Wow...twenty posts about handhelds and not a single mentioning of 8,33KHz channel spacing!
To sum it up, not one of the available (and rather expensive) ICOM units has 8,33 KHz channel spacing.
Agreed, handhelds cost a fraction of panel-mount radios, but still, it seems wasted money, when, possibly at the Aero 2013, they might come up with their "new models". No word from them at this time though..looks like they don't want to hurt their current sales...
The only unit which offers 8,33 is the (low price) Vertex 220, which looks very nice. Unfortunately, for some reason it looks like this is only for receiving, whilst for transmitting, it's only 25Khz. Can anybody confirm this? Certainly, transmitting with the hand-held will normally be required only in emergency situations (where channel spacing is not of prime importance) but then you might want to use the handheld for requesting start-up clearances and so on...
I was wondering about the 8,33 aspect, too. But if I buy a radio today, what are its chances of still working the day I really need/want 8,33 ?
@Boscomantico: with my limited knowledge of electronics, I cannot see the raster being different for Tx vs. Rx. This could only be the result of either two separate PLL's, which I can see no technical reason for, and would only make things more expensive, or a deliberate limitation in software.
An excellent point about 8.33 - especially as one is all the more likely to use it to collect a departure clearance or other ground functions, and ground frequencies are probably more likely to move to 8.33 than widely-known airborne ones such as Approach, Tower, etc.
I read somewhere that some "FBOs" (not a European term but you get what I mean) already use 8.33, presumably because most of their business is bigger stuff (TP or jet) which will all be 8.33 capable anyway.
I cannot see the raster being different for Tx vs. Rx. This could only be the result of either two separate PLL's, which I can see no technical reason for, and would only make things more expensive, or a deliberate limitation in software.
Maybe they do have two PLLs, but there is no tech/cost reason to not offer 8.33. It's a trivially different design; one with a longer integer divider in the PLL. It doesn't cost a penny more to do 8.33.
I suggest we all hassle the radio makers over this 
In the UK, we have the unbelievably stupid "frequency tax" coming in (basically an airport will have to pay tax on all frequencies used by comms and navaids) and, from vague memory, the tax is higher for 25kHz frequencies than for 8.33 frequencies. So I can see loads of airports moving whole to 8.33 to save money, especially the small GA ones which are always short of money.
In the UK, we have the unbelievably stupid "frequency tax" coming in (basically an airport will have to pay tax on all frequencies used by comms and navaids)
(sorry for the divert) That would indeed be incredibly stupid, basically discouraging the use of safety-enhancing devices and ditto technology. One more illustration of how things can only become worse, and generally do?
Any authority that really cares for the well-being of their subjects would offer an incentive, instead. Do they really want everybody to operate NORDO?
Any authority that really cares for the well-being of their subjects would offer an incentive, instead. Do they really want everybody to operate NORDO?
NORDO is not helpful in this case. It is the ground station which pays the tax.
So yes this will discourage the very smallest GA airfields from applying for their own frequency, and possibly they will use some kind of "unicom" one which may come in (I recall reading something.....). Or they will just use 123.45, which is illegal but "everybody" uses it.
Yes, apologies, when I said "everybody" I meant the a/d operators, not the pilots. But the less a/d's have an operational frequency, the less reason for pilots to carry a working radio. Is that really what they want in Lunnon? Seems like short-sighted.
Or they will just use 123.45, which is illegal but "everybody" uses it.
Safetycom is 135.475. Some local helicopter company has 123.45. (Scotland)
Wow...twenty posts about handhelds and not a single mentioning of 8,33KHz channel spacing! To sum it up, not one of the available (and rather expensive) ICOM units has 8,33 KHz channel spacing. The only unit which offers 8,33 is the (low price) Vertex 220, which looks very nice.
@ boscomantico
Did you look on any of the websites for handheld radio's? The Icom units have 8.33 KHz spacing:
Looks like Icom have just revamped their radios for 8.33
The IC-A6 looks like the one to go for, but best to make sure it has a working headset adapter. I have an adapter for my 2002 Icom A22E.
I also constructed a headset adaptor for the Lemo-plug aircraft-powered Bose X headset. This connects between the Icom headset adaptor's two jack sockets, and the Bose Lemo plug. It contains the required power source.
This should work with the Bose A20 also, though given the A20 aircraft-power version still contains batteries, there is a $50 adaptor for that which converts it back to two normal jacks.
I wonder if the old IC-A22E headset adapter would work with the IC-A6? If not, one is looking at buying the whole kit for £370.
Update:
I asked ICOM UK whether the IC-A6 will work with the same headset adaptor as the IC-A22. This is their reply:
Yes, all accessories that worked with the A22/A3 will work with the A6E/A24E radios.
The only thing to watch out for is the external DC supply voltage.
The A6E/A24E sets have a maximum external DC input of 11V, so if you plan to power the new radio from the aircraft, use the CP-20 dc-dc convertor inline with the aircraft supply to the radio.
