Aircraft without radios

[spacesailor]

I know two planes WITH RX., that didn't survive, 1st went around in ever increasing circles over Wellington NZ, talking ALL the time to ATC until they ran out of fuel!. ( in cloud)

 

Number two has a film "The flight of the Stinson" , which is easily obtainable,

 

As I was unable to pass the BAK test, plus being refused registration of the HummelBird, I don't need a "radio certificate Flight" but would like a "radio certificate GROUND".

 

Now were do I go to sit my next test for a GROUND vhf radio certificate.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[facthunter]

I have no idea, coming from an aviation side of things, as I do. Why would you want a ground radio certificate if you are interested in aviation? Surely you aren't seriously blaming a radio for someone talking till they run a out of fuel when IF? The radio has potential to assist in IF situations and has proven itself many times, in the past as the main reason why some pilots survived. Nev

 

 

[spacesailor]

The "flight cert " does not cover use on the ground, like an ground marshal/ controller.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[Phil Perry]

The "flight cert " does not cover use on the ground, like an ground marshal/ controller.spacesailor

I guess we maybe fortunate in that respect, if a person wants a "ground" operator certificate in the UK, the qualification is available. Indeed, until a few years ago, simply filling in CAA form 1307 with your FRTO certificate number and personal address deetails, for the cost of a postage stamp, a certificate of competence was awarded, based upon your existing knowledge / privileges as laid down in the FRTO.

 

This required the station name / callsign and signature of the ground station licence holder, which was an endorsement to operate that station within the UK Air/Ground radio service, whether in a tower, or marching about in the mud with a hand held radio.

 

At our radio school, we used to urge successful FRTO candidates to obtain these tickets, as they were free issue, and this was unusual for the CAA !

 

This was changed a few years ago and now requires a course, usually a one day procedure, followed by an examination, both written and practical, but there is not a lot of difference between this and the original FRTO ticket. It is worth noting here that an Air/Ground operator can not issue any form of INSTRUCTION to an aircraft commander, just simply Information pertaining to the site and environs. Passing on weather updates, information about local notams, and anything else which may be requested by a pilot, if you have that data, is also fine. A/G is the lowest of the three main categories of ground services available to aircrews.

 

It is currently not possible to obtain a ground operator cert. If the applicant does not already possess the FRTO, and this must be current. I'm not sure how ground marshalls at major airports get around this, perhaps they don't. . . Most of them just wave bats at you, and sometimes walk up and plug a headset in underneath the front of your 737. . . .

 

I'm not adding any more comments to the radio / non-radio discussion, but then I'm a dyed in the wool biased radio hammy freak and just Lurve talking to airyplanes. . . . ( or when I'm doin' the fleigen,. . . . to other freaky people in towers, caravans & dimly lit basements 'n' stuff. )

 

 

[pgpete]

There is NO case for NOT using radio in aircraft. Nev

err... these guys wouldnt be flying with airband radio... and radio wouldnt help when it comes to congestion / crowded skies.

 

 

 

[Downunder]

Must be amphibious PG's.....can't think of any other reason for canoe's to be attached

 

 

[Phil Perry]

Another take on Aerial Roulette perhaps ?

 

If I was in amongst that lot mate,. . .I'd be more concerned about damaging my bum due to it doing the "Fifty cents - Five cents" rapid oscillation. . . .

 

 

[Ayecapt]

I also was at GEFI . The pilot concerned did attempt to arrive at a quiet time in the event. Early afternoon. And at a time when the flying displays where not happening. However DST AND EST got confused. Which highlights the need to use UTC FOR ALL THINGS. aviation. I think the notes to pilots might have been in DST i cant recall. But it usually takes two things to create a incident.

 

 

[cscotthendry]

My issue with the mind set I perceive of many people on here is that minimum flying in uncontrolled airspace is intrinsically dangerous and foolhardy unless you have everything I might possibly need to enter primary control zones - and that is just plain wrong.

And that IS just plain wrong. I have not seen any posts in this thread saying or even suggesting that you should have everything needed to fly in primary control zones just to fly in uncontrolled airspace. You have distorted what people have posted, in order to try to discredit their position. To fly in control zones you need to have a calibrated altimeter and transponder and need to be flying with a certified engine and a class 2 medical. NO ONE has suggested anything along those lines in this thread, but your exxageration of their posts says a lot about your determination to justify your position by any means.

 

 

[dutchroll]

My issue with the mind set I perceive of many people on here is that minimum flying in uncontrolled airspace is intrinsically dangerous and foolhardy unless you have everything I might possibly need to enter primary control zones - and that is just plain wrong.

I don't agree that they're arguing that, even though it may seem that way to you.

You're not getting branded a moron by me. If you're flying in airspace and between airfields which don't require a radio, you're perfectly entitled to do that and I won't try to stop you.

 

I might suggest that there are occasions where a radio would be desirable and sensible even if it's not legally required, like going to a fly-in at an unregistered airfield where a lot of traffic is expected. Sure, your mark 1 eyeball is your primary traffic awareness device, but a listening watch for example, can help build a good mental picture of what to expect before you get there including who is where, and what they're doing.

