Poll...Should Radios Be Required At Non-Towered Airports?

Should Radios Be Required At Non-Towered Airports?

  • Yes...and I'm under 40

  • Yes...and I'm between 40 and 60

  • Yes...and I'm over 60

  • No...and I'm under 40

  • No...and I'm between 40 and 60

  • No...and I'm over 60


Results are only viewable after voting.
I learned to fly before gps, had two vors. Did my first countries via pilotage and ded reckoning. Great stuff, got mildly lost on one cross country as a student, called for help, controller was great, gave me a vector to steer, very helpful. I'm of the mind set that if you are flying where there is no traffic, say to your own field, then have at it fly with no radio. But if you are mixing with other aircraft at an airport, buy a fricken radio and use it, they can be had for a few hundred bucks and work great. I know being on the radio is scary, but really, it gets easier with practice.

As far the poll, I think pilots should use radios if they are mixing with other aircraft, but would rather it not be legislated or made a rule. Add that option and I'll vote.
 
That is a plus for having a radio, we all can tell each other where the cirrus’s are and keep Way from them.
 
That is a plus for having a radio, we all can tell each other where the cirrus’s are and keep Way from them.

There you go, but you have to be on top of that game, because the Cirrus is generally much faster.
 
I have to wonder how many folks who are saying that folks should not operate without radios have much experience actually operating without one.

If you think it is tough to build pattern awareness with a non-talker in the pattern, you should see what it is like to build SA without a radio at all.
Back in my NORDO days, I once was doing touch-and-goes with ten airplanes in the pattern.

In another, unrelated incident, one of my EAA chapter members said, "If you don't use the radio, I don't see you."

Sure, I agree it's safer all around if everyone is talking, and making correct calls. I just disagree with the word "Required" that ends up in the "Subject" line of these discussions. I think all pilots should have experience with NORDO operations at uncontrolled fields, both as the NORDO, and as the "NORDEE".

Here's one for the CFIs out there: Next flight with a student, have them unplug their headset, enter the pattern at an uncontrolled pattern, and land without hearing any other traffic calls. Keep your headset plugged in and make the normal calls so all the Mister Magoos know you're there.

Pet peeve of mind is the fact that guys are yap, yap, yapping all the time on the CTAF. I don't need to know you're twenty miles out, I don't need to know you're fifteen miles out, etc. etc. I don't need to know you're starting to taxi from your tiedown spot. Fer the love of mike, I DON'T need to know that you're just about to start your engine.

With so many fields sharing frequencies, it can get pretty hectic up there. Need to minimize what is said to that required for the safety of flight. It's a tool, not a crutch.

Ron Wanttaja
 
Plus one for Ron, one of my biggest pet peeves is guys announcing taxi at an airport with one taxiway, I bet we can all see you. The next one is guys that write novels on the radio. “Will be entering 45 for left downwind 32 podunk”
will be enough thank you. I dont need to know every turn your going to make to get there.....
 
Is that the deal now? If you don't hear someone in the pattern on the radio, you don't have to look and clear before you take the runway?

Did you not read what I said? The other aircraft was on so tight of a base leg that he was behind the 310.
 
Another thread sparked this question...

Should radios be required at towered airports when the tower is closed?

:popcorn:
 
Another thread sparked this question...

Should radios be required at towered airports when the tower is closed?

:popcorn:

They are at KMOT... Well... USING the radio is required after-hours, if equipped.
 
Meh. I voted yes. If you want to share airspace with others you ought to be willing to communicate with others in that airspace. There are a lot of fricken’ requirements in aviation. Have you weighed the FAR/AIM lately? What’s the difficulty in having a radio on board?

Just looking at the thread most of you are libertarians. One ought to have a radio but hate the MANDATE part of it. You kind of are in the wrong hobby if you dislike mandates lol. Do you fly without insurance? An operating beacon? A current medical? Never mind don’t answer.
 
Do you fly without insurance? An operating beacon? A current medical? Never mind don’t answer.
No on #2, no on #3. The airport requires I carry insurance to lease a hangar, otherwise, I might not bother. It's only $250 a year, though.

