Why don't voice radio communications use FM?

Mxsmanic,

Not yet.

But you still claimed a risk. You're backpedaling again.

As far as I know (and hope), these cockpits don't have any trace of
Windows running in them.

Some do.

If they do, the situation is much more dire
than I had feared.

Just because you say so?

The problem is that the ergonomy of the systems is shifting towards a
desktop PC model, instead of an aviation model.

The problem is that you obviously haven't the slightest clue what you
are talking about - and that you are completely immune to criticism.
The problem is that you can't show any facts to back up the claims you
make. None. Zip. And that makes it pretty hard to take you even
remotely serious.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Mxsmanic wrote:
Emily writes:

Show me the line where it says AM had anything to do with it.

All of the radio communication was AM.

Again, show me the line where the NTSB said that aviation radio being AM
had anything to do with it.

Thomas Borchert writes:

Some do.

Which ones?

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

Thomas Borchert wrote:
Mxsmanic,
As far as I know (and hope), these cockpits don't have any trace of
Windows running in them.

Some do.

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

One proven way to reduce noise is to repeat the signal N times and the
receiver adds up the repetitions and eventually the noise averages to zero
while the signal does not. Of course this is not what is done in practice
in real communications.

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

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

Jose wrote:
One proven way to reduce noise is to repeat the signal N times and
the receiver adds up the repetitions and eventually the noise
averages to zero while the signal does not. Of course this is not
what is done in practice in real communications.

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

The unstated assumption is of course that the transmitter is running at
full power output. Once you've done that, the question is what other tricks
are there to increase the range the signals can be detected.

On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 21:55:57 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote in :

Larry Dighera writes:

So you are proposing that the worldwide aviation community re-equip
all their aircraft and facilities with FM, and that all aviation
stakeholders bear the cost of those conversion, so that you won't hear
a hiss?

I suggest that a less noisy method of communication be found and
implemented, so as to increase safety by improving the reliability of
voice radio communication.

You haven't adequately demonstrated the need for a less noisy method
of aviation communications, in my opinion. You allude to NTSB
accident statistics, but you fail to back up your assertions with
actual statistical data. That's pathetically unconvincing.

I'll give you a point for the fact that Mr. Gardner has found a market
for his aviation communication treatise*, but I believe you'll find
that most of the pilots reading this message thread disagree with your
perceived need for less noisy radio receivers. They'll/we'll agree
that _ambient_ noise is a true barrier to intelligibility issue, and I
would guess most pilots have paid for ambient noise canceling headsets
to overcome a true barrier to radio intelligibility. 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.

Do you really believe that what you propose will pay dividends
commensurate with its cost?

Yes.

Can you provide a cost estimate for equipping all ground and air based
communications radios throughout the world? 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.
[...]

For situational awareness, it is vital for all participants to know
what the others in the vicinity are doing by hearing their
instructions and intentions over the radio.

Which is one reason why things like message queuing are potentially
dangerous.

Now that is an outright rhetorical dodge. First you said, "All
conversations are air-ground, not air-air," then when I point out you
are incorrect, you change the subject. I'm beginning to find your
lack of sincerity tiring.

For example, when I'm VFR
en route, and hear a military transport "cleared for the approach" to
an airport across whose instrument approach path I'm about to
traverse, although the transmission isn't directed to me, it provides
me with safety information that may be vital to my visually acquiring
conflicting air traffic.

You can do even better by flying IFR, but you can also get by with
visual contact only. Every increment in technology ideally provides
an increment in safety, but it's best to avoid designing systems that
increment safety for those who have them but reduce safety for those
who do not.

While what you say may be true, it is not an admission that your "All
conversations are air-ground, not air-air." statement was incorrect.
If you're not going to be accountable for what you assert, there is
little reason to continue.

You'll find it difficult to find a pilot who regards today's NAS as
armaturely designed. Are you familiar with TERPS?**

No.

If you should follow the link I provided in Message-ID:
, you'll find that they
are the _professionals_ who design the IFR approaches and route
structure.

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. And your deliberate dodges when pressed
to defend your statements belies someone less than forthright and
sincere.




* http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...75731?v=glance

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

"Mxsmanic" wrote:

A key to progress in debate is knowing what you are talking about.

That's done it: you've just blown every irony meter in the newsgroup.

Shame on you. Those things are expensive.

--
Dan

"How can an idiot be a policeman? Answer me that!"
- Chief Inspector Dreyfus

Jim Logajan wrote:

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

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.


--
Peter