Lets KILL the mandatory radio idea forever

[Ben Longden]

Forgive me.. I thought this was an April Fools joke. :raise_eyebrow:

 

Every aircraft should have a radio.

 

If the radio fails, then use the failed radio procedures in the back of ERSA and the VFG.

 

Ben

 

 

[skybum]

WRT RAA I am just a newbie...only been around the scene for a very short while.

 

farri, that wasn't what I meant. I do not think you had an instructor to teach you any habits (not having a go, you did teach yourself to fly...didn't you?) I did and I did learn habits from my instructor(s)

 

Provided you stay B050, out of Class E or higher and out of any CTAF® and that means within 20nm of one and provided you keep a good look out and stay strictly VFR you do not NEED or require a radio. Even in a CTAF! As farri says..them's the rules.

 

However, evolution of RAA is heading into areas where radio carriage is required, as farri says...them's the rules. If thats the case then learn how to do it correctly. If you wish to stay in the first bit then it is only an opinion if a radio makes it safer or not. That is where your instructor comes in. Their opinion normally becomes yours!

 

I think having a radio does help my SA..but that is from opinion and then experience. Hence my thoughts on Mandate. It makes me do something that I do voluntarily.

 

 

[Mazda]

No matter what you think, this is a pointless argument because there is no way in the world that any aviation regulator will ever, ever, ever mandate radio for all aircraft in all classes of airspace.

 

The current Australian Airspace Policy Statement (which is the Airspace Act, i.e. the law) says that Australia is moving to the National Airspace System, which means standard Class G with no radio requirement.

 

Any non-ICAO compliant procedures must be notified as a difference with ICAO.

 

There is also a CASA CEO directive (i.e. it must be complied with) which says that Australia will harmonise with international practice unless there is a specific local issue which requires something different for safety reasons. It also says that if there are several international practices we could choose from, Australia should choose the one which provides that level of safety for the lowest cost.

 

There is nothing unique about Australia's Class G which would require additional regulations for safety - except perhaps for some people's absolute obsession with VFR separation by radio, VFR position reports etc which no one else in the world does. The reason we CAN do it, and other countries don't, is because we have so little traffic people can actually do it. Overseas there's so much traffic it would be impossible to do it. It would be like all car drivers trying to separate by radio, talking to every other driver. It doesn't work when there is a lot of traffic, and it is pointless when there isn't much traffic.

 

Bill, of course I'm talking about CTAF Rs because they have mandatory radio in Class G. There's no point debating mandatory radio in Class C because that is ICAO and there's a third party. Radio is already mandatory in Class C. So we are just talking about Class G here.

 

Bill I'm not saying we shouldn't have and use radio, we should. I'm saying it is IMPOSSIBLE to mandate radio in any airspace without a third party confirmation because there is no way of knowing the radio is working, which means there could be in effect "no radio" aircraft in mandatory radio airspace. That is why ICAO won't do it.

 

Plus, constant position reports by VFR aircraft on area frequencies (I'm not talking about CTAFs now) blocks air traffic controllers from SEPARATING IFR aircraft in cloud. Now that is reducing safety.

 

If you are a local, you'll know where other aircraft are when they use a local landmark. Others won't. They'll be searching on their WACs with no idea where the other aircraft is. Head down trying to find where the other aircraft is, not looking out in VMC. Read the regs. We are required by law to look out.

 

Don't believe my "opinion", spend some time reading the documents yourself. Look at where most collisions occur around the world, and if those aircraft have radio. Parafield - both aircraft had radio. 2RN - both aircraft had radio. Bankstown - both aircraft had radio. Hoxton Park - both aircraft had radio. That airline one in South America - both aircraft had radio. The airline one with the Swiss controller (in Germany I think) - both had radio. Tenerife - both aircraft had radio.

 

You might also want to consider other types of safety because collisions are not really all that common. We've lost more people to CFIT accidents in Australia, but no one here is calling for mandatory EGPWS fitment or instrument training.

 

Maybe CASA should "mandate" that all aircraft should be IFR, triple redundancy glass cockpit two crew, with air bags, emergency slides, EGPWS, TCAS, RVSM, weather radar, cockpit voice recorders, flight data recorders, fixed ELTs. That would all add to safety, so shouldn't it be mandated? Of course it shouldn't - some aircraft couldn't even get airborne, and we sure couldn't afford to fly them.

 

Anyway, I'm going around in circles. As I said, mandatory radio in all aircraft in all airspace won't happen, so there's no point going on about it.

 

 

[BigPete]

.....I think the "being on the wrong frequency" argument is frankly lame.....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.

Well said octave - being on the wrong frequency is just another example of poor airmanship.

 

regards

 

 

[Mazda]

Well Pete, in that case there are plenty of airline crews who have poor airmanship. People make mistakes, and it isn't just being on the wrong frequency, in some cases it is because they are juggling between radios.

