Digital radio issues

[Glenn Baumgartner]

Agree with you fully Robert.  I have YET to see a trunked mobile or digital system that worked AS WELL as the old system. (analog). I was involved in an after installation relook of the Alexandria Public Service system that the Motorola mob sold to the city.  Not good at all.  Cost the city a BUNCH of extra money I was told, not contracted for money;  and flaky service for many many months before it was fixed.  I would bet it is not really fixed totally now and was just papered over.   
    God help us all if and when aviation gives up the AM radios.  You know who funds, and likes these "new" whizzi radio systems.. Those who HEAR about comm problems but never or seldom  themselves experience them, and suckers that think the "new technology" will fix all ills.  Bureaucrats, administrators, management, etc.  And those "once may have done it ...but don't want to do it any mores" are the jerks that control budgets and are spending tax payer money.  Note that few real businesses..who spend their OWN ,money, are buying into the trunked digital systems...wonder why?   Think it is because they actually can see value and return on investment! and vendor smoke and mirror jobs...Ya think!.  End of rant.  Glenn b. 
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Robert Stratton 
  To: tacos 
  Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 3:45 PM
  Subject: Re: Digital radio issues



  On Apr 1, 2008, at 3:01 PM, Michael Chisena wrote:

    http://www.fireengineering.com/display_news/159642/25/none/Firefighters'_distrust_of_digital_radio_system_grows   All, This is not new. Many of the digital trunked systems have issues, and had them for years. Now it's killing people. Someones good idea no doubt.   Mike  

  I hate to think like a Luddite, and I often am amused by the kneejerk resistance to new technology amongst many fellow pilots I know, but I have similar misgivings with the contemplated move from AM aviation radio to whatever the new digital mode is likely be. Choosing to use AM for aircraft communications, so that people could sort out channel contention was a  very wise and low cost move. It doesn't solve hidden transmitters, but it works in practical use most of the time, given a little discipline on the part of the operators. 
  One could make a case that the binary go/no go nature of most common digital RF links is, from a human factors perspective, not unlike the FM capture effect. There could be things going on, but one might well be unaware of them without some manual means of monitoring the channel. 
  I can just imagine someone building in some DSP to watch channels and make an LED flicker as if "squelch" were being broken, even if one couldn't hear anything. 






------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  Tacos mailing list
  Tacos at amrad.org
  http://www.amrad.org/mailman/listinfo/tacos



------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  No virus found in this incoming message.
  Checked by AVG. 
  Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.3/1354 - Release Date: 4/1/2008 5:38 AM
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.amrad.org/pipermail/tacos/attachments/20080401/39f616d7/attachment.htm