SDQDI Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 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. I don't know any extra details about this drifter other than what has been posted here but I will say if someone flys into a presumably notamed airshow willy nilly do you really expect them to spot the notam that made their ctaf into a radio required ctaf? (I'm all over the shop tonight but I'm referring to your earlier post putting up the option of making a flyin airfield a CTAF ®. ) I guess I just don't like the idea of extra regs unless it can be proved they are essential. And for Ev17Ifly2, I don't think that radios are overly reliable. Yes I said that the nut behind the mike is not the least of a radios faults but from my experience radios themselves can be unreliable. of course dodgy aerials and dodgy installs could account for a fair whack of those and that is not just a homebuilt phenomenon but there are definitely some unreliable radios around. And as for handhelds, if they have a good external aerial and some form of inflight charging then they can be good but otherwise you have hassles with ineffective range and flat batteries. I do have a radio, and from what I can ascertain it works really well (when I'm on the right channel!) but I don't expect everyone to have one and I DO think that if flyins were limited to serviceable radio equiped aircraft only then attendances would be down and you would miss out on seeing some really beautiful works of art. Of course if radios were made mandatory across the board then I think that would be detrimental to aviation as a whole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyerme Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 I have no battery in my nieuport ! And I am a display pilot flying my ww-1 replica x-country to get there.. It cost me $400 to buy a battery powered hand held including external arial and extension cable plus the push to talk. It works a treat and battery last over 8 hrs :). I can then use it in my other 3 95-10 which have no radio. 1 radio does 3 planes. Love it . Didn't break the kitty either ;) 5 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cscotthendry Posted January 13, 2016 Author Share Posted January 13, 2016 I don't know any extra details about this drifter other than what has been posted here but I will say if someone flys into a presumably notamed airshow willy nilly do you really expect them to spot the notam that made their ctaf into a radio required ctaf? (I'm all over the shop tonight but I'm referring to your earlier post putting up the option of making a flyin airfield a CTAF ®. )I guess I just don't like the idea of extra regs unless it can be proved they are essential. And for Ev17Ifly2, I don't think that radios are overly reliable. Yes I said that the nut behind the mike is not the least of a radios faults but from my experience radios themselves can be unreliable. of course dodgy aerials and dodgy installs could account for a fair whack of those and that is not just a homebuilt phenomenon but there are definitely some unreliable radios around. And as for handhelds, if they have a good external aerial and some form of inflight charging then they can be good but otherwise you have hassles with ineffective range and flat batteries. I do have a radio, and from what I can ascertain it works really well (when I'm on the right channel!) but I don't expect everyone to have one and I DO think that if flyins were limited to serviceable radio equiped aircraft only then attendances would be down and you would miss out on seeing some really beautiful works of art. Of course if radios were made mandatory across the board then I think that would be detrimental to aviation as a whole. In this particular case, the pilot of the drifter HAD all the relevant NOTAMs and even had a sheet on his kneeboard (or whatever) with the display times highlighted. He is to be given credit for being as informed as possible, and he mad a simple mistake concerning daylight savings... HOWEVER, had he had a radio, all would have been well. Had the Mustang NOT had a radio as well, it could have been a disaster. I don't get where you're going about the reliability of radios though. Are you suggesting that it shouldn't be mandatory for radios at these types of fly ins because some aircraft have dodgy installations or poorly maintained equipment? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDQDI Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 I don't get where you're going about the reliability of radios though. Are you suggesting that it shouldn't be mandatory for radios at these types of fly ins because some aircraft have dodgy installations or poorly maintained equipment? Not quite. My point about the unreliability of radios was for ev17ifly2 who a page or so back stated that radios were reliable. My main reason for not wanting radios mandatory at flyins (those held at an aerodrome were they aren't normally required) is because I think the benefits would be outweighed by the negatives. I would rather see more effort put into informing the attending pilots of preferred techniques or local phenomenons ect to not only make it safer for the non radio flyers but also to help reduce radio congestion during those high traffic times. I don't get to many flyins and as I said before I do have a radio so it doesn't affect me much Per se but I just don't want to see many more decisions between the 'fancier' (for want of a better word) flyers and those happy with machines that were the start of our beloved sport. