Sign in to follow this  
Vic1

777 comms radio freq increments issue

Recommended Posts

I notice that its only possible to adjust the freq in increments of 25 yet often atis and other airport frequencies require something in between therefore im unable to enter the necessary freq

 

any reason for this? or way round it?

 

 

tks

 

 

 

 

kav

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

kav:  Full names in this forum please

 

Last time I checked, 12.5kHz channelization in the US did not apply to aviation VHF. I have no idea what is happening in Europe.  Regardless I don't think FSX will ever handle any narrowbanding below 25kHz.  Typically in the US, rechannelization in other bands such as LMR do not require new frequency authorization, but only replacement of equipment capable of the narrower bands.

 

So, the question in my mind is where are you running into problem?  Use the FSX ATIS frequency or that provided to you by your on-line ATC such as VATSIM and you should be okay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Dan

 

Im very aware of the rules on names, thats my name.for security reason due to nature of my job do not wish to publish my full name on the internet besides i go by the name kav anyway.In addition to this some of us like a little privacy and dont want every one in the world being able to follow my online  conversations or  hobbies  . Not trying to be difficult or deliberately awkward. If pmdg want to identify me as a licenced owner of the 777 they are welcome to pm me and ill provide serial number.

 

thanks for your answer , its atis on various approach charts that require frequencies that im unable to enter in to the radio such as omdb or wsss

 

 

tks

 

kav 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Dan

 

Im very aware of the rules on names, thats my name.for security reason due to nature of my job do not wish to publish my full name on the internet besides i go by the name kav anyway.In addition to this some of us like a little privacy and dont want every one in the world being able to follow my online conversations or hobbies . Not trying to be difficult or deliberately awkward. If pmdg want to identify me as a licenced owner of the 777 they are welcome to pm me and ill provide serial number.

 

thanks for your answer , its atis on various approach charts that require frequencies that im unable to enter in to the radio such as omdb or wsss

 

 

tks

 

kav

The reason for this is how MS coded FSX. Has nothing to do with the 777.

 

...just as your full name has nothing to do with "security." I know I've been through this before with you, but I could tell you more about yourself by your IP, first name, and online habits without even your last name. Adding the last name does nothing for hackers, thieves, or businesses. Using "security" is simply an excuse that our mothers put into us when the Internet was new and scary.

 

While everyone has to respect your choice to try to remain anonymous (for whatever reason), the forum rules are the forum rules. Participating here isn't a right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to chime in... If you really don't want to use your real name here, why not just open a ticket at the Support Portal when you have an issue? Sure, it might take some time, but ,maybe it'll ease your mind.

In any case, the forum rules aren't, and have never been, optional as far as I know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thomas

 

i did pm you privately some time back detailing why i cant submit a ticket in the support portal after you made the same suggestion, just too recap, mr randazzono refused to help me in a personal email due to the fact that i altered one of the textures in the vc , i simply customized it to add some bug splats on windscreen , which is in effect no different to repainting. he claimed that due to this modification i had tampered with the product and reverse engineered it and therefore was in violation of the eula and pmdg would no longer help me in the future despite the fact that i did a clean re installation of the 777. he said he only had my word for that. he then threatened to void my product serial number for the product. i believe that i was treated this was simply because i had been a dev for fslabs in the past so he was extra heavy on me due to this and the obvious history there. 

 

i did explain this to you if you recal. 

 

 

this means the forum is my only source of help with a product ive paid for  and simply added a little extra texture too in an existing texture sheet.

 

 

 

thanks

 

 

kav


The reason for this is how MS coded FSX. Has nothing to do with the 777.

...just as your full name has nothing to do with "security." I know I've been through this before with you, but I could tell you more about yourself by your IP, first name, and online habits without even your last name. Adding the last name does nothing for hackers, thieves, or businesses. Using "security" is simply an excuse that our mothers put into us when the Internet was new and scary.

