We need more regulations

[Guest Qwerty]

We need more regulations like a hole in the head. There are many comments on several thread here proposing more regulation and more restrictions on our flying. I have seen comment calling for;Mandatory transponders, Tracking devices, Mandatory radios, more cross country endorsements, bla bla bla.

 

I am not sure that it is a good idea to promote more and more requirements getting closer and closer to the complexity and cost of GA. I would respectfully suggest that for those who want all the gizmos and training and complexity and expense and all that entails, Go and get an IFR CPL, with a pressurized, twin turbo prop endorsement and leave the rest of us poor buggers alone.

 

IMHO

 

 

[turboplanner]

Looking at your beautiful photo I can see where you're coming from.

 

Inbound with seven unseen aircraft with varying standards of PIC, I can see where they are coming from.

 

I've suggested several times that RA could do with a layered approach, with the very basic tube and rag flying out of the horse paddock at one end, and four place CTA/Crosscountry aircraft (let's just look ahead for a minute) at the other.

 

So if all youwanted to do is fly from your paddock down to the local beach, you could select an endoresement level to do that.

 

It is already working well in the truck industry, where you can drive some trucks on a car licence, step up to a medium truck with not much more than a question and answer session, then step up to a heavier truck, then a semi, then a B Double.

 

That system would take care of your fears and bring better safety to dense traffic areas at the same time.

 

 

[BLA82]

Spot On Turbo:thumb_up:

 

One thing I would like to add is I am a big advocate for Compulsary Radio. I think it's only a sensible suggestion and anyone who doesn't want one I would like to hear their reasons why. The only place I can imagine where one is not needed is as Turbo said out in a horse paddock. I believe all CTAF airports should be made CTAF R no exceptions.:hittinghead:

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

Being one of the few genuine 'paddock bashers' i have to agree with the above. I very much would like to follow the US approach but it is like talking to a brick wall.

 

Ozzie

 

 

[Guest Brett Campany]

Spot On Turbo:thumb_up:One thing I would like to add is I am a big advocate for Compulsary Radio. I think it's only a sensible suggestion and anyone who doesn't want one I would like to hear their reasons why. The only place I can imagine where one is not needed is as Turbo said out in a horse paddock. I believe all CTAF airports should be made CTAF R no exceptions.:hittinghead:

x 2 on that!! Radio is a must! We should all be of high standards when it comes down to radio calls.

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

I believe all CTAF airports should be made CTAF R no exceptions.

Be careful what you wish for Ben. The proposal for ADS-B (which hasn't gone away) required fitment to aircraft operating everywhere that radio is mandatory. A big enough problem with the existing 100+ CTAF® let alone all CTAF as well.

 

As discussed in other threads, mandatory radio just means people will get into the habit of assuming that if they haven't heard anyone transmitting there will be nobody there - VERY dangerous IMO.

 

Cheers

 

John

 

 

[Thx1137]

Be careful what you wish for Ben. The proposal for ADS-B (which As discussed in other threads, mandatory radio just means people will get into the habit of assuming that if they haven't heard anyone transmitting there will be nobody there - VERY dangerous IMO.

Not to me. They can be on the wrong frequency or have a radio problem. Hearing people on the wrong frequency is common enough to remind me!

 

It would be interesting to know how many pilots have problems due to aircraft not having a radio. I haven't had a problem yet but the day is young :-)

 

Steven.

 

 

[Mazda]

I'm with you Qwerty.

 

Turbo has a point in that we can have different levels of safety depending on the operation, and why not?

 

If you want to fly privately around your farm in Class G airspace, why should it be mandated for you to have equipment which you do not need and will not make your flight safer?

 

But an airline passenger would hope that their RPT aircraft flies to an airport with air traffic control. They would hope that their aircraft is fitted with TCAS (even if they don't know what it is!) I don't think that is too much to expect on an RPT flight. The problem is, the smaller RPT aircraft are not required to have TCAS (even if the lighties need to have transponders) and they fly into plenty of airports without ATC.

 

I think everything is mixed up. I think there should be less restriction on recreational flying, and more stringent requirements for commercial flights!

