Aircraft without radios

[turboplanner]

No need to get over-excited Kasper, he said he had his radio out of the aircraft when he hit the wire, so couldn't call for help.

 

Like a born again Christian, he's just taking no chances now.

 

What would be good is if all aircraft had a working, quality radio (that can hear and be heard clearly by everyone in the circuit), and the pilot had studied radio terminology and procedures - something that was pretty much standard in the late '60's of the last century.

 

That combination would be good for safe operations in any congested airports right up to the Capital City GA airports and we wouldn't need to have this discussion.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Guy's/GirlsI have received a PM from a fellow member indicating that my language may not have been appropriate for this forum in this, I can only assume this was relating to my comments around being a moron, I apologize if I have offended anyone but please understand the importance of having and using a radio in your aircraft.

Aldo

PC alternative words might be:

 

In the place of moron: negligent

 

In the place of complete moron: culpably negligent

 

The IQ level would probably be down the scale though.

 

 

[Aldo]

PC alternative words might be:In the place of moron: negligent

In the place of complete moron: culpably negligent

 

The IQ level would probably be down the scale though.

Turbo

 

Nah fair is fair (I was a bit out of line) I was just over some of the reluctance to accept that a radio actually enhances your spatial awareness and improves safety by a large factor.

 

Aldo

 

 

[spacesailor]

I think a very old film I saw, should be mandatory viewing , its title is "1984 big brother is watching you" or something close to that.

 

I have more than one radio operators certificate but now need a "ground to air radio certificate".

 

Has any one on this forum got one!.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[dutchroll]

Sorry but this is a post that IS exactly the slippery slope other posts have mentioned....

I mentioned that, and no it's not.

 

so next is what? a second portable ELB just in case, mandatory modes S with ADSB, fire extibuisher by every door (god forbid you don't have doors) and full airframe recovery chute all as mandated?

No, no, no, and no. There are no plans for any of that for recreational aircraft flying in appropriate uncontrolled airspace.

 

If this is the direction of recreational flying then sorry I am sorry for the sport and I think it time I find a new hobby ...

Let us know how it turns out for you.

 

 

[Ungrounded]

One also wonders if he has a radio ,why on earth wouldn't he legalise its installation/operation.

Sorry, I should have been clearer. There was something about a couple of the previous posts (not just yours) that seemed to imply that it was in fact "illegal" to be in possession of an air band VHF tranceiver, unless you had successfully passed an appropriate "Radio Endorsement". Even if said transceiver was only being used for receive purposes. At the time this didn't seem quite right and it was really this point I was seeking clarification on.

 

So suffering a bout of insomnia tonight I've been reading up on the various bits of Radcom legislation. The results of which have surprised me.

 

Turns out (my reading/understanding) that it is in fact illegal to be in possession of an air band handheld transceiver unless you already have the Radio Endorsement. I don't think it has always been this way. In fact I rather suspect that this has only been the case since changes made to the Radcom Act back in 2007, but have not verified this.

 

Reading between the lines my interpretation is that ACMA only cares about people illegally operating transmitters. But that the law has been structured such that they don't have to prove you were the one transmitting. Just having a piece of radio gear capable of doing so in your possession is enough to convict you of an offence.

 

Another revelation is that it is a legal requirement for a business selling said communications gear to verify that the purchaser is suitably licensed prior to sale and then hold a copy of whatever documentary proof was used for a period of two years after the sale!

 

Steve.

 

 

[kaz3g]

......Turns out (my reading/understanding) that it is in fact illegal to be in possession of an air band handheld transceiver unless you already have the Radio Endorsement. I don't think it has always been this way. In fact I rather suspect that this has only been the case since changes made to the Radcom Act back in 2007, but have not verified this.

 

Steve.

Simple answer is for everyone to do their radio test when they do their training for the pilot certificate.

 

Kaz

 

 

[dutchroll]

....... It's not that hard.

 

And the other thing people haven't really made much mention of in all the debate about "why should I have to talk to anyone?" is that a radio can be rather useful for letting others know when you have a problem, instead of you simply "disappearing" and failing to turn up somewhere.

 

If it allows you to alert others that you're in trouble just once in your aviation lifetime, then it's paid for itself in my opinion.

 

 

[Kyle Communications]

Another revelation is that it is a legal requirement for a business selling said communications gear to verify that the purchaser is suitably licensed prior to sale and then hold a copy of whatever documentary proof was used for a period of two years after the sale!

 

This is a correct statement BUT it has NEVER been policed by the ACMA. In 30 years selling radios this has never been asked of me and I have had plenty of dealings and meetings with then the ACMA, SMA and the many other dept names they have had over the past 30 years. Generally it was mainly applied to Ham radio sales but again NEVER policed.