Ron Wanttaja
 
No on #2, no on #3. The airport requires I carry insurance to lease a hangar, otherwise, I might not bother. It's only $250 a year, though.

Ron Wanttaja

And your thoughts on being mandated to employ a radio? I guess the same pilots opposed to it would install or carry a portable but refuse to use it. That would be pretty funny.
 
No on #2, no on #3. The airport requires I carry insurance to lease a hangar, otherwise, I might not bother. It's only $250 a year, though.
And your thoughts on being mandated to employ a radio? I guess the same pilots opposed to it would install or carry a portable but refuse to use it. That would be pretty funny.
I'm against a mandate. Flew NORDO for a number of years in a plane with no electrical system and non-shielded mags. As I posted in a related thread, the actual number of midairs involving NORDO aircraft is very low.

You can use the same arguments for mandating that all aircraft be of nosewheel configuration, or have five-point safety harnesses or air bags.

Ron Wanttaja
 
I'm against a mandate. Flew NORDO for a number of years in a plane with no electrical system and non-shielded mags. As I posted in a related thread, the actual number of midairs involving NORDO aircraft is very low.

You can use the same arguments for mandating that all aircraft be of nosewheel configuration, or have five-point safety harnesses or air bags.

Ron Wanttaja

There’s a lot of arguments for different things. I don’t know the stats but you might. I’m sure there are relatively few nordo planes/pilots out there. Any idea on a comparison of mid-airs factoring in the differing percentages?

Honestly I don’t really care ... if a pilot chooses to fly nordo that’s their choice. I’ve certainly been on XCs and didn’t talk to anyone except the airport I was departing from and landing at. I’ve accidentally flown a busy pattern nordo. Was using Comm 2 which was receiving but not transmitting. Another pilot in the pattern was actually making calls for me. After my dense self figured it out I got on Comm 1 and apologized.

Do I think it’s better if we are all working together over the radio? Absolutely. The sky is an amazingly big place ... until it isn’t. But I’m not losing any sleep over it if some rando is zooming around nordo.
 
There’s a lot of arguments for different things. I don’t know the stats but you might. I’m sure there are relatively few nordo planes/pilots out there. Any idea on a comparison of mid-airs factoring in the differing percentages?

Results of a quick study were posted on another thread:

https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/com...n-towered-airports.125898/page-5#post-2916827

The TLDR version: In 12 years, there were two just two "classic" NORDO midairs, where one plane but not the other had a radio at an uncontrolled field. That's out of approximately 100 midairs. In many of the other cases, both pilots were claiming to have been making the proper calls. Several of the midairs involved gliders (operating in the same thermal), ultralights, balloons, and drones.

Favorite was WPR16FA148A/B. Don't know if the two aircraft involved had radios or not, but they were on final to TWO DIFFERENT AIRPORTS when they collided.

Ron Wanttaja
 
Thanks, Ron.

Clearly the data shows that non-talkers are the real problem.
 
Thanks, Ron.

Clearly the data shows that non-talkers are the real problem.
Wouldn't go that far. Non-LISTENERS seem to be a bigger issue. Or to be charitable, non-hearers.

"The Piper pilot reported that he entered the right downwind leg of the traffic pattern for runway 07 and announced his position. Then, he announced that he was turning right base for runway 07. As he turned onto the final approach leg, he announced his position and that he was landing on runway 07.....According to the Glastar pilot, he was waiting for an airplane to land on runway 25 so he was holding at the end of runway 07. When the airplane cleared the runway, the pilot announced his intentions to depart and began his takeoff roll." (SEA08LA057A)

"Both pilots stated that they made inbound radio calls, during which they didn't hear each other, but heard a response from an airplane on the ground." (ERA09LA033A)

"[The helicopter] made a "quick stop" and then announced that they were "on the go." The pilot of a T-6G said that she announced that they were departing. The helicopter was over the grass and slightly to the left of the runway when its main rotor blades struck the left wing tip of the airplane." (CEN09LA149A)

