[chevvron]

Farnborough Radar's current service around London was established for exactly this reason - and it took some years for the ATS trade (AlanM I believe) to find a solution that didn't involve lots of extra expensive ATCOs at Swanwick or the then unacceptable alternative of FISOs in Swanwick with a radar console as used in Germany and other countries.

There are still people who say a Basic Service has no value, but when talking to Farnborough it might save an infringement. TC also know who to call because of the squawk so loss of separation is less likely. What I don't recall being told is if you are also classed as known traffic if talking to Farnborough or if it reduces the separation TC needs to provide compared to a true unknown.

Actually AlanM had 'jumped ship' long before.
When we knew what radar we were getting in the new tower to be operational from Nov 2002, I realised it would be the same as the 'new;' Heathrow 10cm which could be piped into Farnborough to provide extended LARS around Luton and Stansted as there had been numerous instances of delays caused by infringements. I bandied the idea around on this forum several times and got positive responses from AlanM and Talkdownman plus Timothy, so when NATS asked for suggestions to improve ATC services around the LTMA in early 2005, I responded with my suggestion which came to fruition in late 2007 with the opening of LARS East followed by LARS North in early 2008.
Then I stupidly went and retired!!

[jacekowski]

In my view, the encouragement should be to transponder on and listening the whole time - but saying little.

Maybe the long term (very long term solution) would be digital radios where controller can call any individual aircraft based on its call sign/hex code (or all aircraft in the area or whatever they might desire), or maybe mode S could also downlink current frequency set on 1st COM (as long as the radio and transponder is on the controller can call you as needed - also, how many people set 121.5 on 2nd COM?).
Listening squawks are a bit of a stopgap measure (anyone can offer information as to how controllers treat people on listening squawks? i can see controllers assuming listening squawk means someone is aware of their position and not pay attention to them until CAIT activates).

[ChrisRowland]

When I've been called on a LS the controller called me by call sign. I told them what I was doing and they asked for a slight level change to help with their training. No problem. I've also heard the Solent controller calling people who seemed to be in the New Forest area underthe CAS to check on their altitude and remind them that they didn't have a clearance.

As for the digital radio keyed to the hex code that's a mobile phone isn't it?

[RayP]

The DSC system used on marine radios allows for easy distress calls to be made (by a passenger if needed) and selectively calling a specific vessel.
See https://icomuk.co.uk/Everything-you-nee ... DSC-Radios
But that is probably far too advanced for us flyers

[Sooty25]

The DSC system used on marine radios allows for easy distress calls to be made (by a passenger if needed) and selectively calling a specific vessel.
See https://icomuk.co.uk/Everything-you-nee ... DSC-Radios
But that is probably far too advanced for us flyers

it would mean another radio change!

[VRB_20kt]

it would mean another radio change!

8.33 was surely intended as a stopgap. Analogue is incredibly inefficient of VHF compared with digital. The police and for all I know other public organisations have been using digital for years with great success - though theirs is AIUI a cellular system and may not be adaptable to 600kt aircraft travelling a few miles up. One or two other problems also spring to mind - not least of which is gaining international consensus.

[Dave W]

8.33 was surely intended as a stopgap.
...
One or two other problems also spring to mind - not least of which is gaining international consensus.

Yes, so a looooong stopgap.

The FAA and EuroControl had a Communications Operating Concept and Requirements for the Future Radio System (FRS) under discussion with ICAO at v2.0 in 2006/7.

There's also the EU SANDRA (Seamless Aeronautical Networking through integration of Data-Links, Radios and Antennas) project, but online it seems that's gone quiet since about 2011/2012.

Perhaps there are forumites with some up-to-date info on this?

[jacekowski]

police and other organisations have been using TETRA (though, in the UK they are migrating to GSM now because allegedly it is cheaper to rent infrastructure from someone rather than support your own - no line of sight so they have to use repeaters) which is actually quite well suited for aviation applications (decent range, direct communication between radios, communication via repeaters for nearly unlimited range, if someone has crashed in the woods then other stations will act as repeaters (so you just need another aircraft flying nearby to have communication with D&D), encryption and authentication, ability to send data via same link (ATIS via text message, weather radar, clearances, NOTAMs))

[kanga]

..

Maybe the long term (very long term solution) would be digital radios where controller can call any individual aircraft based on its call sign/hex code .. - also, how many people set 121.5 on 2nd COM?).
.

Not new on HF


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SELCAL

(And what's a '2nd COM' ?)

[Sooty25]

(And what's a '2nd COM' ?)

It's the radio in your other aeroplane.