EFFECTS ON VOICE COMMUNICATION DUE TO OVER-CONGESTION OF THE RADIO FREQUENCIES

[tonycondon]

I have a better idea. Make all airliners fly on specific GPS paths with NO deviations allowed. Chart all of that airspace, with specific altitudes, and let everyone else go wherever they like without any additional equipment...

thats the best idea i've heard in a long time

 

[murphey]

Danilo - let me once again emphasize this was a lousy survey. And in the world of research, completely unusable results.

Had you explained the objective was datalink for commercial, then the results might (and I repeat might) have been a bit more valid. But without context, the survey and results are worthless.

And I blame ERAU for assuming this type of poor research & analysis to pass for a reasonable project.

 

[denverpilot]

I remember a survey from Jeppesen years ago (probably late 1980s) where I told them that I didn't think charts on computer in the cockpit was a feasible idea. Who would want to be pushing buttons in turbulence?

Isn't that still true?

 

[denverpilot]

I have a better idea. Make all airliners fly on specific GPS paths with NO deviations allowed. Chart all of that airspace, with specific altitudes, and let everyone else go wherever they like without any additional equipment...

"I was told that I have unlimited airspace!"

 

[KSCessnaDriver]

Based on some of the responses here, it seems some folks think that I am trying to push datalink into their aircraft. I was just trying to gather some data on the issues that are occuring in voice communication. Based on the responses, most people agree that there is a problem with dropped communication in congested airspace. I agree with you guys in GA aircraft that datalink is not the solution for you. Datalink is meant for airliners and business jets who can afford the system and where there are 2 pilots, while one is flying, the other can communicate as necessary to ATC via datalink.

Yeah, that was me, and it was probably over the top. But I still firmly believe that a lot of things that the institution you attend and the one I graduated from is no friend of GA today. The only used they have for GA is to get a influx of cash to keep the ponzi scheme running in the flight department.

But back to the datalink. Look at how the FAA wants ADS-B to go. Basically, if you want to use all the airspace in the country you have to have it. I feel the datalink would go the same way, and quite frankly, its just a way for the FAA and airlines to push the small guys away from the major cities.

 

[murphey]

But back to the datalink. Look at how the FAA wants ADS-B to go. Basically, if you want to use all the airspace in the country you have to have it. I feel the datalink would go the same way, and quite frankly, its just a way for the FAA and airlines to push the small guys away from the major cities.

I wouldn't object to datalink on a heads-up display so I don't have to go looking for the screen.

 

[gprellwitz]

I wouldn't object to datalink on a heads-up display so I don't have to go looking for the screen.

You must be a touch typist!

 

[murphey]

You must be a touch typist!

sure am. mom made me take typing lessons at 12 because my handwriting was totally illegible.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

That would be up to the FAA to regulate how the ATC and the NAS functions as a whole and maybe separate controllers into voice-comm and data-comm?

That sounds like a REALLY bad idea... Both the separation of controllers by voice and data - Um, but the airplanes are in the same airspace? ... AND leaving anything up to the FAA.

This isn't something simple that can just be implemented and enforced. It will also be very difficult to enforce GA aircraft to use datalink if there is only 1 pilot flying, even if the prices of the systems do come down.

Right - So what happens with us single-pilot types is that we're forced away from busy airspace.

As far as the price is concerned, I'm sure that there will be datalink systems designed to the GA population that will be much cheaper versions of what is installed in airliners.

Doubtful - And "much cheaper," being relative, can still mean "very expensive," especially relative to the cost of a lot of GA airplanes.

Datalink is not the solution, it can only be part of the solution, and like I said, there must be 2 pilots flying an aircraft to be able to use it for safety reasons.

IMO, using digital voice transmission would be MUCH better than datalink. You key the mic and talk, and it's sent as a data burst to a controller position, where it comes out as audio. Same thing at the controller's end, sending it back to the pilots. However, there would be no more "stepping on" each other, no more "say again" (unless the problem was the pilot's enunciation), etc. Heck, you could probably even remove the "contact xxx on yyy.zz" entirely.