"Both pilots said they had flown a standard traffic pattern. Both pilots said they had been making position announcements on the multicom radio frequency of 122.900." (CEN09IA161A)

"The RV-8 began to overtake the CJ-6A, while the pilot of the RV-8 announced his relative position over the common traffic advisory frequency (CTAF). The pilot of the CJ-6A did not realize how close the RV-8 was, and began a climbing right turn...." (ERA09LA302A)

"The Cessna pilot stated that he announced his position on the approach to the airport starting about 11 miles out and continuing until he was on final approach. While on final, he noticed a Swift airplane holding on the taxiway for runway 31. He said that he heard a radio transmission that stated, “There are two airplanes landing.” He said that he immediately heard and felt a bang. He reported, “My aircraft turned sideways some and came on down to the runway.” The pilot of the other aircraft, a Mooney, stated that he announced his position on the approach to the airport while entering the downwind for runway 31." (CEN09LA491A)

Notice that these six cases are all in the first 25 midair accidents in my 2008-2019 database extraction (I was too lazy to go through the whole thing again). For the most part, these are cases where both pilots survived (e.g., made statements afterwards that they'd been making the proper calls on the radio. There was also a case where the tower told a plane to turn a right 360 for spacing and the pilot turned left instead....

There are lots of accidents enroute, and within practice areas. You've got sightseers colliding over rivers and mountains. Lots of situations where a radio wouldn't have made any difference.

I agree that radios aid safety. What I *don't* agree with is pilots who put electronic gizmos on a pedestal, kneel and rend their garments, and proclaim that anyone who DOESN'T have such devices is an offense to the aviation gods.

VHF radios (and ADS-B) are tools; too many pilots use them as crutches. But it's more fashionable to hiss and scream at the NORDO folks than to acknowledge one's inability to perform one of aviation's fundamental tasks: To see and avoid.

Ron Wanttaja
 
Meh. I voted yes. If you want to share airspace with others you ought to be willing to communicate with others in that airspace. There are a lot of fricken’ requirements in aviation. Have you weighed the FAR/AIM lately? What’s the difficulty in having a radio on board?

Just looking at the thread most of you are libertarians. One ought to have a radio but hate the MANDATE part of it. You kind of are in the wrong hobby if you dislike mandates lol. Do you fly without insurance? An operating beacon? A current medical? Never mind don’t answer.
I, too, hate the MANDATE part. I have been flying for many decades, mostly in Alaska. I am careful to use CTAF comms whenever possible, even when landing on lakes. But I oppose adding more regulations and required equipment just because someone thinks it might save a life someday. As @wanttaja said, that is a slippery slope. What will the next "life saving" mandate be? (FAA certified air bags....?, mandatory airframe parachute systems..?, ...) If you are away from home and have a radio failure, do you shut down and get a hotel room, until the radio is replaced or fixed? I vote no.
 
SNIP


What I *don't* agree with is pilots who put electronic gizmos on a pedestal, kneel and rend their garments, and proclaim that anyone who DOESN'T have such devices is an offense to the aviation gods.

VHF radios (and ADS-B) are tools; too many pilots use them as crutches. But it's more fashionable to hiss and scream at the NORDO folks than to acknowledge one's inability to perform one of aviation's fundamental tasks: To see and avoid.

Ron Wanttaja

Come on Ron, I don't think anyone here is saying that.
 
Come on Ron, I don't think anyone here is saying that.
Second thread in less than a month on making radios mandatory; the poll right now is running about 40% in favor. Doesn't matter that statistics show that NORDO aircraft are not a major safety hazard. The Cult of Marconi has decreed that NORDO airplanes are unsafe, so all hail the Cult of Marconi! They've all got radios already, so it's not going to cost them a dime. Of COURSE radios should be mandatory!

In a sense, this is even worse than ADS-B. Few people had it before the mandate was announced, so everyone was in the same boat. Some of us had to pay proportionately more (~25% of the value of my airplane) but at least we could commiserate with each other.

Ron Wanttaja
 
Certainly. Of course. Naturally. Without a doubt, etc, etc...
 
