Lets KILL the mandatory radio idea forever

[motzartmerv]

Mazda, no im not there much these days, the RTA suspended my drivers License for a little while, too many speeding fines.... Im mainly down at jaspers Brush now.. bring the tourer down any time.. great spot, reasonable coffee...:thumb_up:

 

 

[Yenn]

I would imagin that those who push the radio barrow would think it makes sense in a busy environment. I flew into Bundaberg on Saturday morning, arrived at rush hour. The radio was all chatter, but in a controlled way, even so I could not locate aircraft from their radio reports. I saw them without knowing which radio call they had given. the only time I could be sure of which was which was when one was told to go round because he was in conflict with another on a very low long final. I would have been happy to go in their without any radios being in the area as I could see more than I could hear. Maybe it is a problem for those who have planes with poor vision.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Yenn, on the other hand a circuit full or aircraft all transmitting as they should can really help you, particularly with smaller white aircraft who call turning base etc and the flats of their wings show up at just the right spot.

 

There's obviously a second argument here - correct use of radio for safety reasons.

 

 

[Barefootpilot]

I asked this in another thread but I will ask again. If you are a "must have" vote for radios could you please state what aircraft you fly and how long you have been a member of the RAA? It would just be interesting to get a scope of who things what.

 

Adam.

 

 

[Guest Brett Campany]

I asked this in another thread but I will ask again. If you are a "must have" vote for radios could you please state what aircraft you fly and how long you have been a member of the RAA? It would just be interesting to get a scope of who things what.Adam.

Maybe get a new poll going?

 

 

[Mazda]

Yenn is right. For those who think radio is more important when it gets busy, imagine this.

 

At a military Green Flag exercise in the USA on 31 March 1988, there were over 300 aircraft airborne, over 200 of which were fast jets (fighters). Following an accident when an RAF Tornado crashed, the exercise was called off and all aircraft returned to Nellis. All at the same time.

 

Nellis has a tower, but there were so many aircraft all inbound at the same time (and all low on fuel) that the tower couldn't cope and told the pilots they were on their own.

 

It was too busy to make any radio calls and everyone just slotted in, looked out, and landed safely without incident. Admittedly the fast ones did slow down, they were only doing around 360 knots so the slower ones could formate on them. That's a slow arrival speed for a fast jet in VMC, but it is still way faster than most of us are used to dealing with at non-controlled aerodromes.

 

Can you imagine what would have happened if 300 aircraft all tried to talk to each other? "I'm downwind, where are you?"

 

On that Parafield accident, they had radio, they were broadcasting, and they even had TCAD, but they collided. What didn't they have? See and avoid, because of the sun glare. They couldn't see properly, and they hit each other - despite having radio and TCAD. Plus they were using two frequencies in the circuit, talking on company frequency, instead of concentrating and looking out.

 

I still think we should carry and use radio, but to mandate it with no third party confirmation can't work and it is doesn't replace a good look out.

 

 

[storchy neil]

flying into avolon airshow raidio in plane failed carrying hand helled switch to it it to failed

 

control tower at avolon picked up that i had a problem and that i was landing on the grass strip in other words dont bloody well panick just fly the bloody plane neil

 

 

[facthunter]

Priority.

 

Aviate. (fly it) Navigate (point it) communicate (talkabout it) in that order Fundamental. Nev

 

 

[skybum]

but to mandate it with no third party confirmation can't work and it is doesn't replace a good look out.

Mazda...that would be called a beep back unit.

 

The mandate bit does come from the airline industry. You know, the guys that urged the Feds to mandate radio in CTAF®

 

To explain my bonafides, I come from GA because RAA wasn't even thought of when I started flying. Rogalo wings (kites!) only existed behind speed boats!

 

What is your problem QWERTY, the radio or the mandate?

 

That way I can tailor my argument to best suit the topic.

 

 

[Guest Walter Buschor]

Why take away options?

