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

[Tracktop]

Ray. The only way we can show how responsible we are is to do it of our own accord. having it mandated for us is not the answer. You are correct in that most of us have radio fitted, but most of us also keep a good lookout, and as I found at Bundy the radio will not let you know where all the aircraft are when it is busy. All it does is alert you to the fact that there are others about.

It would appear that mostly we already do that so I cannot see the problem, surely to have any weight in a bargaining / negotiation situation for something else it needs mandating.

 

We all understand the limitations and failings of the radio so whatever its status I don't see that it would cause people reduce their lookout. It is just tool to assist in that function.

 

Remember all cars have blinkers but any driver worth their salt still keeps a good lookout and use caution in case the signals or lack of signals provide the wrong indication of intention.

 

ozzie - I have thought long and hard about this.

 

Where I would like to fly in the future is to see as much of Australia as I can, so area or remoteness doesn't put any particular ac out of my potential ( wishful) range. Your also pretty close to my home field too.

 

As I said before from a selfish point of view I think everyone should have/ use one so they can hear me, and tell me what they are doing.

 

Probably something else to consider is when I look around this sport I see a hell of a lot of grey hair and glasses. As we get older our eyesight becomes less acute ( before I get shot down I am not suggesting inadequate). My guess is that on overall average rec flyers compared to GA would have less ac spotting ability, based on my assumption that many GA are younger and trying to or are in a career situation. So assistance in keeping a good lookout is generally more important to Rec aviation. :stirring pot:

 

Ray

 

 

[turboplanner]

I think there is too much concentration on radios vs eyes. We don't suddenly fail to use elevators when we use rudder, and the percentage of people failing to use radio correctly is probably identical to the percentage failing to keep a good lookout.

 

The big plus with radio is communication - you can warn someone, they can get a warning that someone is close, and in a busy circuit, particularly doing touch and goes, you get to know where everyone is by the turning calls, and you can tell if someone's catching up on you etc.

 

Radio adds detail to your local area.

 

As such it produces a Nett increase in safety.

 

 

[bushpilot]

Definately (except for hang gliders - which are a/c, but generally dont fly into formal airfields). But having radios alone isnt enough; pilots have to use them properly. We had an instance recently at our local regional aerodrome where a Jab with pilot and student took off using all the correct protocols and a visitor was arriving at same time on wrong frequency.. Visitor did a straight in in the opposite direction to the active runway and the 2 a/c were heading on a collision course. Our pilot averted, but as he turned sharply away to avoid collision the separation was down to 200 - 300 metres. Scary.

 

 

[Guest blakey36]

I had an incident years ago where I"m glad that aircraft are fitted with radios...I was tracking East at 2000ft when a indistinct soft voiced pilot issued a call...I was about to request a repeat, when my CFI came up and asked if I got the call I said no he then told me I had an aircraft tracking South at the same level immediately I started to descended to 1500 ft just in time for within seconds the aircraft passed over 200ft above me...So I am all in favour of ALL AIRCRAFT carrying radios and pilots trained properly in their use with a good clear voice.

 

Bryan:kboom:

 

 

[turboplanner]

Bushpilot, I think I know who that was - likes to do downwind landings

 

Blakey - how could you be so picky? What about the "freedoms we fought for"?

 

That would mean a bit of revision before each flight for a month or so.

 

 

[Guest blakey36]

Bushpilot, I think I know who that was - likes to do downwind landingsBlakey - how could you be so picky? What about the "freedoms we fought for"?

 

That would mean a bit of revision before each flight for a month or so.

Well Turbo I guess I'd sooner be alive to enjoy those freedoms and as an ex RSM " Those who speak the clearest get heard by all" RSM's Creedo.

 

Bryan

 

 

[turboplanner]

That's a very convincing argument Blakey.

 

(I probably took some of those orders - I was in a Guard which stepped as one - took a bit of practice).

 

 

[Guest blakey36]

Now I understand why you fly a Jab Turbo...Trying to keep one step ahead.

 

Bryan

 

 

[Yenn]

I thought tha RSM's motto was those that speak the loudest, not clearest. I served with the loudest voiced RSM in the British army. Pity is that clearness, loudness and intelligence are not necessarily lumped together.

