Peter wrote:
I have just been reviewing the old question of how many radios have to be 8.33, and the best references I can find is that the answer is ONE.
There should be a single answer, different countries have different interpration of the same regulation.
Jesse wrote:
There should be a single answer, different countries have different interpration of the same regulation.
Well, these days, the situation is a bit different. You have SERA, you have non-commercial OPS regulation so the space for individual NAAs to mandate some equipment has shrunk considerably. Although you might be banging your head against the wall because of some funny ideas they have.
Anyway, there is a general principle that for some kinds of flying, maintaining communication is too important and a single unit can’t meet the required reliability or what not. So more than one has to be fitted. This is just the same for 25 kHz and 8.33 kHz. So it stands to reason that anywhere where you needed two 25 kHz, you’d need two 8.33 kHz. In the transitionary period, e.g. German authorities allowed for one 25 plus one 8.33 in certain cases to meet the two radio requirement (i.e. making the 25 kHz a usable backup). That’s in the past; as I wrote in the first paragraph, the current situation is different.
there is a general principle that for some kinds of flying, maintaining communication is too important and a single unit can’t meet the required reliability
Any source? I always believed the same but when I stated it recently I was corrected by various parties.
And, err, which are those “certain” kinds of flying?
Martin wrote:
Anyway, there is a general principle that for some kinds of flying, maintaining communication is too important and a single unit can’t meet the required reliability or what not. So more than one has to be fitted.
What you say is of course true, but from a regulatory point of view such a requirement should be in part-NCO. As it isn’t, it appears that EASA has judged the risk of lost communications with a single radio acceptable. Is there then a legal basis for an NAA to demand two radios?
Airborne_Again wrote:
What you say is of course true, but from a regulatory point of view such a requirement should be in part-NCO. As it isn’t, it appears that EASA has judged the risk of lost communications with a single radio acceptable.
One could say that for with single COM a transponder can be the backup, in the way that you can squack lost comms. As far as I am aware this is not clearly defined for light aircraft under new regulations.
Martin wrote:
Well, these days, the situation is a bit different. You have SERA, you have non-commercial OPS regulation so the space for individual NAAs to mandate some equipment has shrunk considerably. Although you might be banging your head against the wall because of some funny ideas they have.
I agree on both, and that is the issues you will have during ramp checks and CAA inspections. Several Dutch aircraft have been forced to either take out the second non 25 kHz radio, or install a second 8,33 kHz radio. This is strange, and not in line with other countries, over the same EU regulations.
Unfortunatly no of them as far as I am aware have tried to bring this to court, too find out if this is actually needed or not.
I recently asked again, and got confirmed again that Dutch CAA do not accept aircraft with one 8,33 kHz and on 25 kHz radio. Then you should either have only one radio, or have both 8,33 kHz (or both 25 kHz for the time being). This is especially strange for VFR aircraft, where there is no requirement for VHF com at all.
And again it is not inline with German LBA for example.
See also the post from @BackPacker his club was forced to get the second radio done as well by CAA-NL.
The new SERA / Part NCO also bring in new regulations for some countries, such as ELT requirement, which is now for most general aviation aircraft. Also note that many PLB’s are not acceptable as ELT replacement.
Dutch CAA do not accept aircraft with one 8,33 kHz and on 25 kHz radio. Then you should either have only one radio, or have both 8,33 kHz (or both 25 kHz for the time being
Thanks for following things “close-up” !
Do you have any indication of their arguments?
What documents do they refer to?
Jan_Olieslagers wrote:
Do you have any indication of their arguments?
What documents do they refer to?
They refer to this EU 1079/2012
From EU 1079/2012 article 4:
5. Member States shall ensure that by 31 December 2017 at the latest all radios have the 8,33 kHz channel spacing capability with the exception of ground radios operated by air navigation service providers.
and from EU 1079/2012 article 5:
2. From 1 January 2014 an operator shall not operate an aircraft flying under instrument flight rules in airspace class A, B or C of the Member States listed in Annex I unless the aircraft radio equipment has the 8,33 kHz channel spacing capability.
