Should Radios Be Required At Non-Towered Airports?

[flyingron]

The intent of an RMZ is not typically to allow pilot to pilot communication, it is to allow a nearby ATC authority to contact you regardless of being in uncontrolled Class G airspace.

OK, I didn't know that, I've never flown myself in the UK. In Australia, a MBZ requires mandatory position reports.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Maybe we should mandate radios in cars....

All appropriately tuned to Sirius XM channel 74.

 

[kgruber]

We should require universal radios and that ALL windshield be removed and replaced by iPads

 

[WDD]

I think the question is can you fly safe enough in certain places without radios

I can’t see a valid argument being made that using a radio makes you less safe and that not using a radio makes you safer.

Therefore while using a radio is always a good idea, you can probably get away without using one in certain locations.

And as it is safe enough no government regulations are required

 

[midwestpa24]

I'm really surprised while scrolling through this thread I didn't see anyone touch on this.

EVEN IF, all aircraft were required to have radios, and pilots were required to use them, you still need to be looking out the window. Why you may ask?

What if one person accidentally is on the wrong frequency?
What if they don't realize their radio isn't transmitting?
What if a small child happened to turn down your volume while playing airplane in the hangar (Ok he was an adult but still)?

Even if everybody has a radio, you can NEVER depend solely on the radio for traffic separation. Closest thing I've ever had to a mid air occurred en route at 7,000 feet while talking to ATC. ATC never saw that Mooney that I nearly went head to head with, even after I asked them.

 

[Brad Z]

Wow, no shortage of opinions here. If the FAA were to propose such a rule, they'd have to show how the benefit in terms of the monetary value of a human life) outweighs the cost of implementing such a rule. Since very few collisions can be directly attributed to the lack of radio usage, I suspect they'd have a hard time making a case for it. Perhaps if there were a rash of NORDO midairs, perhaps.

I think you could make a much stronger argument mandating the requirement for installation of an AOA indicator in every aircraft.

 

[bflynn]

Regrettably, I think we just learned that any price is worth life.

 

[NHWannabe]

all we hear is radio ga ga. radio goo goo. radio ga ga.

but radio is a sound salvation

 

[MauleSkinner]

Regrettably, I think we just learned that any price is worth life.

Fact of life.

Gotta have 5 fatal car accidents at a particular intersection before they’ll put up a stop sign. Trees grow and cover it up, gotta have several more before somebody takes it upon himself to trim the tree.

 

[PaulS]

Wow, no shortage of opinions here. If the FAA were to propose such a rule, they'd have to show how the benefit in terms of the monetary value of a human life) outweighs the cost of implementing such a rule. Since very few collisions can be directly attributed to the lack of radio usage, I suspect they'd have a hard time making a case for it. Perhaps if there were a rash of NORDO midairs, perhaps.

I think you could make a much stronger argument mandating the requirement for installation of an AOA indicator in every aircraft.

I said yes, I would like it if everyone was talking, but as you say, it probably won't happen, at least in my lifetime.

AOAs are great, but you have a required airspeed indicator that people who stall and spin in obviously aren't paying attention to, I think the same type of accidents would still happen with an AOA installed because people get distracted. The key is to pay attention to what needs to be paid attention to for the phase of flight you are in. In the pattern, my eye is outside and is also frequently checking that airspeed indicator. I am very cognizant of my airspeed, my bank in turns and staying coordinated. I occasionally overshoot final, but I just continue the turn until I'm back on centerline, NBD. The other thing is keeping your eyes out in the pattern and while entering the pattern. The last is staying outside while VMC, I try to use FF as often as possible if not on an instrument plan. I have all the bells and whistles, but sometimes that stuff doesn't work correctly. Like the 172 that kept appearing then disappearing from my traffic screen. He was there, found him with my eyes, but on the traffic screen he was gone more than he appeared.

 

[Daleandee]

In response to that I once heard “nobody in the pattern except us NORDOs”.

Classic!

I was gonna ask if I could borrow that from you but I understand it wasn't you ...

 

[DFH65]

No we don't need more regulations. Is it a good idea? Of course.

For those say trying to use a radio with an un-shielded ignition isn't a big deal I am betting they have never tried. I have it is almost useless. Add to that that most Champs and Cubs don't have the best antenna set ups and it makes it really ugly.

 

[Daleandee]

The intent of an RMZ is not typically to allow pilot to pilot communication, it is to allow a nearby ATC authority to contact you regardless of being in uncontrolled Class G airspace. Often there is a ‘listening squawk’ so you can broadcast that you’re ready to talk if ATC decides they’d like to ‘request’ that you do something.

Had an incident when riding with a friend to a fly-in not so many years ago. We had been talking to approach at a class D facility and were heading to an non-towered field about 7 miles away. After squawking VFR and changing frequencies for the non-towered field we soon got a call on CTAF from the Class D tower warning that we were about to enter their airspace as we were setting up 45º to downwind for the wrong field! Embarrassing it was but my friend basically said "sorry bout that chief" and turned away quickly.

