Should OzKosh be designated "Radio equipped aircraft only"?

[cscotthendry]

If OzKosh turns out to be as big and successful as we all hope, should aircraft without radios be excluded?

 

 

[facthunter]

Have special procedures for better safety but still include noradio aircraft. Nev

 

 

[Nobody]

If Oshkosh can have no radio arrival and departures why can't Ozkosh?

 

 

[Happyflyer]

This is Australia! Makem wear a fluro safety vest, hard had and glasses and all will be ok.

 

 

[Geoff13]

I have a problem with them calling it Ozkosh. Is that as original as we can get, sounds pathetic.

 

As for the thread question, the rules say we do not need a radio below 5000'.

 

Why change the rules for one event and without changing the regulations it would be impossible to enforce it.

 

 

[Happyflyer]

Agree with you Geoff about the name. As far as radio goes, I thought Narromine was a registered aerodrome and therefore radio would be mandatory.

 

 

[boleropilot]

two points - 1 - Ozkosh is cringe worthy - we have so much US influence on our lives, surely we can come up with something a little more original than that...

 

(we can come up with something more original, and stop calling me Shirley)

 

2 - I am certain my radio has saved both my life and the lives of others - I would not fly without it, and my life has been compromised by another pilot flying without one

 

I voted YES

 

BP

 

 

[gareth lacey]

Radio,s are a safety measure ,i would not fly without one, and a dual watch radio is great ,in this day and age aircraft of any style should have one

 

cheers gareth

 

 

[boleropilot]

Radio,s are a safety measure ,i would not fly without one, and a dual watch radio is great ,in this day and age aircraft of any style should have onecheers gareth

absolutely - a little hand held clipped to the harness and an earphone/mike with a PTT button is all you need - second hand, maybe $200 tops?

BP

 

 

[NT5224]

First, I completely agree with those questioning the name 'Ozkosh'. Totally irrelevant to us. Doesn't the location of the planned Aussie event have a name? Why can't we use that? Actually, I quite liked 'Natfly'. That meant something to me.

 

Second, if it's legal to fly without a radio then I don't see why it should be any different at a particular event. Personally I don't understand why anybody would want to fly without one, and I'd like to think most aviators were sufficiently responsible to see the benefits to themselves and their fellow pilots. But I say no to additional regulation at the event.

 

Alan

 

 

[frank marriott]

 

As stated by someone before ref a radio, without a dispensation the ERSA provides the answer to the question.

 

 

[601man]

First, I completely agree with those questioning the name 'Ozkosh'. Totally irrelevant to us. Doesn't the location of the planned Aussie event have a name? Why can't we use that? Actually, I quite liked 'Natfly'. That meant something to me.Second, if it's legal to fly without a radio then I don't see why it should be any different at a particular event. Personally I don't understand why anybody would want to fly without one, and I'd like to think most aviators were sufficiently responsible to see the benefits to themselves and their fellow pilots. But I say no to additional regulation at the event.

 

Alan.

 

Natfly was a SAAA run national fly in .. Ozkosh is being run by a separate group who jumped in when the SAAA internally did not have the time or effort to run it this year. This year it's back to the basics. A flyin for all types of aviation. No air show to keep the costs down and allow people to wonder around and look at all the aircraft.

[Nobody]

Natfly was a SAAA run national fly in .. Ozkosh is being run by a separate group who jumped in when the SAAA internally did not have the time or effort to run it this year. This year it's back to the basics. A flyin for all types of aviation. No air show to keep the costs down and allow people to wonder around and look at all the aircraft.

601 man I think you have a few things mixed up. Natfly was an RAAus event that stopped some years ago. Ausfly was the SAAA event that ran up until last year at narronine. It missed 2014 due to the internal issues in SAAA at that time.

