6 ms·

Contributing factor was the saturation of the control frequency due to many aircraft contacting ATC at the same time causing communication difficulties. I find

• wbl 7y ago
  The fact that AM doesn't have capture is a safety feature in this application.
  • fsh 7y ago
    Sure, analog FM wouldn't be a good idea either. But why not use something digital with proper collision avoidance and EMI resistance?
    • jsjohnst 7y ago
      Expensive to retrofit worldwide.
      • mannykannot 7y ago
        Where there is an effective solution to a problem, it can be done, as with the adoption of TCAS itself.
        • jsjohnst 7y ago
          An effective solution to never losing a plane like Malaysian Airways 370 has existed for a long time (automatic transmission of GPS location via satellite), but hasn’t been done due to cost. The cost of doing that would be far less than the cost of upgrading all radios worldwide to be digital (remember, it’s not just planes, but ATC, airports, the handhelds used by ground crews, etc).
          • mannykannot 7y ago
            MH370 is hardly relevant, because something like that was not considered to be a plausible scenario. My point is simply that there are historical precedents demonstrating that, when there is a sufficiently large perceived benefit, the cost of rolling out the change globally is not an obstacle preventing it being done. In the case of radio, we are currently in the situation where there does not seem to be an alternative that delivers a big enough benefit to justify making the switch.
            • jsjohnst 7y ago
              > because something like that was not considered to be a plausible scenario. Except 12 other planes (among hundreds in the past century) have mysteriously disappeared without recovery since 2000 alone, so maybe it should be considered before more lives are lost?
              • mannykannot 7y ago
                None of those events were remotely comparable to MH370, which included actions by whoever was in control of the aircraft to disable systems that would have given additional information concerning its whereabouts. In this thread, you have gone from the position that the cost of retrofitting would prevent the adoption of improvements to radio communication, to a position of advocating just such a change over a different matter. In both cases, the answer is the same: if there is an available solution that is seen to provide sufficient amelioration of a sufficiently serious problem, the cost will be borne, as was so in the case of TCAS.
                • jsjohnst 7y ago
                  > to a position of advocating just such a change over a different matter No, I haven’t, so please don’t put words in my mouth. If you notice, I’ve corrected inaccuracies in your statements, not commented on your core premise. I’m not going to do so again (but could) as we seem to be violently agreeing without you realizing, so as such have a good day!
    • wbl 7y ago
      Collision avoidance is bad. Pilots want to shout "mayday!" even if other people were talking.
• mannykannot 7y ago
  A professional pilot can probably speak to the importance of listening in to other communications as a part of maintaining situational awareness. The issue of interference has also been raised with respect to the Tenerife crash, where it apparently thwarted a last-chance effort to avert the disaster. For a discussion of the issues, see here: https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/36074/is-there-a-solution-to-radio-interference https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/36074/is-there-...
• jsjohnst 7y ago
  The fact you can still hear both parties trying to speak, albeit a bit garbled, is considered an advantage. Imagine if it was analog FM, only the strongest signal would be heard with no indication really of collision. Also, AM signals are generally still useable at a longer distance than FM at the same transmit power.