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cscotthendry Posted January 13, 2016 Author Share Posted January 13, 2016 Not quite. My point about the unreliability of radios was for ev17ifly2 who a page or so back stated that radios were reliable.My main reason for not wanting radios mandatory at flyins (those held at an aerodrome were they aren't normally required) is because I think the benefits would be outweighed by the negatives. I would rather see more effort put into informing the attending pilots of preferred techniques or local phenomenons ect to not only make it safer for the non radio flyers but also to help reduce radio congestion during those high traffic times. I don't get to many flyins and as I said before I do have a radio so it doesn't affect me much Per se but I just don't want to see many more decisions between the 'fancier' (for want of a better word) flyers and those happy with machines that were the start of our beloved sport. I think I get where you're coming from, but the case of the Evans Head fly in (IMO) kind of overruns your sentiment. There was a great effort made to inform pilots of the procedures in this case, and indeed the pilot in question was informed about the procedures. He made a simple mistake about timing and having a radio would have given him the chance to discover his mistake BEFORE he got to the circuit area. As Kaz suggested, if the P-51 had not had a radio, or there was another radio-less aircraft doing the demonstration, things could have turned out quite differentlt at GEFI. BTW, I have to admit that I also made the same mistake as the drifter pilot, but (1) My arrival time slipped me into the circuit 5 minutes before the display started, and (2) I heard the warning calls on my radio just as I was on short final. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank marriott Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 he mad a simple mistake concerning daylight savings. I thought we all used GMT when flying 2 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cscotthendry Posted January 13, 2016 Author Share Posted January 13, 2016 I thought we all used GMT when flying Yes, I guess that is technically correct, but the program was laid out in local times. If it had been set out in GMT that may have helped with the DLS confusion, but it brings its own level of confusion when pilots have to convert from GMT to local. Again, a clock in the cockpit running GMT would help there I guess. Hmmm ..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 GMT use..... It's fairly essential that you do, although the process isn't that simple. Not lowering the landing gear could be a simple mistake too depending how you look at it. When you are not familiar with a procedure it tends to be complex, but Australia's time zones, are enough to confuse everybody. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Perry Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 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. . ( Clipped a bit ) I have to disagree a little on this post Kasper. ( I don't do this normally, as most of your posts seem to make a lot of sense. ) Paper maps are great,. . .shame a lot of pilots I see, rely on the iPad taped to the dash. . . . . but that is off this topic altogether. On a previous post, you mentioned Popham, and having no particular problem at a fly-in there. POPHAM CAN BE A BLOODY FIASCO on some fly-ins,. . .I have flown in there on around 12 + occasions, mainly at organised events, and the airmanship displayed EVERY SINGLE TIME was absolutely bloody abysmal. In fact, it became so dangerous, in my view, that on two occasions I broke off and got out of there as I counld not guarantee getting my self and my passenger(s) safely onto the ground. People cutting in left and right side on short final, 2 aaircraft flying over the top of my aircraft on final,. . I could go on,. . .all because of a lack of coordination using sensible radio. . . . .ie, Too many non-radio aircraft . ( The more cynical at our club call them "Barefoot Flyers" ) I don't know when YOU flew in, but I have never found the general standard to be anything but very poor. ADD to this recipe, non-radio aircraft and the possibility of a collision was very real. Loads of very close shaves. Other fly-in events, where radio is required don't seem to attract the same criticism from me, nor other pilots that I know. Yes,. . .Popham, where you have two active runways, 08/26 and 03/31 where the layout puts approaching aircraft at an angle, crossing the "Go Around" path of those landing on the other, sees to me to be a bit daft. . . . but that's Popham. . . .maybe we should discuss a safer site ? Peerhaps one where the runway layout isn't so crazy. I've seen teetotal pilots drink a bottle of scotch after landing there at a fly-in. . . .