While everyone has to respect your choice to try to remain anonymous (for whatever reason), the forum rules are the forum rules. Participating here isn't a right.

with the greatest of respect kyle. 

 

im older than you more life experience and in a job with far greater security awareness and gravity than you do. i appreciate your very knowledgeable on many things related to aviation and aircraft generally which we all appreciate but be aware that you have no idea who you are really conversing with here in the forum, what are job roles are security classifications or knowledge and reasons for our decisions. therefore if i say i dont wish to use my proper first or last name than pls respect why rather than always try to make out you know better about absolutely every subject out there. Just because you say so will never alter what i know within my job role about this subject. i appreciate your trying to help but pls know when to draw the line and listen rather than always insist in knowing better. i dont use my first or last name here. If i did i would be instantly traceable in this forum alone. my ip has nothing to do with it

 

thanks

 

 

kav

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


im older than you more life experience and in a job with far greater security awareness and gravity than you do.

 

First, age has just about nothing to do with anything, unless we're going for a foot race or something, and then age would be the disadvantage in most cases.

 

You don't know what I do for my day job. As a matter of fact, my day job equips me with quite a lot of security awareness. Now there's where I draw the line, though. My first and last name mean nothing to anyone unless they knew what type of credentials I have and/or where I work.

 

 

 


appreciate your very knowledgeable on many things related to aviation and aircraft generally which we all appreciate but be aware that you have no idea who you are really conversing with here in the forum, what are job roles are security classifications or knowledge and reasons for our decisions. therefore if i say i dont wish to use my proper first or last name than pls respect why rather than always try to make out you know better about absolutely every subject out there. Just because you say so will never alter what i know within my job role about this subject.

 

If you really did have the job you're alluding to, you'd agree with me.

 

...but here's the funny part:

 

 


i believe that i was treated this was simply because i had been a dev for fslabs in the past so he was extra heavy on me due to this and the obvious history there. 

 

You're perfectly fine using your full name there, apparently (unless there's some crazy odd coincidence that someone else over at FSLabs also signs their posts with "kav" in the same manner you do here).

http://forums.flightsimlabs.com/index.php?/topic/3950-nothing-from-the-aerosoft-conference/#entry17686

 

Surely, someone with that much security gravity would know not to put information out online if it was truly that sensitive.

 

Moreover, if I'd put my sensitive information on a website somewhere, I wouldn't give anyone pointers on how to find it.

 

Google: 'kav fslabs' and boom...there's the name.

 

 

 

So, you were saying?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kyle

 

that was then this is now my job situation has changed since i reserve the right to choose weather i wish to take a different approach now to then, but your now deliberately trying to be vindictive which is completely unnecessary.  my reference to age is that sometimes those that have been around longer dont constantly need correcting from those less experienced than them in life its about respect. you seem to feel the need to always be right about everything even my own job security situation which you know nothing about 

 

and you've actually made my point about how easy it is to find stuff online hence i wish to keep it too a minimum. your not helping buy publishing the above in this way particularly when you know my wishes on the subject simply because i want to reduce my online profile these days as much as possible. as you can see my user name here is vic, i deliberately chose that and started signing my name as vic until i felt obliged and forced to use my real name by people here in the forum so its already too late at that point. i actually didnt want any reference to my real name as others in the past have also chosen such as "quavion" 

 

i still have the right to aninimity for my real full name for any new or recent material . If i explained the nature of my currant job you would understand exactly why that is relevant and makes sense. sadly due to your nature of always having to be the connoisseur you have pushed and pushed yet again in your quest to be right about stuff you have no idea about. i tried to be polite with you and courteous but you went too far.

