Pilots without transponders....... scary stuff

[motzartmerv]

As usual Mazda, ur spoton...( IMHO)

 

 

[jetjr]

Radios

 

I support the ideas everyone should be mandated to have working radios - Gliders included

 

Firstly they are relatively cheap, even a handheld would be OK.

 

Lets assume they are working and they are on the right channel - surely safer for the 95% of aircraft who have them and are also using them properly

 

Transponders are differerent, very few AC have the ability to use this data, and yes they are a good bit of gear to have but maybe not mandatory

 

I reckon after a very short time you can tell if your radio isnt working - talk to someone!!!!

 

Get it fixed just like a flat tyre or an engine problem before you next fly

 

Some are saying we should rely on human eyesight primarily rather than radio - I agree but both have to be better even with operator errors and reliability problems

 

I trust the radio system more than my eyesight but keep trying:raise_eyebrow:

 

JR

 

 

[Mazda]

Easy in theory JR. I do agree that it is advisable to have a radio (even a hand held), but why should we mandate them? They don't have to be mandated to allow us to carry them you know!!

 

Mandating has all sorts of problems. Firstly, in what airspace should we mandate radios? It's already mandatory in some classes of airspace, so do you think it should be mandated everywhere? Maybe for all CTAFs/ALAs, including a farmer in woop woop who likes to go for the odd trike flight and never leaves his property?

 

If so, mandating means enforcement. So who is going to check that the farmer in woop woop has a working radio in his trike? Do we have to send a CASA rep there, and who pays for that? The poor farmer who just wants to fly for fun? Or the industry (which means us)? And what happens if that farmer says I always carry a hand held. Who knows if he does? No one.

 

Unenforceable rules don't make sense.

 

So what happens if the radio fails and you are flying somewhere. If radio is "mandated", that means you will be fined however many penalty points, because you are now flying without a radio. If radio is mandated at airports, where do you now land? Simple answer is you can't, landing without radio would be illegal. So you'd have to either land in a paddock, or pay a fine.

 

So perhaps there would need to be a clause to say if your radio fails, you can land at an airport to have it fixed. That leads to two problems. Firstly, how do you know that a person landing at your local strip with a failed radio hasn't been flying around from a farm strip with no radio for ages? You don't. It's unenforceable!

 

Now, the really big problem. That person is now flying into your local strip with no radio, because it is broken. (Or, there could be others flying into your strip on the wrong frequency, or with the wrong radio selected - effectively no radio). But because radios are "mandatory" everyone else at the strip is of the belief that everyone has radio.

 

So being human, we all get a bit slack. Yes, that Jab called turning base, I've got him sighted. But perhaps we don't even look for the other aircraft on downwind, because there has been no radio call.

 

I'm saying it is a good idea if we do carry radios, but mandating them won't work with no third party confirmation and no enforcement - and instead of assuming everyone else is on frequency we should assume they are not, and look out!

 

 

[facthunter]

Straight talk

 

All true M. Bit like being on a motorbike in the city. Assume you are INVISIBLE . To most car drivers , you are. N..

 

 

[flying dog]

Don't get confused. Transponders and Radios don't stop collisions. Have a look at the most recent mid-air's in Australia, they would likely have all been using transponders and radios at the time, but admittedly without TCAS the transponder is not much chop.Precise radio calls in this situation should easily suffice.

 

Well, yes and no.

 

Eyes open and outside the plane stop/reduce collisions.

 

People making "Precise" radio calls is open to errors if they don't know where they are.

 

Yes, it helps, but that is *you* putting faith in the other person's accuracy/honesty in their report of where they are.

 

*you* know where you are and looking around your immediate area is the best way to stop hitting another plane.

 

"See and avoid" I believe is the saying.

 

Ok, I appreciate it is difficult when you are an ultra-light and the other plane is a Jet - or the like. However, that is my thoughts on it.