 

Mark

 

 

[facthunter]

Being in possession of the radio operator certificate (flight) allows you to operate when on the ground So if it doesn't allow you to operate ground equipment that would appear silly. I have a lot of respect for Kasper but on this one I think it's time to get real and use the radio better . eg Have an ATIS type message with extra info to the normal, going out on the frequency at a fly in at say a 4 minute interval. Just being able to receive even justifies it but not telling people where you are now and then even when you have outlanded and are in difficulty, is not the thin edge of the wedge. We haven't changed since I started in the late 50's when many fields were all over except the radios are worse (although a lot lighter). We probably have a lesser % of people using radios PROPERLY and effectively. VHF is only line of sight but other aircraft will relay messages IF they can hear and understand them, and Australia hasn't shrunk in size and controlled areas are still around which you may wish to enter at short notice due some urgent matter. I'm against unnecessary restriction and regulation as much as the next guy. (probably more so).. Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

This is a correct statement BUT it has NEVER been policed by the ACMA. In 30 years selling radios this has never been asked of me and I have had plenty of dealings and meetings with then the ACMA, SMA and the many other dept names they have had over the past 30 years. Generally it was mainly applied to Ham radio sales but again NEVER policed.

Mark

Originally the licensing was to prevent overloading/ corruption of important/essential wireless transmissions, by untrained people, or certain individuals may have transmitted over the top of ABC News.

So it was essential to have some big sticks, and the last time I checked, the penalties were frightening. However, they've been very clever and seem to step in when someone is making a nuisance of themselves. From my experience one of them was never heard from again, the other, a notorious, truck i.e. CB troll who operated from his home and could blurt out a five minute unbroken stream of obscenities to the trickiest, was apparently dealt with so severely that he came back like a lamb, admitting he now had a licence and would not be using swear words or making a nuisance of himself.

 

 

[storchy neil]

please show in us legal documentation that you can have flight as a PIC without radio neil

 

 

[Happyflyer]

From CAAP 166-1(3)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Kyle Communications]

Turbo That was regarding usage...a CB'r just recently got nailed in Sydney...what I was talking about was the retailer having to check the user had a valid licence or certificate before you could sell the radio which is what was stated above.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Turbo That was regarding usage...a CB'r just recently got nailed in Sydney...what I was talking about was the retailer having to check the user had a valid licence or certificate before you could sell the radio which is what was stated above.

Yes, what I was implying was that sale/purchase of radios became so huge that they just let it go, but used clever tactics to keep some control.

 

 

[storchy neil]

happyflyer another complete stuff up off the regulator read the CASA regulations neil

 

 

[kasper]

I mentioned that, and no it's not.No, no, no, and no. There are no plans for any of that for recreational aircraft flying in appropriate uncontrolled airspace.

 

Let us know how it turns out for you.

Never said that there was a proposal for any of this. My comments had nothing to do with CASA proposals or RAA or any of the governing bodies.

My comments are based on what I see as a gradual and continuous push into ULTRALIGHT flying is the mentality that GA levels of perceived safety and GA processes and ever increasing demands that you must have EVERYTHING in the aircraft for you to be safe are just plain wrong and I will call people on it as to not do so is an tacit acceptance and approval.

 

I have no issue with recreational GA aircraft having a different and parallel process and system than ULTRALIGHTS and the fact that we have an airspace with the classes and requirements that we do recognises that not all space is the same.

 

And I keep making it very clear - I am not pushing to undo airspace or operational limits that currently exist - if I am taking an aircraft - GA or Ultralight - into a zone or airfield that requires equipment X, Y and Z I will absolutely have X, Y and Z or I will not go in there.

 

My issue with the mind set I perceive of many people on here is that minimum flying in uncontrolled airspace is intrinsically dangerous and foolhardy unless you have everything I might possibly need to enter primary control zones - and that is just plain wrong.

 

If I am flying in class G to and from airfields with no radio mandated what is the hell is wrong with doing that? saying I am happy doing that on a flying forum should be acceptable - trouble is I make that comment and get branded a moron - acceptable?

 

 

[Kyle Communications]

Kasper

 

It maybe within the rules to do so BUT is it sensible to do so when considering the safety of others flying in that uncontrolled airspace as well

 

"My issue with the mind set I perceive of many people on here is that minimum flying in uncontrolled airspace is intrinsically dangerous and foolhardy unless you have everything I might possibly need to enter primary control zones - and that is just plain wrong.

 

If I am flying in class G to and from airfields with no radio mandated what is the hell is wrong with doing that? saying I am happy doing that on a flying forum should be acceptable - trouble is I make that comment and get branded a moron - acceptable?"

 

 

[kasper]

KasperIt maybe within the rules to do so BUT is it sensible to do so when considering the safety of others flying in that uncontrolled airspace as well

"My issue with the mind set I perceive of many people on here is that minimum flying in uncontrolled airspace is intrinsically dangerous and foolhardy unless you have everything I might possibly need to enter primary control zones - and that is just plain wrong.

 

If I am flying in class G to and from airfields with no radio mandated what is the hell is wrong with doing that? saying I am happy doing that on a flying forum should be acceptable - trouble is I make that comment and get branded a moron - acceptable?"

Short answer to your question - YES

Slightly longer answer - where it is very low density air traffic see and be seen has worked well over the year.