 

Lets just get things in to perspective here for a moment your argument is completely sided towards the forum rules of a flight simulation forum (lets not forget were talking about a game here and virtual airplanes thats the bottom line) vs my argument for real life security against real world constantly fluid and changing threats. Your arguing as if these two elements are as equally as important worse the game is greater. Bottom line is they are not even close and reality /rw security will always take precedent over a video game if it comes to the crunch no matter what.   those of us that do have high security jobs still have the right to private lives and hobbies without the two conflicting or have to explain and justify why that may be a conflict to others who don't understand yet feel qualified to pronounce judgement about it.

 

 

this discussion ends here  ..

 

 

 

kav

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks for your answer , its atis on various approach charts that require frequencies that im unable to enter in to the radio such as omdb or wsss

 

You don't need to post here to work out what you should do about this. Assuming your security sensitive job requires a degree of intelligence and initiative that is. Even if PMDG radio tuning allowed 8.33 KHz spacing to be used that wouldn't make ATIS work if you tuned it. You would need to find out what frequency FSX ATIS is transmitting on.

 

Regarding the requirement to use your full name, if you don't follow this rule you risk your posts being deleted as a result. So no support here either. PMDG do remove unsigned posts regularly.

 

As for security issues at work, your name isn't a secret. You could be an SAS commando or a Navy Seal and posting your name here would not be an issue unless you reveal who you work for and so make an explicit link. Even then, knowing who you work for does not reveal what you do there, which is the real security issue. Of course if your employers see your hobby as an issue then that's different, but it's hard to imagine that being the case. Are you sure it's not so PMDG won't link you with the previous EULA run-in you had?

 

By the way, I'm somewhat older than Kyle - probably older than you, and I share the same scepticism about your security argument as he does. You can't play an age card and say in effect that your extra life experience means you can ignore the rules the rest of us abide by. The funny thing is, you are addressing people by name in your posts. You couldn't do that if names weren't signed. That's one of the reasons why the rule is in place. It makes contact more personal and hopefully better behaved.

 

 

 

Google: 'kav fslabs' and boom...there's the name.

Game, set and match. Name revealed, yet security is not compromised.

 

Last time I checked, 12.5kHz channelization in the US did not apply to aviation VHF. I have no idea what is happening in Europe. Regardless I don't think FSX will ever handle any narrowbanding below 25kHz. Typically in the US, rechannelization in other bands such as LMR do not require new frequency authorization, but only replacement of equipment capable of the narrower bands.

I don't know about 12.5 kHz, the upper airspace standard in Europe is 8.33 KHz spacing. Going to 12.5 would seem a pointless halfway house. Half the number of extra channels available and not compatible with other hardware yet requiring the same upheaval. As for implementation in the USA, whatever the drawbacks of 8.33, a standard approach on both sides of the pond is a good idea (even if it suffers from "Not Invented Here" syndrome). Something will have to be done to increase capacity.

 

I read on a developers forum that the FSX scenery compiler accepts frequencies with 8.33 increments. So it should be possible to use if the simulator frequency selection also accepted 8.33 increments (which use the same three decimal place set up). But I haven't found one yet that does, it's not just PMDG. You can modify the gauge so that it tunes in 8.33 steps but apparently AI aircraft don't recognise anything but 25 KHz frequencies so things don't work too well in practice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone has the right to anonymity, but sadly if you choose to exercise it that means you can't post here. If you join a club you must play by the rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


this discussion ends here  ..

 

Only quoting the one part for simplicity's sake, but the whole post is very questionable.

 

First, you'll note that I didn't reveal your name. I simply linked to a post where you revealed your name. I don't care how you spin that to try and blame it on me, but you only have yourself to fault there. You were the one who provided me with the information to go find it (particularly with the FSLabs info because you felt like delving into conspiracy theories).

 

Additionally, as I've said, there's nothing that I can do with this information. A quick Google search on the actual name only gives me one result outside of sim-related posts, and that one result's occupation is nothing related to anything that would need to be secure, at least on its face (and based on that one result's occupation, I'm doubting it's you based on the posts here). So, given that search, you've either locked up your information outside of the sim realm pretty tightly (in that case, I applaud you, actually), or you're the one result I found and it's clearly not a big deal.