 

 

 

[flying dog]

Ok, slightly off topic but it was mentioned:

 

RADIOS!

 

Oh boy can they be a pain in the ****

 

3 airports, 1 frequency, 12 planes doing circuits.

 

HOW IS ANYONE SUPPOSED TO GET A CALL IN ANYWHERE?

 

(sorry but it is a real situation)

 

"Way back when........" planes didn't have radios, Xponders or any "fancy nancy" stuff.

 

Pilots could and DID fly circuits without problems.

 

More recently with radios, multiple planes (like 10+) doing circuits. ONE (maybe TWO) calls per plane per circuit.

 

"Turning base" and maybe a "Short final" if the plane in front was a full stop landing -- not touch and go.

 

XPonders - as mentioned in other people's posts - are for CONTROLLED air space.

 

Sure, if you want to fly there, maybe make them mandatory there, but outside? Why?

 

INSIDE, Radar has you. You have told them where you are doing and all that.

 

They make sure all is ok. (No I am not trying to give them "extra" responsibility or "blame" them.)

 

OUTSIDE, well, it is up to you: The pilot. Stay away from those big fellas. Use the radio where/when needed.

 

Fly VFR. Eyes outside.

 

 

[Yenn]

Surely we can work out the need for radios by the accident statistics. I don't have the numbers but from memory the last midair in the circuit was at a field which required the use of radio and 2 planes collided on final. We heard about this accident without being told that one of the planes was illegal by not having a radio, so I assume they did have radios. Those radios did not save the pilots life, so it appears to me that radios are not necessarily life savers.

 

 

[facthunter]

What is Saturation?

 

Having 10+ aircraft in the circuit is surely above what anyone could keep track of without extra support (from the ground). When is enough, enough?. I have had 5 (without radio) and even without having to be preoccupied with flying the thing, I would still lose track of a plane at times. Russian Roulette does not appeal to me, even as a spectator. Nev..

 

 

[Modest Pilot]

I presume you are thinking of TCAS. Unfortunately this system is far from perfect. Despite it being mandated to work in three dimensions long ago by the U S congress, it still only gives pull up/push down avoidance. It is often confused by high rates of desent or climb for starters sometimes giving exactly the wrong instructions, I've lodged around a dozen Incident Reports myself in this area. All false warnings require this report; The ATSB must have hundreds in there files, they just acknowledge and appear to take no action so I guess they are swamped. Keep up those radio calls!

 

 

[jetjr]

Re radios - yep I am talking all classes of airspace

 

Two tracks going here though - in busy areas and quiet ones

 

Flying into a busier space it is rare that someone doesnt have a radio - sounds common to use them badly but this is a different discussion

 

Ive yet to met the farmer who "just flys his trike around the farm"

 

Most regularly fly from place to place and on more than one occassion Ive had them fly blindly almost into me. Gliders and others who know full well they wont have enuff battery for radio calls when they get back, Ive heard them say "you dont have to have one anyway its not a CTAF-R" The mandate would be pushed by clubs and other pilots.

 

Mandate it and more people will have and use them

 

Most of my time is spent flying over Woop woop and the traffic there can be highly dangerous. Seems people think theres no one out there.

 

No one is just flying around but flying from place to place.

 

With a good radio I can easily hear well over 100 miles and build a picture of whos flying where, give out a few 'overflying' calls and that low level C130 doing T&G's at Lake Cargellico also knows you are there, or maybe Pilots doing the bank run, landing their twins at every sealed strip in NSW most afternoons. These guys fly fast and low and need to know where you are.

 

What about the fellow RA pilot who works out hes flying at the wrong level ONLY because you asked him exactly where he is because I heard I was flying his reverse route and going to pass each other in 15min time.

 

Sure there are those who will ignore rules but the same can be said for licences and registration, no one checks them either?

 

JR

 

 

[skydog]

But Yenn

 

How many lives were saved by having radios???????