 

You way well cite examples like microlights in the UK, but according to several microlight training organisations over there, most of them carry radios anyway. They also have way less uncontrolled airspace than us.

 

I just don't think threatening to pack your bat and ball and go home is productive.

 

 

[Phil Perry]

I was going to start again pontificating about flying non- radio in and around London because this pi$$ed me off . .But I already said that I won't comment any more on the non-radio theme. I typed 1000 words on the subject and have deleted it all.

 

This is a Non- comment.

 

Phil.

 

 

[turboplanner]

There is NO case for NOT using radio in aircraft. Nev

...and that was hammered out by the last of the troglodytes, the old Tiger Moth owners, who used all of the anti arguments produced here, plus the two killers:

(a) The electrical system of a Tiger makes it impossible to fit a radio

 

(b) The radio would cost more than the Tiger

 

None of the arguments were compelling enough for common sense and the authorities of the day.

 

 

[Phil Perry]

...and that was hammered out by the last of the troglodytes, the old Tiger Moth owners, who used all of the anti arguments produced here, plus the two killers:(a) The electrical system of a Tiger makes it impossible to fit a radio

(b) The radio would cost more than the Tiger

 

None of the arguments were compelling enough for common sense and the authorities of the day.

Well VH-TIG ( Groupair - Casey Airfield Berwick ) DID have a gosport stethoscope. . . .but Moorabbin couldn't hear the darn thing. . .so it wasn't that good,. . .it wasn't particularly that good for communicating between the front and rear cockpit either,. . .David Squirrell said to me. . .Errrompharghtrah. . . .so I DID as he had said and then he shouted. . .NOOO I meant Errrompharghtrahrtahmugghie. . . . . .not a good "Intercom" system really. . .

 

 

[turboplanner]

I used one when I was a kid and my uncle took me up.

 

The wing over he did set the scene for a very interesting time in a Chipmunk some years later.

 

 

[ev17ifly2]

Never said that there was a proposal for any of this. My comments had nothing to do with CASA proposals or RAA or any of the governing bodies.My comments are based on what I see as a gradual and continuous push into ULTRALIGHT flying is the mentality that GA levels of perceived safety and GA processes and ever increasing demands that you must have EVERYTHING in the aircraft for you to be safe are just plain wrong and I will call people on it as to not do so is an tacit acceptance and approval.

 

I have no issue with recreational GA aircraft having a different and parallel process and system than ULTRALIGHTS and the fact that we have an airspace with the classes and requirements that we do recognises that not all space is the same.

 

And I keep making it very clear - I am not pushing to undo airspace or operational limits that currently exist - if I am taking an aircraft - GA or Ultralight - into a zone or airfield that requires equipment X, Y and Z I will absolutely have X, Y and Z or I will not go in there.

 

My issue with the mind set I perceive of many people on here is that minimum flying in uncontrolled airspace is intrinsically dangerous and foolhardy unless you have everything I might possibly need to enter primary control zones - and that is just plain wrong.

 

If I am flying in class G to and from airfields with no radio mandated what is the hell is wrong with doing that? saying I am happy doing that on a flying forum should be acceptable - trouble is I make that comment and get branded a moron - acceptable?

Hang on a minute fella, it was you that posted "happy to be classed as a moron".

 

 

[SDQDI]

Well for a different look at it.

 

1. How many mid air collisions have there been in Aus?

 

2. what is the ratio of those collisions as far as radios vs non radios

 

3.is there recorded statistics of reported near misses? And what is the ratio of those that had and didn't have a radio?

 

It would be interesting to see the numbers, I personally still think it is dangerous to want more regs because I believe looking through the statistics would show we would save more lives by making BRS mandatory than radios and the way tech is going soon it will be safer to fly fully automated machines with no pilot imput at all but at what level do you want everyone?

 

I personally think the way that the rules are now is sufficient for radios, they are needed to be able to fly into certain aerodromes and in certain airspace but there are also areas where they are not needed and I think that is relatively sensible.

 

We need to remember that we all fly different machines for different reasons and what suits us personally might not be the be all and end all for everyone.

 

 

[SDQDI]

Hang on a minute fella, it was you that posted "happy to be classed as a moron".

Only after he was called one Ev. But Aldo apologised for that and it is probably better left alone now.

I certainly don't always agree with Kasper, actually I totally disagree with him over some things, but I think this subject is getting out of hand and I would have to say Kasper seems to have the right balance in regards to this subject, (IMO of course). Calling someone names because they enjoy some of the relaxed regs in the appropriate areas seems a bit childish.

 

 

[turboplanner]

I don't think that is a valid set of statistics SQ.

 

The volume of lives saved will be on a sliding scale from paddocks, low volume country airstrips to city airports.

 

At the bottom end there's two in the Kookaburra in the 1930's, a few who have become lost and redirected by ATC, and a few round country airstrips, but a lot at City airports.