 

You absolutely have the right to anonymity in all kinds of places...

...but here, participation is voluntary, and anonymity is subject to the agreement with the service provider. Here, there's a requirement to sign your name fully in order to play the game. I do it, and a lot of other people do it. Some are just getting by on borrowed time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


I don't know about 12.5 kHz, the upper airspace standard in Europe is 8.33 KHz spacing. Going to 12.5 would seem a pointless halfway house. Half the number of extra channels available and not compatible with other hardware yet requiring the same upheaval. As for implementation in the USA, whatever the drawbacks of 8.33, a standard approach on both sides of the pond is a good idea (even if it suffers from "Not Invented Here" syndrome). Something will have to be done to increase capacity.

 

Europe can afford to go to 8.33 kHz spacing because there's little to very little private aviation and the airlines are subsidized by the government. Done deal. Only the taxpayers are loosers.  The change to narrowband channels below 12.5 kHz requires digital radios, which means a lot of private users like GA and businessess would have to invest a significant amount of their own money and we have active lobbies that do a fair job of preventing government from grounding private aviation (both government and airlines hate private aviation). As a retired communications engineer with years in the radio telecommunications, I'm at the head of the line in favor of digital radios and spectrum efficiency but I'm not sure it passes an honest cost/benefit analysis.  I predict that in the next decade or so digital communications between cockpit and ATC via something like ADS-B will significantly reduce radio traffic, much as laptops in the car and merging of voice and data in the 800 MHz band has significantly reduced radio traffic for law enforcement. The engineer inside me thinks that this is what we should be doing instead of trying to get more channels within a fixed bandwidth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Europe can afford to go to 8.33 kHz spacing because there's little to very little private aviation and the airlines are subsidized by the government. Done deal. Only the taxpayers are loosers.  The change to narrowband channels below 12.5 kHz requires digital radios, which means a lot of private users like GA and businessess would have to invest a significant amount of their own money and we have active lobbies that do a fair job of preventing government from grounding private aviation (both government and airlines hate private aviation). As a retired communications engineer with years in the radio telecommunications, I'm at the head of the line in favor of digital radios and spectrum efficiency but I'm not sure it passes an honest cost/benefit analysis.  I predict that in the next decade or so digital communications between cockpit and ATC via something like ADS-B will significantly reduce radio traffic, much as laptops in the car and merging of voice and data in the 800 MHz band has significantly reduced radio traffic for law enforcement. The engineer inside me thinks that this is what we should be doing instead of trying to get more channels within a fixed bandwidth.

 

Not only that, our luxury is that we have broad sectors and don't necessarily need as many frequencies in a small amount of space. While each ARTCC can often act like its own entity, it's still all FAA, and I don't envy the amount of coordination and challenges over there. I know I often make it seem like I'm "FAA-All-The-Way" but I will definitely admit where I think they have a harder time, and this is one of the many reasons. Imagine if each of our states had its own sub-agency, and airspace. New England would definitely need 8.33 spacing for frequencies. As it stands, though, the FAA and FCC can coordinate across the borders to make it all easier for us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


Im very aware of the rules on names, thats my name.for security reason due to nature of my job do not wish to publish my full name on the internet

 

I'm pretty sure the forum rules doesn't say that you're required to post your full name "unless you don't want to".

 

 

 


pls respect why rather than always try to make out you know better about absolutely every subject out there.

 

Why don't you try respecting their rules to start with. You are on their forum, after all. You can't really ask for respect when you come in here and decided to say that you're a special exception to their rule for whatever reason you wish to make up, despite that everyone else here have to follow the rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The simple answer to the question is: if you're given a frequency of 118.625 then just tune 118.62 and it will work. Simples.