 

 

[Guest Brett Campany]

I can understand peoples reasons not to have a radio, mandated or not. I still believe it's a safety issue if you don't have one. Regardless of where you are!

 

I've heard to many stories of an RPT aircraft (regional airliner) coming into towns like Busselton, Albany, Geraldton, Albury, Broken Hill, Moree etc and having to confront an RAAus aircraft with either no radio or a pilot who doesn't use their radio and then nearly coming to grief with that aircraft because they had no idea about another aircraft in the circuit. The day one of our aircraft comes together with a regional airliner killing up to 30 people, everything will change for us in RAAus. So to avoid a disaster like that why not mandate radio's in RAAus aircraft. If you can promise me, actually if you can guarantee me that an incident like that won't happen then I'll drop the whole mandating radio subject.

 

There are many,many private airfields in G Class airspace. Some of the members here are owners of those strips and fly from them on a regular basis. Now it might not happen often but every now and then another aircraft, GA or RAAus, will be transiting the area. How would either pilot know if the other is there?

 

Also, have you ever seen a geophysics aircraft at work? These guys fly all over the country, in G Class airspace at extremely low level and at a decent rate of knots as well. Personally I'd like to know where they are and really with our aircraft, the only way I'm going to know that is by having my radio on and maintaining a listening watch.

 

It's just a matter of safety guys, it might cost a few dollars to get it sorted out in each aircraft but what is it going to save us down the track? Maybe your life or the life of others.

 

 

[turboplanner]

The current Australian Airspace Policy Statement (which is the Airspace Act, i.e. the law) says that Australia is moving to the National Airspace System, which means standard Class G with no radio requirement.

Where's Qerty?

 

How did he suck us all into this argument?

 

 

[Guest Qwerty]

Where's Qerty?How did he suck us all into this argument?

I'm still here, I'm just watching, thinking. There is a structural problem with the way that there threads are presented. I haven't come up with a solution yet which is why I haven't said anything. The problem is that in cases like this where informed comment is sought and it is finally posted (thanks Mazda , 10:36 today) it then gets lost and many poor sods keep posting the same comments which in some instances could be seen to be uninformed and illconsidered. Any thoughts??

 

Cheers qwerty

 

 

[turboplanner]

No thoughts, they take off like a bushfire and half the time that makes them better, so I guess we should just emphasise that it might be a good idea to carefully read Mazda's Post and give him a star for the day.

 

 

[Guest Qwerty]

Where's Qerty?How did he suck us all into this argument?

Spelling check, Qwerty = Quentin Winston Erty (Old family names)

 

Cheers

 

 

[turboplanner]

Sorry Qwerty, you know us Mainlanders can't spell.

 

Wish I was on that beach though

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

Also, have you ever seen a geophysics aircraft at work? These guys fly all over the country, in G Class airspace at extremely low level and at a decent rate of knots as well. Personally I'd like to know where they are and really with our aircraft, the only way I'm going to know that is by having my radio on and maintaining a listening watch.

Or you could try checking the NOTAMS

 

Cheers

 

John

 

 

[jetjr]

Last few NOTAMS for our survey area, said something like "Survey Acft working below 10000 ft" and then give 6 grid ref covering something like half the state with an open time line of between 0730 and 2200 local time and the notam was active for weeks- couldnt be bothered updating NOTAMS accurately

 

More support for use of radio in regional areas

 

Earlier ones last year at least said they were working in the vicinity if Yxxx and for around 3-4 hrs per day

 

They do make calls on departure and give intentions though. Certainly talk back if you give calls overflying somewhere near them

 

JR

 

 

[Captain]

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.

If there was a vote on this I would cast in favour of mandatory radio carriage.

 

And if you can't afford a good radio then you can't afford to fly.

 

While it is impossible to guarantee their correct use, when used well they are in INVALUABLE aid to situational awareness ..... but that doesn't mean you should assume that everyone is on the right frequency.

 

So I couldn't disagree more with Qwerty.

 

 

[farri]

WRT RAA I am just a newbie...only been around the scene for a very short while.farri, that wasn't what I meant. I do not think you had an instructor to teach you any habits (not having a go, you did teach yourself to fly...didn't you?) I did and I did learn habits from my instructor(s)

 

QUOTE]

 

Skybum I get you point but just between you and me,you`re absolutely correct,mate,I had no instructors to teach me their bad habits.

 

I had a go at GA before I chose Ultralights,reckoned it wasn`t for me though,I thought that was just for getting from point A to B.

 

I built a Chinook WT2 from scratch before I knew what made them fly and when I started learning to fly Ultralights, twin seat instruction in Ultralight aircraft wasn`t yet legal and if you could find an instructor somewhere in the country,they had to stand on the ground and watch you fly,I reckoned that wouldn`t be of much help to me either so why bother and radios what radios.