( ! ) So I would disagree that radio should not be mandatory at a fly-in event ANYWHERE/. . . this is just inviting trouble. Too many weekend warriors in too small a bit of air. . . . If the tech is available then use it, or don't go. In the UK, it is still possible to buy a portable radio for a heck of a lot less than $2 grand, and even if the pilot does not have a licence, at least he/she is aware of what is going on in the area. The arguments against this are becoming more shrill and difficult to logically substantiate mate. No offence intended. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crezzi Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 Its a slippery slope to use one incident as the basis to mandate something for everyone.Why stop at radios - BRS, ADSB .... I might be more sympathetic to mandatory radio if more than a small minority used them appropriately. Most weekends I find myself wishing there were more non-radio aircraft rather than less ! I know this from personal experience while flying - 2010 round Britain rally in the trike with everything powered by electric In my day, I'm sure the RBR prohibited the use of GPS ;-) Cheers John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happyflyer Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 Good airmanship is not dependent on whether or not the pilot has a radio. I have observed many pilot who think more talk is better and seem to think that because they have made a call others have to give way to them. I once flew a thousand miles without a radio, it sure made me a bit more nervous at first but the peace and quiet was quite a change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jakej Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 Its a slippery slope to use one incident as the basis to mandate something for everyone.Why stop at radios - BRS, ADSB ....I might be more sympathetic to mandatory radio if more than a small minority used them appropriately. Most weekends I find myself wishing there were more non-radio aircraft rather than less ! In my day, I'm sure the RBR prohibited the use of GPS ;-) Cheers John BRS - don't even think about going down that path I want to be able to have control my aircraft whether the engine is running or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ev17ifly2 Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 Not quite. My point about the unreliability of radios was for ev17ifly2 who a page or so back stated that radios were reliable.My main reason for not wanting radios mandatory at flyins (those held at an aerodrome were they aren't normally required) is because I think the benefits would be outweighed by the negatives. I would rather see more effort put into informing the attending pilots of preferred techniques or local phenomenons ect to not only make it safer for the non radio flyers but also to help reduce radio congestion during those high traffic times. I don't get to many flyins and as I said before I do have a radio so it doesn't affect me much Per se but I just don't want to see many more decisions between the 'fancier' (for want of a better word) flyers and those happy with machines that were the start of our beloved sport. Sorry Squiddy, but radios themselves ARE reliable it is when the human gets involved that the trouble starts. Bad installation, lack of operational knowledge, etc, etc. If you have so little faith in modern electronic technology suggest you avoid commercial flights, diagnostic medicine, space travel, etc. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yenn Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 If the drifter at Evans Head had the notam, but got the times confused, we can hardly blame that on radio, or non radio usage. The pilot just stuffed up, no radio problem. It is common for pilots to stuff up with radio. Last time I flew I was on 126.7 and heard 3 distict one second beeps. What was that caused by? My guess the pilot was trying to activate lights at Gladstone and hadn't changed to 118.8, but in that case why was he on 126.7, he should have been on area frequency 119.55. Radio is a stuff up caused by CASA requirements. Iwas on 126.7 because I knew that there was a plane in my area on that incorrect frequency. That same plane must have a transponder, because area were trying to contact him and were giving his location to Qantas flights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guernsey Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 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 I did the same with my Supa Pup. Alan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kasper Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 Its a slippery slope to use one incident as the basis to mandate something for everyone.Why stop at radios - BRS, ADSB ....I might be more sympathetic to mandatory radio if more than a small minority used them appropriately. Most weekends I find myself wishing there were more non-radio aircraft rather than less ! In my day, I'm sure the RBR prohibited the use of GPS ;-) Cheers John When we resurrected the RBR there were: Two classes: Gold - no GPS Silver - GPS Two pilot groups: Novice - pilot under 100hrs TT post licence Pilot - everyone else And then divided into: Solo - pilot/nav in the one person Dual - you have a buddy to help So overall there were 6 possible groups with prizes for 1st-3rd. Might look to put together a round Oz rally along similar lines for next year ... but its a bit more of a challenge when the country is the size of a continent and to make it fair/interesting/safe will be a challenge. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cscotthendry Posted January 14, 2016 Author Share Posted January 14, 2016 If the drifter at Evans Head had the notam, but got the times confused, we can hardly blame that on radio, or non radio usage. The pilot just stuffed up, no radio problem. It is common for pilots to stuff up with radio. Last time I flew I was on 126.7 and heard 3 distict one second beeps. What was that caused by? My guess the pilot was trying to activate lights at Gladstone and hadn't changed to 118.8, but in that case why was he on 126.7, he should have been on area frequency 119.55. Radio is a stuff up caused by CASA requirements. Iwas on 126.7 because I knew that there was a plane in my area on that incorrect frequency.That same plane must have a transponder, because area were trying to contact him and were giving his location to Qantas flights. I'm a bit puzzled by your logic. No one was blaming the pilot's confusion over daylight savings on having or not having a radio. What I DID say is that if he had had a radio, he would most likely have been able to catch his error before arriving at the circuit. That simple fact is indisputable. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyle Communications Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 Well I am going to add my 2 cents worth into this discussion...and not because I have been involved in the radio industry for 30 years...Anyone who does not have a radio in their aircraft is a "BLOODY IDIOT". I dont give 2 hoots about all the comments on airmanship and proceedures the fact of the matter is most are flying aircraft that cost 20K up to 200K and what you cant afford a scummy $400 or even less for a good second hand one to let everyone know where you are...or at worst at least hear everyone who is around and or in the circuit so you are informed and at least able to get out of someones way. I am incredulous we are even having this thread..to me it is utter stupidity NOT to have a radio..and at least a working radio on receive for starters but of course a fully functioning radio would be the norm. I personally take all radio calls I hear seriously and all of my actions while flying are determined by those calls. Is this not applying the best safety standard you can. When we are all playing in the third dimension which is a life limiting factor why would you not have something so simple to obtain and use to help you negotiate that third dimension with a bit of extra safety. I am flabbergasted at some of the comments on this thread Mark 1 8 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyle Communications Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 Well I am going to add my 2 cents worth into this discussion...and not because I have been involved in the radio industry for 30 years...Anyone who does not have a radio in their aircraft is a "BLOODY IDIOT". I dont give 2 hoots about all the comments on airmanship and proceedures the fact of the matter is most are flying aircraft that cost 20K up to 200K and what you cant afford a scummy $400 or even less for a good second hand one to let everyone know where you are...or at worst at least hear everyone who is around and or in the circuit so you are informed and at least able to get out of someones way. I am incredulous we are even having this thread..to me it is utter stupidity NOT to have a radio..and at least a working radio on receive for starters but of course a fully functioning radio would be the norm. I personally take all radio calls I hear seriously and all of my actions while flying are determined by those calls. Is this not applying the best safety standard you can. When we are all playing in the third dimension which is a life limiting factor why would you not have something so simple to obtain and use to help you negotiate that third dimension with a bit of extra safety. I am flabbergasted at some of the comments on this thread Mark 4 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kasper Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 Much clipped... Popham, where you have two active runways, 08/26 and 03/31 where the layout puts approaching aircraft at an angle, crossing the "Go Around" path of those landing on the other, sees to me to be a bit daft. . . . but that's Popham. . . . In the UK, it is still possible to buy a portable radio for a heck of a lot less than $2 grand, and even if the pilot does not have a licence, at least he/she is aware of what is going on in the area. The arguments against this are becoming more shrill and difficult to logically substantiate mate. No offence intended. No offense taken - I'm pretty thick skinned Popham and its two runways are just so English - cute. Maybe we should suggest that they do