Not using the radio (or transponder) when you have one

RobertL18C wrote:

Use of radio at a field without an ATZ might give a false sense of security

Ha, now that is a false sense of security! You can talk yourself out of anything if you reason like that! Why do you have a stall warning?

You are seeing the problem but applying the wrong solution, namely the solution that decreases safety instead of increasing safety. You should use the radio and lookout. Not use the radio instead of lookout.

Stephan_Schwab wrote:

Once I tried to simply announce my intentions and was advised by the AFIS operator that at Egelsbach one is supposed to ask

Archie wrote:

Why do you have a stall warning?

I don’t have a stall warner :-)

But having spent rather a lot of money on a new radio, I’m inclined to use it and get my money’s worth!

If you can use the radio correctly, do use it.

As Robert says, many don’t know how to use the radio. On every flying movie, I have to delete large amounts of really appalling radio work, which obviously includes the pilot’s callsign. I was tempted to post the last one, which wasn’t even “GA” – it was the pilot, apparently French, of a bizjet departing from Southampton who didn’t know even the most basic phraseology which was shocking for someone flying at that level. The passenger comments also had to be removed. After consultation with someone I decided to not post it.

Lookout doesn’t work anyway

What I find interesting is the divisive positions people take in a thread like this. The bottom line from my point of view is that there are lots of types of planes, and that’s great. They have varying levels of equipment, and that is fine. Some of them don’t have radios and that means they won’t be talking on the radio around airports, but will probably be very aware of how it impacts others and quite careful. A little tolerance and good will by everybody goes a long way.

I know an airline pilot who flew a late 1920s cabin Stinson across the US a few years ago with no radio, because he wanted the experience. There aren’t many people doing that so its not a real problem for anybody, and I think most people appreciate that it’s nice to be able to do it. Otherwise if you have a radio like most people, even a 1980s handheld like my #2 plane, make blind calls etc and work with what you’ve got. In that way everybody can get where they’re going.

Stephan_Schwab wrote:
Once I tried to simply announce my intentions and was advised by the AFIS operator that at Egelsbach one is supposed to ask

AFAIK, in the UK at least, at an AFIS field (i.e. Call sign “info”), ground movements are subject to approval…. Whereas at an A/G field (i.e. Call sign “radio”), you inform your intentions…

Not in Germany.

Another UK peculiarity.

AnthonyQ wrote:

AFAIK, in the UK at least, at an AFIS field (i.e. Call sign “info”), ground movements are subject to approval…. Whereas at an A/G field (i.e. Call sign “radio”), you inform your intentions…

That’s very close, but not 100% accurate. An AFIS can issue instructions on the ground, but a clearance isn’t required.

So for example, you an announce that you’re taxiing to the runway via taxiway Charlie, and the AFIS can issue you an instruction to hold position or taxi via a different way.

So they can issue instructions, but you don’t need them to, unlike with ATC where you need a clearance before moving.

Having said that most AFIS seem to operate as (and most pilots threat them as) if they were ATC ground control.

Every day we speak to other people and in general the ability to communicate by speaking seems a good idea – evolution at any rate thought so. So in the air there are times when the ability to communicate has advantages, even if we cant agree what times these are. Since radios are pretty inexpensive and light i find it hard to think of a good reason for not carrying one, albeit you may use it as infrequently as possible.

In a similiar vein i have never understood the resistance to transponders. Ok if you really cant afford one, i understand, and if you really dont have the power, space or regulatory restriction i understand but why for the life of me you wouldnt want to improve your visibility to others i have no idea.

Rwy20 wrote:

Privacy and that it’s presumably harder to prosecute you for airspace infringements with primary radar only

Not exactly the same situation as I understand you mention with transponder off to start with (which would make infringement much more difficult to prove), but:
I once did a class A burst in France, and when called the controller to apologise and explain, he said something along the lines of “it’s OK, at least you don’t turn off your transponder”. Apparently, a non negligible % of people turn of the transponder once they realise they have infringed, and the fact of doing that is viewed as “criminal” (I think words used), and will certainly lead to repercussions (I didn’t have any in my case, never heard about the case again after the call).