 

Last years Ausfly was billed as an event for all types and forms of aviation but there was a feeling by the organizers that some saw it as an SAAA event even though there was a large formal RAAus presence. They also felt that there is still some die hard annimosity between the two groups and hence why some RAAus pilots didn't come. To make the event more independent from any one body a separate committee are now running it. Many of the past organizers are involved with some new blood.

 

These are probably good changes but I think they could have shown more imagination with the name.

 

 

[pylon500]

Has someone got the copyright to 'OZFLY'?

 

As for radio, technically yes should have it, although no RPT goes into Narromine, which is usually the reason for radio.

 

(I said reason, not rules...)

 

Having said that, all the times I've arrived at Narromine for Natfly, it's been a case of, the place looks deserted, but the radio chatter is non stop!

 

But even with radio, many seemed to just turn up at all different places around the area, and try to figure out where the circuit was...

 

 

[frank marriott]

(I said reason, not rules...)

Depends how you look at it I suppose. For myself if it is a rule then that's a pretty good reason to comply.

 

I don't see the connection between RPT traffic and mandated radio.

 

 

[cscotthendry]

Second, if it's legal to fly without a radio then I don't see why it should be any different at a particular event.

Alan

Alan: I see a very significant reason why it is different at an event; Traffic density. It may be legal to fly without a radio, but IMO flying into a major fly in without one is worse than driving in peak hour traffic without brake lights and turn signals. In city traffic, a fender bender might spoil your day. A fender bender mid air can ruin your life, and someone else's too!

 

I have witnessed first hand the chaos caused by a non radio equipped aircraft arriving at a major fly in. It could easily have ended in tragedy!

 

 

[NT5224]

Pylon500: OZFLY, I like it.....

 

Scott: I completely appreciate your point, and agree. However, the logical conclusion would be to make radio mandatory for all aircraft -since dangerously high traffic densities may potentially occur at any time, any location.

 

I'm not sure why radios are not mandatory, but until they are, I reckon we should find a way to make it work and allow non radio equipped aircraft to attend.

 

For myself, I wouldn't fly without a radio.

 

 

[facthunter]

You have only got to have one transmit button jamb on and no one can hear locally on the frequency. There needs to be a big improvement with radio procedures. Who checks their transmissions regularly? Nev

 

 

[cscotthendry]

You have only got to have one transmit button jamb on and no one can hear locally on the frequency. There needs to be a big improvement with radio procedures. Who checks their transmissions regularly? Nev

Nev:

While what you say about transmit button jam is true, I think this is why radio manufacturers are required to have transmit timeouts built into the electronics.

 

Also true is that few people check their transmission quality and on that point, about the only way to check is to ask another pilot for a radio check. The responses are highly subjective in spite of the "numbers" reported for signal strength and readability.

 

This is why I proposed some time ago, to put up a repeater that records a transmission and plays it back. Mark Kyle implemented this and obtained a license from ACMA to do it. The system suffered from the inevitable teething problems, but wasn't utilised by the local pilots much anyway. Mark did this at his own expense and effort and it would have been good to have got the local flying community behind it. I don't know if he has resurrected the system, but I still think it's a good idea that should be implemented nation-wide.

 

 

[cscotthendry]

Pylon500: OZFLY, I like it.....Scott: I completely appreciate your point, and agree. However, the logical conclusion would be to make radio mandatory for all aircraft -since dangerously high traffic densities may potentially occur at any time, any location.

 

I'm not sure why radios are not mandatory, but until they are, I reckon we should find a way to make it work and allow non radio equipped aircraft to attend.

 

For myself, I wouldn't fly without a radio.

Pylon:

One way to make that work might be to designate a certain window of time of each hour for non-radio equipped aircraft to arrive. That way, pilots with radios would know that non-radio equipped aircraft might be in the area at that time, but can reasonably expect that outside those times, that all the other aircraft in and around the circuit can hear and call.