 

And for every failure of the see and be seen that has resulted in an accident I am confident I can dig up an equal number of accidents where radio was in use and confusion / reliance on radio to the exclusion of looking was the cause.

 

Radios are absolutely aids to situational awareness but are not the primary and I contend that procedures and operational history supports continued availability of airspace where flight without radio is demonstrably safe

 

 

[facthunter]

Would it not be advisable to make a call when passing active aerodromes to give flight information. Aircaft Blandtown area, traffic is XYZ Cessna 172 at 5000 10 miles east tracking 015 BT traffic etc I have always done this especially when you are near a place like Mangalore. Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

Short answer to your question - YESSlightly longer answer - where it is very low density air traffic see and be seen has worked well over the year.

 

And for every failure of the see and be seen that has resulted in an accident I am confident I can dig up an equal number of accidents where radio was in use and confusion / reliance on radio to the exclusion of looking was the cause.

 

Radios are absolutely aids to situational awareness but are not the primary and I contend that procedures and operational history supports continued availability of airspace where flight without radio is demonstrably safe

This where CASA got slightly pregnant; it's all about public liability.

Historically (c.1930's) radio was found to be a far safer option around a busy aerodrome than see and be seen, and maintained its primary position until someone realised that mandating radio for primary separation all over the country at all times with operators who made no mistakes, was clearly going to involve a steady stream of lawsuits when the inevitable failures occurred. By changing to see and be seen, the flame thrower was immediately turned on the Pilot in Command.

 

The slightly pregnant part comes in when someone involved in a collision is able to prove that if the old, mandated radio system had been the primary system, then the collision would not have occurred.

 

 

[Aldo]

Never said that there was a proposal for any of this. My comments had nothing to do with CASA proposals or RAA or any of the governing bodies.My comments are based on what I see as a gradual and continuous push into ULTRALIGHT flying is the mentality that GA levels of perceived safety and GA processes and ever increasing demands that you must have EVERYTHING in the aircraft for you to be safe are just plain wrong and I will call people on it as to not do so is an tacit acceptance and approval.

 

I have no issue with recreational GA aircraft having a different and parallel process and system than ULTRALIGHTS and the fact that we have an airspace with the classes and requirements that we do recognises that not all space is the same.

 

And I keep making it very clear - I am not pushing to undo airspace or operational limits that currently exist - if I am taking an aircraft - GA or Ultralight - into a zone or airfield that requires equipment X, Y and Z I will absolutely have X, Y and Z or I will not go in there.

 

My issue with the mind set I perceive of many people on here is that minimum flying in uncontrolled airspace is intrinsically dangerous and foolhardy unless you have everything I might possibly need to enter primary control zones - and that is just plain wrong.

 

If I am flying in class G to and from airfields with no radio mandated what is the hell is wrong with doing that? saying I am happy doing that on a flying forum should be acceptable - trouble is I make that comment and get branded a moron - acceptable?

Kasper

 

I'm happy that you continue to do that providing they take it back to the original ultralight rules of not above 300 feet and not crossing a main road, you are then not a hazard to mainstream RAA, GA and whoever else is using the airspace. For whatever reason (and I know you are smarter than this) you are arguing against radio carriage and usage unless you think it is required, there is a lot more traffic around these days (compared to when ultralight flying got started) and ultralights now fly in the same airspace as GA so it makes sense that we can and do communicate with each other.

 

I didn't brand you a moron but if that cap fits then you need to wear it.

 

Aldo

 

 

[kasper]

KasperI'm happy that you continue to do that providing they take it back to the original ultralight rules of not above 300 feet and not crossing a main road, you are then not a hazard to mainstream RAA, GA and whoever else is using the airspace. For whatever reason (and I know you are smarter than this) you are arguing against radio carriage and usage unless you think it is required, there is a lot more traffic around these days (compared to when ultralight flying got started) and ultralights now fly in the same airspace as GA so it makes sense that we can and do communicate with each other.

 

I didn't brand you a moron but if that cap fits then you need to wear it.

 

Aldo

And there lies the problem ...

no radio = non-mainstream RAA

 

no radio = hazard to everyone else in the airspace

 

So the fact that non radio traffic operates to this day in and around London and the SE of England -an area with more traffic any day of the week that the Sydney lane of entry on a good weather Saturday - means nothing and I and hundreds of pilots should go back to pre-HORSCOTS rules of operation that were documented to be bloody dangerous?

 

Nice

 

 

[Aldo]

And there lies the problem ...no radio = non-mainstream RAA

no radio = hazard to everyone else in the airspace

 

So the fact that non radio traffic operates to this day in and around London and the SE of England -an area with more traffic any day of the week that the Sydney lane of entry on a good weather Saturday - means nothing and I and hundreds of pilots should go back to pre-HORSCOTS rules of operation that were documented to be bloody dangerous?

 

Nice

Kasper

 

I don't live in or around London and I don't care what they do, I care about what we do here and is my family safe flying in our environment.

 

Aldo

 

 

[facthunter]

There is NO case for NOT using radio in aircraft. Nev