James,
As a suggestion why don't you try "without" the lights? You will probably
find out that the identity of the addressor will become evident by the
content. I listen to 2 frequencies at once and nearly always it is not a
major issue. Ideally most of your radio work should be managed such that
you only listen to one frequency at a time, albeit you may choose to
monitor the distress frequency, or an enroute common chat frequency. It is
only at the boundaries of 2 designated/delineated areas of airspace that
this confusion may occur,and either the callsign cue or the content will
discriminate the source. I mean if lights were standard or easy, go for
it. But otherwise "give it a go first and see what you think".
There is a device out there that replays the last "X" seconds of
conversation on a given radio. If you connected one of these to your
primary radio, the replay function could alleviate this confusion, and may
pay for itself replaying back an airways clearance etc. (Bit more expensive
than lights though! But hey, we like technology though dont we? )
Reg Tony Renshaw
>Thanks for all the suggestions and help, and yes I did really mean
>earphones not speakers, although a friend wants to connect two radios
>together in his car, so I thought I would kill two birds with one stone so
>to speak.
>
>One of my flying partners has donated a four place intercom with an aux.
>input on it, so I have modified it by removing the rear headset jacks,
>fitting the change over switches in their place, and feeding the second
>radio into the aux.
>It looks neat in the overhead panel and seems to work ok. Hope to try it
>out at the week end.
>
>Idiot lights sounds like a good idea Roger, is the brain ticking Bob N.
>
>Jim
>
>
Reg
Tony Renshaw
Builder No.236
|