turboplanner Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 . Anyone have examples of accidents where the causing factor was no radio? See Mazda's latest post He seems to be having a problem getting his message through, and it's symptomatic of the problem that this argument is raging on two different threads at the same time........message there somewhere? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiwi Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 If you want my opinion or even if you don’t, I’m against mandatory radios. However, if you fly at a busy airfield, it is good airmanship to have and use a radio, (I have 2 in my Drifter) but they should never be relied on. On a side note, at my airfield you can have 4 to 5 gliders as well as 4 to 5 powered aircraft in the circuit at one time. If every pilot calls Taxing, Lining up, Crosswind, Downwind, Base, Final and Clear of Runway, They become as good as useless. So how about using some commonsense, If you are near to, or from a active airfield it is Good Airmanship to have and to use a radio. But please don’t hog the airways as there are only 4 calls that must be made. * When the aircraft enters the "vicinity of an aerodrome" * Immediately before joining the circuit pattern or, in the case of a straight-in approach, at least 5 NM from the threshold of the runway * Immediately before, or during, taxiing * Immediately before entering a runway. Civil Aviation Safety Authority - New rules for pilots Kiwi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 I must have missed the mail outs, consultations RAA Magazine features and debates on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 Mandatory? There are plenty of situations where the carriage of radio is required, and they are all spelled out The question is to mandate it for ALL aircraft in ALL airspace. We seem to be going off at a tangent somewhat to just argue the reasons for carrying radio. I do not recall anyone who argued in general terms for NOT carrying a radio, or using it when you think it can help A lot of the older aircraft do not have an electrical system at all. They have 2 magnetos and that is that. (of course they can carry a hand-held but I am not sure whether that meets the standard Mazda has TRIED to get the message across that unless you are talking to a specific ground station on an available frequency you do not have any check to confirm that you are getting out. Would we ask the authorities to force us to put radios to operate in class G when you do not have network coverage. VHF is line of sight and is not very reliable at low level anyhow. What frequency would you work? Half the pilots who travel in groups use 123.45 to talk to each other and others foolishly use less suitable frequencies and actually break the law by putting personal stuff over the air. If you are flying along and you expect some cropduster to start talking to you while he is doing his thing, I would believe that you will be disappointed. Cattle mustering folks are likely to remain uncontacted. The world standard is pretty much along the lines of what we already have here. Why would you volunteer to restrict US more severly than that? Remember, NO ONE has said that you shouldn't use your radio where it can contribute to awareness, but there are times and places where you could spend your effort on something more constructive, rather than make calls on frequencies that no one may be listening on with a radio that has not been confirmed as working with the expectation that someone will hear, understand and magically do the right thing and avoid you. Nev.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skeptic36 Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 Dear MazdaStop bashing your head against a brick wall. In some situations there is a right and correct understanding and then there is a wrong understanding. This is such a situation. There is no point in trying to educate those who will not make any effort to understandand but prefer to barge on ahead rationalizing their untenable position with ill-informed or un-informed information and faulty logic.These same people will inevitably cite the poll results above in support of their position. The majority are not necessarily right but that too I feel is beyond their grasp.I have difficulty believing the lack of ability in critical thought in the majority of the population of Australia.Here is a statistic that you might find amusing: On average, half of the people that you deal with will be of bolw average intelligence.Cheers. Dear Querty, It is disappointing that you have been unable to sustain this debate without resorting to insulting the intelligence of all those who have an opinion differing from your own. I think it would be good if we could keep these forums the friendly helpful place they have always been, and that can't happen if we start insulting each other. Regarding faulty logic a) 66 people out of a potential 8000 is not .00825% b) there may be 8000 RAA members but they are not all members here, there are also members here who are not RAA members. So 66 out of ???? potential voters= hmm not sure, but I'm pretty sure it is more than 26 out of ????. Therefore I don't think any comfort should be taken from Turboplanners figures. :) Regards Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Juliette Lima Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 Thanks Skeptic36. JL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skeptic36 Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 Mazda has TRIED to get the message across that unless you are talking to a specific ground station on an available frequency you do not have any check to confirm that you are getting out. Remember, NO ONE has said that you shouldn't use your radio where it can contribute to awareness, but there are times and places where you could spend your effort on something more constructive, rather than make calls on frequencies that no one may be listening on with a radio that has not been confirmed as working with the expectation that someone will hear, understand and magically do the right thing and avoid you. Nev.. Hi Nev, Why does it have to be a specific ground station that gives you a radio check if there is a concern about your radio working? I've heard several pilots ask for and receive radio checks from other aircraft. It seems to be effective. Several people have inferred radios do not need to be carried in some airspace (often they claim it is over a pilots own farm, apparently other aircraft don't go there ) so how do you use a radio to contribute to awareness if you don't have one on board ? Regards Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