 

 

[skeptic36]

Hi all,

 

Mazda, I believe radios should be mandatory whether it is enforceable or not. If it is law more people will have one, even if it is only 10% more. That is worthwhile.

 

JR, I know my experience is limited, but your inference that trike pilots are flying around blindly has not been what I have seen. I have only been to one trike fly-in, in my short career, where I was very impressed with pilots radio use (all 13 trikes had working radios). The only fault I heard (and participated in :hittinghead:) was when at one stage there was too much chat happening on the ctaf, this was nipped in the bud by our host at our next landing (thanks Alf).

 

I hate generalizations but I can only say what I have seen and the worst instances of lack of radio use I have experienced have been GA pilots. I have seen 3 GA aircraft (in my 40 odd hours) take off from both Lakes Entrance and Great Lakes without a word. I have also tried to find out the intentions of another, but was unable to solicit a response.

 

I'm sure those pilots are in the minority in the GA world but I'm equally sure poor or non radio users in the trike world are few and far between.

 

Flying Dog,

 

I agree there are too many airfields on 126.7. Apparently the only way to fix that is to change to digital so more frequencies will become available. Bring it on I say!

 

It is going to happen in the future sometime so the sooner the better.

 

Regards Bill

 

 

[Mazda]

Well, I can think of two farmers I know who fly their trikes from a local strip, never leaving the property! C130s, fast? I'd hope they see you first anyway, because if they can't see other (slow) aircraft, we are in trouble if we go to war.

 

If you want to mandate radios, are there other similar countries that do this? No? I wonder why?

 

It's not ICAO, it doesn't work because of the human factors element. If radios are MANDATED in CTAFs, people think everyone is on frequency and it isn't true! If you think GA guys make more mistakes, that's probably true. They might have multiple radios and be trying to monitor multiple frequencies (which doesn't work well anyway), then select the wrong radio to transmit. I bet they have a radio alright, probably 2 radios, and I bet they make the calls too - just not on the right frequency. The more radios you have, the more complex the system, the more chance of a mistake.

 

I think you'll find most people do have radios anyway. If you read the ATSB reports, its not non-radio aircraft that are the problem, it is pilots making mistakes. That includes multi-crew airline aircraft. Just ask MozartMerv!

 

At Bundaberg some years ago, three aircraft were doing approaches in cloud, and one was on the wrong frequency. No one knew it was there. Oh, it's mandatory to make those calls alright, but mandating it doesn't stop mistakes.

 

That's why ICAO only mandates radio for airspace where there is a third party to talk to the pilots and make sure they are all on frequency. It doesn't mean that people fly around with no radio in uncontrolled airspace, or that they don't make calls, it just means that in mandatory radio airspace, the pilots in there have spoken to someone so know they are on frequency.

 

Most people at CTAFs have radio anyway, mandating radio won't make it any safer. Otherwise MTAFs/MBZs/CTAF®s would have a higher level of safety than CTAFS - and the BASI/ATSB incidents show that this is not the case.

 

 

[flying dog]

OK, I've caught up on the other posts since last night.

 

a: This is about transponders more than radios.

 

b: If we go "digital" then all the people out there who have radios in their planes will have to buy a new one. This would/could be money wasted on the new one they just installed. No, we don't need digital, just better frequency allocation.

 

127.0, 126,7, and other CTAF frequencies.

 

WRT the glider, receiving transmissions from aircraft 100's of k's away. Errrr, how is that good?

 

All you need is local traffic stuff. Be it a plane is flying locally, with/out a radio, if they don't broadcast their position *YOUR* radio's range is accademic.

 

Ok, say I am flying over "no-where". (Indulge me for a second.) why would I be inclined to broadcast my position? After all I am in the middle of "no-where".

 

Really what *SHOULD* happen is I look on the ERC-LOW, VNC or what not, see there are gliding op's near by and then determin that it is a good idea to broadcast.

 

If I don't have a raidio, I avoid the area. Pretty simple in my mind.

