Should Radios Be Required At Non-Towered Airports?

Should Radio calls be required at uncontrolled airports?

  • Yes - Via Regulation

  • Its a great idea, Yes but we do not need more regulations

  • No Radios for me

Results are only viewable after voting.
Absolutely not. Take responsibility for see and avoid, don't try to push that off on someone else making a radio call.
 
1) Too much regulation a bad thing
2) I've yet to fly anywhere yet where it would be possible to operate without a radio. Hard time thinking of flying without being able to communicate. That's just because of where I live / fly.
3) I wonder if this is similar to the "old school" vs "new school" sides you see on GPS vs VOR / DME / LORAN / etc.
 
Stewartb said:
If I’m a remote area and have clear visibility for miles and nobody else is out there? I don’t need to yap on the radio. On the other hand, if I’m passing through an area that I know other traffic uses? I’ll make a position report to let others know I’m there.

I know how to use a radio. Better yet, I know WHEN to use a radio.

Did your sarcasm make you feel smart? Epic fail.
Click to expand...

It is not sarcasm ,it is logic.
If you claim in your original post that you are not using radio “half the time” ... what does that even mean ?
Half the time when you are supposed to use and you are not using because , what ? You have clear visibility for miles ? It is a distraction like your tv ?
 
I'm getting tired of all the answers I hear when some requests, "traffic in the area please advise!" :eek:
Click to expand...

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

Nope, wasn’t me, honest! See, here is my radio... so I couldn’t have made that call.

-Skip
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
I ran this past a friend, he said - 'Sounds just like the newbies, wanting to force yet more regulation on us because he'd like nothing better than to never look out the window'.
(I suppose there are harsh judgments possible from both sides, just like every issue that crops up.)
Click to expand...

Yep, noobish pilots who can't conceive how it's possible to operate outside their flight school/rental culture bubble.
 
PaulS said:
And the people who are convinced that a mid air is a remote possibility because it's a "big sky".
Click to expand...
Honest, I think the guys with eyeballs tend to look harder for collision threats than the lazy "muh radio and ADS-B" folks. And lest y'all forget, the gubment ain't never gonna succeed in giving all of the buzzards ADS-B, so stop being so heads-down.
 
Warmi said:
If you claim in your original post that you are not using radio “half the time” ... what does that even mean ?
Half the time when you are supposed to use and you are not using because , what ? You have clear visibility for miles ? It is a distraction like your tv ?
Click to expand...
Can't speak for the other poster, but I have also been known to just shut the radio off. I've flown enough NORDO to be comfortable with it. If I'm inbound to an uncontrolled and the frequency is a constant squeal with yokels at multiple airports all stepping on everyone else's calls, I will often just turn it down and proceed in NORDO.

Lots of planes that were both using the same frequency have met in the air and come down in pieces. Radios don't prevent midairs, good visual scans do.

There's an exercise I like to challenge new pilots to do. I ask them how good their visual scan for traffic is while in the pattern. They usually claim its excellent. I then challenge them to go do half a dozen circuits in the pattern while there's a bit of other traffic around. Do the first 3 with the radio on. The second 3 with the radio off. If the amount of time you spend scanning for traffic doesn't increase during the second set of 3, I'll eat a bug.
 
Just asking.
You own a private airfield. Obviously not towered.
You have an ultralight or maybe something from the '30s or '40s. No electrical system.
You hop in your bug smasher for a trip around the patch or maybe to another private airport without a tower.
Or you go sight-seeing for an hour.
Maybe you occasionally fly over to the "real airport", also without a tower, for gas and a a burger at the diner.
A government agency is going to force me to to carry a radio to fly off my own property?
I can't land at an uncontrolled airport anywhere, without a radio?
I own radios, but they are for my convenience, not the government's.
 
RyanShort1 said:
Honest, I think the guys with eyeballs tend to look harder for collision threats than the lazy "muh radio and ADS-B" folks. And lest y'all forget, the gubment ain't never gonna succeed in giving all of the buzzards ADS-B, so stop being so heads-down.
Click to expand...
Indeed. Flying the cub, there's nothing for me to do but look outside. And I've been almost run over a time or two on a glider, but never by an antique with no radio.

