Aircraft without radios

[ev17ifly2]

Cost and quality of transmissionThe fact that transmission quality can be so variable in the type of aircraft and setups that exist and then there is just the fact that a radio system end - to end is then a series of systems that can individually fail in part or whole that needs then to be maintained and trouble shot on a regular basis.

don;t get me wrong, my aircraft has radio, MP3 interface with auto mute, intercom and I fly trike with a helmet installed headset - I have all of that and for the most part i am happy flying 'non-radio' if i am just going local ... from my past flying if I am flying into a tower or radio required airfield I operate in line with the processes, flying international add in the transponder and reporting scheds, and if I am doing group flights I am reporting for 1-5 aircraft across borders and into airfields ... even got enough French language to do radio safely into and out of fields in France where radio is required but language is not allowed to be English.

 

I just do not see why adding technology is required when alternate operating procedures are available that do not add cost, complexity and points of failure that then ground you when in fact the aircraft is perfectly safe to fly.

I suspect we are never going to agree on this subject, however cost and quality are not valid reasons. radio systems ARE reliable and the transmission quality CAN be achieved regardless of which aircraft. Technology and proper installation can assure this is so. They are also a two way device, transmit and receive and its amazing when touring how much information regarding your destination can be gleaned by listening and talking to other pilots ( not to mention Melb Centre)

 

Why would you not turn your radio on if conducting a LAF ? Especially as you say you have one fitted. I fly out of a very small regional strip but at times have air tractors, fire bombers, rotary, charter, and touring aircraft in the CTAF so I make calls as a courtesy to them and my own safety.

 

 

[facthunter]

Without any electrical system. Tiger Moth some Taylorcraft Austers etc a hand held is/was often used. what other options are there? Nev

 

 

[SDQDI]

I suspect we are never going to agree on this subject, however cost and quality are not valid reasons. radio systems ARE reliable and the transmission quality CAN be achieved regardless of which aircraft. Technology and proper installation can assure this is so. They are also a two way device, transmit and receive and its amazing when touring how much information regarding your destination can be gleaned by listening and talking to other pilots ( not to mention Melb Centre)Why would you not turn your radio on if conducting a LAF ? Especially as you say you have one fitted. I fly out of a very small regional strip but at times have air tractors, fire bombers, rotary, charter, and touring aircraft in the CTAF so I make calls as a courtesy to them and my own safety.

Of our local flyers 90% have radios but I wouldn't say that radios are reliable, there are so many things that affect the reliability of a radio not least of which is the nut holding the mic button. I myself have a radio but I have stuffed up the frequency change more than once and then it doesn't matter how clear your radio is.

Then there is the radio unit themselves, I am sure our club isn't the only club that has different people having technical difficulties. I know when flying that at least a quarter of the planes I hear are garbled and basically unreadable.

 

IMO radios are NOT reliable and our flying practices should reflect that. Terry put it perfectly, if you are relying on your radio you could be setting yourself up for a surprise.

 

In regards to "sub cretins" and their flying 500ft circuits I think the idea of having different speed aircraft at different heights makes perfect sense or do you think we should have everyone at 1000 including the big boys?

 

(Edit, I see the sub cretin comment was not in the post about the flyers at 500ft:doh:)

 

Yes some flyers without a radio could fly to the proper circuit procedures better BUT I have seen (and sometimes been guilty of!) substandard airmanship in the ranks of the radio flyers as well. As for why wouldn't you have a radio, well I think we should always leave that option there for those that like the simple pleasures of flying without all the wires and gadgets and personally I enjoy seeing and meeting those people at flyins, after all those sort of people are the ones who started flyins and it would be a bit rude IMO to stop them attending.

 

 

[ev17ifly2]

What frightens me is it appears that the most of you have become so reliant on your radio and place so much faith in it that you have forgotten what is required of you as pilot in command of an raa aircraft

What frightens me is it appears that the most of you have become so reliant on your radio and place so much faith in it that you have forgotten what is required of you as pilot in command of an raa aircraft

Feel free to enlighten me as to "what is require of you"

 

 

[ev17ifly2]

Of our local flyers 90% have radios but I wouldn't say that radios are reliable, there are so many things that affect the reliability of a radio not least of which is the nut holding the mic button. I myself have a radio but I have stuffed up the frequency change more than once and then it doesn't matter how clear your radio is.Then there is the radio unit themselves, I am sure our club isn't the only club that has different people having technical difficulties. I know when flying that at least a quarter of the planes I hear are garbled and basically unreadable.

