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

[Yenn]

The reason for the rdio endorsement is to stop the airwaves being cluttered up by rubbish. Have a listen to the marine radio frequencies if you don't know what I mean.

 

If you have a radio endorsement you will have an idea of what you can do and say and what is forbidden. At the moment listening to CTAF frequencies shows how much control some people have over their broadcasts. There is one pilot I have heard a few times who instead of giving the required reports seems to be reading a novel.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

Marine radio rubbish chit chat? thats a 'romeo'

 

short novel readers your not referring to ivan from shute are you

 

 

[Yenn]

Not Shute, but Emu Park.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

Yeah he gets around that area.

 

i heard he upgraded from the C150.

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Are you guys talking about Ivan the Marrage celebant who doubles as the Elvis impersonator ?. If so , he was flying a C 172 last time I was at Shute.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

Are you guys talking about Ivan the Marrage celebant who doubles as the Elvis impersonator ?. If so , he was flying a C 172 last time I was at Shute.

Yeah. i had heard he upgraded a while back. his old 150 would be a top buy.fully optioned. he loves his radio, does a country and western hour on the local radio station. i wrote a short story on him for Pac flyer about 10 years ago.Ozzie

 

 

[Barefootpilot]

Ah good old Ivan he was always good fun even when the weather turned to s**t while doing a wedding on the beach! That C150 was nice... but its still a C150!

 

 

[Yenn]

Since we have had CTAF's and cumpolsory use of radios if they are fitted in the plane, we are getting more and more radio calls. Now 126.7 is the usual preferred frequency and I can hear calls from 200 miles away, so it can get quite busy at time.

 

It is not unusual to not be able to give the required calls on time because someone is reading a novel or in some way hogging the airwaves. We also have the congestion at busy airports, where there are so many calls that they cannot all be located in the air. In both cases we are back to see and avoid.

 

I noticed in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking which is out now and in the Annexe with it that it seems all our lectirung and examination taking for human resources seems to have been discounted and is put forward as if we had never heard of it.

 

My response to the question is a firm NO. It is of no benefit outback and questionable closer in.

 

 

[Mazda]

I'm not one for mandatory radio either, but note that the first part of the NPRM specifies "recommended" calls, not mandatory calls. I do like that.

 

I also like the other parts of the NPRM that have been slipped in - things like final no longer legally having to be at least 500 metres long. That change is great for small, slow types doing 500' circuits.

 

To me it really looks as though this NPRM has been written with lower performance aircraft in mind, so do read through all of it before abandoning the whole proposal. In the response you can accept and reject each key point offered. It's not just about radio, it's about operation at non-towered airports.

 

Having read the preamble I can see the problem. I think CASA is trying to introduce the other changes to help us people flying lower performance RA-Aus and GA aircraft - things like the shorter final leg, the flexibility to join on base, the ability to do a 3 mile straight in approach instead of 5 miles (and I hope in time the 3 miles will be shortened). It's all for us. Even the mandatory radio requirement has two separate ways of operating into these airports if you don't have a working radio.

 

I'm hoping that little clause may also help people to realise that even though radio is "mandated", there could still be non-radio aircraft operating there, so a good lookout is still important.

 

The problem is that some airline pilots are pretty set in their ways - you know the ones. I can see it. "I don't want ultralight bugsmashing amateurs flying into the circuit willy-nilly from all over the place while I'm there in my Dash 8, especially when they don't need a radio."

 

Yes, we have CTAF®s, but the NPRM correctly outlines that there are busy RPT airports where radio is not required, and not so busy airports where radio is required. Plus having two systems can lead to people making mistakes. Having one system is much simpler - and CASA won't need to have staff (that we pay for) constantly checking every airport/air route to keep the CTAF®s up to date.

 

If you were a regulator, what would you do?

 

I do like the inclusion of clauses to be able to fly in and out of these airports without radio - that is what has been missing in previous legislation.

 

The "vicinity" part is the bit that could get us though, because if you have a private strip 5 miles from an airport and you operate from there without radio, it could be a problem. However in saying that, vicinity is defined as being in the normal approach height and within 10 miles. So if you are operating at say 1,000 feet 10 miles away, that's not "in the vicinity" because it isn't in "approach" airspace.

 

I really think CASA is trying to help us with this one, keep in mind if they don't get agreement from the airlines we won't get the extra flexibility offered here, there has to be a bit of compromise.

 

Do read through all of the documents in detail with an open mind.

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Well said Mazda. I went through and submitted the NPRM as I saw fit , item by item. The important thing also is that, I as a member, actually recieved it and notification by Email, from the RA-Aus CEO. Instead of reading in the next magazine that 'the board' had made a decision on this or that. I am now being consulted as a member, and I am now 'in the loop', for what it is worth.

 

 

[Yenn]

Maj.

 

The notification by RAAus was good and hopefully we will get more of it. It cannot cost RAAus much and is a great way for the members to become involved. I suppose the only downside could be too many poorly thought out responses flooding the system.

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Yenn, yes I guess that is a possibility. I wouldn't have minded a "this is what we recommend" being included by RA Aus. I would have looked at it, and compared it to what I may have thought. I do remember they did that a couple of times in the past. Maybe CASA prefers individual responses, I don't know...................................

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

Individual responses seems to be the go these days, the old mass petition and group protest is pretty well dead. Our little village is currently fighting some over ambitious developers who want to wack in some really high density housing and want to have us rezoned from semi rural to residential. After a lot of hard work by the missus and her friends found out that all the signatures on the petitions were worthless as the council 'forgot' to inform the action committee that individual responses were required. i think the reason being is it is easy to get someone to add the signature to a sheet of paper after quickly explaining why they should support the cause rather than get them to spend 5 minutes either writing their own response or reading a pre written one out ling the whole mission statement. Govenments and such working on the laziness and general disinterest of individuals that creates less oposition against the subject. apathy rules.