 

 

NB: As any Google search will confirm, I used to be the Director of the CIA. No security issues there then ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Europe can afford to go to 8.33 kHz spacing because there's little to very little private aviation and the airlines are subsidized by the government. Done deal. Only the taxpayers are loosers. The change to narrowband channels below 12.5 kHz requires digital radios, which means a lot of private users like GA and businessess would have to invest a significant amount of their own money and we have active lobbies that do a fair job of preventing government from grounding private aviation (both government and airlines hate private aviation). As a retired communications engineer with years in the radio telecommunications, I'm at the head of the line in favor of digital radios and spectrum efficiency but I'm not sure it passes an honest cost/benefit analysis. I predict that in the next decade or so digital communications between cockpit and ATC via something like ADS-B will significantly reduce radio traffic, much as laptops in the car and merging of voice and data in the 800 MHz band has significantly reduced radio traffic for law enforcement. The engineer inside me thinks that this is what we should be doing instead of trying to get more channels within a fixed bandwidth.

European airlines are not subsidised by government. Those days are long gone. Also there is a significant GA and business sector. So the idea it all falls on the taxpayer is a total misunderstanding.

 

The fact is Europe is denser airspace and faced the problem sooner. So 8.33 is established and works. What you are talking about, ATC via datalink, is not. Anyway that's still new digital technology to implement in the flightdeck. The idea that airlines (using datalink) would share the same airspace as GA (using voice) is alarming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


The fact is Europe is denser airspace

 

That's my top assumption. I don't have in-depth knowledge of airspace over there, but I do know that it's dense, which would make the 8.33 requirement picture fall together.

 

 

 


The idea that airlines (using datalink) would share the same airspace as GA (using voice) is alarming.

 

Not sure what you're getting at here...

 

GA and Commercial share airspace all the time. We have a significant bizav sector over here and they're always in and around commercial traffic. I don't find that in the least bit alarming. In fact, in many cases, it's the bizav leading the commercial traffic in equipage (so they're the ones with RNP and datalink ahead of the commercial guys in many cases).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure what you're getting at here...

 

GA and Commercial share airspace all the time. We have a significant bizav sector over here and they're always in and around commercial traffic. I don't find that in the least bit alarming. In fact, in many cases, it's the bizav leading the commercial traffic in equipage (so they're the ones with RNP and datalink ahead of the commercial guys in many cases).

Sharing airspace is not the problem. It's about everybody hearing everybody else. If GA and airlines are on different systems that can't happen. Also airliners will only get their own ATC instructions though they will be able to see other traffic displayed. Less situational awareness. Rather like if ATC in France used English to control airliners but French for GA.

 

8.33 has been phased in in Europe and is still not mandatory for GA and lower airspace use. That happens in 2018 IIRC. It doesn't have to happen overnight. Lower airspace could be kept on 25KHz to exempt GA. But seriously, if you can afford to own a GA plane you can afford to buy a new radio receiver for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


Sharing airspace is not the problem. It's about everybody hearing everybody else. If GA and airlines are on different systems that can't happen. Also airliners will only get their own ATC instructions though they will be able to see other traffic displayed. Less situational awareness. Rather like if ATC in France used English to control airliners but French for GA.

 

Thanks for explaining. I agree with the point that there's a decrease in SA. I agree partially with the concern in general. This is somewhat of the issue that's been raised over here, but part of the intent is to cut back the frequency congestion. It's been noted at more than one meeting (that I attended back when I supported some of the NextGen implementation stuff) that there's decrease in SA, which isn't exactly a good thing (though it might not be a wholly bad thing either). I'm not sure where the balance is best struck, however. I know MIA Center tried it for a while (that or JAX) and I think most centers use it for simple stuff (pilot requests, directs, etc). Descents and vectors are still via voice. Still, it's not in high amounts of use either way (except Oceanic, which also still mixes it with voice and SATCOM).