More importantly, it'd work for everybody, single-pilot or not.

Still probably too expensive for TSO'd equipment on small airplanes, though. Hell, a simple freakin' AM COM radio for an airplane costs a bare minimum of $1,000 these days. I mean, seriously - Who else would buy an AM radio for $1,000? Make it a fancy digital system, and they'd be ridiculously expensive.

 

[denverpilot]

If the "Can you hear me now?" guy shows up in my airplane, I'm shoving him out the door... populated area or not.

 

[gprellwitz]

Still probably too expensive for TSO'd equipment on small airplanes, though. Hell, a simple freakin' AM COM radio for an airplane costs a bare minimum of $1,000 these days. I mean, seriously - Who else would buy an AM radio for $1,000? Make it a fancy digital system, and they'd be ridiculously expensive.

Agreed, but how much would it cost to re-equip the entire fleet (that uses radios) even if there weren't a premium for digital?

 

[denverpilot]

Agreed, but how much would it cost to re-equip the entire fleet (that uses radios) even if there weren't a premium for digital?

Enough to buy a Congressman.

Be afraid. Garmin knows this. LOL!

 

[gprellwitz]

Enough to buy a Congressman.

Be afraid. Garmin knows this. LOL!

Ha! Right now, they're probably too busy fighting off LightSquared's idiotic proposal that's been approved by the FCC. (Not sure I applied that adjective to the correct noun, but...)

 

[Trapper John]

That sounds like a REALLY bad idea... Both the separation of controllers by voice and data - Um, but the airplanes are in the same airspace? ... AND leaving anything up to the FAA.

It's pretty clear that the OP has a solution that's looking for a problem. How long does it take to receive, interpret and respond to a direction from ATC via voice radio? How long would it take do the same with a keyboard and screen?

IMO, using digital voice transmission would be MUCH better than datalink. You key the mic and talk, and it's sent as a data burst to a controller position, where it comes out as audio. Same thing at the controller's end, sending it back to the pilots. However, there would be no more "stepping on" each other, no more "say again" (unless the problem was the pilot's enunciation), etc. Heck, you could probably even remove the "contact xxx on yyy.zz" entirely.

I dunno about that. If it had the latency of something like that awful Nextel service, it would be a step backward.

Still probably too expensive for TSO'd equipment on small airplanes, though. Hell, a simple freakin' AM COM radio for an airplane costs a bare minimum of $1,000 these days. I mean, seriously - Who else would buy an AM radio for $1,000? Make it a fancy digital system, and they'd be ridiculously expensive.

I guess the good thing about AM is the ability to have narrow frequency spacing. I don't think we'd be able to have 760 comm channels in the allotted band if we had FM transcievers. The audio quality is good enough, so why change anything at this point?

 

[avionics_eng]

IMO, using digital voice transmission would be MUCH better than datalink. You key the mic and talk, and it's sent as a data burst to a controller position, where it comes out as audio. Same thing at the controller's end, sending it back to the pilots. However, there would be no more "stepping on" each other, no more "say again" (unless the problem was the pilot's enunciation), etc. Heck, you could probably even remove the "contact xxx on yyy.zz" entirely.

This is something that is being developed, but you're right, it would be took expensive for GA aviation aircraft anyways, this type of system will only go into aircraft that can turn around and make a profit with it i.e. air transport and some biz jets...

 

[denverpilot]

Ha! Right now, they're probably too busy fighting off LightSquared's idiotic proposal that's been approved by the FCC. (Not sure I applied that adjective to the correct noun, but...)

Yeah, I was wondering which Congressman LightSquared bought when I saw that one too.

Keep the politicians in their nice Dachas on the Black Sea, they're willing to do anything for you.

Oh wait, that was another country... I thought.

 

[denverpilot]

I dunno about that. If it had the latency of something like that awful Nextel service, it would be a step backward.

What's funny is, Nextel was TDMA and didn't have that much latency.