 

Now, how about we concentrate on XPonders. Like I said in an earlier post: They are good in CTA. Out of it, they are a bit handy if you want flight-following.

 

 

[skeptic36]

b: If we go "digital" then all the people out there who have radios in their planes will have to buy a new one. This would/could be money wasted on the new one they just installed. No, we don't need digital, just better frequency allocation.

127.0, 126,7, and other CTAF frequencies.

 

Ok, say I am flying over "no-where". (Indulge me for a second.) why would I be inclined to broadcast my position? After all I am in the middle of "no-where".

Hi Flying Dog,

I bought this up in another thread

 

http://www.recreationalflying.com/forum/general-discussion/34237-radio-frequencies.html. Apparently there is not enough frequencies available, so as I said if it is going to happen, we might as well suffer the pain in the hip pocket today and start enjoying the benifits immediately as put up with what we have got for a while then suffer anyway.

 

IN regard to your question about broadcasting when flying over nowhere: Because the other aircraft flying over the same patch of "no-where" with the same "I'm the only one here " idea, will suddenly become aware of your presence even if you are approaching in his blind spot.

 

Regards Bill

 

 

[flying dog]

Well, yes and no ther Bill.

 

Though I agree we are recreational pilots and the issue of flying a heading at an altitude is not something we need to do, there are still problems.

 

Pilot 1: "Traffic, this is 55-1234, flying south over cooks road at 2000 feet."

 

Pilot 2 is flying near there but doesn't know the road is called cooks road. There is a problem.

 

Going to the extreme of even using multiple land marks, there is ambiguity with terms/reference poits.

 

Another example:

 

Pilot 1: "Traffic, This is 55-1234, flying south over cooks road, 3 miles west of dam at 2000 feet."

 

Pilot 2 is around there hears the transmission and is busy head on map determining where that point is not looking out and ...... BANG, collides with other plane.

 

As valid as your examples are - and how weak mine probably are; there are many factors which determine the validity of radio calls.

 

And again I re-state *THIS* post is more about XPONDERS than radios.

 

Also, remember the three "rules" of flying:

 

Aviate, navigate, communicate.

 

 

[facthunter]

Where is this thread going?

 

OK let's talk transponders. First,They don't talk to each other.

 

Unless in an area of radar coverage, *distance and height function from the radar facility) or in a position to be intercepted by airborne TCAS. Might as well be turned off. Transponder enables your radar return to be "identified" on a radar screen and your height can be verified because there is an airborne aneroid , that gives a code to be transmitted that results in your height being brought up on the radar screen.

 

Position reports, give them when abeam an aerodrome, PROMINENT town or feature ie Lake Dryzabone, (with distance, bearing , or NNW of place & height and which way you are travelling ie, Tracking S/E--N/E. for Ayres Rock, Other aircraft operating in the area can get a picture of what you are doing . Use the appropriate frequency. Don't track directly over a feature, like everybody else does, or on a track that RPT, charter, might be climbing/descending on. Use your radio in a positive way. Nev

 

 

[flying dog]

Facthuter,

 

I agree with you.

 

Back to what I was saying, XPonders are handy in CTA.

 

Radio transmissions should be susinct, acurate and informative.

 

Yes, there are times when there are exceptions.

 

I think by the mear nature of having a rule, there will be exceptions.

 

We should know of their existance and when/how to use them without "abusing" that fact.

 

 

[Guest Brett Campany]

This is about a year and a half old but it's a good review of what's on the market in regards to PCAS units.

 

 

 

[Mazda]

Hmmm. I don't see the point in broadcasting VFR enroute position reports.

 

Has Australia ever had an enroute VFR midair collision? Flying VFR is random enough for the big sky theory to have some merit, there is very little risk in the first place.

 

The problem is the busier it is, the less it works because people can't fit in the calls, and if it isn't busy, there isn't much risk to warrant it in the first place!

