On 12 Apr 2007 10:03:27 -0700, "TDh"    
   wrote:   
      
   >On 9 Apr, 18:34, krackula <> wrote:   
   >   
   >>  like civilian   
   >> aircraft radios < am >  which style is 60 - 70 years old   
   >   
   >I can't see AM on the aircraft bands being phased out any time soon   
   >(voice anyway).   
   >   
   >The readability of low signal level AM is better than FM.   
   >   
   >Having said that, whether we'll get to the stage when voice comms wont   
   >be needed, being superseded by data, I don't know.   
   >   
      
   I agree  ........  a.m. is the worldwide standard for civilian   
   aircraft  ,  it'd be hard to see that change .  a.m.   
   is desirable for aircraft for a number of reasons , one being that it   
   isn't subject to the " capture effect "  like  f.m. signals are.   
   in a busy airport environment , it'd be easy to see how some   
   signals could go  unheard for  some time as stronger - closer   
   signals covered up weaker more distant signals if they were f.m. .   
   at least with  a.m. .....  it usually gets a heterodyne if someone   
   talks on top of someone else.   
      
   there is already the acars digital mode and the military has their own   
   digital  radio systems anyway ...... no need to make the civilians   
   go that route.   I  do hate the way the a.m. radios respond to   
   electrical storms ,  summer static , and  sun spots  .... I guess   
   there is good with the bad !  ha hahah ahaa   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)