farri Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 Fair enough to have a discussion on the subject but has everyone forgoten that it`s CASA who make the regulations not what we or RAA members think. In my opinion,mandatory radio in all classes of airspace, "Ain`t going to happen,in the near future" Frank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Qwerty Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 Sceptics36, I am dissapointed, agrieved and hurt that a section of the community that I (wrongly as it happens) assumed would be able to comprehend and understand the simple irrefutable and undeniable arguments put by me, Mazda, Facthunter, Turboplanner and others. The responses have been without exception based on faulty logic (not an attack, a statement of fact) and head off down some blind side ally argument about safety or the recounting of a specific incident when sighting of an aircraft was aided by radio. I am left in utter disbelief that the clear well stated explanations can possibly be misunderstood. I mean no personal attack on anyone. Cheers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motzartmerv Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 Ive stayed out of this one so far... Personally i can't see how mandating radio will make any scrap of difference regarding safety.. Of all the collision accidents here and overseas, how many of them involved non radio equipped aircraft.. Im afraid i agree with Mazda, HER points are quite valid, if radio was mandated it would innevitably make things less safe... IMHO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Qwerty Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 I sincerely appologize to anyone that I may have offended with my previous remarks on this thread. I take myself too seriously some times. OK then......Anyone for mandatory TCAS ????? Cheers qwerty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tracktop Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 simple irrefutable and undeniable arguments put by me, Mazda, Facthunter, Turboplanner and others. The responses have been without exception based on faulty logicCheers. Hi First I would like to thank the experienced for passing on their knowledge in general to us more novice members. Generally your opinions are evaluated and absorbed or consumed with relish, except for this debate. While I don't think it would ever happen as it doesn't fall in line internationally. the debate still rages Sorry but I don't see any NO arguments that make any sense to me at all. Sorry NOT EVEN ONE. All I see is burried in you text is - we want to be free of all rules ( that's never going to happen) or in the past we didn't need it so why do we need it now. I would suggest - my guess only - in the past there were far less aircraft in the air at any one time, the rec ac range was more limited than now, less cheap reliable technology was available the further you move into the past, The rule and restriction makers were much fewer and far less enthusiastic than they are now and will be even more so in the future. The only responses I see that have faulty logic is the "why we should not have" ones. Sorry but just as you fail to understand how we think, so we of you. I and others have certainly tried to understand (without success) your logic and reasons as we work on building our aviation knowledge. Ray Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tracktop Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 OK then......Anyone for mandatory TCAS ????? Cheers qwerty Hi Different kettle of fish - maybe in 10 years :big_grin: Ray Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ozzie Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 Actually there may be an argument for mandatory radio causing more accidents than what they may prevent. how many taxying accidents have been caused by pilots on the move with eyes inside playing with the knobs. Tracktop you could be right about less traffic years ago. i have noticed a BIG increase in the Hunter Valley over the last 10 years. some times it seems like Pitt st mall at lunch time. ozzie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tracktop Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 how many taxying accidents have been caused by pilots on the move with eyes inside playing with the knobs.ozzie Dare I suggest its not the radio being present's fault! maybe they shouldn't play with their knob while taxiing. Then again flying is all about multitasking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motzartmerv Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 Traktop. I think there's 2 points in your post that are very telling.. First of all, you agree that some of the more experianced (most of) people are not in favour.. Doesn't that fact alone start to ring alarm bells??.. And secondly you said you dont think its going to happen because it doesnt fall into line internationally.. And the increased traffic argument holds no water especially considering your previous statement regarding international standards.. Australian skies are empty.. compared to some countries, with fractional amounts of airspace compared to ours, have loads more traffic.. Bucket loads more.. My problem with mandatory radio is the same as ADSB being mandatory.. Its human nature to become dependant on technology.. Its that simple.. Ps. Can anyone produce any sort of stats or figures regarding collisions with non radio erquipped aircraft.. I suspect not... cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tracktop Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 Doesn't that fact alone start to ring alarm bells??.. cheers