 

IMO radios are NOT reliable and our flying practices should reflect that. Terry put it perfectly, if you are relying on your radio you could be setting yourself up for a surprise.

 

In regards to "sub cretins" and their flying 500ft circuits I think the idea of having different speed aircraft at different heights makes perfect sense or do you think we should have everyone at 1000 including the big boys?

 

(Edit, I see the sub cretin comment was not in the post about the flyers at 500ft:doh:)

 

Yes some flyers without a radio could fly to the proper circuit procedures better BUT I have seen (and sometimes been guilty of!) substandard airmanship in the ranks of the radio flyers as well. As for why wouldn't you have a radio, well I think we should always leave that option there for those that like the simple pleasures of flying without all the wires and gadgets and personally I enjoy seeing and meeting those people at flyins, after all those sort of people are the ones who started flyins and it would be a bit rude IMO to stop them attending.

 

Of our local flyers 90% have radios but I wouldn't say that radios are reliable, there are so many things that affect the reliability of a radio not least of which is the nut holding the mic button. I myself have a radio but I have stuffed up the frequency change more than once and then it doesn't matter how clear your radio is.Then there is the radio unit themselves, I am sure our club isn't the only club that has different people having technical difficulties. I know when flying that at least a quarter of the planes I hear are garbled and basically unreadable.

 

IMO radios are NOT reliable and our flying practices should reflect that. Terry put it perfectly, if you are relying on your radio you could be setting yourself up for a surprise.

 

In regards to "sub cretins" and their flying 500ft circuits I think the idea of having different speed aircraft at different heights makes perfect sense or do you think we should have everyone at 1000 including the big boys?

 

(Edit, I see the sub cretin comment was not in the post about the flyers at 500ft:doh:)

 

Yes some flyers without a radio could fly to the proper circuit procedures better BUT I have seen (and sometimes been guilty of!) substandard airmanship in the ranks of the radio flyers as well. As for why wouldn't you have a radio, well I think we should always leave that option there for those that like the simple pleasures of flying without all the wires and gadgets and personally I enjoy seeing and meeting those people at flyins, after all those sort of people are the ones who started flyins and it would be a bit rude IMO to stop them attending.

If you are relying on any part of your aircraft to perform perfectly THEN you are setting yourself up for a surprise.

 

Radios as a device ARE reliable, as you cited yourself it is the human factor in the majority of cases causing the problem.

 

I personally have always utilised any technology or device that enhances performance or safety.

 

Please don't tell me you drive a vehicle that has ESC or ABS fitted. It may detract from you driving (airmanship) ability

 

 

[jetjr]

If your at a field which doesnt need radio, do the minimum, which isnt much, and shut up.

 

Listen to others and avoid them.

 

The percentage of failures vs operations would be miniscule.

 

If theres a tower with lights .......you need a radio id guess

 

Does anyone get through RAA training without Radio cert?

 

Can dream up lots of reasons why you dont have to carry one, but not having one and knowing how to use it (even if your wrong 5% or its broken 0.001% of the time) is pretty dopey.

 

 

[kasper]

I suspect we are never going to agree on this subject, however cost and quality are not valid reasons. radio systems ARE reliable and the transmission quality CAN be achieved regardless of which aircraft. Technology and proper installation can assure this is so. They are also a two way device, transmit and receive and its amazing when touring how much information regarding your destination can be gleaned by listening and talking to other pilots ( not to mention Melb Centre)Why would you not turn your radio on if conducting a LAF ? Especially as you say you have one fitted. I fly out of a very small regional strip but at times have air tractors, fire bombers, rotary, charter, and touring aircraft in the CTAF so I make calls as a courtesy to them and my own safety.

Never said you can't get a good installed system in our type of aircraft BUT from 25 years of building, maintaining and operating aircraft the actual achieved reliability can be very spotty between airframes and even on an aircraft across time ... and trust me the 'fun' of getting all the nice new electronic flight screens can be a real challenge - it CAN be done but often its done poorly and/or something changes over time and the usability starts to fall off.