Second thread in less than a month on making radios mandatory; the poll right now is running about 40% in favor. Doesn't matter that statistics show that NORDO aircraft are not a major safety hazard.
Anyone two brain cells in their head can tell you the TSA does absolutely nothing to protect air travel from terrorism. And yet, we have the TSA and no one seems to care enough to do anything about it. Its a human nature thing and as much as we don't like to admit it, pilots are human.
 
Mine too apparently. That delivery was drier than a camel's bung. :D

I'd think it would be easy to see that Ron's quote...
n 12 years, there were two just two "classic" NORDO midairs, where one plane but not the other had a radio at an uncontrolled field. That's out of approximately 100 midairs.

...would indicate that the data shows NORDO aircraft are not the problem.

Seemed ripe for sarcastic comment, given the flavor of many of the posts about it in this thread that heap blame for a massive perceived problem on guys flying without radios.
 
Last edited:
If you have a radio then there really is no excuse for not using it. If you don't ,then fine but you have assumed a greater amount of risk to yourself and others . IMO
 
I fly out of a fairly busy non-towered field south of Houston (KLBX). Nordo traffic fits the mix of everything from jets practicing approaches to student pilots running patterns. Things work well if people look outside the cockpit at least once in a while.

Hey that's my home airport! Used to fly out of there when Twin Cities Aviation was giving instruction back in the mid 2000's before they moved back over to BYY. Miss flying out of there.
 
If there is a UNICOM frequency I will call or, if not but the airport is busy the a blind call on 122.8. Not all airplanes have working or not radios but all pilots have eye(s).
 
Why you would not take advantage of something so simple and affordable if you could to avoid something so potentially devastating is beyond me.

All depends on the traffic and therefore risk level. I find it mildly annoying to constantly listen to radio chatter when flying cross country and prefer silence or music of my choice.

So when flying up between 10-14k, where there is very little traffic, I will often tune them to an unused frequency. I enjoy the flight much more that way.
 
Got my PPL back in 1981. 58 years old now.

Back in 1981 I trained at a controlled airport (Class D now) and I had several close calls at non-towered airports (and VORs too for that matter).

I for one don't miss the days when alot more aircraft were flying without radios.

To be honest, it seems like most of the pilots at my airport that fly NORDO are OLD (70+) and quite frankly probably don't use them because they are not confident in their radio skills.

I have been cutoff in the pattern, had runway incursions when I am on short final - and this is just in the last couple of months. In the case of the guy who back taxied on the active runway when I was on short final - I KNEW he was going to do that as soon as I saw him approach the hold short line. He is 80 years old and chooses to just ignore common courtesy.

That's one reason why when on long trips I typically use towered airports. Just gives me a level of comfort that I don't get from unfamiliar to me non towered fields.

When I pull into my little airport I look at the hangers and if they are open I know who is flying in the area and the ones who don't have or don't use radios. Not a great technique for avoidance, but it helps. These guys are friends and I just am a little careful when I know they are up and don't say anything to them when they power their way in! Just let it go!
 
I didn't read the question as a mandate and wouldn't want to see one. I live far enough North that it'd be less than facile to maintain currency in an open cockpit aircraft, and really don't think about them that much. There are some around to be certain, but you don't see them that much. An aircraft with an enclosed cockpit should have a radio, if only a handheld. Makes everyone safer.
 
I use a radio because no matter who screws up, I don't want to be listed in the NTSB as ".... a contributing cause could have been the guy in the Cub singing 'Born to be Wild' at the top of his lungs while executing Space Shuttle approaches....."
 
I'm against a mandate. Flew NORDO for a number of years in a plane with no electrical system and non-shielded mags. As I posted in a related thread, the actual number of midairs involving NORDO aircraft is very low.

Ron Wanttaja

So how many midairs is ok? I am not a fan of mandates, but NORDOs are not using all of the available resources for safety. I really don't understand the stubborn refusal to use all tools available by the relative handful of NORDO. Do what you want by yourself but we share the sky. Not using the radio in the pattern is like not using a turn signal on the highway. Fortunately, there appear to be fewer and fewer NORDOs flying around with each passing year.