 

Plus if the broadcasts are on an area frequency, it may block calls between a controller and an IFR aircraft in cloud.

 

If pilots don't know the area, they won't know local features, and instead of looking out they will start looking all over their WAC to find the traffic, which could be a very long way away. Or they will call back, giving another position report, resulting in calls going backwards and forwards, when all they really need to do is look out of the window.

 

I'm talking about enroute though. Near airports it is different story because there is more traffic in a smaller area, there is a separate frequency, and it is easier to work out where people are ("10 miles to the west inbound, 2,500 feet"). That is where we do need to tell people where we are, while also looking out for any aircraft that may be off frequency, or getting their position wrong (like 180 degrees out!)

 

 

[facthunter]

Position reports.

 

maz, I'm only suggesting to use them in the vicinity of an aerodrome or when you might have other aircraft enroute to a common destination, or near a major settled area (which might be reasonably expected to have local traffic). I don't know of any enroute collisions VFR, ( that doesn't mean that there hasn't been any) in Australia, but I have had too many close encounters VFR to consider it unlikely. A lot of pilots don't fly hemispherical heights below 5,000, and in any case you can have traffic that is flying correct heights coming at you only a few degrees off the reciprocal of that you are flying. Radios and radio procedures are at a pretty low standard, but there has been a few occasions when knowing an aircraft was coming the other way (mainly in marginal conditions) has enabled a very intense look-out to find him and ensure that he has passed abeam. Traffic to the east of Mangalore is a good case in point. I am not a big talker on the radio. Use words like you are paying for each one.

 

 

[flying dog]

And... Mazda,

 

The 10 NM 2500 boundry has been removed. I understand it is now pilot's discression when/where to change over and when/where to make the inbound calls.

 

 

[Yenn]

The radio frequencies are a sure way to stuff things up.

 

On Sunday I was flying within 10 miles of Rodds Bay, but not inside the Gladstone CTAFr area, so I should have been on 126.7 for Rodds Bay, but I was on 118.8 Gldstone frequency, when I heard Qantas call in 13 SE of Gladstone and ETA, but no height. I am 13 SE of Gladstone and while I am asking him for his height I see him, slightly below me but on a converging course.

 

If I had not been on the incorrect radio frequency I would not have heard him, but I am sure I would have seen him. Hearing his call woke me up to the fact that he was near, but I should have been on a different frequency.

 

 

[jetjr]

"JR, I know my experience is limited, but your inference that trike pilots are flying around blindly has not been what I have seen"

 

Never inferred this, but the guy that nearly flew into me was flying blindly. I dont think he has seen me yet, I had just made a overflying call as I tracked accross a known busy route. I dont really care he was in a trike or a Tecnam, he either didnt have a radio or wasnt listening. Talking to a local they said "oh yeah he doent have a radio, says he doesnt need one"

 

Even Ag pilots give intention calls as to thier operations so others can avoid them.

 

Mazda - In regards to C130 being not very fast - 290+ kts is to me very fast, and reckon if he and I were both following GPS tracking opposite each other he would win. As someone mentioned some more highly trained pilots believe its a free for all regarding heights below 5000.

 

I dont push for location calls unless you are in more remote areas, crossing a busy flight route or for some special reason, ie if I heard that C130 tracking for LCG, and I was near there, I would give a call stating my height and track, relative location, ie 45miles NW YCDO, maintaining 5500, tracking YGTH YSDU. Cost me nothing and much safer.

 

JR

 

 

[Mazda]

Speed is relative JR! I doubt the fast jet guys would think of the C130 as fast! :man flying:

 

Flyingdog, that was just an example of a call, nothing specific. However in saying that, the definition of "vicinity" happens to equal 10 miles. I'd also suggest you read the Notice of Proposed Rule Making on the CAR166 changes, because that is proposing a call at 10 miles if you have one radio fitted, or at 8 minutes if you have two radios!