But I totally agree. I hate unkeying a mic (or talking on a VoIP phone) where the packet engine(s) handling the packets have delayed them so badly that an analog geo-sync satellite link is just as fast, end-to-end. Hello... [pause]... Yes, hello. ... [pause]...

Drives me nuts.

I guess the good thing about AM is the ability to have narrow frequency spacing. I don't think we'd be able to have 760 comm channels in the allotted band if we had FM transcievers. The audio quality is good enough, so why change anything at this point?

Federal "narrow-banding" is in full-swing these days, and will be required of many agencies by 2012. Aviation, due to the need to replace far too many systems and radios, and International concerns... aircraft coming from other countries aren't going to buy new radios just to talk to U.S. ATC... it has to be a world-wide change, has been completely left alone.

Billions of dollars spent on digital Public Safety radio systems in the last decade or so, depending on jurisdiction, how much money they had, what grants they could get, etc. APCO Project 25, or P-25 for a shorter nickname.

The audio quality of the narrowband systems is truly awful, to my ear. You get used to it. The CODEC manufacturer for P-25 has a 100% monopoly, which is great for them... not so good for taxpayers... and they sell the CODEC chip to all the radio manufacturers worldwide. Good quality radios for P-25 new, are still hovering just under the $1000 mark, with some less popular models starting to slowly slide below that after all discounts. Early radios were $3500 or higher, per emergency vehicle. Base stations, repeaters, and other infrastructure ran well over $10,000 each back then.

No one could prove anywhere other than the absolute most dense cities on the coasts that narrowbanding was needed to give more open channels to Public Safety. The FCC just wants Public Safety in a smaller chunk of spectrum so they can do more cash auctions of PUBLIC spectrum to the highest bidders.

Luckily, Aviation has no one with deep enough pockets (taxpayers) such that the FCC can mandate a narrower spectrum allocation and get all the radios and new tech for "free". Real people and businesses have to pay for radio upgrades in aviation, and many of those are foreign, so we're the "third rail" for the politicians running the FCC these days.

 

[poadeleted20]

After doing the survey, it appears the goal is to determine whether datalink rather than voice comm would be a better way for aircraft to communicate with ATC. While I see the advantages in some respects, I don't think another "heads down" device in the cockpit is a good idea, especially for single pilots in busy terminal areas without autopilot.

 

[dtuuri]

I thought it was a pretty good survey if the issue is blocked transmissions. Questions 16 and 17 seemed a bit off the mark because feeling "unsafe" because of a blocked transmission doesn't really apply. You're unsafe if it goes unrecognized and you take somebody else's change of altitude, but you wouldn't "feel it." What you feel when it's recognized is concerned and dismayed and relieved that you caught it.

dtuuri
AvClicks.com

 

[denverpilot]

Blocked.

 

[steingar]

If this is how Embry-Riddle trains its students to do sociolgically-based research, I think a serious examination of their accreditation is in order. I would be interested in the credentials of the academic advisor, and the IRB that allowed this nonsense.

At least the other bogus survey originated from a third-world country.

 

[KSCessnaDriver]

If this is how Embry-Riddle trains its students to do sociolgically-based research, I think a serious examination of their accreditation is in order. I would be interested in the credentials of the academic advisor, and the IRB that allowed this nonsense.

Any particular reason you feel that way? Perhaps I don't see what's so bad about the survey. Sure some of it may be poorly worded, but it isn't really that bad if you can think about what is written for a minute.

 

[steingar]

Any particular reason you feel that way? Perhaps I don't see what's so bad about the survey. Sure some of it may be poorly worded, but it isn't really that bad if you can think about what is written for a minute.

One, I haven't seen anything about conflict of interest, implied consent, or any of the other things one must have in place at an accredited institution to carry out research on human beings. The survey is closed down, thus I cannot view to see if any of these essential criterion were met.

