Ual747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (10 years 5 months 6 hours ago) and read 2148 times:
Right now I'm listening to JFK approach/departure on my computer, and I noticed that sometimes it's very hard to make out what the planes/ATC are saying. Is there any chance that communication between airplanes and ATC will change to a more modern mode?
SafetyDude From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3795 posts, RR: 15
Reply 3, posted (10 years 5 months 4 hours ago) and read 2073 times:
I was recently talking to some controllers in the Texas area, and I was told that while they wanted - and it was highly recommended by other government bureaus - to upgrade the ATC (it might not have been to digital), the money was not "really" there.
Apparently, there is actually plenty of money in the "ATC fund" (I forget what it is called) that is meant to do the project - but the government does not want to spend it as they would then have (relatively) very little money left. The controllers were pretty upset with that.
Sccutler From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 5648 posts, RR: 28
Reply 4, posted (10 years 5 months 4 hours ago) and read 2049 times:
No flames needed, Safetydude; you speak the truth.
The Aviation Trust Fund, fed by user fees and ticket surcharges, has been essentially impounded by the federal government so it can remain as an on-budget item, artificially improving apparent performance of the feds.
And (no flames for me, please) it is a trick which has been used by both parties, don't know who started it and don't particularly care.
...three miles from BRONS, clear for the ILS one five approach...
Buckfifty From Canada, joined Oct 2001, 1316 posts, RR: 19
Reply 5, posted (10 years 5 months 4 hours ago) and read 2040 times:
However, a fully digital system would probably be not advisable. Especially in emergencies, it is easier to talk rather than to send messages on CPDLC. So talking ATC will always have a role in aviation.
Over the Pacific, you will find that CPDLC does prove more reliable than HF. But on first hand experience, I've been mostly using only HF, as most of the fleet I fly on do not have CPDLC. It's also a pain in certain areas, especially over the Indian Subcontinent/Ocean.
The FAA is flight testing the new system called "Nexcom" for "Next-generation communications"
Modernizing the ground based communication network will cost $1.7 billion over the next 15 years. Which probably means $6 billion over the next 25 years
The system will initially be mandated for Class A airspace, which is from FL180 to FL600, then terminal areas in the US. But from the posts here it looks like there's something like it already in use over the Pacific
Using VHF digital link mode three, or VDL-3 the system will allow voice up to 200 miles with datalink.
The system will be backwards compatible with today's system (meaning it will be analog and digital).
The Avidyne model is expected to cost around $5,000, there was a picture in the printed article... But the radio looks like any other GA radio out there.
It sounds like a really nice upgrade to the system. I sometimes have a hard time hearing ATC when I'm talking to them... And I'm sure they sometimes can't understand me. Maybe it will also resolve the issue of two people trying to transmit at the same time (being stepped-on).
JeffDCA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (10 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 1863 times:
Right now I'm listening to JFK approach/departure on my computer, and I noticed that sometimes it's very hard to make out what the planes/ATC are saying.
If you're not experienced with ATC comms, then it can sometimes be a little difficult to make out what they're saying, also in my experience i've found internet ATC to be of a much lower level of clarity than what's heard in the air.