The weightshift in my avatar has two screens - a engine/flight management screen and a flying map GPS screen, 2 radios comms, 1 mode S transponder, intercom, MP3 patch all within 12inches of each other all electronic switching and the battery and starter solenoid. All works nicely BUT it took a bit of fettling to get it working perfectly ... after all not ONE of the electronic boxes meets the installation manual ... its just not possible to get the boxes the distance apart that are 'required/recommended'

 

And as for costs a BASIC fixed setup for a 2 seat trike like mine of single M760 + cable + switches + aerial + 2 x helmets with faceshield and installed headset/mike will run at around $3,850 ... yes a handheld radio will reduce that cost slightly but that setup will give only sidetone intercom but is sufficient to operate.

 

And even a handheld system for an open cockpit single seater the best you can hope for is a spend in excess of $2,000 to get an operating portable system.

 

And in my opinion these are NOT insignificant costs and have to balanced against the actual safety enhancement that comes from its availability ... and of course you need an electrical system - now all you 912 drivers have one but not all do.

 

 

[Jeffmac]

I can understand the concern when inbound to a busy fly-in. Most keep calls to the minimum required and as concise as possible. We have a number of powered parachutes operating at our airfield without radio and have for years practiced standard circuits and "see and avoid" At Narromine and Temorah fly-ins the volunteer RAAF ground "advisor" did a brilliant job, but it is still a worry knowing you have a dozen other aircraft in circuit and can only eyeball 3 or 4. I guess this is what we train for - in my experience the standard of airmanship at these events is pretty good. I would hesitate to fly in to a busy venue without radio.

 

 

[jabiruken]

I switch to area frequency long before my arrival at a flyin to gain situational awareness of pretty much what's happening and try to position for an un eventful arrival. If all is quite I must on the wrong frequency as it is a flyin you'd expect traffic. The drifter at great eastern flyin did in (my view) did not create a huge problem as air display pilot were advised on a discreet frequency of his presents and the display was halted. It was the public whom were not happy that the mustang cut short his display but no harm really done.

 

 

[SSCBD]

Posted this on another post but it is basic common sense used over seas to avoid mistakes in circuit by anyone.

 

In Europe at couple of club strips I found the they solve the circuit direction and radio problem that its so simple - for example they have the runway 32 painted on (as here) as we do but under that they have a simple arrow underscore pointing the circuit direction. So when you over fly there is no argument with the left or right brain as the arrow is pointing which way to go! Simple is good!

 

Also I would like to see if I was dictator for a day, which a few places I know here is the CTAF frequency painted on the hangar roof and or it marked out by white rocks.

 

No arguments could then be made by any pilot of brain failure and it is so simple to do! I have had CTAF frequency changes from what was published myself.

 

It also helps all our drifter and open cockpit friends etc with the wind in the face and pages of ERSA flying out the back of the fin, right Frank?.

 

 

[Soleair]

Surely the first directive in flying - at any time, but especially in airfield airspace - is OBSERVE OBSERVE OBSERVE. As in, look out of the window.

 

To rely too heavily on a radio, which is subject to (possibly undetected) failure, is a bit like relying on GPS when flying VFR. Should GPS be mandated in preference to teaching and practising basic map reading skills?

 

Relying on radio to be aware of what is going on outside is in my view more unsafe than being an observant non radio pilot. Exclusive reliance can lead to laziness on the basics.

 

And yes, I realise radio signals carry further than the Mk 1 eyeball. But collisions & dangerous airmisses don't happen at radio range, they occur at visual distance.

 

Like Kasper, I too have been to fly-ins at both Sandown (my one-time home airfield) & Popham. Very busy, lots of low time microlight pilots, often without radio, but good circuit procedures and practice meant everyone flew home again.

 

Bruce

 

 

[facthunter]

It is hard to make out having a radio is a disadvantage. In this day and age it would seem amazing we can't get the bugs out of them, and no sensible person is saying rely on radio only. Nor should they be expensive. Just a listening watch with information of a general nature would aid greatly. Ie activity in the circuit, runway in use and wind direction and QNH. Take it from there.. Nev

 

 

[Soleair]

It is hard to make out having a radio is a disadvantage.