 

 

[facthunter]

That sort of thing is what I envisaged or use a dedicated grass area for arrivals Most non radio aircraft are going to be fairly basic so shouldn't have very difficult landing area requirements. The "experts"( If we still have any ) could surely decide what works and put out a google earth picture of the area and strips/runways and approach access paths. I've seen plenty of chaos when people have radios. Lining up for a final on a runway other than the one they said they were on etc That's pretty basic stuff..Nev

 

 

[cscotthendry]

That sort of thing is what I envisaged or use a dedicated grass area for arrivals Most non radio aircraft are going to be fairly basic so shouldn't have very difficult landing area requirements. The "experts"( If we still have any ) could surely decide what works and put out a google earth picture of the area and strips/runways and approach access paths. I've seen plenty of chaos when people have radios. Lining up for a final on a runway other than the one they said they were on etc That's pretty basic stuff..Nev

You bring up a significant point; that is mistakes in communications. I think this happens when a pilot is overloaded mentally either from environmental factors or human factors. I have heard many instances where pilots have called the wrong runway headings, altitudes and directions. I still do it myself at times, when I get behind the flying. Usually when I hear another pilot make a mistake, I assume he's doing the right thing and just calling it wrong, but that could turn out badly too. But at least with a radio, you know someone is nearby and you can start to look for them.

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

...... But at least with a radio, you know someone is nearby and you can start to look for them.

And that's the crux of the problem. See and Avoid is the basis of VFR flight, which means you should be scanning constantly, not start looking when you hear a transmission. Otherwise you're not allowing for radio failure (yours or theirs) or people failing to transmit when they should, or aircraft not required to be radio equipped, or certain radio - silent military flights announced by NOTAM only, or drones, pelicans, weather balloons, ferris wheels ... to mention just a few

 

 

[cscotthendry]

HITC:

 

With all due respect, I don't only look when I hear radio calls. To suggest that that is the case is a mistake. I think to suggest that anybody does that is a mistake and false logic. It is a bit like saying that, because rain comes from clouds, if there are clouds in the sky it must be raining.

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

HITC:With all due respect, I don't only look when I hear radio calls. To suggest that that is the case is a mistake. I think to suggest that anybody does that is a mistake and false logic. It is a bit like saying that, because rain comes from clouds, if there are clouds in the sky it must be raining.

Well that's a bit of a relief, however I was only quoting you verbatim - you said "But at least with a radio, you know someone is nearby and you can start to look for them" (the bold is mine).

 

 

 

However, there are a couple of things folks who depend so much on their radios to alert them to the proximity of other flyers, should keep in mind. The first is something I've kept in mind since the days when I was instructing. Having taught the students all their nice radio protocol they would, for example, line up and announce their pending take-off, and from that moment they would be quite confident that anyone nearby was fully aware of what they were now embarked upon. They never gave a thought to the possibility that there might be someone quite close by who was distracted for a moment and didn't listen properly and understand what they heard. Nor any account given to the possibility that their transmission might be shielded by a hill or that their radio wasn't transmitting strongly or clearly for whatever reason (faulty microphones are the most common reason BTW).

 

 

 

So beware of this trap folks, just because you transmitted your intentions, it doesn't mean anyone, or everyone, heard and understood what you said. And even if they did, it doesn't mean they correctly interpreted it.

 

 

 

Secondly - do you keep in mind that people under pressure go deaf? Someone arriving at a busy gathering for the first time, like Narromine for example, is very likely to be feeling the effects of pressure and some uncertainty. It's well documented and taught in GA CPL Avmed courses that people lose their ability to hear and/or comprehend as their stress level and/or workload increases. One of the best examples I've seen is an onboard video where a fella is landing with 3PoB on a valley strip in the mountains at Megeve, France. He's flying a retractable Trinidad or Tobago and the gear-up warning siren starts as he turns Final. It's sounding loudly the whole of Final and he doesn't hear it at all even when it starts warbling as he rounds out and he continues and lands on the belly - quite a sobering thought if you're relying on hearing your radio, or other people hearing it ...