You can use the same arguments for mandating that all aircraft be of nosewheel configuration, or have five-point safety harnesses or air bags.

Nope, No you can't. None of those items affects anybody else.
 
Last edited:
Pet peeve of mind is the fact that guys are yap, yap, yapping all the time on the CTAF. I don't need to know you're twenty miles out, I don't need to know you're fifteen miles out, etc. etc. I don't need to know you're starting to taxi from your tiedown spot. Fer the love of mike, I DON'T need to know that you're just about to start your engine.

I agree, but generally I'm gonna make a 5 or10 mile "inbound" announcement. If there is traffic, they will know I'm headed their way. If there is "radio silent" traffic in the pattern, hopefully they will make an announcement that clues me into which runway they are using.
 
So how many midairs is ok?

The honest answer? A few.

The Cirrus and the Metro were talking and squawking.

The safety nannies are required to say “none” but it’s not ever going to be reality.

Oh and yes, having extra safety gear CAN affect the other guy. You may go do things that endangers others because it gives you a sense of having a safety blanket.

Or... recent case in point...

All you recreational pilots don’t need to fly when the pros are working and busy! We need safety, damnit!

... want no midairs between a talking and squawking recreational pilot with an airframe parachute and an “essential” business aircraft with none?

Just ban all recreationally minded pilots from the pattern during “important airplane time”.

Surely the professional pilots won’t ever hit each other and APA will be 100% safe. Right?

Nope.

The argument of zero accidents is flawed because humans make mistakes. And always will.

Some don’t find doing laps at an uncontrolled quiet place without a radio — unsafe at all.

Some don’t find mixing it up with a continuous string of bizjets to a parallel runway with a radio and a transponder and a traffic avoidance system and an airframe parachute — unsafe at all.

You can’t make it perfectly safe. Nordos at uncontrolled fields is a reasonable accommodation. Just like letting that pesky Cirrus get near those important UPS packages is.
 
The honest answer? A few.

The Cirrus and the Metro were talking and squawking.

The safety nannies are required to say “none” but it’s not ever going to be reality.

Oh and yes, having extra safety gear CAN affect the other guy. You may go do things that endangers others because it gives you a sense of having a safety blanket.

Or... recent case in point...

All you recreational pilots don’t need to fly when the pros are working and busy! We need safety, damnit!

... want no midairs between a talking and squawking recreational pilot with an airframe parachute and an “essential” business aircraft with none?

Just ban all recreationally minded pilots from the pattern during “important airplane time”.

Surely the professional pilots won’t ever hit each other and APA will be 100% safe. Right?

Nope.

The argument of zero accidents is flawed because humans make mistakes. And always will.

Some don’t find doing laps at an uncontrolled quiet place without a radio — unsafe at all.

Some don’t find mixing it up with a continuous string of bizjets to a parallel runway with a radio and a transponder and a traffic avoidance system and an airframe parachute — unsafe at all.

You can’t make it perfectly safe. Nordos at uncontrolled fields is a reasonable accommodation. Just like letting that pesky Cirrus get near those important UPS packages is.

I agree, one cannot make things perfectly safe. We pilots all know that, more than anyone. Flying is a hazardous activity. Don't need to make it more hazardous than it already is. But the good pilots work at making it safer each flight. The good pilots do preflights. The good pilots visually check the fuel level. The good pilots perform a run-up. The good pilots practice emergency procedures. The good pilots communicate with the other pilots in the pattern. Good pilots know that making accurate position reports in the pattern, that we all share, is not an unreasonable expectation. The bad pilots say "I don't have to". I will call out every SOB that says that.

I get making mistakes, we all have. But NORDO is a deliberate act.

@SixPapaCharlie is absolutely correct. There is no defensible argument for not using all available means.
 
So how many midairs is ok?
You can use the same argument to justify mandatory ADS-B out in all aircraft.

