ARINC...question
- Thread starter TaxiBack
- Start date
GolfChuck
Trustworthy Source
We still use ARINC. I have a co-worker who used to work from them and I have never heard him complain. As far as I can see, ARINC will always be around to some degree to provide backup for data link, although as demand shrinks I would imagine employment opportunities there would also shrink. Eventually everyone will be CPDLC equipped.
I could be wrong, but I don't believe they use the callsign "radio" as that would be confused with Flight Service.
I could be wrong, but I don't believe they use the callsign "radio" as that would be confused with Flight Service.
NC_BE300
Well-Known Member
We use ARINC as a backup to ACARS/datalink. And while ACARS is operating radio #2 is monitoring guard. However in the event of ACARS failure/lack of service area - the ARINC frequency becomes the avenue that dispatch would try to reach us.
My last airline didnt have ACARS- and it was a requirment that we monitored the appropriate ARINC frequency for the area we were operating in while above 10,000 ft.
For the radio callsign- that is in face how its listed in our operations manual to call them.... "Atlanta Radio....blah blah blah request patch to dispatch desk xx...etc."
My last airline didnt have ACARS- and it was a requirment that we monitored the appropriate ARINC frequency for the area we were operating in while above 10,000 ft.
For the radio callsign- that is in face how its listed in our operations manual to call them.... "Atlanta Radio....blah blah blah request patch to dispatch desk xx...etc."
GolfChuck
Trustworthy Source
When we ship aircraft over to ARINC for the crossing, we tell aircraft to contact ARINC on... One older controller says radio and I always assumed it wrong because there is (or was anyway) a FSS not too far that goes by the same call sign. However I can't find an official callsign published anywhere for them.
inigo88
Composite-lover
"San Francisco Radio" is the correct callsign.
HF Pacific Coverage:
http://www.arinc.com/products/voice_data_comm/air_ground_radio_svc/jeppesen_charts/ARINC-4.pdf
Domestic VHF Coverage (mostly SFO radio, New York covers a few places):
http://www.arinc.com/products/voice_data_comm/air_ground_radio_svc/jeppesen_charts/ARINC-1.pdf
An example of what SFO radio sounds like on HF. They basically relay information between the Oakland Center Oceanic controllers and pilots over the pacific ocean.
Here's what "SFO Radio" looks like. It's located in Livermore, CA.
(Source article)
Greg, are you at ZOA?
Edit: As far as "Atlanta Radio" goes, I think their VHF network is separate from ARINC. I was under the impression they're only used by Delta and a couple regionals?
HF Pacific Coverage:
http://www.arinc.com/products/voice_data_comm/air_ground_radio_svc/jeppesen_charts/ARINC-4.pdf
Domestic VHF Coverage (mostly SFO radio, New York covers a few places):
http://www.arinc.com/products/voice_data_comm/air_ground_radio_svc/jeppesen_charts/ARINC-1.pdf
An example of what SFO radio sounds like on HF. They basically relay information between the Oakland Center Oceanic controllers and pilots over the pacific ocean.
Here's what "SFO Radio" looks like. It's located in Livermore, CA.
(Source article)
Greg, are you at ZOA?
Edit: As far as "Atlanta Radio" goes, I think their VHF network is separate from ARINC. I was under the impression they're only used by Delta and a couple regionals?
Vector4Food
This job would be easier without all the airplanes
We send planes to NY Ocean, a lot of them are CPDLC but we still issue "New York ARINC On HF XXXX and XXXX" as a "hand-off" frequency, old procedure maybe but so far, every plane gets it until something changes.
CPDLC is the future no question, despite how much the radar controller in me can't stand it (Slow, cumbersome, far slower than using VHF, annoying... did I mention slow?)
But on the ocean and for procedural areas, it's obviously the safe alternative to horrid HF position reports.
I imagine, like VHF radios and transponders did, the price of becoming CPDLC equipped in the future will become something just about everyone who can afford an airplane can afford, but that's many years in the future.
What's more important than CPDLC IMO is worldwide implementation of ADS-B surveillance, and making ADS-B gear as cheap as a Mode-C transponder.
We, as in Canada have invested a great deal to be the first ANS to put ADS-B receivers on satilites to give one day complete radar coverage of entire sections of oceanic airspace. Just imagine being able to file whatever route you want instead of restrictive procedural tracks.
I can just imagine the directs Derg will be asking for when that day comes
I realize I swayed wayyy off topic here, but we're in the process of becoming pretty heavily involved in all of this new technology, so pardon my mini lecture.
CPDLC is the future no question, despite how much the radar controller in me can't stand it (Slow, cumbersome, far slower than using VHF, annoying... did I mention slow?)
But on the ocean and for procedural areas, it's obviously the safe alternative to horrid HF position reports.
I imagine, like VHF radios and transponders did, the price of becoming CPDLC equipped in the future will become something just about everyone who can afford an airplane can afford, but that's many years in the future.
What's more important than CPDLC IMO is worldwide implementation of ADS-B surveillance, and making ADS-B gear as cheap as a Mode-C transponder.
We, as in Canada have invested a great deal to be the first ANS to put ADS-B receivers on satilites to give one day complete radar coverage of entire sections of oceanic airspace. Just imagine being able to file whatever route you want instead of restrictive procedural tracks.
I can just imagine the directs Derg will be asking for when that day comes
I realize I swayed wayyy off topic here, but we're in the process of becoming pretty heavily involved in all of this new technology, so pardon my mini lecture.
GolfChuck
Trustworthy Source
I don't know a TR
inigo88 ZNY
canadian_atc I love CPDLC and ADS-C for oceanic, when time is not nearly as critical. I have not heard of any plans for the FAA to implement CPDLC for domestic. It would be nice for sending and receiving wx info, and maybe receiving requests from pilots.
We, as in Canada have invested a great deal to be the first ANS to put ADS-B receivers on satilites to give one day complete radar coverage of entire sections of oceanic airspace. Just imagine being able to file whatever route you want instead of restrictive procedural tracks.
I can just imagine the directs Derg will be asking for when that day comes
I realize I swayed wayyy off topic here, but we're in the process of becoming pretty heavily involved in all of this new technology, so pardon my mini lecture.
Gander will still dump that TSO to F290...
I'll give directs across my airspace all day to CPDLC aircraft, but they usually do not request it, and sometimes based on winds it actually lengthens their time en route. Dispatchers get paid good money to figure out the most economical routes. As far as the tracks go, aircraft are not bound by them, however filing the tracks usually works to their advantage otherwise their altitude options might be F290 or F410.