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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Why don't voice radio communications use FM?
Peter R. writes:
A leading cause of accidents? Where did you get this statistic? From the NTSB and several books on the subject. Guess? If a pilot or controller is not able to comprehend the other side's transmission, there is no guess. "Say again?" is the phrase of choice and it is used all over the frequencies. It's routine in linguistics to unconsciously guess. A person listening to familiar sounds in a familiar context will "fill in the blanks" for any sounds that cannot be unambiguously distinguished, and he will do this without thinking. If he guesses wrong, trouble can result, and accidents have happened in aviation for this reason (the most famous probably being the one at Tenerife). -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Why don't voice radio communications use FM?
James Robinson writes:
I understand it is because of a characteristic of FM called "capture effect" that blanks out weaker transmissions when two radios transmit at the same time. The listener would have no idea that a second, weaker transmission was being made. It might be possible to use digital FM and employ anticollision methods such as those used in other media (networks and so on). Digital FM would be completely noise free. GSM cellphone technology already works this way. Also, spread frequency methods such as those used by GPS can help resolve collision issues, although in aviation voice communications you really want only one channel speaking at a time (but I'm sure this could easily be worked out). -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Why don't voice radio communications use FM?
Ron Natalie writes:
No actually, it's just historical. Early av radio used AM, and for that reason we still do. If that were the only reason, nothing would ever change in aviation. There must be some reason beyond that. Concerns over safety come to mind immediately, and ecnonomic issues follow; but in the case of voice communications, they are so bad already that one can argue that a newer technology would increase safety more than enough to justify the initial risk of a new system. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Why don't voice radio communications use FM?
Larry Dighera writes:
Hence the popularity of Active Noise Reduction headsets. Then why not apply the same logic to the radio channel itself, and reduce its noise as well. Do you use an ANR headset? No. The source of the noise is not anything around me, it's coming from the channel itself. Request 'say again' if in doubt. Most people guess without realizing it, so they cannot do that. What would you estimate the cost of re-equipping all aircraft with such a system might be? They don't all have to be reequipped at once, any more than everyone must have a glass cockpit. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Why don't voice radio communications use FM?
Emily writes:
Really? Can you cite some statistics? I'd be very interested in reading them. Just look through accident and incident reports. Radio communication is one of the weak links in the aviation safety chain. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Why don't voice radio communications use FM?
You recall incorrectly.
Jim "Mxsmanic" wrote in message ... Steven P. McNicoll writes: Wouldn't that reduce the available frequencies? For a given audio bandwidth, FM tends to require somewhat more radio bandwidth, as I recall, |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Why don't voice radio communications use FM?
Mxsmanic schrieb:
Just look through accident and incident reports. Radio communication is one of the weak links in the aviation safety chain. But not because of bad sound quality, but because pilots under pressure tend to hear what they expect to hear. (A phenomene which does not only occur with pilots BTW.) These accidents would have happened with hifi qualitiy radio, too. Stefan |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Why don't voice radio communications use FM?
RST Engineering writes:
You recall incorrectly. Perhaps. Theoretically it should require exactly the same bandwidth, but I seem to recall reading that typical implementations used more bandwidth. In any case, you don't need much for voice communication. The advantage of FM would be the reduction of noise. Digital over FM would be still better. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Why don't voice radio communications use FM?
Stefan writes:
But not because of bad sound quality, but because pilots under pressure tend to hear what they expect to hear. The worse the sound quality is, the more pilots must "fill in the blanks," and the more likely they are to hear what they want to hear. If you hear something that could be "five" or "nine," you're much more likely to choose the number that suits you than you are if you hear something that is unambiguously one of the two. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Why don't voice radio communications use FM?
Jim Logajan writes:
details snipped Maybe someday the FAA and/or ICAO will consider replacing analog radios with a more capable digital system.... All very interesting, but one of the criteria that any new system would have to satisfy is that it would have to work in parallel with the existing system. Adding features to the new system that are not available in the old system would create dangerous differences between the two. Seeing fancy displays in the ATC or tower for the lucky digital users won't help deal with traffic from old AM users, and it might even confuse things enough to cause problems. A highly advanced solution would require replacing everything at once, which isn't going to happen. A simpler solution that just provides better quality audio could coexist with older systems without a problem. -- 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 |