Portable HF Radio Systems

Mike Sr

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Dec 23, 2018
Messages
9
Display Name

Display name:
Mike Sr.
Deleted
 
Last edited:
Deleted
 
Last edited:
Aviation HF Intl. have been in the HF Aviation business for some 40 years, understanding the fact that to install a TSO'd hf radio system in an airplane the average cost for used equipment with installation is around 95, 000. to 150, 000. We have come up with the solution for this problem with our portable hf radio system, because its completely portable and we are approved under the FAA's (PED) portable electronic devise rules, the same rules that devises like the Garmin 796, 696 GPS. The Ferry, corporate, and private pilots as well as manufactures like Cirrus, Cessna, and Hawker Beechcraft are using our radio systems. Our radios are being used at NASA, and we are approved in many countries like Israel, Indonesia, Brazil, and Australia just to name a few, we also offer different antenna options as well as a on site supervisory installation service to make the installation easy and painless. When the installation is done you can rest assure that it is done right and it works well. We can be reached at ka9e@usa.com or 815-409-5070. Have a great day.

Suspicious because you’re new to this forum, and though you say you’re in this business, you cannot spell device or assured... and you think that the FAA approves PEDs?

Paul
 
Deleted
 
Last edited:
By the way Merry Christmas To All !!!
 
Mike, there are a number of technically savvy folks here who understand that an HF transceiver is a very different animal than a Garmin GPS, and that just because something is portable doesn't mean it meets the FAA requirements for a PED as explained in AC91.21-1C - Use of Portable Electronic Devices Aboard Aircraft, Section 5. The potential for T-PEDS (RF transmitting personal electronic devices) to interfere with installed navigation and communications equipment which meet TSO standards is much greater than for portable GPS receivers which meet FCC regulations for suppression of sources of potential interference, e.g. local oscillator emissions.

AC91.21-1C said:
5. TECHNICAL SUBSTANTIATION.
a. Permitting the Use of PEDs.
The related 14 CFRs in paragraph 3 allow for the operation of PEDs that the operator of the aircraft has determined will not interfere with the navigation or communication systems of that aircraft. By regulation, the responsibility for permitting the use of a particular PED technology lies solely with the operator. The decision to allow the use of PEDs is based on determining the potential for PED interference on the aircraft communication, navigation, surveillance, and other electronic systems. For aircraft operated by the holder of an air carrier certificate or other operating certificate, that decision must be made by that operator (i.e., certificate holder). In all other cases, the operator, upon completion of an electronic interference evaluation using acceptable methods, must make the determination as to which PEDs may be used and when they may not be used. Acceptable methods published in paragraph (b), (d), (f), or equivalent methods specifically accepted by the FAA may be used as the evaluation basis. If the operator lacks the personal knowledge of these methods, no determination should be made to permit the use of these devices without consulting an appropriately trained and knowledgeable expert

b. Evaluating Potential Interference. Policies for allowing the use of PEDs originally addressed analysis of individual transmitting and non-transmitting PEDs to determine possible interference. However, the number and variety of PEDs in use today make it impractical to analyze individual devices. Guidance in the latest versions of RTCA/DO-294 and RTCA/DO-307 provides methods to determine aircraft tolerance to PEDs. These approaches eliminate the need to evaluate potential interference from individual PEDs and allow an operator to expand use of PEDs based on the aircraft’s ability to tolerate PED emissions. The determination made by the operator may be based on type certification data, PED tolerance tests, and risk evaluations relying on acceptable methods as published in or referenced in this AC.

c. Determining Potential Interference. RTCA/DO-294C identifies processes for evaluating acceptable use of T-PEDs, particularly when considering specific types of wireless technologies. The operator may want to obtain the services of a person or facility capable of determining non-interference to the aircraft’s communication, navigation, surveillance, or other electronic systems. Personnel specifically designated by the operator for this purpose may make this determination using the process described in RTCA/DO-294C

d. Demonstrating Tolerance. Showing that an aircraft meets the requirements of RTCA/DO-307 is most easily demonstrated by aircraft manufacturers that have access to data that defines the aircraft electronic system qualification and the aircraft radio receiver antenna installations. The operators may be able to obtain statements of any such demonstrations from the aircraft manufacturer for use in substantiating PED tolerance of the aircraft. The methods in RTCA/DO-307 may also be used by operators in demonstrating PED tolerance of their aircraft.
RTCA/DO-307 has separate methods for demonstrating tolerance to intentional transmissions from T-PEDs and demonstrating tolerance to spurious emissions from PEDs. Aircraft with an FAA-approved system (e.g., Onboard Mobile Telecommunications System (OMTS), WiFi, Airborne Access Systems (AAS), Network Control Units (NCU)) are considered PED-tolerant for those specific types of PEDs intended to be used with the installed system. If an aircraft model has demonstrated tolerance for both transmitting and non-transmitting PEDs, the operator may allow PED use during all phases of flight on these aircraft models. If the aircraft model has not demonstrated tolerance for non-transmitting PEDs, the operator should prohibit the use of PEDs during descent and approach when the aircraft landing guidance radios are required.

At the very least, if I were tempted to use your portable HF system I'd want to know the operating frequency range, whether crystal controlled channels or VFO are used to determine transmitter and receiver operating frequency, effective radiated power, emission modes (e.g. AM, SSB, data modes), and harmonic and spurious emissions suppression specs, etc. You have provided no brand name, specs, country of origin, company name (no search hits on "aviation HF intl") or website.

With all due respect, it's no wonder your post has been met with a degree of skepticism.
 
Last edited:
https://www.aviationhf.com/products/
Looks like a couple of Yaesu 100 watt HF ham transceivers modified for frequencies outside of the amateur bands and packaged in a case for portable use. I can't find a physical address location on the website; contact info is a phone number and an email address.

IMG_0308-1-1024x768.jpg
 
Paul, If you were a a good researcher you would know that we have been registered on this site since 2013, I just have not a chance to repost for a long time. The FAA does approve PED's, I have had conversations personally with the FAA about our products and they are pleased that we have a solution. You were not there when those conversations take place so who are you to criticize anyone.

Hmmm. 7 posts in six years, and snarky when questioned. Yeah, that's a customer support profile that's going to appeal to not very many people, Mike Senior. Best wishes, but you're peeing in your own soup.

Paul
 
I thought that posting negative comments about items being advertised in the classifieds section was prohibited.
 
I know this is somewhat off-topic, however I have been wondering for well over a decade why HF for aeronautical comms hasn't died a quiet death. The technology for SATCOM has been around for many years, so the reason that HF is still being used must be something politically driven, rather than technologically driven. I've been a ham operator for 40 years and spent many nights listening to aircraft cross the Atlantic on HF..... it's a mess. Between GPS and SATCOM, real-time positive air traffic control is possible with accuracy that is equivalent to being in a radar environment.
 
I know this is somewhat off-topic, however I have been wondering for well over a decade why HF for aeronautical comms hasn't died a quiet death. The technology for SATCOM has been around for many years, so the reason that HF is still being used must be something politically driven, rather than technologically driven. I've been a ham operator for 40 years and spent many nights listening to aircraft cross the Atlantic on HF..... it's a mess. Between GPS and SATCOM, real-time positive air traffic control is possible with accuracy that is equivalent to being in a radar environment.

Yes.
 
What is the political motivation? I cannot imagine that ARINC has that strong a grip on the Washington DC lobby.......

I think it's more of a political issue at the icao/UN/treaty level.
 
Deleted
 
Last edited:
He didn't list an item for sale, he just advertised his business.
 
Back
Top