 

[Martin Pauly]

EVEN IF, all aircraft were required to have radios, and pilots were required to use them, you still need to be looking out the window.

We are in complete agreement. Radio calls alone are not sufficient. Neither is ADS-B by itself. And I can miss something with my eyes, no matter how hard I look.
Neither one of these is perfect. Which is why it is so useful to have a combination of them. Eyes and radio, and maybe also ADS-B - and now you have a much better chance of spotting relevant traffic.

- Martin

 

[ebetancourt]

I am fascinated by the implication that a radio call actually means that the airplane is near the position stated. Saw it yesterday, took off behind two 172s in a Citabria. Could see the second one, but not the first. When the first finally called crosswind, he was at least two miles away, and the second one was just following. Since I was planning to leave the area anyway just kept climbing. I was 2,000 ft AGL when the first passed on down wind (my usual turn crosswind point). The number two must have waited to turn downwind until he passed the first, so I turned downwind and he was about a mile outside me. I left the area without making a final call. And yeah, as a previous post indicated, I've had more than one departure in front of me on short final because they were looking where they turn final. And yes I was using the radio. The problem is I tend to fly very tight patterns and so my calls don't match everyone's expectations. BTW my patterns are about where they used to be in my Mooney.

 

[Lindberg]

Therefore while using a radio is always a good idea, you can probably get away without using one in certain locations.

Anyone who thinks using a radio is always a good idea isn't creative enough.

 

[chemgeek]

The most considerate and safety-conscious glider club that operated at our airport issued handheld radios to all of their glider pilots. They used them to alert other aircraft they were entering the pattern to land on the grass next to the runway. On good soaring days, there might be a half-dozen out and about. We had a couple of Champ pilots at one point that carried handhelds as well. This effort was much appreciated.

On the flip side, there are the occasional pilots in radio equipped planes than don't use them, or use them on the wrong CTAF. That's not as much appreciated, and has resulted in chaos in the traffic pattern as everyone tried to avoid what the self-imposed NORDO was going to do next.

 

[TommyG]

It would be real helpful if pilots spent less time staring at their iPad and looked out the window.

 

[Stephen Shore]

I learned to fly back in 1981 when a good number of airplanes did not have radios and of course no ADSB. I have had my share of "surprises".

I can change my mind from day to day on the "requirement" part of it - there are definitely pros and cons. I can tell you that there are alot of pilots at non-towered airports that in this day and age that are intimidated by the use of a radio and therefore just don't use it - even if they have it. I am surprised when I talk to some of the guys on the field at how a pretty good number actually don't fly into towered fields because they want to AVOID using a radio. They are scared to death that they won't know how to respond and even follow directions. Some of these guys have been flying for many years.

I was the opposite - I learned to fly at a busy airport with a tower and I remember being nervous to fly into an airport that did NOT have a tower! It is all about what you are accustomed to.

But really hard to argue against the use of a radio. I certainly don't feel like I have lost my freedom when I make a call.

 

[Half Fast]

Definitely not. The Mark I eyeball provides the best collision avoidance...a radio is a crutch,

Bob Gardner

Rather than arguing the point myself, I'll instead let an expert speak by quoting from the most authoritative book on the subject:

"We live in a technological age. It is possible to fly without radios or electronic aids to navigation and rely solely on the Mark I eyeball, but there is no question that safety is enhanced when pilots can locate one another beyond visual range."​

 

[PaulS]

I learned to fly back in 1981 when a good number of airplanes did not have radios and of course no ADSB. I have had my share of "surprises".

I can change my mind from day to day on the "requirement" part of it - there are definitely pros and cons. I can tell you that there are alot of pilots at non-towered airports that in this day and age that are intimidated by the use of a radio and therefore just don't use it - even if they have it. I am surprised when I talk to some of the guys on the field at how a pretty good number actually don't fly into towered fields because they want to AVOID using a radio. They are scared to death that they won't know how to respond and even follow directions. Some of these guys have been flying for many years.

I was the opposite - I learned to fly at a busy airport with a tower and I remember being nervous to fly into an airport that did NOT have a tower! It is all about what you are accustomed to.

But really hard to argue against the use of a radio. I certainly don't feel like I have lost my freedom when I make a call.

This ^^^^^^

 

[Tusayan]

Regrettably, I think we just learned that any price is worth life.

Human life does indeed have a price. However In this case it’s not clear that ANY lives would be saved by mandating that a tiny number of planes be radio equipped or destroyed. It is clear there would be a price in freedom paid regardless and forever. Welcome to adulthood.

 

[nauga]

Rather than arguing the point myself, I'll instead let an expert speak by quoting from the most authoritative book on the subject:

"We live in a technological age. It is possible to fly without radios or electronic aids to navigation and rely solely on the Mark I eyeball, but there is no question that safety is enhanced when pilots can locate one another beyond visual range."​

I think air-to-air radar and non-cooperative target recognition should be required for BVR fights VFR flights.

