Lets KILL the mandatory radio idea forever

[Guest Qwerty]

Mandating radios (with respect to promoters) simply will not work.

 

Even if radios are required there needs to be a emergency safety mechanism to provide for failure of radio, battery, electrical system, headset breakage, cockpit fire, etc etc.

 

This emergency safety procedure will probably be that pilots should keep a lookout for other aircraft as it is not safe to assume that all radios are functional at all times. And isn't that what we do now....except that we do it seriously because complacency cannot be allowed to set in because there ARE aircraft without radios.

 

There is simply no way of setting up a system that works using the premise of mandatory radios other than ACT.

 

Surely this has to be the end of this idiotic proposal.

 

 

[BLA82]

Mandating radios (with respect to promoters) simply will not work.Even if radios are required there needs to be a emergency safety mechanism to provide for failure of radio, battery, electrical system, headset breakage, cockpit fire, etc etc.

 

Surely this has to be the end of this idiotic proposal.

Fair go Qwerty

 

The only thing mandatory radios will do is improve safety. If it fails it fails then yes we will still have to look out but you still do that with a radio.

 

Idiotic proposal I think is a bit of a stretch if you say that radios shouldn't be mandatory because they might fail and there needs to be a backup then we all better sit in a hangar and swap flying stories because we cant carry a back up engine and it might fail.

 

I agree that mandatory transponders is not a good idea but a simple radio to add a small safety margin there is no reason why this is a bad thing.

 

 

[Guest Brett Campany]

See this is where I disagree.

 

I believe radios are a MUST and should be required to be installed on ALL aircraft regardless of type, size, registration or use.

 

It is the one piece of equipment that can save your life or the life of other pilots and passengers.

 

To many times I have come across aircraft that either have no radio or don't use a radio and witnessed a close call that could have been fatal.

 

Also if you have a radio and you're on the correct frequency and you have an emergency, there is a better chance of being found and saved if you have to ditch or forced to land.

 

It is my strong belief that every pilot should have and use the appropriate required communications devices.

 

It's a matter of safety no matter of where you are.

 

 

[Guest Qwerty]

WRONG WRONG WRONG

 

The radio WILL fail...... and then what....we all crash into each other because we are certain that we have full situational awareness because we were listening to the radio??????

 

Your analogy is flawed but the engine WILL fail and we have all been trained for that.

 

Encouraging everyone to rely on the radio is dangerous.

 

 

[ahlocks]

I can think of two words that justify having radio onboard.

 

One is "Pan" the other,... well you can guess.

 

 

[perthjay85]

being very new to this flying thing with only 20 hours under my belt i think that radios should be mandatory IMHO.

 

i have been taught to never rely on the radio and only use it as a last ditch resort to spot other planes. but i think overall every plane should have a radio IMHO

 

 

[Guest Brett Campany]

WRONG WRONG WRONGThe radio WILL fail...... and then what....we all crash into each other because we are certain that we have full situational awareness because we were listening to the radio??????

 

Your analogy is flawed but the engine WILL fail and we have all been trained for that.

 

Encouraging everyone to rely on the radio is dangerous.

Yes and pilots are trained to deal with a radio that fails. Continue radio calls regardless if you have a radio failure, squawk 7600 on the transponder if you have one and join the circuit keeping a watch out for other traffic.

 

You can't have every flight assuming that your radio will fail, or anything else for that matter. You can, however, be trained to deal with any situation that may arise in the event of a failure.

 

 

[Guest Juliette Lima]

Don't know that I'd like to fly in some increasingly busy CTAF's without a radio.....at Cessnock we have a jet, helicopters, the occasional tourist DC3, warbird joyflights, loads of trainers ( sometimes difficult to understand)...it really defies logic NOT to have a radio.

 

I'm wondering if qwerty is just fishing for some bites.....opps, got taken.

 

Cheers

 

JL

 

 

[moy71]

The radio WILL fail...... and then what....we all crash into each other because we are certain that we have full situational awareness because we were listening to the radio??????Your analogy is flawed but the engine WILL fail and we have all been trained for that.

