[aprssig] Aeronautical Mobile Best Practices?

Joe Dubner jdubner at gmail.com
Tue May 31 20:17:35 EDT 2011

Heikki Hannikainen <hessu at xxx> writes:

 > Are you running parseaprs with the accept_broken_mice option? If
 > not, try that. It makes FAP.pm accept most if not all Mic-E packets
 > which have been broken by buggy aprsd versions

Thank you, Hessu.  I have changed my code to include that.

 > Mic-E generally works fine - I would not make such a recommendation!

For terrestrial, sure, but I can't agree in the case of aeronautical 
mobile due to its limited usage vs. the ease of troubleshooting ASCII.

Please help me see the attractiveness of Mic-E.  Assuming a Mic-E packet 
is about 20 characters shorter (1/6th second at 120 characters per 
second), 60 packets per hour would cost 10 seconds of additional 
bandwidth for each hour of flying time.  With so few airplanes and 
flying so few hours, isn't this just "lost in the noise level".  There 
are much bigger gains to be had with proper beacon rate, path, etc.

"Stephen H. Smith" <wa8lmf2 at xxx> writes:

 > If you are using the all-in one radios like the Kenwood TH-D7 or
 > TH-D72, , you really don't have a choice. These devices use Mic-E
 > exclusively.

I only know of one or two aircraft APRS installations using Kenwood 
TH-D7's -- most are Byonics' with a sprinkling of Argent Data Systems'. 
  On the ground it's a different story of course ...

Joe, K7JD

More information about the aprssig mailing list