 

If you want to see a cluster of information avenues working in tandem, check out the NATs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for explaining. I agree with the point that there's a decrease in SA. I agree partially with the concern in general. This is somewhat of the issue that's been raised over here, but part of the intent is to cut back the frequency congestion. It's been noted at more than one meeting (that I attended back when I supported some of the NextGen implementation stuff) that there's decrease in SA, which isn't exactly a good thing (though it might not be a wholly bad thing either). I'm not sure where the balance is best struck, however. I know MIA Center tried it for a while (that or JAX) and I think most centers use it for simple stuff (pilot requests, directs, etc). Descents and vectors are still via voice. Still, it's not in high amounts of use either way (except Oceanic, which also still mixes it with voice and SATCOM).

 

If you want to see a cluster of information avenues working in tandem, check out the NATs.

One place where ADS-B is being used to control traffic flow is Louisville where UPS uses it to get all their traffic in and out with the required 3 minute separation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One place where ADS-B is being used to control traffic flow is Louisville where UPS uses it to get all their traffic in and out with the required 3 minute separation.

 

Do you have a link to that? SDF is a radar facility, so they would be using 3nm minimum separation in the air, and the reduced mins (time-wise) for launching departures has more to do with the RECAT that came out (MEM was a big participant for that too, with the obvious backer there being FDX).

 

UPS did somewhat pioneer the ADS-B systems in the NAS in general because they were the first big adopter of the technology. As such, the FAA used SDF as a test site for it. I wouldn't be surprised if referring to some info out there that I just haven't seen. My knowledge outside of the immediate FAA area (Potomac Approach and Wash Center, basically) is usually on the FAA-wide level. As of yet, there is no FAA-official reduced separation through the use of ADS-B, though (at least not that I've seen).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you have a link to that? SDF is a radar facility, so they would be using 3nm minimum separation in the air, and the reduced mins (time-wise) for launching departures has more to do with the RECAT that came out (MEM was a big participant for that too, with the obvious backer there being FDX).

 

UPS did somewhat pioneer the ADS-B systems in the NAS in general because they were the first big adopter of the technology. As such, the FAA used SDF as a test site for it. I wouldn't be surprised if referring to some info out there that I just haven't seen. My knowledge outside of the immediate FAA area (Potomac Approach and Wash Center, basically) is usually on the FAA-wide level. As of yet, there is no FAA-official reduced separation through the use of ADS-B, though (at least not that I've seen).

This article might help with some background:

 

http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/aviation-international-news/2010-04-30/ups-inching-closer-fleetwide-ads-b-use

 

I first heard about it around 2001/2 when UPS asked the company I was working for to quote to update their simulators with ADS-B equipment. They explained how it was going to be used, it was extremely interesting. I hadn't thought about the problems of scheduling all those aircraft to land in such a short time. An intriguing project I would have managed if we had won the order, but sadly our proposal didn't succeed. Dan's post in this thread reminded me of it.

 

Another area where datalink is used for ATC is in NAT Oceanic clearances and position reports.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


Imagine if each of our states had its own sub-agency, and airspace. New England would definitely need 8.33 spacing for frequencies. As it stands, though, the FAA and FCC can coordinate across the borders to make it all easier for us.

 

While stationed in Europe in the USAF, I became involved in frequency coordination on occasion such as for NATO excercises. My memory isn't good but I think I recall that Europe had an international frequency coordinating organization. We did not have to coordinate with each separate country.  At the time, France was probably the exception and probably still is unless the EU organizations have taken over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This article might help with some background:

 

http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/aviation-international-news/2010-04-30/ups-inching-closer-fleetwide-ads-b-use

 

I first heard about it around 2001/2 when UPS asked the company I was working for to quote to update their simulators with ADS-B equipment. They explained how it was going to be used, it was extremely interesting. I hadn't thought about the problems of scheduling all those aircraft to land in such a short time. An intriguing project I would have managed if we had won the order, but sadly our proposal didn't succeed. Dan's post in this thread reminded me of it.

 

Another area where datalink is used for ATC is in NAT Oceanic clearances and position reports.

Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this