777 comms radio freq increments issue

[Vic1 3]

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

[downscc 1,327]

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.

[Vic1 3]

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 

[scandinavian13 5,192]

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.

[KriVa 307]

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.

[Vic1 3]

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

[scandinavian13 5,192]

 

 

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?

[Vic1 3]

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

[kevinh 409]

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.

[kevinh 409]

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.

[scandinavian13 5,192]

 

 

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.

[downscc 1,327]

 

 

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.

[scandinavian13 5,192]

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.

[willywonka 36]

 

 

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.

[BillC 135]

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