Should the carriage of a radio become compulsary in all aircraft?

[BLA82]

Here it is,

 

 

[Guest Brett Campany]

And in response to Adam Holt, I fly the Sportcruiser, Fly Synthesis Texan and Storch on a regular basis. Got about 32 hours under my belt so far and been actively flying RAAus since Nov 2008.

 

But I've been involved in aviation since I was a young bloke but more directly since Oct 2007.

 

 

[Tomo]

I like radio, I've grown up using a UHF on the farm and it's a great source of communication.

 

When I'm flying around our place in the Drifter, there's no point in radioing then, so I don't. But I think you should take the responsibility on yourself and have and USE the radio near any sort of aerodrome where acft are flying regularly, it's for your own good really!

 

So really what I'm probably trying to say is what Turbo said in a previous thread, If your just going to fly out of paddocks and never go near an active aerodrome, well what point will a radio be?! But If you fly from both, which I'm sure most of us would at some time or other, ie flyins etc... going to town... It doesn't take much to add a handheld radio to your dashboard....?!

 

So, I'm going to vote... (it's not on there) "Radio carriage be used where applicable"

 

Ps. Also in response to Adam: I've been flying since January 09, and fly the Drifter and Jabiru acft, Have got about 28hrs in the Drifter, & 6hrs in the Jab, both fitted with radio's, that are used.

 

 

[jetjr]

YES

 

And I also think a brief call stating intentions when flying around the farm would be cheap insurance too - why not?

 

Used to do it when doing farm tours near Broken Hill every time - truly scary how often you got a reply

 

JR

 

 

[facthunter]

Purpose.

 

May I point out that the essence of the question is COMPULSORY, not what you do with your radio, or whether it is a good idea to have one. IF you vote YES you are MANDATING them for all aircraft with the ramifications that that position entails. (read Mazda's posts.)Nev

 

 

[facthunter]

Continue .

 

Then you might progress the matter by a enlightening us why you would want radio compulsory on ALL aircraft, since that is the thread starter. Nev

 

 

[Mazda]

Hey, why not ban climbing a rock and ban water bottles too ... Oh, hang on, we have.

 

Talk about the nanny state!

 

Whatever happened to making a command decision?

 

 

[Mazda]

In fact, why don't we make CB radios compulsory in all cars, so we can arrange separation on the road? You can't be too careful you know.

 

 

[facthunter]

Again.

 

The question is COMPULSORY ON ALL AIRCRAFT and the YES answer is YES DEFINATELY. Is that what all the people who voted yes actually want? If so I would call upon at least a few of the 68 percent who voted that way to explain why if their wishes were complied with a lot of minimal and other aircraft would be FORCED to fit radio and essentially ALL common CTAF's would become CTAF R and so on. Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

Well Mazda, we don't have rear vision mirrors, we can't jam on the brakes, our vision is affected by wings etc. and I work in the transport Industry and have a CB where it's common these days to hear two truckies working a B Double into a difficult parking point where the first driver has massive blind spots, and the most interesting command decision I've seen was when a hang glider dude opted not to follow his check procedure and jumped off a rock without attaching the hang glider - all interesting stuff,

 

but as Facthunter says the vote here is to mandate radios, and I would have thought this wouldn't affect an Airtourer pilot from Camden, where the radio has probably been in the aircraft for 40 years, but just the very low cost Drifter type operator, many of which stay well away from any competing traffic - so the poll is really saying at the moment that THEY must fit radios, and that's what needs to be focussed on, because that will have a major impact on them.

 

 

[Guest Qwerty]

...... I want other a/c to know what I'm doing & I would like to know what other a/c are doing. Now I know stuff ups occur (wrong freq, dead TX, dead RX, scratchy TX etc. etc.) .......

I want other pilots to be so scared about other planes flying about that they actually look out the window.

 

I'm sick of this argument, I have proved to myself yet again that it is just plain stupid of me to apply logic and clear analysis in any public debate. If there was any merit in compulsory radios, if it was in any way enforcable or if it made any sense at all I have a sneaking suspicion that CASA would have somehow stumbled across the idea decades ago and applied an appropriate reg.

 

I'm going flying..................with my radio.

 

Mazda, next time you are in Tas let me know, I'll but you a coffee.

 

Cheers, David.

 

 

[eastmeg2]

I've always flown with a radio, but if I'm just going for a short local flight (within 5nm radius) out of our farm I don't even turn it on unless there there are other aircraft whose pilots are there on that day and might possibly fly.

 

As for longer flights, the radio's always switched on, either to Goulburn CTAF® or the area frequency depending on my intended flight.

 

One thing I always thought the Garmin296 was missing on longer flights is area frequency information. Or am I missing something?

 

So, I've voted "No way", though probably in vain as it's well and truly established already that we are a "Nanny State" and will always be treated like children so that Pollies can cover their backsides and insurance companies can keep our money.

 

 

[Mazda]

Thanks qwerty!!