the flyin at Stoke in Kent - Woo Hoo! Handheld radio can be had for less than $2k ... BUT if you are flying open cockpit you are going to need a headset and probably want a helmet ... and then you will want the patch cables to connect to the radio and probably an external aerial ... tot that up and sorry but you are not getting change from $2k Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaz3g Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 Good airmanship is not dependent on whether or not the pilot has a radio. ..... My concerns have nothing to do with good airmanship; they have everything to do with safety. Two small aircraft approaching one another at a closing speed of greater than 500kph are EXTREMELY difficult to see and avoid without some sort of warning. That's what is likely to happen when John does a left hand circuit and Jim, who has read the ERSA, does a right hand special procedure. It's not rocket science...that closing thing is happening at a rate of more than 4 NM per minute and if you are looking at the airfield and along the next leg of the circuit rather than recognising that the dot on the wi screen is getting bigger, grief might just come your way. Perhaps you have 20:20 and reflexes sharper than a Gillette Turbo, but you give yourself, your pax and the other turkey a better chance if you've had a heads-up through the headset. Of course radios shouldn't have to be mandated...they should just be a standard part of the resources available to a pilot. Riddle me this...why do you have to have an altimeter in a VFR aircraft when you can see the ground anyway...can't you? Kaz 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happyflyer Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 Riddle me this...why do you have to have an altimeter in a VFR aircraft when you can see the ground anyway...can't you?Kaz I have an altimeter because it is the law and I'm a law abiding person. It helps me stay out of controlled airspace. When I am VFR on top I can not see the ground but of course then I have to have a radio. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cscotthendry Posted January 14, 2016 Author Share Posted January 14, 2016 Well I am going to add my 2 cents worth into this discussion...and not because I have been involved in the radio industry for 30 years...Anyone who does not have a radio in their aircraft is a "BLOODY IDIOT". I dont give 2 hoots about all the comments on airmanship and proceedures the fact of the matter is most are flying aircraft that cost 20K up to 200K and what you cant afford a scummy $400 or even less for a good second hand one to let everyone know where you are...or at worst at least hear everyone who is around and or in the circuit so you are informed and at least able to get out of someones way. I am incredulous we are even having this thread..to me it is utter stupidity NOT to have a radio..and at least a working radio on receive for starters but of course a fully functioning radio would be the norm.I personally take all radio calls I hear seriously and all of my actions while flying are determined by those calls. Is this not applying the best safety standard you can. When we are all playing in the third dimension which is a life limiting factor why would you not have something so simple to obtain and use to help you negotiate that third dimension with a bit of extra safety. I am flabbergasted at some of the comments on this thread Mark Mark: I have been trying to be as polite as I can about some of the weird logic some have presented in their excuses for not making radios at major fly ins mandatory. I must admit that I have had to bite my tongue more than once. I especially take exception to the notion that because not all radio installations are reliable, this leads to poor airmanship or is somehow a reason why radios should not be mandated for fly ins or some other twisted logic. But everyone is entitled to their opinion and in this country, entitled to voice it. I'm pleased that people have troubled themselves to have an input to the discussion. 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jabiruken Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 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? Evans head does not require radio, the display line is set 210 meters from the crowd line and runs north south. The marshals are relied on to scan the skies for such an incursion. The CASA was there and spoke to pilot of said drifter, he's still flying!! I have more safety concerns with string departures mixing it with various performance air craft and intersection departures,,, there was another incident with the mustang joining mid x wind an finds an out bound air craft departing mid field straight at him. I find those moments more concerning and a radio would not have fixed the near dissarster over the crowd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyle Communications Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 Well it may not have fixed this particular case....You cant put brains into monuments remember.....but having a radio will CERTAINLY limit most protential issues 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now