0
$\begingroup$

Everyone knows the radio communications doesnt sound great altough they work perfectly.

But can the brand new ADS-B communications be used for carrying audio signal? Would it be clearer?

The ADS-B will be mandatory by 2020 (At least for anyone that wants to fly at the controlled airspaces) so why dont we ditch the old radio system full of parasties and use ADS-B instead for voice communications instead?

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

Why dont we ditch the old radio system full of parasties and use ADS-B instead for voice communications instead?

Well, why don't we use televisions for washing dishes? Because televisions don't wash dishes.

Likewise, ADS-B doesn't carry an audio signal, so it can't be used for voice communications.

Perhaps ADS-B could be modified to carry voice signals, but this is probably not a good idea. The reason for this is that, while aviation voice communications currently use a band which is 19 MHz wide, the band that ADS-B uses is only about 1 MHz. (The Signal Identification Guide says, "There are two types of ADS-B: one [...] with about 50 kHz of bandwidth; [and] one that transmits at 978 MHz [...] using a larger bandwidth of about 1.3 MHz".)

Transmitting voice signals digitally is a good idea, but I don't know of any reason why this would be done using ADS-B. It would make more sense to simply design a new protocol from scratch.

$\endgroup$
4
$\begingroup$

ADS-B is very low bandwidth and is completely unsuitable for carrying voice traffic. The answer to the "why don't we" question is quite simply "it doesn't work that way".

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Alternatively, text messages are noise-free. $\endgroup$ – ymb1 Jun 19 at 0:16

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.