That is not what I said.

 

To rely too heavily on a radio. . .

Exclusive reliance can lead to laziness. . .

[ev17ifly2]

Surely the first directive in flying - at any time, but especially in airfield airspace - is OBSERVE OBSERVE OBSERVE. As in, look out of the window.To rely too heavily on a radio, which is subject to (possibly undetected) failure, is a bit like relying on GPS when flying VFR. Should GPS be mandated in preference to teaching and practising basic map reading skills?

 

Relying on radio to be aware of what is going on outside is in my view more unsafe than being an observant non radio pilot. Exclusive reliance can lead to laziness on the basics.

 

And yes, I realise radio signals carry further than the Mk 1 eyeball. But collisions & dangerous airmisses don't happen at radio range, they occur at visual distance.

 

Like Kasper, I too have been to fly-ins at both Sandown (my one-time home airfield) & Popham. Very busy, lots of low time microlight pilots, often without radio, but good circuit procedures and practice meant everyone flew home again.

 

Bruce

Aviate Navigate Communicate. Observe,observe,observe falls into the first two I would have thought and dependency on radio into the third.

 

Rather than be technology Luddites wouldn't it make more sense to employ any equipment that can assist us in the

 

above. I agree too much dependence on any one device may bring us undone, however that is no reason not to use it.

 

 

[facthunter]

Bruce, my statement is a general one, for the forum, not particularly directed at your actual wording. Incidentely I'm a great advocate of using your eyes all the time and you CAN look as well as talk on the radio. IF you don't have a proper scanning method you may miss things, even aircraft.

 

Radio is a tool we should encourage proper use of. I don't even like a cockpit full of instruments to direct your attention from the essential external lookout, and if I have a passenger I use their eyes too. Nev

 

 

[kasper]

much clipped ...Rather than be technology Luddites wouldn't it make more sense to employ any equipment that can assist us in the

above. ..

Bit harsh branding a person as a techno luddite just because you do not want to spend a couple of grand on a radio setup that admittedly aids situational awareness but is not critical to the safe operation of the aircraft at the airfield (or flying between airfields).

I maintain that it is a legitimate decision to not install a radio if that is based on use of alternate operational procedures - the Mark 1 eyeball and standard operating procedures are the PRIMARY system for safe operation in and around a circuit with a radio an additional/supplementary aid.

 

Equally I am adamant that pilots must learn to use paper map reading and navigation and use it when they are flying - even trikes where map use is extra fun. It is definitely NOT a techno luddite thing to know and use as your PRIMARY the paper map ... then add in the GPS techno stuff as a secondary/supplementary.

 

Because from an early age ... back when calculators were introduced to schools in the 1970s ... you learned that you have to know what to expect from your tech as the output or your techno system will garbage-in-garbage-out and of course the technos rely on maintaining electrical power and not going bang.

 

I know this from personal experience while flying - 2010 round Britain rally in the trike with everything powered by electric ... main fuse blew as I was heading west across Shropshire for Wales to head up over Mt Snowdon ... sat there cursing as the fuse blew and warning came on - divert immediately and turn left down through the valleys heading for Swansea - can't let them know I'm coming because of the mountains and sat watching the volts dropping. And the fun as screen after screen and system after system shut down. GPS went first then the engine and flight instrument (shut down at 10.2V) and by the time I got 5 miles from Swansea there were enough volts to hear on the radio very faint but I was certain not enough to transmit - so all calls were made blind and I followed standard radio failure entry procedures to a tower controlled airfield.

 

Of course no transmissions were heard and on presenting myself to the tower intercom at the ground level door I did get an earfull before I could get in the words ' total electrical failure' and after that they were fine ... even pointed me at t a guy with a charger. Point being that whilst they were not happy to have a non-radio aircraft wander in by following standard procedures they could see what I was doing and nobody else in the air or ground was actually inconvenienced.