 

 

[Yenn]

Radio where I fly is no use for traffic identification. We have a situation where some pilots refuse to use the correct frequency. Last weekend I had to use the incorrect frequency to advise another pilot of my action. Luckily there is very little traffic, so I was not likely to miss someone on the correct frequency. I would consider that is a good enough reason to not mandate compulsory use of radio.

 

 

[facthunter]

So. because some don't do it right, don't mandate it. Surely the real issue is when used PROPERLY radio will enhance awareness of where other aircraft are and permit valuable exchange of information, not other wise possible. Some airspace would need this requirement to be met to have minimum standards of safety.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Radio where I fly is no use for traffic identification. We have a situation where some pilots refuse to use the correct frequency. Last weekend I had to use the incorrect frequency to advise another pilot of my action. Luckily there is very little traffic, so I was not likely to miss someone on the correct frequency. I would consider that is a good enough reason to not mandate compulsory use of radio.

that's a bit like saying someone is speeding so we shouldn't have speed limits.

Wrong frequencies, people not sure what to say.... Points to a fall down in training and administration.

 

 

[jetjr]

And issues that should be covered in a BFR

 

 

[kasper]

Hang on a minute fella, it was you that posted "happy to be classed as a moron".

On the basis that I refuse to accept that it is always necessary to have and use a radio to fly in safety.

This thread started with an incident at a flyin and rapidly expanded to multiple posters on radio as a absolute necessity for ALL flying with anyone disagreeing being moron ...

 

Similarly taking my comment that this thread is indicative of a wider perceived drift towards RAA = GA in terms of other safety enhancements inspections etc and putting a comment about if thats the direction I need a new hobby gets taken as its unhelpful to threaten to walk away.

 

Look through my posts on this thread as a series and I am consistent that there are processes and procedures that allow safe operation without radio even into exceptionally busy airspace. Equally I am consistent in saying that radio is an aid to situational awareness

 

But answer me this - IF you are in circuit or joining circuit and you can visually see three aircraft in the circuit (because they are flying a set and known pattern) and you position yourself within the circuit how is is intrinsically dangerous if one of those aircraft is non-radio? Do you NEED to hear a downwind call from everyone in front of you to be safe to follow the third one in to land? Equally if you are in circuit and a non radio aircraft joins and follows you around the circuit and lands how is it that is intrinsically dangerous?

 

And others have pointed out the issues around errors in frequencies ... we are moving to 8.333mhz spacing - increasing the number of frequencies errors can be made on ... is it more dangerous that a radio equipped aircraft on incorrect frequency appears at an airfield and joins with full calls - all effectively blind due to pilot error - is that equal to or worse than a non radio aircraft?

 

Radios are not a panacea to human error and I do not accept that radio is critical/essential to flying in many circumstances provided basic operating procedures are known and flown

 

 

[djpacro]

An interesting although outdated paper on collision avoidance at http://www.augc.on.net/docs/10532_Collision-Avoidance.pdf

 

 

[ev17ifly2]

On the basis that I refuse to accept that it is always necessary to have and use a radio to fly in safety.This thread started with an incident at a flyin and rapidly expanded to multiple posters on radio as a absolute necessity for ALL flying with anyone disagreeing being moron ...

 

Similarly taking my comment that this thread is indicative of a wider perceived drift towards RAA = GA in terms of other safety enhancements inspections etc and putting a comment about if thats the direction I need a new hobby gets taken as its unhelpful to threaten to walk away.

 

Look through my posts on this thread as a series and I am consistent that there are processes and procedures that allow safe operation without radio even into exceptionally busy airspace. Equally I am consistent in saying that radio is an aid to situational awareness

 

But answer me this - IF you are in circuit or joining circuit and you can visually see three aircraft in the circuit (because they are flying a set and known pattern) and you position yourself within the circuit how is is intrinsically dangerous if one of those aircraft is non-radio? Do you NEED to hear a downwind call from everyone in front of you to be safe to follow the third one in to land? Equally if you are in circuit and a non radio aircraft joins and follows you around the circuit and lands how is it that is intrinsically dangerous?

 

And others have pointed out the issues around errors in frequencies ... we are moving to 8.333mhz spacing - increasing the number of frequencies errors can be made on ... is it more dangerous that a radio equipped aircraft on incorrect frequency appears at an airfield and joins with full calls - all effectively blind due to pilot error - is that equal to or worse than a non radio aircraft?

 

Radios are not a panacea to human error and I do not accept that radio is critical/essential to flying in many circumstances provided basic operating procedures are known and flown

Firstly, I said nothing about you needing a new hobby, each to their own. I gather from your posts that you are a died in the wall rag and tube aficionado and would like to fly as it was back then, free and unfettered. Hence your desire to keep it simple, little or no technology. Fine by me however I spent all my working life along with my interests emerged in technology and I am comfortable in utilising any advantages it offers to enhance my experience and assist in keeping me safe.

 

I will at some stage plan a flight up your way as I'm sure we will have something in common to talk about

 

Cheers