Flying with ADSB in/out, I've definitely picked up traffic i couldn't see with my eyeballs. It's a lesson on how truly far apart a mile, or even 500' is.
 
Doc Holliday said:
Got to love the ones that constantly cry about all the regulations they must comply with, and how unfair it is that it somehow inhibits their hobby, yet turn right around and want..........more regulations. :rolleyes:

Unreal.
Click to expand...

It is unreal, I agree. The end result of this short sighted view might be like what already exists in Germany in relation to hand held radios used at uncontrolled fields:

There has to be a knowledgeable person on the ground to watch and hear, but not control your flight. If he’s not there to listen, you can’t land. So no landing at night.
Your handheld needs to be an government approved model.
Your handheld needs to have a sticker issued by the proper authority to approve it for use in your plane.
You need to have a certificate of German language proficiency to use your handheld, or you can’t legally land. This does not come with your Pilot Certificate, it is separate.

That’s where this sort of nonsense takes you, and you don’t want to go there.
 
Lindberg said:
Indeed. Flying the cub, there's nothing for me to do but look outside. And I've been almost run over a time or two on a glider, but never by an antique with no radio.

Flying with ADSB in/out, I've definitely picked up traffic i couldn't see with my eyeballs. It's a lesson on how truly far apart a mile, or even 500' is.
Click to expand...
Sadly most midair collisions or near misses you read about are between two aircraft with radios. The incident occurred because one was either on the wrong channel or reporting the wrong runway. A lot of people assume transmissions guarantee separation.
 
Perhaps the problem is not all the NORDOs. Perhaps the problem is all the NOTWRs. Maybe it is time to close all the non-towered airports, make all airspace Class B, and institute per-use user fees. That will eliminate all crashes and make the entire world safer.
 
Perhaps we need the MBZ (mandatory broadcast zone in Australia) or RMZ (Radio Mandatory Zone in the UK) concept. Essentially, these are uncontrolled fields where radio traffic reports are mandatory.
 
flyingron said:
Perhaps we need the MBZ (mandatory broadcast zone in Australia) or RMZ (Radio Mandatory Zone in the UK) concept. Essentially, these are uncontrolled fields where radio traffic reports are mandatory.
Click to expand...

Like KMOT when the tower is closed.

Last summer the city of Minot, of all places, decreed that all pilots flying aircraft capable of making radio calls (including those aircraft not originally designed to be capable), will make position reports when the tower is closed. Various threats, real and implied, were made against those who would not comply.
 
personally I think no one should be allowed to operate an aircraft without government approval. You should need a form signed by 4 bureaucrats prior to even starting an engine on a aircraft. For safety's sake.



:rolleyes:
 
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. As a result many pilots remain in continuous contact with ATC because they are worried that regardless of their being in uncontrolled airspace they might not be reachable when requested.

There are certainly many places in the world where you are not allowed to start the planes engine without ATC approval by radio.
 
Last edited:
Matthew Rogers said:
That doesn’t help someone who is getting ready to takeoff while you are landing. You may well hear “56G departing runway 23” just as you are on short final because neither of you said anything prior to that point.
Click to expand...
I've had that happen several times when I HAVE been making pattern calls. Not sure what's going on in their brains. I fly a tight pattern, though, and I think some of them hear "Fly Baby turning final" and think I'm still two miles out like they would be. Unobstructed view down final from the runup area, though, so they're just not looking.

Favorite case was apparently a student with the instructor. I was on short final when they called "Cessna XXXX departing 34." The plane rolled forward a little bit then stopped short of the line. It then lurched a turn a bit to the left to give an unobstructed view of aircraft on final. I actually saw a hand appear on the right side of the cockpit, pointing at me as I crossed the threshold.

I flew the original Fly Baby for ~7 years at this busy uncontrolled airport without a radio. Does make you VERY interested in learning to spot traffic. Unshielded ignition, so using a headset with a handheld was like strapping two popcorn poppers on the sides of my head.

Last fall, I had a microphone failure flying into a nearby field. Had not one, but two airplanes take off in front of me on short final (I think they were together)....