3. With regard to the carriage requirements of 8,33 kHz channel spacing radio equipment identified in paragraph 2, an operator shall not operate an aircraft flying under visual flight rules in areas operating in 8,33 kHz channel spacing unless the aircraft radio equipment has the 8,33 kHz channel spacing capability
This radio equipment in article 5 is considerd to be all radio equipment.
Those who oppose generally use these statements from article 2 of EU 1079/2012
4. The conversion requirements shall not apply to frequency assignments: (a) that will remain in 25 kHz channel spacing on the following frequencies: (i) the emergency frequency (121,5 MHz);
5. Radios intended to operate exclusively in one or more frequency assignments that will remain in 25 kHz channel spacing shall not be required to have the 8,33 kHz channel spacing capability
They then consider the second radio for use on 121.5 MHz as a safety feature. 121.5 MHz will not change to 8,33 kHz. The second radio will always be used on 121.5 MHz. This seem reasonable to me.
Ordered my 8.33 and hope eventually the CAA will explain how to get the 20% refund from the EU – Trig prices apparently go up at the end of the month. Between Mode S (near Stansted TMZ) and 8.33 this is one year of Annex 2 tail wheel budget in apparently unnecessary regulatory compliance.
For strictly day VFR types they should let us just have upgraded our iCOM portable VHF.
I thought you could already use an 8.33KHz portable in UK – registered aircraft: https://www.caa.co.uk/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=4294978578
The following IN updated the previous approval and extended the capability to also include balloons and gliders:
https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/InformationNotice2015098.pdf
A bit more information on the use of LA3 equipment from CAA website:
The prefix LA is followed by the Class in which the equipment is approved. ‘LA1’ for Class 1 and ‘LA3’ for Class 3.
Class 1
equipment is without operational restrictions and may be used for VFR and IFR flight in any airspace, provided that it has adequate frequency coverage and number of channels for the particular area in which the aircraft is to operate. It may also be used for any of the purposes specified for Class 3.
Class 3
communication equipment may be used outside controlled airspace under VFR and IFR, to communicate with airfield ATCs where it is not a condition of use of the airfield that R/T equipment be carried, or for communication with the Flight Information Region Controller. It may also be used within controlled airspace under special VFR or under Special entry/exit lane procedures. Class 3 navigation equipment may only be used outside controlled airspace under VFR or IFR, or ‘Special VFR’ within controlled airspace.
NB: For equipment installed in aircraft not exceeding 5700kg
Jan_Olieslagers wrote:
Any source? I always believed the same but when I stated it recently I was corrected by various parties.
And, err, which are those “certain” kinds of flying?
One general example should be public transport. Or heavy transport jets. Of the more specific, e.g. German authorities, IIRC, wanted everyone flying IFR to meet that requirement for improbability of loss of communication (worded as simply requiring two radios). I wrote it generally because I was too lazy to verify any examples (and I still haven’t verified them). I won’t help you with a reference (and I’m not sure what exactly you’re looking for – something that shows how likely it’s for a radio to fail or something that shows that this is the reason for mandating multiple units).
What were the arguments used? This seems perfectly reasonable to me and I don’t see at the moment another reason why should authorities care about how many radios I have (meeting these requirements is normally the reason for redundancy as far as regulators are concerned; same should be true e.g. for two autopilots for autoland).
Airborne_Again wrote:
What you say is of course true, but from a regulatory point of view such a requirement should be in part-NCO. As it isn’t, it appears that EASA has judged the risk of lost communications with a single radio acceptable. Is there then a legal basis for an NAA to demand two radios?
See the first paragraph. I don’t think they can do it if you’re under Part NCO – because there is now EU regulation about this, you can’t interfere with it at a national level unless that regulation specifically gave you that option. But there certainly is a risk of head banging against a wall. And I’m less sure than with minimum altitudes we discussed in a different thread. In this case, they might try to push it as an airspace requirement and maintain that it’s not in violation with Part NCO because that’s an OPS regulation, not airspace. I don’t think this defense makes any difference (in my view, they’re trying to circumvent OPS regulation which is not allowed) but it’s certainly less clear cut.
I would like to know whether they tried to push in a requirement for two radios and now they’re just trying to do whatever they want regardless. Or whether they’re really that incompetent when it comes to interpreting regulations (obviously assuming I’m right 
). I’m not sure which is worse.