In any case, it's a cost/benefit relationship. The plane I was flying 35 years ago (same model I fly now) had non-shielded ignition. Wearing a headset was like strapping two popcorn poppers to my ears. Upgrading to a shielded system would have cost the club probably about a third of the nominal value of the airplane (I say "nominal" because it was a historic aircraft with possible higher value...it's in a museum now).

I (and the other members of the club) were willing to separate from other aircraft the official FAA way: See and avoid. *I* had no problem not hearing radio calls from other aircraft. Everyone entering the pattern knew that there might be NORDO aircraft present. One of the flight schools actually shut down their radios because they were distracting during instruction.

To paraphrase Earnie Gann: "Avionics are silicon and copper. They will not cushion a sudden meeting of aluminum."

Let's take a look at the midair at Centennial. They had EVERYTHING going for them. Transponders. Radios. ADS-B. A *control tower* for Chrissakes.

Yet they had a sudden meeting of composite and aluminum.

I whipped through my 1998-2018 homebuilt accident database, looking for cases where the NTSB mentioned communications in the Probable Cause. There were 51 midairs involving homebuilt aircraft. On many of them, both pilots claimed to have been making the normal calls.

NYC02LA141B is the first one I found where the lack of a radio was noted in the Probable Cause. "According to the pilot of the KitFox, he had landed on the grass area adjacent to runway 26, a 3,500-foot-long, 65-foot-wide, asphalt runway. The KitFox was taxied eastbound on the grass, where the pilot "looked down the runway," observing that there was no traffic on the runway or on final approach. He then announced on the common traffic advisory frequency that he was going to "back taxi" on the active runway. As the KitFox entered onto runway 26, it was struck by the Waco, which was on rollout from landing."

So...was the problem the lack of radio on the Waco, or the fact that the Kitfox, on the ground, decided to back-taxi on an active runway without sufficiently visually confirming there was no traffic? Was the Kitfox pilot, perhaps, a little TOO reliant on his radio?

Here's the second, ERA12LA100A: "...They reported that the RV-6 was equipped with a radio and the Pitts was not. Both airplanes were in the airport traffic pattern after completing a local flight, and the pilots were flying a visual approach to runway 24. The pilot of the RV-6 flew a "tighter" traffic pattern and made radio calls. The pilot of the Pitts flew a wider traffic pattern and did not see the RV-6 ahead and below. As the airplanes landed nearly simultaneously on runway 24, the propeller of the Pitts contacted and partially separated the empennage of the RV-6."

One probable contributor here was the poor visibility from the Pitts.

So, there's three airplanes (two accidents) where the NTSB considered the lack of a radio to be a factor. Over a 21-year period. Ironically, neither of these accidents resulted in fatalities.

If you read the narratives of the cases where both pilots DID use radios, it's interesting. "Yes, I DID make the normal radio calls. No, I didn't hear the other airplane." In at least one case, they blamed the frequency as being too busy.

The basic problem I see is over-reliance on the electronics. "I didn't hear an announcement on the radio...so, obviously, the way was clear."

I don't argue that a radio can be an important safety tool. Unfortunately, too many pilots use them as crutches. I felt safer NORDO, where I *knew* no one knew I was there. I just assumed everyone else was Mister Magoo, and everything was fine. I actually wrote an article on NORDO operations, titled "Do it Yourself Stealth (and How to Survive It)".

Favorite case was when I was on downwind once. Cessna 172 came in to join on the 45, at exactly my altitude. Got a *real* good look at the pilot. Never turned his head to the side to see if there were any other airplanes on the downwind. But I'm sure he made all his radio calls.

I agree, but generally I'm gonna make a 5 or10 mile "inbound" announcement. If there is traffic, they will know I'm headed their way. If there is "radio silent" traffic in the pattern, hopefully they will make an announcement that clues me into which runway they are using.

Now that I fly a plane with shielded ignition, I'm a good boy and make position calls. But, of course, someone else's "5 or 10 miles" may not match my own. I call when I'm a mile from a prominent landmark used for pattern entry. I don't call further out because my plane is so slow.

Ron Wanttaja
 
You can use the same argument to justify mandatory ADS-B out in all aircraft.