 

Encouraging everyone to rely on the radio is dangerous.

I disagree. one example i encountered recently was during circuit training. hearing the radio broadcast when someone is on what leg is very helpful to me. For example if I hear a base leg call and I am on the downwind alarm bells will be ringing inside my head to be on an extra lookout.

 

I must stress the fact that the radio is NOT my only means of precaution. A good lookout is the other.

 

 

[perthjay85]

Don't know that I'd like to fly in some increasingly busy CTAF's without a radio.....at Cessnock we have a jet, helicopters, the occasional tourist DC3, warbird joyflights, loads of trainers ( sometimes difficult to understand)...it really defies logic NOT to have a radio.I'm wondering if qwerty is just fishing for some bites.....opps, got taken.

 

Cheers

 

JL

I totally agree, at Jandakot with up to 5-6 aircraft on circuits and in some cases 7 or 8 planes waiting to land on the duty runway it gets pretty chaotic so i love the radio for things like that i can go for a little circle before joining the mayhem that is landind at jandakot

 

 

[Yenn]

See todays post about the mid air collision at Adelaide. Both had radio, both had an instructor plus student and they still collided. Radio not much use there.

 

 

[Guest Mad Dave]

Listening to the radio doesn't stop your eyes from working, but your eyes don't pick up transmissions from other aircrafts radios

 

 

[moy71]

I'm wondering if qwerty is just fishing for some bites.....opps, got taken.

i think i am with you on this one too. :)

 

 

[Guest Brett Campany]

See todays post about the mid air collision at Adelaide. Both had radio, both had an instructor plus student and they still collided. Radio not much use there.

You mean this one?

 

http://www.recreationalflying.com/forum/aviation-news/42308-sun-glare-factor-mid-air-plane-collision.html

 

"The pilots of the Grob did not discern some broadcasts from the Tobago pilots, significantly diminishing their situational awareness.

 

 

 

"The pilots of the Grob continued the approach without positively identifying the preceding aircraft in the circuit."

 

 

[moy71]

See todays post about the mid air collision at Adelaide. Both had radio, both had an instructor plus student and they still collided. Radio not much use there.

10 times more accidents like this if there were no radios IMHO.

 

 

[Guest Brett Campany]

I'm wondering if qwerty is just fishing for some bites.....opps, got taken.

I really hope not because this is one of the subjects that RAAus pilots get ridiculed about by some GA pilots. It's not something to joke about and shouldn't be taken lightly.

 

I don't mind having a joke or a laugh every now and then but this is a subject we need to up the ante on if we are to be taken seriously in Australian Aviation.

 

RAAus is growing at a rapid rate every day, look at the numbers of new members on this site for example. This is something we really need to pull our heads in with.

 

 

[Mazda]

Qwerty you are so right, but I think people are not comparing apples with apples here.

 

When people say "mandate radio" what are they talking about? Mandate it for Class C? Or for flying in Class G?

 

We could follow ICAO guidelines, where radio is mandated only from Class D and above for good reason. In that airspace there is a controller to talk to, and they provide traffic informtation and/or separation, so they need to talk to you. Plus, everyone in that airspace knows their radio is working and on frequency, because they must actually make contact with the controller before entering.

 

In those classes of airspace, I agree that radio should be required.

 

Mandatory radio in Class G can NEVER work, despite how much people might want it to work. The reason for this is that there is no third party confirmation to make sure the radio is working and on the right frequency.

 

I'm pro-radio, I think we should all have them and use them, but I'm against MANDATING them because it can't work.

 

If your radio fails, you are now illegal and subject to fines. It is completely unenforceable and completely unworkable.

 

The worst of that though is that if radio is MANDATED, everyone thinks everyone else is on frequency. This ONLY works when people are talking to controllers to confirm they are on frequency.

 

So in a CTAF, if radios are MANDATED, everyone thinks everyone else has radio, and they may not. Well, they may have a radio fitted, but perhaps they have the wrong radio selected, or the wrong frequency. Who here hasn't ever dialled up a wrong frequency?

