FAA Plans to Change to Radios with 8.33 MHz spacing?

And what sailplane would that be Eric?


Dump the AWOS transmissions because we'll get all our weather over

ADS-B? Hey, my next glider can already be ordered with it!

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to

email me)

On 4/12/2013 7:01 AM, wrote:
And what sailplane would that be Eric?


Dump the AWOS transmissions because we'll get all our weather over

ADS-B? Hey, my next glider can already be ordered with it!

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to

email me)

Phoenix U15 - http://phoenixairusa.com/

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)

- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation Mar/2004" Much of what
you need to know tinyurl.com/yfs7tnz

On Friday, April 12, 2013 5:06:53 AM UTC+2, Bill D wrote:
On Thursday, April 11, 2013 8:12:58 PM UTC-6, Bob Kuykendall wrote:

On Apr 11, 2:33*pm, "Paul Remde" wrote:



... *At a recent soaring



seminar someone stated that they thought the FAA was



going to require radios with the 8.33 MHz spacing starting in 2020.







I will be someewhat surprised if we get to 2020 and we are still using



what we think of today as "aircraft radios." I think that by then we



will find that the bandwidth dedicated to those old grampa boxes will



have been divided up and auctioned off, and we will be communicating



over a system based on mobile phone infrastructure.







If I'm wrong, I'll buy you a beer at the 2020 SSA convention. Offer



limited to the first 24 "I told ya sos."







Thanks, Bob K.



I've got a feeling you'll win that bet. By 2020, the 2 meter AM simplex air-band will be nearly 100 years old and very likely the last of its kind in use. It's way past its use-by date. There are better ways to communicate.

I got a feeling you guys will LOSE that bet. The installed base is too big, worldwide, and entrenched to change that quickly - so unless you want to limit yourself to a flarm-like comm system that only works with other similarly-equipped aircraft, and never plan to talk to ATC or other aircraft, you will be stuck with an antique VHF-AM radio.

Plus, good luck with a ground-based cellular comm system over the mid-Atlantic, or the Kalahari desert!

Not to say that a specialized, glider-only comm system couldn't be developed (again, along the FLARM model), but now bandwidth again becomes a problem..

Kirk
66

On Apr 11, 5:33*pm, "Paul Remde" wrote:
Hi,

I imagine someone on this newsgroup can point me in the right direction on a
technical/FAA question.

[well-formed question here]

Can anyone help me?

Apparently not, Paul. But it's always fun to watch the responses
wander off in bizarre directions, don't you think?

Good luck.

-Pat

In article Bob Kuykendall writes:
On Apr 11, 2:33=A0pm, "Paul Remde" wrote:
... =A0At a recent soaring
seminar someone stated that they thought the FAA was
going to require radios with the 8.33 MHz spacing starting in 2020.

If they said that, they were confused. Especially since 123.3 and
123.5 are only 0.2 MHz apart. It's 8.33 kHz.

I see it as taking quite a while before it would become mandatory.
How long did it take to make the tighter frequency tolerances mandatory
when 720 channel radios became the norm? Quite a few years, as I recall.


I will be someewhat surprised if we get to 2020 and we are still using
what we think of today as "aircraft radios." I think that by then we
will find that the bandwidth dedicated to those old grampa boxes will
have been divided up and auctioned off, and we will be communicating
over a system based on mobile phone infrastructure.

This I don't believe. First off, auctioning off the bandwidth would
not work, since aviation is international, and includes those airliners
that come from other countries that are not into auctioning off spectrum.
A major change would involve international agreements and take some time.

Second, a mobile phone infrastructure system would be using ground
based cell towers (which are not reachable in much of the world, and
not even at an airstrip where I have flown). Also, cellular systems
work by frequency reuse, which requires the limited range of the cell
sites to the mobile phones to make reuse possible within a reasonable
distance. When you are at 10,000 feet, the horizon is about 120 miles
away, so those radio signals will go a long ways, and frequency reuse
becomes more difficult.

Third, there are folks who will reasonably not want their aircraft
communications to be dependent on ground based resources. Presently
even with no functioning ground resources for hundreds of miles, an
aircraft radio on the ground can communicate with one in the air.

Alan

I'm already starting to see a trade in used radios from Europe finding their way to North America. You might want to get a European source and start importing quality radios that are being swapped out now.

It really amuses me how so many people talk about "antique" comm systems.

Why would you need to switch to whoop-de-doo G4, digital, frequency hopping,
DEQPSK (old stuff), wahoo, smart-i-phone thingies, when a VHF-AM 5 watt
transceiver will carry your voice over a hundred miles?

Yeah... I know - you just gotta have real-time satellite photos of the
clouds down to 3.141592 meter resolution so you can keep your $300K glider
in the air for more than 30 minutes.

I'll stick with my antiques, thank you.

And, yes, I understand spectrum congestion.

And, for those who don't get it, I'm yanking your chains. ;-p


wrote in message
...
I'm already starting to see a trade in used radios from Europe finding
their way to North America. You might want to get a European source and
start importing quality radios that are being swapped out now.

Bob,

I don't believe that we switch to GSM or whatever.

1. For none of the digital communication techniques it was possible to
find a global frequency range.

2. The relative speed is too high. To my knowledge the highest speed to
which a digital communication system is certified is 500 km/h (310 mph).
This is GSM-R, Global System for Mobile Communications - Railway or
GSM-Railway, for details see Wikipedia.
500km/h would be good enough for us but not for others. We can forget it
in aviation thanks to Doppler effect.

Bear


On 12.04.2013 04:12, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
On Apr 11, 2:33 pm, "Paul Remde" wrote:
... At a recent soaring
seminar someone stated that they thought the FAA was
going to require radios with the 8.33 MHz spacing starting in 2020.

I will be someewhat surprised if we get to 2020 and we are still using
what we think of today as "aircraft radios." I think that by then we
will find that the bandwidth dedicated to those old grampa boxes will
have been divided up and auctioned off, and we will be communicating
over a system based on mobile phone infrastructure.

If I'm wrong, I'll buy you a beer at the 2020 SSA convention. Offer
limited to the first 24 "I told ya sos."

Thanks, Bob K.

On Saturday, April 13, 2013 12:26:36 PM UTC-6, Bear wrote:
Bob,



I don't believe that we switch to GSM or whatever.



1. For none of the digital communication techniques it was possible to

find a global frequency range.



2. The relative speed is too high. To my knowledge the highest speed to

which a digital communication system is certified is 500 km/h (310 mph).

This is GSM-R, Global System for Mobile Communications - Railway or

GSM-Railway, for details see Wikipedia.

500km/h would be good enough for us but not for others. We can forget it

in aviation thanks to Doppler effect.



Bear

So, how is digital communication with 17,000 mph satellites possible with Doppler effects?

Nobody suggested GSM as an alternative to a global aviation-specific digital communications protocol.

What is your proposal?


So, how is digital communication with 17,000 mph satellites possible with Doppler effects?

Nobody suggested GSM as an alternative to a global aviation-specific digital communications protocol.