 

 

[Guest blakey36]

I thought tha RSM's motto was those that speak the loudest, not clearest. I served with the loudest voiced RSM in the British army. Pity is that clearness, loudness and intelligence are not necessarily lumped together.

Yes, but loudest is not neccessarily the clearest...The clearest orders are not easily misunderstood...The loudest can be...As RSM Brittain would always say...And by the way it is Creedo...not Motto...As RSM I only had one Motto 'Do as you're bloody told or you will serve the longest Latrine duty ever.'

 

Bryan

 

 

[Guest Juliette Lima]

Very early in this discussion it was suggested that lookout somehow suffered at the expense of preoccupation with radio.....arriving home from the North after a couple of hours flying only to find four trainers doing touch and go's....an aircraft calling inbound behind me but significantly faster than my 65kt.....two announcing their inbound attention from the East and Southeast, and I have to say my lookout is ELECTRIC !

 

A few years ago I flew gliders in Tasmania and the club decreed radio was mandatory.....Before turning downwind aircraft had to call base so that the club ute could race up an down the strip to clear off the sheep.

 

Maybe my pro mandatory vote was influenced by one lone critter known as the 'mad ram' who was completely non-conformist when confronted with the clearing ute....he made our landings interesting on occasions.

 

Cheers

 

JL

 

 

[Exadios]

Maybe my pro mandatory vote was influenced by one lone critter known as the 'mad ram' who was completely non-conformist when confronted with the clearing ute....he made our landings interesting on occasions.

I find that sheep usually haul ass as soon as they see a glider on final.

 

 

[jetjr]

If you want to protect your freedoms then maybe you have to stay ahead of changes and not let the regulators do it for you as they will implement harder and more rigid rules.

 

If Someone else decides we will have mandated radio then maybe it will be TSO, annually checked radio,

 

If we had them already it wouldnt draw much attention

 

JR

 

 

[Guest Brett Campany]

Mike and I were talking about this mandating radio requirement and there is some valid reasons behind some aircraft owners not having them such as these guys who only fly in and around their farms away from any populated airfields.

 

So how about a ruling where an aircraft which operates within a 25nm radius of its base airfield and is not within 150nm from a populated airfield, CTAF / CTAF ®, does not require the carriage of a radio. There might also be a height restriction above AGL so in the event of an aircraft transiting within that 25nm radius would not be in any danger of colliding with that aircraft. For example, not above 1500ft AGL.

 

Of course these distances can be debated within this post but would something like this satisfy the pilots who are against mandating the carriage of radios? If not, then what kind of requirements would satisfy these pilots?

 

 

[Mazda]

You do realise that all this speculation would require a scientifically based cost/benefit study and safety study before implementation. I'm sorry, but opinion isn't good enough to experiment with untested ideas.What's wrong with ICAO and already proven procedures?If radio is NOT mandated, you CAN still carry and use it you know, and just about everyone does. The issue is not whether radios are fitted, it is about compliance with procedures.Have any of you looked at the ATSB weekly summaries yet? How many radio non compliance incidents seem to be caused by aircraft without radios? Go on, have a look.

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

Of course these distances can be debated within this post but would something like this satisfy the pilots who are against mandating the carriage of radios?

No !

If not, then what kind of requirements would satisfy these pilots?

I'm quite satisfied with the safety of the current requirements. I am however open to persuasion by some evidence to the contrary. Cheers John

[Kiwi]

If you want my opinion or even if you don’t, I’m against mandatory radios.

 

However, if you fly at a busy airfield, it is good airmanship to have and use a radio,

 

(I have 2 in my Drifter) but they should never be relied on.

 

On a side note, at my airfield you can have 4 to 5 gliders as well as 4 to 5 powered aircraft in the circuit at one time. If every pilot calls Taxing, Lining up, Crosswind, Downwind, Base, Final and Clear of Runway, They become as good as useless. So how about using some commonsense, If you are near to or from a active airfield it is Good Airmanship to have and to use a radio. But please don’t hog the airways as there are only 4 calls that must be made.

 

* When the aircraft enters the "vicinity of an aerodrome"

 

* Immediately before joining the circuit pattern or, in the case of a straight-in approach, at least 5 NM from the threshold of the runway

 

* Immediately before, or during, taxiing

 

* Immediately before entering a runway.