 

Turbo, I'm on your side here, I don't want compulsory radio. Actually Turbo, the Airtourer has a TSOd radio and intercom, which cost $7,000 fitted.

 

I typed out a huge answer, but somehow i dropped offline and lost it all!

 

Ambidji did a report on CTAFs and recommended getting rid of CTAF®s because there is no improvement in compliance.

 

That's the thing you need to consider. What is the risk you are addressing here? Will making radios compulsory improve safety? Of course it won't.

 

Most people have radios anyway, the problem is that they are on the wrong frequency or the radio fails. You can mandate 10,000 radios in each aircraft, but people will still make mistakes and be on the wrong frequency - effectively with no radio.

 

The ONLY way to improve compliance is to have a third party on the frequency to make sure your radio is working - a controller, a unicom, an AFRU. That's why ICAO only mandates radio in airspace where you are talking to a controller. (Or do we know better than ICAO?)

 

In the UK people fly in bad weather, and join on base leg to a grass strip, with no radio. In the USA they don't even have an enroute VFR area frequency. Oh, that's right, we have a 20th of the aircraft here, we must know better.

 

If radio is "mandated" and you are in a glider and your battery dies, you are breaking the law. Imagine if your car battery went flat, maybe you left your lights on, so the police issued you with a fine. That's what mandating radio will do, without improving safety at all.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Don't have any problem with any of this, or the nanny State etc or THEM, and I see that Tasmania has seceded again, but what Facthunter pointed out was it was US - members of the Recreational Flyers formum, not RAA and not CASA who had put up such an overwhelming vote to force rag and tubers to carry radios.....maybe they just haven't come on line, but I'm surprised they are not putting up any arguments.

 

 

[GraemeK]

Personally, I reckon everyone should have a radio and use it - just one more thing to help stop the holes lining up in the cheese (although maybe offset by a tendency to be lulled into a sense of false security in CTAF and neglect looking out).

 

Just not sure about mandating it though.

 

(Jab 160, started Oct 2008).

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

Categorically NO !!!

 

Responsible pilots already use them when necessary. Irresponsible pilots don't but mandating them will make no difference. However a culture of believing everybody is making suitable broadcasts will inevitably diminish "see & avoid" - for future generations of pilots if not the current ones. As an aside radios aren't even compulsory in the UK which has far more aircraft crammed into a tiny fraction of the uncontrolled airspace we have here. AFAIK, it hasn't been the cause of any mid-airs there and the recent spate here have all been between radio equipped aircraft IIRC.

 

Very disappointing that 2/3 of poll seem to genuinely believe that making radio carriage compulsory will have a positive safety benefit.

 

John

 

PS for Adam survey I mostly fly trikes & Tecnam's - AUF member since 1997 & BMAA member since 1993. I suspect this wouldn't be the typical profile of most of the Yes voters ?

 

 

[BLA82]

New Members

 

The one thing I noticed on this poll is the amount of emphasis put on how long people have been a member of RA-AUS. Does it make the slightest difference, NO!!!

 

RA-AUS as an organisation wants to grow so it markets itself as a friendly self administered organisation yet when the new members that have joined have a say it gets pointed out that we havent been here since the early days so back off.

 

I believe everybody has the same right to an opinion and if there are people who don't want new members making a change for whatever topic,rule etc than close the doors and have it your way.

 

 

[facthunter]

Different perspective.

 

BLA, I didn't take it that way. Some new members may not realise what this movement grew from and how fast it is changing. Some of the fliers of basic aircraft would be appalled at any move by our own group to mandate radio on ALL aircraft and some of them perhaps would not trust the future to people who vote so strongly to force someting on them that they do not want and in many cases, do not need. They could not be blamed for thinking that the current "mix" of participants would not look after their interests and that they would have to re-invent the wheel and start a microlite movement all over again.. The outcome of this poll is a very dangerous result for this group of aviators and I personally don't think that the "Yes" proponents have done a thorough job of thinking it through. Everyone is entitled to their view but it should be informed and people should be prepared for the consequences. Most people with my background wouldn't think as I do, I guess, but I won't go down that road. I don't think that a majority should so lightly sell out a minority. Nev..

 

 

[GraemeK]

I don't think that a majority should so lightly sell out a minority.

Absolutely - seems to me as a newcomer that the huge strength of the recreational movement is its great diversity in terms of experience and in terms of the machines it flies - bound together by the passion for flying for fun.

 

Think of the advances that have been driven by the rag and tube guys and the home builders, look at our avionics compared to most of the old GA stuff out there - the great beauty of less bureaucracy is that it allows innovation - whereas the GA regulatory framework stifles it (and probably should, too, where paying passengers are concerned).

 

So let's rejoice in our common enjoyment of recreational flying, and not obsess with what we fly or how long we've been doing it. And remember that we all contribute, and we need to respect each other's positions even if we disagree.

 

Apologies for thread drift.