 

 

[facthunter]

More than 2 pax.

 

Turbo, the layered approach has some merit, but the REACH (upper limit) has to be defined. One of the reasons we get concessions is that we only carry ONE passenger and THAT passenger is an "informed person", so our liability is limited by that fact Once we go beyond that point we have lost the plot or the "essence of our flying. Nev.

 

 

[Yenn]

Have a look at the "Sun glare a factor in mid-air plane collision" post on this forum and then tell me if radios are going to stop all accidents.

 

How many RPT aircraft have had close encounters with recreational fliers? I can't recall one so where is the problem.

 

Most of us have now done the human factors training and in that we were told to assess the risk, then minimise it and monitor it. We have all known of the risk of mid air collisions and most of us use the eye to spot the danger. Relying on radio is not going to reduce the risk and could even make it worse.

 

If you want to have all the bells and whistles, 4 passengers, twin engines etc. I suggest you apply yourself to getting a PPL and leave those of us who are happy flying RAAus alone. Remember a lot of RAAus fliers also hold a PPL.

 

 

 

[BLA82]

. The proposal for ADS-B (which hasn't gone away) required fitment to aircraft operating everywhere that radio is mandatory. As discussed in other threads, mandatory radio just means people will get into the habit of assuming that if they haven't heard anyone transmitting there will be nobody there - VERY dangerous IMO.

 

Cheers

 

John

Fair call Crezi, I don't think the ADS-B idea is a good one. I have to say I can see what you are saying about the havent heard anyone so there isn't any one situation but I think that it comes down to airmanship and keeping a look out. A good instructor drills that into you from day one and even gives you a clip on the ears when you don't;)

 

 

[Guest watto]

I think to each his own to a degree but you have to live long enough to enjoy what you have, the multi layered system seems to look like it has a lot of merit well we already operate under exactly that and it works well, if you want the endorsment then you do the work and move on, if you are happy with what you are all about then that is ok as well (democracy is a wonderful thing)

 

 

[skeptic36]

Have a look at the "Sun glare a factor in mid-air plane collision" post on this forum and then tell me if radios are going to stop all accidents.How many RPT aircraft have had close encounters with recreational fliers? I can't recall one so where is the problem.

Most of us have now done the human factors training and in that we were told to assess the risk, then minimise it and monitor it. We have all known of the risk of mid air collisions and most of us use the eye to spot the danger. Relying on radio is not going to reduce the risk and could even make it worse.

 

If you want to have all the bells and whistles, 4 passengers, twin engines etc. I suggest you apply yourself to getting a PPL and leave those of us who are happy flying RAAus alone. Remember a lot of RAAus fliers also hold a PPL.

Yenn,

 

I don't think it is about stopping all accidents. As you state, it is about assessing, minimising and monitoring the risk, surely a radio will help a pilot do this.

 

Repeatedly I see people posting on this subject stating that pilots are going to automatically become complacent, believing that because the law says so everybodys' radio is working and being used correctly and so will no longer look out the window. The ones who don't look now will still be the ones not looking if radios are mandated, equally those careful pilots will still be the ones displaying good airmanship.

 

Also, with respect mate, I'm not sure that because you "can't recall an incident between RPT and recreational aircraft", that is an indication of whether a problem exists or not.

 

Regards Bill

 

 

[Barefootpilot]

Just out of interest could those of you who say radios are a must please state what type of aircraft you fly and how long you have been a member of the RAA.

 

 

[BLA82]

Just out of interest could those of you who say radios are a must please state what type of aircraft you fly and how long you have been a member of the RAA.

 

And that is important why?

 

 

[ahlocks]

Raggies v's parrots or oldies v's newbies I'd hazard to guess.

 

Sheesh, it's a cranky little world out there today.....:dousing:

 

 

[skeptic36]

Just out of interest could those of you who say radios are a must please state what type of aircraft you fly and how long you have been a member of the RAA.

If it matters :confused:, I fly a trike at every opportunity, and I'm not a member of the RAA.