 

What happens if your radio fails enroute? You can't legally land anywhere. And if you try, other pilots there will get slack and not look out because they assume everyone is on frequency.

 

Of course we should all have and use radio, but let's stop trying to MANDATE everything with rules that cannot work.

 

Remember, you can still use radios when they are not mandated!

 

 

[poteroo]

COM radio definitely needed and no way will we avoid that . It's all about SA - read your HF again.

 

But, there are times when it's been good to turn off the COM, and just focus on flying skills. For me, that's when we are conducting low flying training at <300'AGL, and I want student to hear every word without chatter over=the-top of the i/c.

 

happy days,

 

 

[turboplanner]

I can think of two words that justify having radio onboard.One is "Pan" the other,... well you can guess.

 

...."cake"???

 

This thread has taken off like a bushfire, but guys the same debate raged in the fifties in GA, one of the most popular defences of not having radios being that tiger moths would be too heavy to fly/be safe, and the radio would cost more than the aircraft, but like the argument over car seat belts, the statistics finally showed which was the safer route.

 

So this is a bit of a dead argument, but shows that a Tasmanian can stir up mainlanders any day.

 

 

[ahlocks]

...."cake"???

....actually I was thinking of "kettle"..:clown:

 

"Beercan one. ten miles east Kickatinalong, inbound...got the kettle on???"

 

 

[Guest Qwerty]

OK let me try this another way.

 

There are many advantages to carrying and using a radio. There are many ways that carrying and using a radio improves safety.

 

My point is that promoting the mandating of the carriage of radios is counterproductive.

 

Right now most of us (me included) carry and use a radio but because there might be someone in the circuit who may not have a radio we are vigilant. great, this results in a high level of safety. But if we live with the complacency of the mind set "everyone has a radio" the motivation to keep a look out will diminish. ergo, less safe environment.

 

And wot about away from the circuit, same complacency, after all everyone has a radio, but so what. Position and intention calls are not made and any way are just as stupid as mandatory radios. If there is enough air time to make position and intention calls, there are not enough aircraft to run into, and if there are so many aircraft around that you might hit one, there wont be a nanosecond of silence on the radio to make the call. it is self defeating.

 

Promoting mandatory radios is a waste of time.

 

I am not stirring the pot or trying for a rise. this is a serious and valid point of view and one that I would have thought was was easily understood. Masda seems to understand perhaps he can explain it better than me with my poor communication skills.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Well, im pretty sure "she" did... nothing more to add to mazda's post.. what i want to know is who is calling for mandatory radio??..

 

 

[Mazda]

Thanks Merv! ;)

 

Qwerty I think you are absolutely spot on. When people fly into a CTAF they tend to be more careful to look out for that trike or Tiger Moth that may be flying there without a radio.

 

When people fly to a CTAF®, it subconsciously gives pilots a mistaken belief that there won't be any unknown aircraft in the circuit, so they don't look out as carefully.

 

It's a 'human factors' issue.

 

NASA did a study some time back on "Diffusion of responsibility", explaining why there were accidents/incidents at towered airports. It found that pilots mentally handed over the responsibility of looking out to the air traffic controller. (That is a real danger at GAAPs because the controllers don't provide separation in the circuit, only sequencing.)

 

It's a similar thing with mandatory radio in situations where there is no confirmation that pilots are on frequency. Pilots mentally hand over the responsibility of looking out to the radio.

 

 

[Mazda]

Hey Merv I really must drop in for a coffee some time at CN, are you there much on weekends?

 

 

[johnm]

radio

 

and one other thing ..............

 

if you have a radio that goes - and then it does n't - you still have a radio

 

its not that you have n't got one - it just does n't go

 

if the radio fails, you might get desparate and put the boot into it while you are flying or even a sharp frontal chop with the edge of your hand, empty beer bottle, ratchet - whatever comes to hand or is rolling on the cabin floor - theres always the chance it might get it going

 

jm