In any case, it's a cost/benefit relationship. The plane I was flying 35 years ago (same model I fly now) had non-shielded ignition. Wearing a headset was like strapping two popcorn poppers to my ears. Upgrading to a shielded system would have cost the club probably about a third of the nominal value of the airplane (I say "nominal" because it was a historic aircraft with possible higher value...it's in a museum now).

I (and the other members of the club) were willing to separate from other aircraft the official FAA way: See and avoid. *I* had no problem not hearing radio calls from other aircraft. Everyone entering the pattern knew that there might be NORDO aircraft present. One of the flight schools actually shut down their radios because they were distracting during instruction.

To paraphrase Earnie Gann: "Avionics are silicon and copper. They will not cushion a sudden meeting of aluminum."

Let's take a look at the midair at Centennial. They had EVERYTHING going for them. Transponders. Radios. ADS-B. A *control tower* for Chrissakes.

Yet they had a sudden meeting of composite and aluminum.

I whipped through my 1998-2018 homebuilt accident database, looking for cases where the NTSB mentioned communications in the Probable Cause. There were 51 midairs involving homebuilt aircraft. On many of them, both pilots claimed to have been making the normal calls.

NYC02LA141B is the first one I found where the lack of a radio was noted in the Probable Cause. "According to the pilot of the KitFox, he had landed on the grass area adjacent to runway 26, a 3,500-foot-long, 65-foot-wide, asphalt runway. The KitFox was taxied eastbound on the grass, where the pilot "looked down the runway," observing that there was no traffic on the runway or on final approach. He then announced on the common traffic advisory frequency that he was going to "back taxi" on the active runway. As the KitFox entered onto runway 26, it was struck by the Waco, which was on rollout from landing."

So...was the problem the lack of radio on the Waco, or the fact that the Kitfox, on the ground, decided to back-taxi on an active runway without sufficiently visually confirming there was no traffic? Was the Kitfox pilot, perhaps, a little TOO reliant on his radio?

Here's the second, ERA12LA100A: "...They reported that the RV-6 was equipped with a radio and the Pitts was not. Both airplanes were in the airport traffic pattern after completing a local flight, and the pilots were flying a visual approach to runway 24. The pilot of the RV-6 flew a "tighter" traffic pattern and made radio calls. The pilot of the Pitts flew a wider traffic pattern and did not see the RV-6 ahead and below. As the airplanes landed nearly simultaneously on runway 24, the propeller of the Pitts contacted and partially separated the empennage of the RV-6."

One probable contributor here was the poor visibility from the Pitts.

So, there's three airplanes (two accidents) where the NTSB considered the lack of a radio to be a factor. Over a 21-year period. Ironically, neither of these accidents resulted in fatalities.

If you read the narratives of the cases where both pilots DID use radios, it's interesting. "Yes, I DID make the normal radio calls. No, I didn't hear the other airplane." In at least one case, they blamed the frequency as being too busy.

The basic problem I see is over-reliance on the electronics. "I didn't hear an announcement on the radio...so, obviously, the way was clear."

I don't argue that a radio can be an important safety tool. Unfortunately, too many pilots use them as crutches. I felt safer NORDO, where I *knew* no one knew I was there. I just assumed everyone else was Mister Magoo, and everything was fine. I actually wrote an article on NORDO operations, titled "Do it Yourself Stealth (and How to Survive It)".

Favorite case was when I was on downwind once. Cessna 172 came in to join on the 45, at exactly my altitude. Got a *real* good look at the pilot. Never turned his head to the side to see if there were any other airplanes on the downwind. But I'm sure he made all his radio calls.



Now that I fly a plane with shielded ignition, I'm a good boy and make position calls. But, of course, someone else's "5 or 10 miles" may not match my own. I call when I'm a mile from a prominent landmark used for pattern entry. I don't call further out because my plane is so slow.

Ron Wanttaja
So because aircraft accidents are inevitable, there is no point in trying to be safe? Really? because that is what I came away with.

Car crashes at night are inevitable even with headlights, so I am just not going to turn them on at night? This is what I am hearing from your line of reasoning. Do I understand you correctly?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top