Aircraft without radios

[turboplanner]

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?

No, and there are other examples where each can see the other and they all fly circuit height +- 50 ft, however.

 

When there are four or five in the circuit, they don't remain in that idyllic position, some flying high, some low, some close and some wide.

 

I've been No 5 on final and could see the other four but had no idea if a low one was going to push in from the side.

 

I've been coming in on final in a low wing, and had the tower controller carefully extract me from a high wing C150 who had come in from a five mile circuit and turned underneath me.

 

And when you're in the circuit with 12 others, you have no chance of along life without radio.

 

Putting up an argument based on a few hypotheticals is a bs way of walking away from your obligations.

 

 

[Kyle Communications]

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?

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

Ok you are in that circuit and voila in comes a guy doing a straight in approach...you cant see them usually due to being blocked by the horizon or you are concentrating on the others in the circuit. Straight in approaches are common especially with GA pilots we have to look out for them all the time where I fly. BUT they usually get on the radio stating their intention and you can usually find them because you can see them by then because you KNOW where to look. I never said radios are to be mandated I said anyone who doesn't use them is a idiot..you know the brains and monuments thing....I really do not understand the ferver you have applied to this topic Kasper...its like the ATO has just told you that you need to pay $100K in undeclared income. Radios do make flying safer by the situational awareness you get alone..if someone doesnt say the correct wording who really gives a hoot so long as the message gets out and I know where they are. We do get very few aircraft where I fly without radios also our local CTAF has just changed and there are plenty on the wrong frequency still even though there are signs all over the airfield. The aircraft that are on the right frequency and state where they are reduces the numbers of the "unseen" aircraft so the odds get better for NOT having a incident

 

Mark

 

 

[kaz3g]

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.

I have to say I think it is good enough reason to report these dangerous offenders to the Authority. It's one thing for someone to make a mistake; it's another to blatantly disregard the rules that have been put there to improve safety for all of us.

 

I can't remember the rule but there is a statutory obligation to report incidents and I'd call that one.

 

Kaz

 

 

[kaz3g]

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

I don't recall anyone saying that it is always necessary to have and use a radio to fly in safety and I therefore think you are misstating the position.

 

I do recall that I, and a number of others, made the point strongly that safety will be enhanced with a radio.

 

Kaz

 

 

[Pearo]

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.

The great thing about aviation is you only need one statistic and we should learn a lesson.

 

RAA has a HUGE problem in the fact they manage the accidents and they are the governing body. Its the single most idiotic and stupid thing about RAAus. In GA, ATSB can critisize CASA, you think that will happen in RAAus? Furthermore, that silly segregation means that any statistics are not correlated. Where is the sense in that?

 

There is common sense, and the lack of it results in over regulation. If people stopped being so pigheaded about this stuff it would not be an issue. Private farm, no traffic, no radio, no issue. Public fly-in to an airshow with many people, many aircraft, use common sense and carry a radio. I just fail to understand why this is an issue?

 

 

[storchy neil]

as I said I now carry two radios in my aircraft when don't give a rats axxs what you think

 

but then again I didn't fly where I could see the home strip neil

 

 

[Yenn]

So I should dob in those who use the wrong frequency. I have 2 reasons not to.

 

1 I have to live with them and it would make life uncomfortable for me.

 

2 I believe the rules are a mess and would like to see them changed.

 

Regarding 1 above. A few years ago a local CFI did some stupid flying and was dobbed in to RAAus. It was generally accepted that I was the person who dobbed him in. I wasn't and I didn't even see the stupid flying. It made life so uncomfortable for me that I got RAAus to write a letter stating that I was not the dobber in. I don't want to go through that again, especially for something I consider not dangerous.

 

 

[turboplanner]

So I should dob in those who use the wrong frequency. I have 2 reasons not to.1 I have to live with them and it would make life uncomfortable for me.

2 I believe the rules are a mess and would like to see them changed.

 

Regarding 1 above. A few years ago a local CFI did some stupid flying and was dobbed in to RAAus. It was generally accepted that I was the person who dobbed him in. I wasn't and I didn't even see the stupid flying. It made life so uncomfortable for me that I got RAAus to write a letter stating that I was not the dobber in. I don't want to go through that again, especially for something I consider not dangerous.

I agree with you. If CASA hadn't kept fiddling with the rules we wouldn't be having this discussion. Someone hits me due to no radio/no training, CASA will be a co-dependent.

I'm a bit like you with reporting. Had a 210 cross in front of me from left to right to beat me to an approach point. First I knew was his tail fin whipping out from under the nose about 50 feet away. I let that one go. Saw a C172 perform a loop in the training area then head for a reporting point. I did phone the tower on that one fearing structural damage, and although it was the only aircraft inbound from that reporting point the tower said they wouldn't be able to identify it, so it's probably still out there waiting to snap a wing.

 

 

[Kyle Communications]

Regarding the wrong freq..just get on air and tell them they are using the wrong freq. I have had to do this a couple of times with the freq change from 118.8 to 125.850 at Ycab... no one has arced up only apologised..then one would expect they dont forget now

 

 

[frank marriott]

An example of a non radio aircraft operating at an UNCERT aerodrome last weekend - Nothing illegal and no incident - but a pain in the arse.

 

4 aircraft departing and one taxi for circuits - a lot of "where is he now" .

 

 

[fb9jann]

Just in case someone is tallying up the yeas and nays I vote for expanding the RAAus / CASA requirements for mandatory radio usage to all flight groups and all locations - fixed wing, rotary wind, floppy wing, unlicensed strips, farm paddocks, the lot.

 

 

[Kyle Communications]

I just looked up what a Arion Lightning was....never seen one before...sort of like a RAA Lancair with a bigger wing...looks good...and expensive

 

 

[Happyflyer]

A few years ago a local CFI did some stupid flying and was dobbed in to RAAus. It was generally accepted that I was the person who dobbed him in. I wasn't and I didn't even see the stupid flying. It made life so uncomfortable for me that I got RAAus to write a letter stating that I was not the dobber in. I don't want to go through that again, especially for something I consider not dangerous.

That is sad. Says a lot about the culture that keeps the stupid flying from being stamped out.

 

 

[Yenn]

Vote what you like but please be sensible. I have done a bit of flying over the years and there have been situations where radio has helped and probably an equal number where it is no help at all. If you are flying from a little used strip, well away from busy areas I would not like to see you have to have another piece of unnecessary equipmant mandated for you to buy, maintain and use. For those who want to mandate radios, should you equip your own plane with the you beaut transponder also? In my opinion a transponder is just as much a safety item as a radio. It allowed Centre to know where a plane on the incorrect radio frequency was operating and advise others.

 

 

[Pearo]

Regarding the wrong freq..just get on air and tell them they are using the wrong freq. I have had to do this a couple of times with the freq change from 118.8 to 125.850 at Ycab... no one has arced up only apologised..then one would expect they dont forget now

I have done the same with the new YCAB CTAF frequency. Not that hard is it?

 

 

[cscotthendry]

Vote what you like but please be sensible. I have done a bit of flying over the years and there have been situations where radio has helped and probably an equal number where it is no help at all. If you are flying from a little used strip, well away from busy areas I would not like to see you have to have another piece of unnecessary equipmant mandated for you to buy, maintain and use. For those who want to mandate radios, should you equip your own plane with the you beaut transponder also? In my opinion a transponder is just as much a safety item as a radio. It allowed Centre to know where a plane on the incorrect radio frequency was operating and advise others.

Yenn:

Notwistanding the amount of flying you have done and whether a radio is helpful in all situations, Having a radio gives you the option to use it when and where it's required or NOT use it when and where it's not required. Whereas NOT having a radio, restricts you to those places and situations where it's not required. Why throw away a significant chunk of sky to fly around in?