 

the radio gives you the option to talk ( I hope we all take it up ) .

 

It is just another tool to help us being safer.

 

No amount of equipment or rules will prevent an idiot from screwing up. As for the rest of us common sense would tell us it's a good thing and we should use it.

 

( unlike ASIC cards )

 

I don't really understand what this is all about.

 

the grey Nomad

 

 

[jetjr]

Why do some people think you will stop looking around if you have a radio or think everyone else has one? Certainly I dont stop looking in a CTAF-R - actually more chance there someone is on the wrong channel. I look even harder around these locations

 

I reckon its out in open space where you unfortunately stop looking as hard.

 

There will always be failures, wrong channel etc etc but percentage wise there would be more active radios so an increase the awareness

 

Risk management is ALL about percentages, if they were mandated, even if poorly enforced, and it avoided one accident or even a near miss it would be worth it especially if it was me who nearly flew into you

 

Having radio has definitely prevented me getting way too close to other aircraft - bigger and faster (and slower) - it also helps avoid circut traffic headed to the same place you are - slow down a bit and give it time to clear up a bit

 

Having and using a radio can just mean listening too cant it.

 

JR

 

 

[Mazda]

Skybum yes a beep back unit is sure better than nothing, that's why Dick Smith invented it, but it does have some limitations!

 

Jetr, the problem with compliance is not that people don't have radios, it is that they are on the wrong frequency or there is a problem with the radio. Mandating 10 radios won't solve that problem.

 

I'm in favour of radios, but I'm not in favour of mandating them in airspace without a third party.

 

 

[moy71]

Why do some people think you will stop looking around if you have a radio or think everyone else has one? Certainly I dont stop looking in a CTAF-R - actually more chance there someone is on the wrong channel. I look even harder around these locationsI reckon its out in open space where you unfortunately stop looking as hard.

There will always be failures, wrong channel etc etc but percentage wise there would be more active radios so an increase the awareness

 

Risk management is ALL about percentages, if they were mandated, even if poorly enforced, and it avoided one accident or even a near miss it would be worth it especially if it was me who nearly flew into you

 

Having radio has definitely prevented me getting way too close to other aircraft - bigger and faster (and slower) - it also helps avoid circut traffic headed to the same place you are - slow down a bit and give it time to clear up a bit

 

Having and using a radio can just mean listening too cant it.

 

JR

Spot on ! :thumb_up:

 

 

[skeptic36]

Why do some people think you will stop looking around if you have a radio or think everyone else has one? Certainly I dont stop looking in a CTAF-R - actually more chance there someone is on the wrong channel. I look even harder around these locationsI reckon its out in open space where you unfortunately stop looking as hard.

There will always be failures, wrong channel etc etc but percentage wise there would be more active radios so an increase the awareness

 

Risk management is ALL about percentages, if they were mandated, even if poorly enforced, and it avoided one accident or even a near miss it would be worth it especially if it was me who nearly flew into you

 

Having and using a radio can just mean listening too cant it.

 

JR

JR,

 

I wish I had posted that.... You have written exactly what I think

 

Regards Bill

 

 

[skybum]

Radio is training. I can tell you that finishing my PPL flying out of EN (TWR ClassC) did wonders for polishing up my R/T moreso than when I started nearly thirty years ago at RED. It is just like talking on the phone...or...learning the patter for ordering a meal at Macca's for the kids in the same sequence the flippers input into the order console...goes through so much quicker.(Now, that IS embarrasing!)

 

Mandate is the pits because it forces me to do something that I already did voluntarily.

 

 

[BLA82]

Why do some people think you will stop looking around if you have a radio or think everyone else has one? Certainly I dont stop looking in a CTAF-R - actually more chance there someone is on the wrong channel. I look even harder around these locationsI reckon its out in open space where you unfortunately stop looking as hard.