 

 

[Yenn]

A lot has been said in this post, but nobody has come up with any evidence of non radio aircraft causing accidents. Sur it would be good for all planes to be radio equipped, but then they would all have to be operated by people who didn't make mistakes. Even then radio will not ensure that incidents don't occur. Try flying in the circuit with six or seven others all giving the required radio calls and I guarantee you will be no more aware than by using the eyeball.

 

I believe radios should be mandatory here there are airline passenger flights, or at special notammed occasions, but for general flying they should be optional.

 

 

[cscotthendry]

Surely the first directive in flying - at any time, but especially in airfield airspace - is OBSERVE OBSERVE OBSERVE. As in, look out of the window.To rely too heavily on a radio, which is subject to (possibly undetected) failure, is a bit like relying on GPS when flying VFR. Should GPS be mandated in preference to teaching and practising basic map reading skills?

 

Relying on radio to be aware of what is going on outside is in my view more unsafe than being an observant non radio pilot. Exclusive reliance can lead to laziness on the basics.

 

And yes, I realise radio signals carry further than the Mk 1 eyeball. But collisions & dangerous airmisses don't happen at radio range, they occur at visual distance.

 

Like Kasper, I too have been to fly-ins at both Sandown (my one-time home airfield) & Popham. Very busy, lots of low time microlight pilots, often without radio, but good circuit procedures and practice meant everyone flew home again.

 

Bruce

Bruce:

Having a radio in the aircraft in no way absolves the pilot from keeping a lookout, nor was this suggested in my original post. The radio is our means to alert other pilots to our intentions and presence. They are still required to LOOK. In the same way as cars having turn signals and brake lights doesn't mean that the drivers don't have to watch traffic.

 

 

[cscotthendry]

A lot has been said in this post, but nobody has come up with any evidence of non radio aircraft causing accidents. ...

If you had been at Evans Head on the weekend you wouldn't have posted that. A radio-less drifter blundered into the middle of a flying demonstration by a P-51 mustang. Sure, this didn't become an "accident" but it very easily could have. That is only one incident that I know of caused by an aircraft without a radio. I would bet London to a brick there are many more.

Had the drifter in question had a radio, he would have heard the calls by the ground operator announcing the start of the demonstration and warning approaching aircraft to remain at least 5 miles clear of the field. His error was a simple mix up regarding daylight savings, but if he had had a radio, this would not have resulted in the demonstration incursion.

 

 

[cscotthendry]

... The drifter at great eastern flyin did in (my view) did not create a huge problem as air display pilot were advised on a discreet frequency of his presents and the display was halted. ...

REALLY? You don't acknowledge the potential for disaster that was there? What if the drifter hadn't been spotted in time? What if there had been a mid-air and one or both aircraft had come down in the crowd? Because the above scenario didn't happen, you think it's no big deal?

 

 

[dutchroll]

I believe radios should be mandatory here there are airline passenger flights, or at special notammed occasions, but for general flying they should be optional.

So radios at Bankstown during the week should be optional?

 

 

[kaz3g]

Having and using a radio may not keep you safe, but it will keep you safer. Like flashing beacons, strobes and paint schemes, radios help to make your presence more "visible" to others and, for the life of me, I can't understand pilots flying without one.

 

If you spend $30, $50, $100k on an aircraft and probably $20k or more learning to fly it, the cost of a radio is a small investment in personal protection (ditto a PLB and decent safety harness).

 

Ian will sell you one for less than $400

 

 

Icom IC-A15 AUS

 

$374.95

 

 

[kaz3g]

REALLY? You don't acknowledge the potential for disaster that was there? What if the drifter hadn't been spotted in time? What if there had been a mid-air and one or both aircraft had come down in the crowd? Because the above scenario didn't happen, you think it's no big deal?

What if the display aircraft had decided radios were optional?

 

Kaz

 

 

[spacesailor]

Please enlighten me? A couple of years back I wanted to upgrade my old hand held radio, but was told, Casa had special requirements that were not manufactured at that time, are said H,H., radio's now available. For my none battery plane.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[kaz3g]

My mate had a Luscombe with a Continental C65...no generator or alternator.

 

He fitted a small gelpak battery to give him extended use of his small Icom handheld which also had an external aerial to improve the signal. It worked fine.

 

Most trikes I have seen have a similar setup because of the minimal weight involved.

 

Kaz