Yes it does, hence why I wait so long to post. You may also note that mostly my post have been about why you haven't provided any reasonable ( in my logical and continually questioning mind) explanation why it shouldn't be so. Being new to aviation, there are things that appear to me to exist in aviation for reasons of legacy or pomp so I tend to challenge all things for reasonableness. Off topic but a sort of example. Take the weather debate. I recentlyl attended a CASA safety seminar At the seminar someone ( I believe an experienced old hand ) asked if " plain English Forcasts were on the agenda?" The answer was an unequivacial NO WAY The experienced learned presenters then went about telling the congregation how easy and simple it was to interpret all the abbreviations. Why all you needed was to know a simple 20 abbreviations all listed on - Opens the book - page 125 of the latest VFR guide. Nothing else need be known is that so hard to learn ! Well I thought, I usually use the full abbreviation list in the back ( and I am learning and have a reasonable grasp of the reports) but I thought well 1 page will be easier and maybe even a copy at the computer will help as a quick reference. Well what a load rubbish we were told - yes I already know almost all the 20, but did it help me understand the forcast - NO WAY- Its the obscure and infrequently used abbreviations that you need most. none of which appear on page 125 as instructed. Typical we had to learn it, so do you, attitude rather than thinking smarter and providing a sensible explanation - if one really exists, teletypes and morse long fallen from favour. I guess another point I am trying to make is - not all information provided by the experienced knowledgeable is correct - even when collaborated Still to be convinced.:hittinghead: Ray Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motzartmerv Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 Tracktop.. I hear ya mate, your preachin to the choir there.. By all means question everything, its that attitude that will keep you alive in this game..And on this site you may end up getting some backhairs up.. But dont let that stop you.. Perhaps a different angle.. Can you show me cause why it SHOULD be introduced?.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 Ozzie, when do you do your taxying call? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 Kiwi referred to these CASA changes in a post on the other thread Civil Aviation Safety Authority - International Operators /nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_90471 (all one line in your browser) Personally I think that's of far greater concern than the subject of this thread. If people no longer give turning calls in a busy circuit, it will not be possible to build a picture of where everyone is and who's behind you in the circuit. CASA appear to have introduced this without consultation, and I can see mid air collisions occurrring as a direct result. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Graham Lea Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 Maybe it is to early for me but I can't find anything... I would certainly be concerned if entering and in-circuit calls were not mandatory in a busy ctaf! (Ctaf ® done away with..) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_90471 click on this link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cloudsuck Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 But please don’t hog the airways as there are only 4 calls that must be made. * When the aircraft enters the "vicinity of an aerodrome" * Immediately before joining the circuit pattern or, in the case of a straight-in approach, at least 5 NM from the threshold of the runway * Immediately before, or during, taxiing * Immediately before entering a runway. Civil Aviation Safety Authority - New rules for pilots Kiwi. Kiwi, Bro, have a re read of your own link. It says, At a minimum, radio calls will be required: When the aircraft enters the "vicinity of an aerodrome" Immediately before joining the circuit pattern or, in the case of a straight-in approach, at least 5 nm from the threshold of the runway Immediately before, or during, taxiing Immediately before entering a runway. These are the minimum required, not the only ones required (for good airmanship and safety). Question; do you fly away with the Minimum fuel on board or do you fly with reserve because it is safer and good airmanship. To conduct aviation on minimums e.g. minimum maintenance, minimum fuel, minimum sleep in conditions below minimum (minima) is setting yourself up for maximum trouble. As you know, I always give a turning base call and final call because I don't care for minimums... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crezzi Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 Kiwi referred to these CASA changes in a post on the other threadCivil Aviation Safety Authority - International Operators /nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_90471 (all one line in your browser) Personally I think that's of far greater concern than the subject of this thread. If people no longer give turning calls in a busy circuit, it will not be possible to build a picture of where everyone is and who's behind you in the circuit. CASA appear to have introduced this without consultation, and I can see mid air collisions occurrring as a direct result. The NPRM was issued Nov last year - I haven't got it in front of me but IIRC it's purpose was to make the 4 calls Kiwi mentioned mandatory for radio equipped aircraft at CTAF (where they are currently only recommended). The calls not mentioned (including turns in circuit) remain recommended - no change. TP - I thought you were a proponent of radio so I'm confused why you are so concerned about this ? Cheers John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crezzi Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 Link to the NPRM - http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/newrules/ops/nprm/0814os_preamble.pdf Its probably worth pointing out that it hasn't been implemented yet AFAIK ? Cheers John 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