
> believe there's a significant probability that 8.33-kHz radios could
> see use in the NAS if congestion continues to increase.

There are waaaaay more radios that would have to be replaced here
in the NAS than in Europe. And we don't have the short distances
between national borders that adversely impacts the radio freq
allocation challenge found in Europe.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 19:55:09 -0400, Bob Noel
> wrote in
>:

>
>> With the majority of the US airliner fleet equipped with 8.33-kHz
>> radios
>
>eh? The only US aircraft needing 8.33 radios are those that have
>to go to Europe. Most of the US fleet doesn't go anywhere near
>Europe.




http://airlineprocurement.com/magazine/article.html?articleID=1183&print=Y
Reese says about half of the US airline fleet already is equipped
with radios that can handle both the 25-kHz and 8.33-kHz spacing.

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-04-15, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> http://airlineprocurement.com/magazine/article.html?articleID=1183&print=Y
> Reese says about half of the US airline fleet already is equipped
> with radios that can handle both the 25-kHz and 8.33-kHz spacing.

Hell, my LSA will have an 8.33kHz capable radio...that's standard on the
GNS430W.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Jay Maynard > wrote:

> On 2008-04-15, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> > http://airlineprocurement.com/magazine/article.html?articleID=1183&print=Y
> > Reese says about half of the US airline fleet already is equipped
> > with radios that can handle both the 25-kHz and 8.33-kHz spacing.
>
> Hell, my LSA will have an 8.33kHz capable radio...that's standard on the
> GNS430W.

Why pay money for 8.33 if you don't fly in Europe?

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-04-15, Bob Noel > wrote:
> In article >,
> Jay Maynard > wrote:
>> Hell, my LSA will have an 8.33kHz capable radio...that's standard on the
>> GNS430W.
> Why pay money for 8.33 if you don't fly in Europe?

Good question. If it wasn't standard on the GNS430W, I wouldn't pay extra
for it. I got the 430 for lots of other reasons.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 00:24:38 GMT, Jay Maynard
> wrote in
>:

>that's standard on the GNS430W.

I wonder why that is?

Thanks for the information.

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-04-15, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 00:24:38 GMT, Jay Maynard
> wrote in
>:
>>that's standard on the GNS430W.
> I wonder why that is?

Probably because it was easy and cheap to implement, and didn't add any (or
very much) complexity to the computer-driven user interface.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 02:35:55 GMT, Jay Maynard
> wrote in
>:

>On 2008-04-15, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>> On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 00:24:38 GMT, Jay Maynard
> wrote in
>:
>>>that's standard on the GNS430W.
>> I wonder why that is?
>
>Probably because it was easy and cheap to implement, and didn't add any (or
>very much) complexity to the computer-driven user interface.

Ah, right. 8.33 MHz is probably a feature of the chip-set employed in
the circuit design. There would be little reason not to implement it
given the digital (as opposed to step switches) nature of the user
interface.