There will always be failures, wrong channel etc etc but percentage wise there would be more active radios so an increase the awareness

 

Risk management is ALL about percentages, if they were mandated, even if poorly enforced, and it avoided one accident or even a near miss it would be worth it especially if it was me who nearly flew into you

 

JR

I second that to, perfectly written

 

 

[skydog]

Must have radio vote

 

RAA pilot 6 years , GA pilot 5 years, flying both UL and GA pretty much equally until lately where it is much more GA, XC in a RV.

 

 

[farri]

A poll on this forum is only an indication of the numbers of members who bother to vote, not whether the majority of RAA pilots or GA pilots in Australia, want radio mandated.

 

The way I see it is that CASA has seen fit to make the regulations as they are, they also change them as they see the need to and it is still not a requirement to carry a radio outside of controled airspace.

 

Whether a radio realy does improve safety is a very debatable issue and I know from experience,that those who believe it does,will never change their mind, therefore, anyone who feels they need a radio should simply install one, get a licence and use it correctly.

 

Please keep in mind I`m not talking about the use of radio, where it is required by law.

 

Frank.

 

 

[skybum]

Farri, agree about the different views. It seems to align on how you were taught at the start.

 

I reckon we should ask the question AFTER RAA is allowed into airspace. Class E TWR and GAAP. I am pretty sure people will find it is just as impossible to access Class C major aerodromes like BN or ML However, good r/t and a trust that you WILL fly as per a clearance will allow access to transiting that airspace. Just because you have a GA licence doesn't grant you access now. ATC must trust you before they will even think they will give you access to the same airspace as heavy iron. Believe me on this. It is a rare privelage that you really work hard at ensuring you do not efup for yourself or anyone else.

 

 

[Mazda]

I've worked out the problem here.

 

The views being posted are purely subjective. It is what individual pilots think, from their own experience. It is not based on science or fact.

 

Think about it. It is statistically safer to fly in an airline aircraft than it is to drive to a major airport. But if you ask the views of some airline passengers, they are perfectly happy to drive to the airport with a manic taxi driver in heavy traffic, but are terrified to get on the jet because they think flying is dangerous. It's just that person's perspective, it isn't the truth.

 

It's the same as some people here saying, "I think radios should be mandated in all aircraft in all airspace because mandating radio must make it safer." The big issue though is that statistics do not show that is the case.

 

Read the ATSB weekly summaries, which are full of people in CTAF®s (where radio is "mandatory") being on the wrong frequency. Consider the NASA report on diffusion of responsibility. Look at the Ambidji report on CTAFs. Look at ICAO recommendations. And most importantly, look at busy airspace overseas and how they deal with it.

 

If it was safer to mandate radio for all aircraft in all airspace, don't you think that would have been done somewhere else in the world by now? Somewhere with a lot more traffic than Australia?

 

 

[farri]

Skybum, Please read my post again,it`s got nothing to do with what I was taugh.

 

I`ve stated I`m not talking about the areas where radio is compulsory,there is no debate required about that and I`ve also stated on other posts that those who want to mix it with the heavies , need to do what ever is required of them to do so.

 

I`ve had this discussion too many times over the years and I simply support those, who, for whatever reason, chose not to carry a radio, provided they are within the law, and this means, where radio is not required.

 

Frank.

 

 

[octave]

I am yet to decide, but I think the "being on the wrong frequency" argument is frankly lame. In what other area of aviation would we say some people make mistakes so lets forget it.

 

When I am inbound to my local aerodrome how do I see our local skydive aircraft at 13000 feet and 1 minute from drop.

 

If we are going to be scientific in our analysis we can't just compare the number CTAFR accidents with CTAF without factoring in different traffic densities , also it is hard to quantify the number of accidents avoided.

 

I flew in the late 80s (thruster without radio) and now in CTAFR (with radio of course).

 

I think this question is a little vague, if you were to say radio should not be mandatory anywhere (ie no CTAFR) I would strongly disagree but I would have some sympathy with the notion that there are many areas where it may not be required.

