boscomantico wrote:
They merely point out that if you have an 8.33 radio, you have to tune it to channel 126.705 in order to be on the same frequency.
You can tune 126.700 on an 8.33 radio as well. You’ll then have the same frequency, but a wider bandwidth which could possibly give you interference from neighbouring channels.
Yes, such that when the conversion is complete, only 126.705 MHz will be used. This will help people getting used to the new frequency. That is needed, to not interfere with 8,33 kHz channels below and above this frequency.
Again, what’s the thinking here? The US doesn’t have 8,33 spacing, has far more airports, far more air traffic and don’t seem to need it. In Europe, where the skies are almost empty, all of a sudden there’s a huge need for it?
Just seems like the usual bureaucrat pastime of pissing on us and “stickin’ it to the rich guy”?
AdamFrisch wrote:
Again, what’s the thinking here?
No thinking. That is the problem. Every country in Europe insists on his own centers and own sectors and own frequencies and thus you need many more frequencies than really necessary.
Although I would like a new frequency for our airfield, since it is shared with several other airfields and Ryanair/Stansted Catering and some of those idiots talk about their weekend plans and read the cafés menue, while Ryanair states how many wheelchairs they have on board and that they ran out on baked beans. In that situation, with 7 aircraft flying in the vicinity of our airport, an own frequency isn’t that much luxury.
One trouble in Europe is that a lot of frequencies are needlessly reserved by authorities that scarcely need them, or could do with a lot less.
Then again, if you think the skies are almost empty here, I invite you to listen into Brussels Information right now, or tomorrow – one has trouble to get a single message in. The more worrysome if you realise half of the pilots in the relevant airspace do not even trouble to call. But 8,33 won’t change that, more’s the pity.
So yes, the easiest thing to do was to reduce bandwidth and to hell with who pays for it. Not actually p____ng , it is not active disdain ; but it does come under the “passive disdain” banner. The powers that be simply couldn’t care less.
From what I’ve heard, 720 channels would be enough if we had a single common frequency allocation authority for the whole European continent (or maybe even just the EU), like the US has. But each country guards its national privilege to allocate frequencies and that leads to suboptimal allocations, thus we need 8.33 kHz spacing.
From what I’ve heard, 720 channels would be enough if we had a single common frequency allocation authority for the whole European continent (or maybe even just the EU), like the US has. But each country guards its national privilege to allocate frequencies and that leads to suboptimal allocations, thus we need 8.33 kHz spacing.
Yes – I recall that AOPA UK produced a document which proves exactly this.
It’s European “airspace sovereignity protection” which has caused so much expense to everybody. In general, 8.33 is going to cost GA more than Mode S, and Mode S was massively controversial (at about 2000+ quid a time).
And neither 8,33 nor Mode S does the GA any good. ADG-B / TIS-B / FIS-B would, but since these systems can’t be set up with only our money, it’s unlikely to happen anytime soon.
FIS-B will be (or already is) solved by better aircraft usable datalink technology (satellite links, or even LTE). Part of TIS-B, at least for transponding targets, could probably be solved by some more multilateration receivers for flightradar24 (does TIS-B upload primary targets as well?)
That way, I’m sure we can get a lot farther with limited funds than investing into niche aviation technologies.
At what point will 8.33 radios be required for all planes in controlled airspace, including under VFR?
