Recent comments in /f/IAmA

trumpetplayingband t1_j2yzooq wrote

Reply to comment by Zipdox in IAMA Canadian Avionics Technician, specializing in line maintenance and Garmin flight deck installations on a number of different airframes. Please, ask me anything! by Mikeyme1998

There was a great post explaining this a couple years ago but I can’t find it now. Without details, it came down to having to have a system that interacted properly with all sorts of different components from the PA system, cockpit to cabin comms, cockpit intercom, VHF radios, and all their associated microphones, speakers, amplifiers, and transceivers. To tie all these together needs compromise. To overhaul it all with new technology is just cost prohibitive at this point, not to mention ground to air communication is still analogue VHF AM.

ETA - here’s one related post: https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/nliql6/comment/gzium0a/

3

HerderOfNerfs t1_j2yvp5y wrote

Reply to comment by Mikeyme1998 in IAMA Canadian Avionics Technician, specializing in line maintenance and Garmin flight deck installations on a number of different airframes. Please, ask me anything! by Mikeyme1998

With 5G it's more the ground based equipment that presents a problem. But it's not so bad in Canada as the regulator has more say. In the US, it was a big deal, especially when the FAA Advisory Directive related to 5G first came out. AT&T and Verizon seem like they had more say in ground based antenna placement and power. Boeing has gone to great lengths to show that interference is minimal or non-existent in a lot of the airports listed in the AD.

3

deepaksn t1_j2yu6mx wrote

Reply to comment by WyldGoat in IAMA Canadian Avionics Technician, specializing in line maintenance and Garmin flight deck installations on a number of different airframes. Please, ask me anything! by Mikeyme1998

Uh.. this isn’t how GPS works.

The signals from the satellites are the same regardless of the receiver. The only thing that was different was selective availability where civilians got a less accurate signal but even this has been removed.

1

deepaksn t1_j2ytuu2 wrote

Reply to comment by Mikeyme1998 in IAMA Canadian Avionics Technician, specializing in line maintenance and Garmin flight deck installations on a number of different airframes. Please, ask me anything! by Mikeyme1998

It would have to be like an extreme version of RVSM—probably solely based on a very accurate WAAS type GPS with RNP 0.01 (60 feet) or better and vertical separation of 100 feet or less (think Blade Runner, Fifth Element, Jetsons, Coruscant flying cars) and as automated as an elevator (people only selecting destinations… not operating the vehicle).

But yeah the biggest problem is actually flying. Endurance related to energy density, power to weight, as well as effects on surroundings and safety (the smaller the rotor/thruster.. the more turbulence and blast is created).

2

Zakluor t1_j2ynffb wrote

Reply to comment by pdxcanuck in IAMA Canadian Avionics Technician, specializing in line maintenance and Garmin flight deck installations on a number of different airframes. Please, ask me anything! by Mikeyme1998

Canadian air traffic controller here.

ADS-B mandates are on the way. Originally scheduled for February this year for Class A and B, the first mandate has been pushed back into this summer. Classes C, D, and E mandates are now "no earlier than 2026". The original dates did not, so they say, give enough time for aircraft owners to procure and install avionics.

As a controller, I like ADS-B. My job is a lot easier and safer when I can see where you are, whether IFR or VFR, and I can use rules that are much more efficient with any kind of surveillance (Radar, Mlat, ADS-B, whether ground or space-based), meaning fewer delays. Radar antennas are spread pretty far to provide optimal coverage, but leave holes, especially at low altitudes. Your 7700 squawk could go unnoticed of you're low and fast enough from a radar site. ADS-B fills many of those. Safety and efficiency are improved immensely, even if you're not in communication with ATC.

If I had my way, everyone would be using it already, but I understand costs and availability are issues. I can be patient and continue to issue holds as needed for those low-density airports.

Edit: Antenna diversity is still required. Downward-facing-only isn't good for satellites looking down from above and there is simply far too much countryside to cover with ground-based infrastructure.

5

Canadianacorn t1_j2ymcb0 wrote

Reply to IAMA Canadian Avionics Technician, specializing in line maintenance and Garmin flight deck installations on a number of different airframes. Please, ask me anything! by Mikeyme1998

Is being an Avionics Tech a career young people should be thinking about? What does an AVN Tech career look like these days?

(I just released after 23 years in the Army, and I spent a number of those years at recruiting talking up your trade. It would be great to hear an update on what those careers look like these days)

EDIT: I just realized that you are likely a civilian Avionics Technician, and not a military AVN Tech. My mistake!

1

j0mbie t1_j2yg2no wrote

Reply to comment by [deleted] in IAMA Canadian Avionics Technician, specializing in line maintenance and Garmin flight deck installations on a number of different airframes. Please, ask me anything! by Mikeyme1998

My point is that the phones would interfere with the speakers used for the pilots' radios. I'm not sure if it was the speakers themselves, the radio part, or just because all of that was more sensitive, but I know that pilots were complaining about it.

0