Ron Wanttaja
 
Juliet Hotel said:
Can't speak for the other poster, but I have also been known to just shut the radio off.
Click to expand...
We had a local FBO that was doing that. Claimed it was distracting from the instruction.

Ron Wanttaja
 
Maybe we should mandate radios in cars, then we could take out all the stop signs and traffic lights since radios are the solution to traffic issues.
 
Might be a solution in search of a problem. If KXYZ untowered airports have 6 take offs and landings on a good day, and usually has 1 plane in the sky at a time - if that - then there isn't really anyone to talk to. And I would imagine planes at these airport without radios are probably cruising at 100 kts or less and in great weather, so you probably have a lot of reaction time anyway.

Me? I wouldn't fly without using a radio. I'm just wired that way I guess (no pun intended).
 
bobmrg said:
Definitely not. The Mark I eyeball provides the best collision avoidance...a radio is a crutch
Click to expand...
The human eyes are indeed magnificent, but of course it helps to have an idea where to look. I've spotted airplanes in the pattern visually when the other pilot was not transmitting on CTAF, or was transmitting on the wrong frequency. I've also NOT seen airplanes in the pattern even though I clearly knew where to look from ADS-B "in" or their radio transmissions. Eyes, radio, ADS-B - they all work together, and each of them contributes to getting the overall traffic picture. I'd rather have more than less of the above, because they complement each other.

- Martin
 
We can come up with a list of collisions between planes talking on
Grum.Man said:
Sadly most midair collisions or near misses you read about are between two aircraft with radios. The incident occurred because one was either on the wrong channel or reporting the wrong runway. A lot of people assume transmissions guarantee separation.
Click to expand...
I'm sure we can all list midairs where the pilots were both communicating with each other or ATC.

So far, I've never seen any data to back up always talking on the radio.
 
RoscoeT said:
Yep, noobish pilots who can't conceive how it's possible to operate outside their flight school/rental culture bubble.
Click to expand...
Have you seen they guys involved with BoldMethod? I'm not sure any of them are shaving yet.
 
Grum.Man said:
Sadly most midair collisions or near misses you read about are between two aircraft with radios. The incident occurred because one was either on the wrong channel or reporting the wrong runway. A lot of people assume transmissions guarantee separation.
Click to expand...

Nothing guarantees anything but just as in real life, you have multiple senses to help you navigate and unless you gonna start claiming that deaf people have no real disability and being able to hear does nothing for collision avoidance, why would you want to deprive yourself of that very sense in the air ?
Of course it is not perfect but even if it does work only 50% of time in terms of giving you more detailed picture of what’s around you , that’s certainly better than 0%.

What I don’t get is people being almost proud of not using radios because... “yeah, **** them and their stupid radios”... nothing to do with government regulations , just common sense.
 
Warmi said:
Nothing guarantees anything but just as in real life, you have multiple senses to help you navigate and unless you gonna start claiming that deaf people have no real disability and being able to hear does nothing for collision avoidance, why would you want to deprive yourself of that very sense in the air ?
Click to expand...
Obviously being able to hear traffic on the radio is a good thing. The more information you can get, the better. For myself though, the radio is always used as a confirming instrument to my primary traffic avoidance instrument, my eyeballs. Allowing the radio to be primary and your eyeballs to be secondary is an easy habit to fall into if you're not careful.
 
Juliet Hotel said:
Obviously being able to hear traffic on the radio is a good thing. The more information you can get, the better. For myself though, the radio is always used as a confirming instrument to my primary traffic avoidance instrument, my eyeballs. Allowing the radio to be primary and your eyeballs to be secondary is an easy habit to fall into if you're not careful.
Click to expand...
That's not obvious to me. Seen plenty of helmet fires caused by insignificant radio calls.
 
Grum.Man said:
The problem isn’t the people who don’t have radios but the people who assume everyone has a radio.
Click to expand...
..two entirely different groups, and generally different from...
PaulS said:
And the people who are convinced that a mid air is a remote possibility because it's a "big sky".
Click to expand...
...other than the fact that they may all be “somebody besides me”. ;)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top