833 Channel spacing

[jetfresh]

It looks as though 833 channel spacing is now with us whatever the FIR. Has anyone noticed the confusion that arises when trying to read back the "change to" frequency.
There are now many more repeats from ATC in order to correct misread freqs. Not only that, but the clarity of the transmission is not so clear as before. There seems to be lack of bandwith and some clipping on some frequencies.
Why not adopt an Alpha Numeric system of channel naming, of say some 24 letters and 99 numbers.
Much easier to say change to D56 than 133.084.
We would, however still have to sort out the clarity.

[Lon More]

833 spacing has been around for about 7 years with few problems.

Maybe it's an age thing?:E

[055166k]

Sorry to disagree respected brother. As much as 10 to 15% of transmission time in the sectors that I do is spent correcting wrong freq/channel readbacks. "jetfresh" suggestion has some merit.......precedent....military aircraft often use a pre-set "stud" system for regular use; although this would not work in the wider world.......but replacing 6-number values with a 3-number and/or letter combination would be a start.
Would have to be done via ICAO probably.....so no action for at least quarter of a century!

[jetfresh]

I was beginning to worry a bit that it was my age.
I now fly a CE680 across busy Europe and am quite horrified by the number of readbacks correcting the change of frequency. To a controller it must be very frustrating and time consuming. Having flown for some 40 odd years, it has never been so busy and so important that instructions are correctly adhered to.
However, I agree it could very many years before a solution could be agreed.

[UAC48]

An anti-error system about channel transmission is surely a must... BUT... that's probably too late... Or too earlier...

Too late, because if you change the system, R/T system on board must been changed also... With the cost inherent to those type of change... And with the problem of the D-day, T-time to switch system.

Too earlier due to costs... That's not time (but is it time some day...) to increase compagnies costs.

That's curious our instance (ICAO) not go on this way when they things of 833 channels... But may be, 7 seven years ago, the problem of costs was same...

It is also curious to see how this phenomen increase last months...

UAC48

[BwatchGRUNT]

bring on datalink for frequency changes and routeings!!

[Spitoon]

When the use of 8.33 spacing was first proposed I recall a plan to identify them by channel numbers - primarily, I think, to help to distinguish between what was assumed would be two different COM boxes on aircraft. Whatever the justification for channel numbers, the plan appeared sensible to me.

I don't know the reasons that ICAO went for actual frequencies but some of my engineer colleagues felt strongly that to call them channels was a technically incorrect and that the frequency should be specified. I can't recall why 'channel' was so wrong but one or two of them were quite adamant about it all. Maybe this view won the debate.

Maybe the use of channel numbers would have brought its own problems which don't come to mind. But many of the operational issues with using frequencies were apparent - and obvious - from the outset.

[usid1]

It is not required to read back an atc freq. Change .. Quit cluttering up the airwaves.

[reportyourlevel]

It is not required to read back an atc freq. Change

Except that it is, at least in the civilised world.

[Get me some traffic]

CPDLC? With a simple 25khz backup.