 

If I told you of all the aircraft that I`ve flown since then,you`d say I was skyting so I won`t,but what I will tell you is that a lot of water has gone under the bridge since then and what I think today has nothing to do with back then.

 

Cheers and all the best to you.

 

Frank.

 

Ps,Sorry this is off topic.

[Steve Donald]

do we need to mandate radios

 

There has been many responces to this, however i believe we should move in this direction, sure lot's of what if's can occur like radio failure every thing can fail that is life, but you should st art out with the best of safety in mind as your benchmark.

 

i really dont think it is responsible or fair to enter buzy airfields or CTAFS without COMS. it is worrying when inbound or in circuit to suddenly observe an unannounced aircraft, in your vicinity and then you have to assume the intentions and then wonder if the other aircraft can see you, and what if the aircraft has diverted due to some problem a radio would solve all of this if needed including priority circuit position or a modified circuit most of the time, they are cheap and reliable, as a duty of care to all other flyer's including the many regional RPT that traverse our County, the radio is just a safety tool and in no way replaces a vigilant lookout or induces apathy all it does is to enable communication, i dont care about the quality of a radio call that i hear but i am gratefull for the information as i know that the safety of myself and passenger has just been improved, this can go on as there are many other valid reasons why a radio on board is very worthwhile, reporting fires or anouther aircraft that may be in trouble, wow i will stop as i cannot believe anyone would not want a radio, you can get a handheld for $350 hec you cant even fly more than 50 NM without a ELT they cost $600 or so and they are mandatory, i would pick a Radio over a ELT anyday. thats my 2 bob's worth Happy flying and stay safe

 

 

[Yenn]

Here is a challenge. Fit a radio to a plane or take it in a plane and use it for $350. I am not talking about finding a one off el cheapo second hand unit, but something any one of us can lay our hands on.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Make it reasonable - let's say $600.00, about three dual lessons.

 

 

[Mazda]

As I've said, my TSOd radio, fitted, with an intercom, with various problems being sorted, was closer to $7,000. That's not the point though.What is the safety issue being addressed? Let's say it is lack of radio use in CTAFs. So look at the ATSB incident reports. Are these incidents mainly the result of aircraft which do not have radios fitted? No, they are not. They are radio equipped aircraft on the wrong frequency or with a radio or electrical failure. Mandating radio will NOT fix this. Those aircraft already have radio.Don't believe me, go to the ATSB website and have a look yourself.Mandating radio fitment will not improve compliance, so what is the point of making it mandatory? People can still carry and use radios without it being mandated.If you want to improve compliance, mandatory fitment is not the answer, it is third party confirmation at places where this is necessary.

 

 

[Guest Qwerty]

Dear MazdaStop bashing your head against a brick wall. In some situations there is a right and correct understanding and then there is a wrong understanding. This is such a situation. There is no point in trying to educate those who will not make any effort to understandand but prefer to barge on ahead rationalizing their untenable position with ill-informed or un-informed information and faulty logic.These same people will inevitably cite the poll results above in support of their position. The majority are not necessarily right but that too I feel is beyond their grasp.I have difficulty believing the lack of ability in critical thought in the majority of the population of Australia.Here is a statistic that you might find amusing: On average, half of the people that you deal with will be of bolw average intelligence.Cheers.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Well Quentin, looking at it another way 66 out of approx 8,000 RAA members are in favour of it.

 

 

[Guest Qwerty]

Heartening when you put it like that. Only 0.00825 % have demonstrated that they need lessons on critical thought. Thanks Turbz, I was feeling a bit dejected till you pointed that out.

 

 

[Yenn]

OK turboplanner $600 it is. Now how can you achieve it?

 

 

[turboplanner]

How much do you want for yours?

 

 

[Thx1137]

so I guess we should just emphasise that it might be a good idea to carefully read Mazda's Post and give him a star for the day.

Yes, a good read and I think he is quite right. I think I have swung to the "not make radios mandatory" side although personally, I will always carry one, a hand held if need be. I have experienced many calls and thought "where the heck is that!" so I can relate to that element of the post well but I do like letting others know what I am doing and getting a heads up if any traffic is coming my way.

 

For me it is a cost/benefit ratio thing (cost doesn't just mean $$$). It seems to me that maybe the current levels of radio usage is doing the job because if we think about one of the prime reasons we want them, to enhance situational awareness then given the number of accidents because of non-carriage of radio maybe the current situation is ok. Anyone have examples of accidents where the causing factor was no radio?

 

Sometimes I think we throw out the baby with the bath water in these discussions, IE: if radio is not mandatory then you must think no one should carry one or if you think radio is mandatory then that means you think we don't have to look outside for other aircraft at all. I guess it shows the subject is close to the heart for some of us.

 

Steven.