Two, it is posted up to a group of strangers on the internet. That is the only level of control I see. How does the OP know that pilots are responding? Because this is a pilot website? That isn't much of a control. Without such a control, there is no way to check the validity the data. This indicates an abysmally poor study design. Given the OP's location, just a bit of leg work would have allowed him (or her, though I can't see a woman designing something this poorly) to actually interview live pilots, examine their credentials, and get trustworthy data. That is how most of us carry out such studies.

Lastly, the "study" begins with a false assumption. How does the OP know frequencies are "over congested"? Isn't that something that should be asked of the respondents, and not just assumed? They are certainly not over congested in my corner of the world.

All these thing suggest the sort of sloppiness that occurs when no one is minding the store.

 

[dtuuri]

One, I haven't seen anything about conflict of interest, implied consent, or any of the other things one must have in place at an accredited institution... I cannot view to see if any of these essential criterion were met.

No comment.

Lastly, the "study" begins with a false assumption. How does the OP know frequencies are "over congested"?

It was defined.

dtuuri

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I don't think this is some big research project that's being funded and/or published - I think it's an undergraduate student's paper. As such, I don't see any need to question their accreditation.

And "research on human beings?" Puh-leeeze. It's a freakin' survey.

 

[Bob Noel]

If this is how Embry-Riddle trains its students to do sociolgically-based research, I think a serious examination of their accreditation is in order. I would be interested in the credentials of the academic advisor, and the IRB that allowed this nonsense.

Sure, if that is indeed what ERAU teaches. All we really know is that someone claiming to be an ERAU student was doing a survey, right? We don't even know if it'll get a passing grade.

 

[KSCessnaDriver]

One, I haven't seen anything about conflict of interest, implied consent, or any of the other things one must have in place at an accredited institution to carry out research on human beings. The survey is closed down, thus I cannot view to see if any of these essential criterion were met.

Fair enough. I've seen tons of these survey's from students down there and have no doubt that they will continue in the future. It's not like these are for anything other that what likely amounts to a term paper at the most.

 

[steingar]

Fair enough. I've seen tons of these survey's from students down there and have no doubt that they will continue in the future. It's not like these are for anything other that what likely amounts to a term paper at the most.

Perhaps, but there are requirements put upon accredited Universities (especially if they receive Federal funding) that such surveys, which are indeed research on human beings, go through a vetting process to make certain the the subjects (that's you guys) understand the ramifications (if any) of participating in the study, and that you have given informed consent of such. These things are absolutely essential for any research carried out on human beings (and yes, and internet survey is definitely research on human beings).

I would think the school would be very interested in making certain these things are met. The student is representing Embry Riddle, and in my opinion, doing so very poorly. I now have a poorer opinion of Embryo Riddle. I'm a bleeding University Professional. If enough of this goes on, the folks accrediting the University will have seen it, and the accreditation could go badly. There are pretty specific rules on who may or may not use the name of my University for these reasons. There are also very specific rules on how to carry out research on human beings. If a survey like this went out without the approval of the Institutional Review Board of my institution, the ramifications for that student's academic advisor or instructor could be disastrous. This is related to what I myself do at the University, and I have ended the careers of some of my colleagues. Such activity is really good for my drinking habit.

 

[dtuuri]

If a survey like this went out without the approval of the Institutional Review Board of my institution, the ramifications for that student's academic advisor or instructor could be disastrous. This is related to what I myself do at the University, and I have ended the careers of some of my colleagues. Such activity is really good for my drinking habit.

I think it was a good survey. Probably not related to what you do. Probably just testing the waters to see if there's any interest in a proposed avionics device to be enigneered for a project. Even a student would hate to build something nobody wants. The focus is probably on design, not studying humans. IMO.

dtuuri

 

[steingar]

I think it was a good survey. Probably not related to what you do. Probably just testing the waters to see if there's any interest in a proposed avionics device to be enigneered for a project. Even a student would hate to build something nobody wants. The focus is probably on design, not studying humans. IMO.

dtuuri

Doesn't matter. Involves humans, research study, accredited University. Now, if it was just the student doing something for his own curiosity, he might have left his alma mater out of it.