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

The one thing I noticed on this poll is the amount of emphasis put on how long people have been a member of RA-AUS. Does it make the slightest difference, NO!!!RA-AUS as an organisation wants to grow so it markets itself as a friendly self administered organisation yet when the new members that have joined have a say it gets pointed out that we havent been here since the early days so back off.

 

I believe everybody has the same right to an opinion and if there are people who don't want new members making a change for whatever topic,rule etc than close the doors and have it your way.

The request to provide a bit of personal background was in one of the other threads in this debate and I too think it might be interesting to see if there is any particular demographic to the voting. It might be relevent but NOT because the input views of any particular profile are less significant.

 

For example - IF it is the case that a lot of positive votes came from students and recently qualified pilots that suggests they might feel uncomfortable or unsafe in the current non-mandatory radio environment and that would make me wonder if there was anything that can be done during training which might improve this situation. Equally it might mean that as a pilots experience increases their situational awareness naturally improves without an undue reliance on radio transmissions.

 

What ever the case I don't see that anybody is trying to get new members to "back off".

 

John

 

PS Or it could just mean that the "old gits" are more resistant to change ;-)

 

 

[Barefootpilot]

BLA, Sorry once again it was an interest thing as to why I ask about how long everyone had been a member for and what experiance they had purely as Crezzie has put it to guage the type of person voting either way.

 

It was stated that radio's only cost $500 to $1500 which isn't much in a $25,000 aircraft.... Well hang on lets look at something like a single seat Thruster. Cost is about $5000 for a good one. So add $500 for a hand held plus anttena hmm better put a battery and electical system in so the radio doesn't go flat thats another couple of thousand $$ whoops my $5000 machine now costs $10,000 and I now need a radio endorsment to fly it out of my back yard. Bugga hey?

 

Myself I've been a member for 5 years and when I fly RAA which isn't much anymore I fly my Thruster.

 

BTW Crezzie we have met a couple of times at Watts and Cab but that was a few years ago!

 

 

[jetjr]

Ive only heard a few reasons why NOT to carry radio

 

Mandate is unenforcable - using this logic why have a license or register your AC, no checks for this either unless theres an accident. Why have seatbelts, why mandate fuel reserves or weather checks or flight levels

 

Cost - you should be able to have a handheld and headset for not much $$, this is also the most laughable point to outsiders when safety is the issue

 

Most responsible pilots have them anyway - so why is it a problem to bring the others on line

 

If you have a radio you wont look out as hard - thats just pilot skill and responsibility, there will always be wrong channel/broken radio etc etc.

 

No one to respond - ask for a radio check some day, Melbourne will always help and Id be suprised if you couldnt get someone on the CTAF fairly regularly, lobby your council for a beepback service.

 

The other side here is 99% of the time your radio will be working and you will be on the right channel and so will be everyone else around you.

 

The concept that some dont turn radio on when flying is a worry. Id expect the mandate would be " have AND USE radio".

 

I have to fly around 800 miles of regional NSW and VIC each fortnight, I really hope I dont overfly some of the farms where guys go for a look around.

 

This would also indicate you are looking at the ground not keeping a lookout at the sky. Give a call and Ill be out of your way, keep in mind if clouds is low theres often VFR AC cruising around LSALT

 

All this talk of wrong channels etc is agreed however most larger AC will be watching at least 2 or more. Even new Microairs and Vertex handhelds can watch 2 at once.

 

I stand by what Ive said repeatedly that if everyone was listening is would add to the safety. Situational awareness

 

I appreciate where RAA has come from but agree with this development or not, this is a consequence of where it is headed, radios are also cheaper and better today too.

 

JR

 

 

[turboplanner]

The last two posts have convinced me.

 

 

[Skykid]

I I'm going to vote... (it's not on there) "Radio carriage be used where applicable"

I agree with ya on this man.

It is becoming a problem that pilots are using there raidos too much or in some cases there TCAS (if its a comercial flight or someone has got alot of cash). What ever happen to using the good old Mk 1 eye balls? I do believe that if the flight is going into airspace that has alot of traffic that there should be a radio onbord. Just makes things a bit safer. But thats just my two cents.

 

 

[Guest Qwerty]

QUOTE, Unattributed.

 

[.....I can't quite believe the way those threads have been going either, it is quite amazing. They don't seem to understand the difference between saying it is good to use radio, compared to saying radio (or transponders, ADS-B etc) should be mandatory when it can't work anyway. Maybe they should read the all the incidents in the ATSB weekly summaries for CTAF®s, where radios are mandatory and people are on the wrong frequency all the time. That includes airline crews.

 

 

 

I think you are right, I don't actually think the people saying radios should be compulsory are all that experienced because they can't see it has to depend on airspace and risk assessment. It's a dangerous path to go down, because if they want everything to be perfectly "safe" we'll end up with trikes needing to be IFR, glass cockpit, with TCAS, weather radar, two pilots, exit slides ... where will it end? And none of us will be able to afford to even fly a trike.]

 

The above was sent to me. It took me a full 5 miniutes to stop laughing. I hope it amuses others.

 

qwerty