 

The "pilots will rely on the radio and not keep a good look out" is also in my view lame, perhaps a pilots will fail to maintain thier airspeed because after all they have a stall warning device.

 

Having said that I am very sympathetic to the keeping our flying costs down but please do not try to convince me with the "radios make people incapable of looking out" or that "an aircraft may be on the wrong frequency" this was stressed to me whilst I was training both in a theoretical sense on one occaison in a practical sense.

 

 

[skeptic36]

Hi Mazda,

 

If radio is mandatory will you be less vigilante while piloting your aircraft ?

 

How can statistics show it won't be safer with mandatory radio if it has not been done anywhere in the world ?

 

Anything worthwhile has always been done somewhere by somebody before anybody else.

 

While mandatory radio will mean there are even more pilots on wrong frequencies and with non working radio, surely there will also be more pilots able to communicate with other aircraft in their area and that can only be good.

 

You write that the problem is peoples perspective and you suggest we look at various reports which back your argument. Your interest seems to be mainly in ctaf®s and busy airspace so I see that as your perspective.

 

Here is my perspective : I don't see the lack of a radio around airfields and busy airspace as the problem, there are procedures to follow in those areas that make traffic predictable and you are going to be extra vigilante in those places.

 

As you know I am a low hour trikepilot, but my experience is most recreation and tourism type aircraft all want to gravitate to the same areas (in our case the hot spot is tracking the ninety mile beach at low altitude). I always find it a comfort to be able to report my position and intentions when in and near these areas even though I know some may be unable to hear.

 

It is all about reducing the risk, so far you have not convinced me that compulsory radio installation will not do this.

 

Regards Bill

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

I certainly don't think the question was advocating getting rid of CTAF-R. Nor is it about the merits of radio use in the vacinity of busy airfield. Maybe I've misunderstood the question but I interpreted it to be whether all aircraft in Class-G should be radio equipped. To be worth while this presumably is intended to also nclude sailplanes, hang-gliders, paragliders and people in deck chairs with heliium balloons. Hopefully that helps clarify your position Octave ;-)

 

Maintaining a listening watch on the radio is pointless unless aircraft make routine position reports. IMO only a tiny percentage do that - has anybody ever listened to area freq on Easter weekend ? How many position reports do you hear compared to the volume of aircraft enroute to/from Narromine. And, as last years radio survey found, compliance is little better in CTAF® than CTAF so just trying to mandate position reporting as well as radio is unlikely to work.

 

Its commendable that so many of you think your lookout wouldn't be adversely affected if radios were mandatory. Even assuming that is the case (& I don't doubt that you believe so), what about pilots training in a hypothetical future where radios were compulsary ? Would it be easier or harder to teach them to keep their eyes outside the cockpit when they "know" everybody out there is radio equipped.

 

Somebody pointed out that there were "only a few " arguments against mandatory radio. Thats true but there is really only one argument for compulsion - a genuine belief amongst proponents that it will increase their safety. I'm probably going to regret saying this but couldn't the same argument be applied to strobes or high visibility paint schemes ? Should these be mandatory for all aircraft as well ? Or compulsory safety pilots to improve lookout or mandatory flight plans which will only be accepted if there was no possibility of conflict - obviously in flight deviation would not be permitted. Its possible to invent scenarios where any of these "safety" measures might help prevent an accident but IMO the imposition and loss of freedom on all of us all of the time by making them compulsory far outweighs any conceivable gain.

 

Fly safe :-)

 

John

 

PS Please please please don't start any polls on my facetious safety suggestions ;-)

 

 

[turboplanner]

There are some convincing arguments on the other thread for mandatory radios, particularly on cost, but Crezzi, your fishing around with mandate/benefit ratio brings up another comparison.

 

For the $500 or so would the safety statistics be improved more by mandating radios for the few or mandating PLB's for everyone?