 

<www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_90471>

 

Kiwi.

 

 

[skeptic36]

You do realise that all this speculation would require a scientifically based cost/benefit study and safety study before implementation. I'm sorry, but opinion isn't good enough to experiment with untested ideas.What's wrong with ICAO and already proven procedures?If radio is NOT mandated, you CAN still carry and use it you know, and just about everyone does. The issue is not whether radios are fitted, it is about compliance with procedures.Have any of you looked at the ATSB weekly summaries yet? How many radio non compliance incidents seem to be caused by aircraft without radios? Go on, have a look.

Hi Mazda,

 

A couple of points,

 

1) I had a look at the ATSB site and although I didn't go through it all, in the incident reports I looked at, lack of an installed radio was not the problem where it could have been issue. I am not sure what this proves. For example if 1 in 100 aircraft doesn't have a radio and they are all equally safe there will be 99 aircraft turn up in an accident report that has radio for every 1 aircraft that doesn't. If the non radio aircraft is half as safe (I'm not suggesting this is the case) then the ratio will be

 

48.5 to 1, that is if we assume the aircraft are all clocking the same hours under the same conditions. As this can never be the case, no matter which way I look at it I cannot see the relevance of ATSB reports to this debate.

 

2) I am sure you are correct in saying that our opinions do not carry enough weight to change anything, but I don't think that is a reason to abandon the discussion. Discussion and debate are healthy and we can all learn things from each other even if sometimes we don't realise we are learning.

 

Regards Bill

 

 

[GraemeK]

I had a look at the ATSB site and although I didn't go through it all, in the incident reports I looked at, lack of an installed radio was not the problem where it could have been issue. I am not sure what this proves.

Yep - Mazda's posts also encouraged me to look at the ATSB data (that's gotta be a plus - there's some interesting stuff there)!

 

And the thing that struck me was almost all were in CTA, where radio is required anyway. And I reckon this is because this stuff gets reported (VCA etc) because there's someone listening. The stuff that happens out there in GAAP or Class G by and large won't make it to the ATSB list because there's no-one out there watching.

 

SO - the ATSB data really doesn't help the argument in any way - we really don't know how many near misses in our airspace could have been avoided by radio. The ATSB stuff is a real red herring IMHO.

 

My position is still that I wouldn't consider flying without a radio, and I think everyone should have one, it's just one less hole to line up in the cheese. But I would stop short of mandating it.

 

 

[Mazda]

GAAP data IS recorded. Don't just look at the reports, read the weekly summaries. CTAF and CTAF® data is recorded too. There are plenty of incidents there, including ones involving airline aircraft using the wrong frequency where radio is "mandated."

 

 

[GraemeK]

GAAP data IS recorded. Don't just look at the reports, read the weekly summaries. CTAF and CTAF® data is recorded too. There are plenty of incidents there, including ones involving airline aircraft using the wrong frequency where radio is "mandated."

Weekly summaries was what I was looking at! And yes, of course there is CTAF stuff reported there, just not very many - which was my whole point!

 

And my understanding is that no records are kept of CTAF radio communications - hence any incidents in Class G are likely to be under reported. Thus the ATSB weekly summaries cannot properly answer your question "How many radio non compliance incidents seem to be caused by aircraft without radios?" - the data is incomplete. That was the only point I was trying to make.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

CTAF'S are recorded.. I had an incident once and asked for the tapes to be pulled, but as it turned out they don't record the PAL frequency which is what the REX skippa was operating on.. In the end they told me even if it was recorded they wouldn't give me a copy due to a privacy clause with the airlines....join the dots on that one..

 

hey look, apparently this is my first post....ever...sweeet...

 

 

[Guest Brett Campany]

hey look, apparently this is my first post....ever...sweeet...

weird......

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Nah, fixed now...

 

 

[rolo_ford]

no to compulsary radio

 

I say no to compulsory radio, unless the need to get a radio endorsement is abolished or at least easier to qualify for.

 

It seems ridicules to me that if I carry a radio so that I can communicate the other air traffic in my area ( class G airspace) for safety purposes that I have to be the holder of a radio endorsement.