 

Regards Bill

 

 

[Barefootpilot]

Sorry I'm not looking at an us and them fight what I'm looking for is "who" actually wants this. Is it the guys who fly once a month in plastic fantastics, is it the guys who fly almost every day in trikes? Is it the students who are just starting to fly?

 

I guess I am a little protective of what I have in the RAA and want to keep it as simple as possible that doesn't mean I don't want you to have your fun I just don't want your fun to cost ME more!

 

 

[Guest Qwerty]

I guess I am a little protective of what I have in the RAA and want to keep it as simple as possible that doesn't mean I don't want you to have your fun I just don't want your fun to cost ME more!

And this, ladies, is the whole point. Mandating radios will not work but what it will do is cost us our freedoms today.

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

You'r on the right track Adam, those of us who have been flying since day one have many years of flying without radios, it seemed normal, and you just learnt to keep your eyes open, and you got real good at it. The only time I came close to hurting myself was when I did the right thing and let a Baron land before me. I came in after him, flared above the runway, and flew into his wake turbulance. Fortunatly the bottom wing of the bipe was only a foot or two above the asphalt, and only got scraped a little bit.

 

Naturally we picked up radios as they became the thing to have, and I use mine now every time I fly, which is often. I still would have no problem flying an aircraft without radio, if I had to, even today. It is just one more little skill that we seem to be loosing as time goes by. God help all those flash cowboys if they ever have a radio failure, they will more than likley shxx them selfs and crash !!.....and by the way I fly a nice and fairly well equiped Lightwing as you know Adam, because I reckon I,ve earned it !!...................................................................

 

 

[skeptic36]

And this, ladies, is the whole point. Mandating radios will not work but what it will do is cost us our freedoms today.

If by work you mean stop all accidents then your right, but surely having another source of information available has to help.

 

How does adding a few hundred dollars worth of radio equipment cost us our freedom ?

 

Regards Bill

 

 

[Mazda]

Bill the problem is that mandating radios will not make it safer and will not improve compliance. People will always be on the wrong frequency unless there is someone else on the other end to confirm they are on the right frequency.

 

Unless there is a unicom operator or (to a limited extent) an AFRU, there is no third party confirmation in CTAFs, so people will continue to make mistakes.

 

You don't have to believe me, just look through the ATSB weekly summaries.

 

 

[Yenn]

How does adding a few hundred dollars worth of radio equipment cost us our freedom ?

 

Skeptic. I think this remark of yours shows what I would like to steer clear of. That is the idea that throwing money at a problem is a way of solving it.

 

There are many things that may make flying safer and they may all cost just a little, but unless they actually do improve safety they are only a money waster and giver of false hope.

 

Remember we are recreational flyers and do not have to do it for a living.

 

 

[skeptic36]

There are many things that may make flying safer and they may all cost just a little, but unless they actually do improve safety they are only a money waster and giver of false hope.

Hi Yenn,

 

I couldn't agree more.

 

I live and work in a quite private location because I like to do things my own way with as few restrictions possible :thumb_up:, as long as it doesn't adversely effect others thumb_down.

 

For me however, and apparently many others judging by the results of the poll going on in the other thread, the cost of a radio is outweighed by the safety benefit for the user and other aircraft.

 

If we can get past the argument, some attempt to validate, that mandated radios will automatically make us all forget our piloting skills, I don't see a down side.

 

On the other hand ELT's and other items which may improve the safety of those on board the aircraft are like seat belts in cars, they do save lives but only the life of the person responsible for deciding whether or not to use them. The only argument I can see for their compulsion is the saving to the taxpayer in search and rescue costs and the health care system respectively. Although I have spent a lot of time thinking about this, I feel we do need to maintain as much free choice as possible in this country so I guess it is a price the taxpayer will have to wear and is the reason we still let people smoke tobacco

 

Regards Bill

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

It is just one more little skill that we seem to be loosing as time goes by. God help all those flash cowboys if they ever have a radio failure,

i can't wait until the GPS system goes "pfft". then we'll see who can nav. i know one thing for sure there will be jumpers scattered all over the country side. No one looks before they leap these days. as soon as the light comes on they just go.:bmwrider: