Silvaire wrote:
It is not an issue in the entire world except Europe and never will be. 760 channels is plenty enough unless small adjacent countries want to do their own frequency allocation, instead of cooperating.
Don’t be too sure about that. I recently was talking to some UIT folks from Geneva over lunch, who tell me that the FAA is seriously considering it too, particularly in their areas of high density, such as the Eastern Seaboard and California. Only, once they have changed, you can’t fly into these areas with 760 channel receivers as they block adjacent channels. That is why they are banned in Europe now.
with 760 channel receivers as they block adjacent channels.
That is why they are banned in Europe now.
They aren’t 
UIT folks from Geneva over lunch, who tell me that the FAA is
The GA world is full of scare stories. It’s a way for people to feel important. I have long lost count of stuff told in CAA etc presentations. Remember PRNAV and the mandatory auto-slewing EHSI? That story, dropped strategically around the place, caused millions to be wasted ripping out good avionics. It got even better when someone from PPL/IR got an assurance from a Eurocontrol guy that they won’t enforce this, and the guy washed his hands of the assurance in the conference, and then took me to one side and told me he had to do that for political reasons 
The only reason for having 2,280 aeronautical VHF channels given the range limitation of VHF radios is to allow for random chance to provide frequency separation across national borders of multiple small countries with uncooperative allocation organizations. There is no such situation to the best of my knowledge anywhere outside of Europe.
Two-thousand two-hundred and eighty aircraft radio channels (!) might be technically appropriate if VHF range was unlimited instead of 135 miles or so. European regulators in many fields create (or live with) a lot of similar situations based on lack of cooperation. They then cover themselves by imagining their isolated and awkward situation is leadership versus failure.
760 aircraft radio channels is plenty enough for any dense population of airports within range of each other, if the frequency allocation is done by one organization not multiple organizations.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
An 8.33 plug in replacement of the KX155 would have sold tens of thousands of units, quite possibly the most desirable piece of avionic of the last decades.
Perhaps, but it’s a dead end market. If you have something finished and ready right now, and can take advantage of it while it lasts, fine.
LeSving wrote:
Perhaps, but it’s a dead end market.
Not if it’s a good device. KT76’s are out for a while now in Europe but the TT33 keeps selling just as well. But it was a great entry for them.
LeSving wrote:
If you have something finished and ready right now, and can take advantage of it while it lasts, fine.
While it lasts is the operative word. Still, if it’s a good device, it will sell after the exchange boom is over.
Peter wrote:
The GA world is full of scare stories. It’s a way for people to feel important.
You can go on sticking your head in the sand and ridicule people who communicate what they know, in the end it doesn’t matter until the new laws are imposed and everyone runs for cover. Lots of those “scare stories” in the past have become fact by now, see ADS-B in the US and other things. Yes, clearly you can keep your 760 channel radio, but you are only allowed to use it on 121.5 or in emergency. So 760 channel radios are useless at least in my part of Europe.
I am listening in to lots of ATC here by profession, and before 8.33 we had loads of disturbances from other channels e.g. on ZRH’s Tower frequencies. That has almost totally gone with the newer equipment.
Peter wrote:
Remember PRNAV and the mandatory auto-slewing EHSI?
A slaved HSI WAS the LAW in Switzerland for IFR until it got overturned by EASAs Part NCO, which basically has opened up a free for all in IFR. I don’t mind, seeing people who still fly with 2 VOR’s , ADF and DME to do their non-RNAV flying while navigating by a mobile phone app, but PRNAV and proper Avionics are certainly desirable for serious IFR flying.
Silvaire wrote:
760 aircraft radio channels is plenty enough for any dense population of airports within range of each other, if the frequency allocation is done by one organization not multiple organizations.
It certainly helps. We will see what the future brings. I recall being laughed at when some of the same people told me about 10-15 years ago ADS-B would be compulsory in the US, well… by now most people have had to add ADSB or take massive restrictions. I am convinced that Garmin and others would not have included 8.33 in most of their devices if they were as convinced of its inutility as you are, or made a 2ce as expensive European version to fleece the Eurocommies… but no, all of them by now have applied the newer stuff, mode S, ADS-B, and 8.33. We will see how things develop.
That has almost totally gone with the newer equipment.
Because of new equipment, yes. The 8.33 drive caused a lot of old radios to be scrapped, whose crystals etc were drifting badly.
WAS the LAW in Switzerland
A local thing. But really? It would have grounded most of IFR GA at the time. Did that happen? If not, how?
PRNAV and proper Avionics are certainly desirable for serious IFR flying.
PRNAV is totally irrelevant.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
Yes, clearly you can keep your 760 channel radio, but you are only allowed to use it on 121.5 or in emergency. So 760 channel radios are useless at least in my part of Europe.
That’s not right. You can use a 760 channel radio without restriction – but only for 25 kHz channels of course! (You can’t dial an 8.33 kHz channel on a 760 channel radio, so that takes care of itself.) There aren’t that many 25 kHz channels around but in some areas they are still useful.
Actually, you can also use them to monitor 8.33 kHz channels (such as ATIS) which happen to use the same frequency as a 25 kHz channel. (As long as there are no neighbouring 8.33 kHz channels in use that cause interference.)
Peter wrote:
PRNAV and proper Avionics are certainly desirable for serious IFR flying.PRNAV is totally irrelevant.
@Peter, how do you mean? PRNAV (aka RNAV1) actually IS desirable for serious IFR flying, keeping in mind that in some places in Europe PRNAV/RNAV1 is now mandatory on some airways (EHAM TMA, etc). And it is supposted by the likes of GNS-430+
Why is it irrelevant?
Peter wrote:
8.33 came along wholly because the European CAAs could not agree a common frequency allocation, due to national sovereignity issues and CAA turf wars.
Why is it that the EU could ensure that SERA was enforced (even censuring the UK and forcing the UK to follow on class D airspace, even when the UK had only months left before leaving EASA – when of course those changes were promptly reverted) – but they can’t seem to find the power to force member states to cooperate over frequency allocations?
alioth wrote:
Why is it that the EU could ensure that SERA was enforced (even censuring the UK and forcing the UK to follow on class D airspace, even when the UK had only months left before leaving EASA – when of course those changes were promptly reverted) – but they can’t seem to find the power to force member states to cooperate over frequency allocations?
Because the EU doesn’t have absolute power over the legislation of the member states. Its power is determined by the EU treaties and does not cover everything.