Nauga,
ad absurdum

 

[Rebelrabbit]

Better than to have a radio and not need it than need a radio and not have it....?









Just building up my post count

 

[flyingron]

Fact of life.

Gotta have 5 fatal car accidents at a particular intersection before they’ll put up a stop sign. Trees grow and cover it up, gotta have several more before somebody takes it upon himself to trim the tree.

There's no such standard in most places. And in most cases, the stop sign doesn't change the the requirements to stop anyhow.

 

[WDD]

Anyone who thinks using a radio is always a good idea isn't creative enough.

I don’t see how communicating appropriately via radio could be less safe let alone lead one to say you’re better off or always just as safe without a radio.

 

[WDD]

Interesting that a topic that is essentially “good idea to communicate on the radio” elicited a lot of what feels like “get off my lawn” comments.

 

[C-1 PILOT]

I’ve flown, when and where NORDO aircrafts were In abundance. I started flying, as many have in a Cub. That said, unless you are flying an NORDO aircraft from yesteryear, GET a radio. It’s just safer...Not foolproof, as many an incident or accident has befallen those with radios, but if used and listened too, in the pattern and prior to, does make for a safer environment, IMO.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Interesting that a topic that is essentially “good idea to communicate on the radio” elicited a lot of what fees like “get off my lawn” comments.

No, the topic is essentially “should there be a regulation that your lawn mower has a bagger to make me feel better.”

now get off my lawn.

 

[MauleSkinner]

There's no such standard in most places. And in most cases, the stop sign doesn't change the the requirements to stop anyhow.

I don’t know about most places. Only where I’ve seen it.

 

[WDD]

No, the topic is essentially “should there be a regulation that your lawn mower has a bagger to make me feel better.”

now get off my lawn.

Should there be a regulation for your John Deere riding mower of death that alerts you before you crash into .....

Got to be some snarky response here but I just can’t find it. . Anyone help out here with this twisted tortured metaphor ?

 

[MauleSkinner]

Should there be a regulation for your John Deere riding mower of death that alerts you before you crash into .....

Got to be some snarky response here but I just can’t find it. . Anyone help out here with this twisted tortured metaphor ?

How about “side discharge mowers throw rocks that kill people who live in glass houses every year! If you’re not gonna bag, at least take the blades off your mower!

 

[Lindberg]

I don’t see how communicating appropriately via radio could be less safe let alone lead one to say you’re better off or always just as safe without a radio.

How about pulling into downwind in a glider behind a barely English-proficient solo student in a Cessna? I know I'm perfectly capable of maintaining spacing, landing on the grass or even behind him on the runway if necessary, but I also know if he hears I'm right behind him, his hair's going to catch on fire and he's likely to do something unpredictable and endanger us both.

And I don't think anyone said you're always better off without a radio. That wasn't the question.

 

[wilkersk]

Radio is only minimally useful at my home drome because radio discipline is so sloppy. People stepping all over each other, unnecessary radio calls, plus there's another airport with the same frequency just accross the border in Canada. So, no I think it'd be just another useless law.

 

[Snowmass]

It would be real helpful if pilots spent less time staring at their iPad and looked out the window.

And this applies to pretty glass panels and engine monitors too.

 

[wanttaja]

Interesting that a topic that is essentially “good idea to communicate on the radio” elicited a lot of what feels like “get off my lawn” comments.

No...recheck the title of this thread. "Should radios be REQUIRED...."

I'm irritated at people who want ME to spend money so that THEY feel safer, without any sort of statistics to back them up (e.g., the ADS-B out requirement).

I have the perfect solution: Anytime you meet a NORDO pilot, give him or her a handheld radio. If it makes YOU feel safer, then YOU pay for it.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[PaulS]

How about “side discharge mowers throw rocks that kill people who live in glass houses every year! If you’re not gonna bag, at least take the blades off your mower!

Oh, I hate the dumbasses who remove the guards meant to deflect rocks from mowers then mow with the chute pointed toward the sidewalk and street.

 

[bobmrg]

Rather than arguing the point myself, I'll instead let an expert speak by quoting from the most authoritative book on the subject:

"We live in a technological age. It is possible to fly without radios or electronic aids to navigation and rely solely on the Mark I eyeball, but there is no question that safety is enhanced when pilots can locate one another beyond visual range."​

Touche'


Bob

 

[smv]

We should require universal radios and that ALL windshield be removed and replaced by iPads

Replace the driver side airbag with a 10ga shotgun shell and watch how quickly people change their habits and drive more courteously and carefully.

 

[smv]

i am fascinated by the implication that a radio call actually means that the airplane is near the position stated.

Then there are those fools who think announcing how many minutes away from some reference point is so much safer than reporting an actual location.