 

As for a transponder? Yes, they are beneficial too. But if you're suggesting that just because some think that radios should be mandated, it is fair game to extrapolate to transponders, I think you're setting up a straw man argument there. Why stop there, Why not mandate anti-collision TCAS and weather RADAR, autopilots etc etc?

 

 

[forexjohnny]

Just in case someone is tallying up the yeas and nays I vote for expanding the RAAus / CASA requirements for mandatory radio usage to all flight groups and all locations - fixed wing, rotary wind, floppy wing, unlicensed strips, farm paddocks, the lot.

I take tally……of your arrogant term “floppy wing”.

 

 

[spacesailor]

Not just one item for a ultralight aircraft, but three!, To have a Mandated RX, you will need a battery plus an alternator.

 

That of course means a "95-10" aircraft will be above its maximum take-off weight.

 

Why not a "Hand-Held" simple, There's none approved in Australia.

 

Community TV has been shut down by this government, even thou their equipment is licence to a future year, their transmitting licence has been withdrawn.

 

The government can wipe all transmitting licences any time it feeling uppity.

 

Perhaps that's the intention, to wipe home built aircraft from the skies.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[ev17ifly2]

Given that I fly in an open cockpit, rather than the expense and unreliability of modern electronics I may decide to use other methods of signalling my intentions in the circuit. I have found a Very pistol, semaphore flags and smoke grenades on EBay.

 

 

[turboplanner]

You two should look up the Tiger Moth complaints from the 1950's. They used the same arguments.

 

 

[Robbo]

People over use the radio to much. Sick of them making radio calls for everything they do such as downwind, base, final, rolling. As per the regs you don't have to!

 

For circuits I simply do:

 

Taxi

 

Enter Runway (with intentions)

 

Final (Touch & Go)

 

If there is another aircraft in the circuit and they have just arrived may do a once off down wind call.

 

DON'T OVER USE THE RADIO

 

 

[scre80]

People over use the radio to much. Sick of them making radio calls for everything they do such as downwind, base, final, rolling. As per the regs you don't have to!For circuits I simply do:

 

Taxi

 

Enter Runway (with intentions)

 

Final (Touch & Go)

 

If there is another aircraft in the circuit and they have just arrived may do a once off down wind call.

 

DON'T OVER USE THE RADIO

I fly from a busy glider and training aerodrome. When I was learning to fly, I found it useful when there was 3 aircraft plus gliders and tug in the circuit to call downwind (left or right as aerodrome has some right hand circuits) and final, as it gave good situational awareness to the training pilots. For me, I would say the radio call for the other legs but not transmit to embed the circuit patterns into my head. But yes if you call each leg that is too much.

 

Worth noting the requirements to for inbound and joining the circuit radio calls.

 

Also note, if in doubt, use the radio too as I had a near miss just before christmas and the radio was what avoid a potential disaster. It is easy to say on the ground to other pilots you use the radio too much. But if it avoids a disaster, then I say use it.

 

 

[Geoff13]

People over use the radio to much. Sick of them making radio calls for everything they do such as downwind, base, final, rolling. As per the regs you don't have to!For circuits I simply do:

 

Taxi

 

Enter Runway (with intentions)

 

Final (Touch & Go)

 

If there is another aircraft in the circuit and they have just arrived may do a once off down wind call.

 

DON'T OVER USE THE RADIO

I agree with not overusing the radio, I was taught

 

Taxi

 

Enter Runway (with intentions)

 

Base full stop/touch and go.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Anyone looked up the current procedures?

 

 

[jakej]

Your eyes are a better tool than a radio, USE THEM, & mandatory for pilot in commend . Too much said here about talk on radio etc, just look out the window - that's how most drive a car.

 

It's accepted in the USA that Transponder & Radio is required, for MOST flights, so why not here especially as some say we should follow them when it comes to operating rules. Otherwise, get over it !!

 

Next topic ?