My 65 HP puddle jumper is wonderful and climbs out maybe 400 fpm at 70 mph, which provides an adequate climb angle with two men on board. Add a battery, transponder, antenna, electrical bus and BAP wind generator and you’ve got substantially less practical performance due to their weight. US regs recognize this and I’m glad allowance is made for me and a (very) few others to fly in the traffic dense Class D airspace at my base, using just a hand held radio with external antenna. One of my favorite flights is about 50 miles out to a public owned strip that isn’t used much by anyone. If nobody is there I fly completely unstructured patterns around the runway with no radio use: turns to and from the ground, and that kind of thing. You concentrate on flying that way, in reference to the ground, no distractions. It’s fun, flying like a bird, and builds skill. I don’t know any way of flying that builds that kind of skill so well.
One concern I have is that when ADS-B Out (in addition to Mode C) becomes ‘mandatory’ at some US airports, more people will be attracted to non-electrical system aircraft as a way to avoid the mandate. I don’t need the official attention that might follow, although I guess it might increase the market value of the plane…
In my other plane, I don’t fly without the transponder on (I actually never turn it off, except with avionics master) and intercom is wired so that it won’t operate without the com radio turned on. It’s a different kind of flying… There is more than one kind of flying and I think they are complimentary. When the engine quits someday I’ll be a lot better prepared to maneuver it onto the ground by that ‘flying like a bird’ practice in the other plane.
Coolhand wrote:
1- Initially, in the other thread I was not proposing to never ever use the radio. I was just pointing out that it should be possible to arrive in a uncontrolled (and no AFIS) airfield not speaking to anyone, no French, no English, nothing. It’s in the definition of Class G airspace.
Not to restart the old thread about ATZs, but my understanding (in the UK at least), is if landing at a Licensed airfield in Class G (ie has an ATZ), then if you have a radio fitted you must use it. And certainly this applies anywhere in Australia (any airspace).
I really don’t understand the non-use of transponders. If I inadvertently bust airspace and am squawking mode-C, then at least they know how to avoid me. A primary return only could end up with a smoking hole in the ground. Imagine the black eye GA would get in case of a mid-air between a transponder equipped aircraft that was not using the transponder and, well, pretty much anything else.
My transponder goes onto mode-C whatever I’m doing. Even if I’m going nowhere near CAS, or just towing gliders, it’s on. Many other light aircraft have some kind of traffic avoidance system these days that can use it (and hopefully — if the new multilateration radar they installed here ever gets certified — Ronaldsway will have full island radar coverage and so will be able to advise other aircraft when we’re towing gliders).
Coolhand wrote:
1- Initially, in the other thread I was not proposing to never ever use the radio.
The starting point was this:
Yes, 95 % of the plates include a note stating that the use of R/T is mandatory. On the other few, yes, you could land NORDO, but it would be bloody bad airmanship to have a radio on board and not use it
I strongly disagree.
I still cannot see on what basis you strongly disagree that it is bad airmanship to land NORDO when having a radio onboard.
As I anticipated, this can be an endless discussion.
1- Initially, in the other thread I was not proposing to never ever use the radio. I was just pointing out that it should be possible to arrive in a uncontrolled (and no AFIS) airfield not speaking to anyone, no French, no English, nothing. It’s in the definition of Class G airspace.
2- If we extend the topic to the ‘hardcore’ position of not using the radio almost never (I mean in uncontrolled airdromes, sure) my arguments are exactly what RobertL18C has already mentioned at the beginning.
Some years ago there was a well publicised case where 3 planes busted some CAS at the same time, in a loose formation.
Two turned off their transponders. The 3rd got caught but the others got away with it despite being tracked back to their airfield.
I don’t remember more detail but it didn’t look good as an example.
Maybe a lawyer can argue that a primary return, or a 7000 return, is not good enough evidence.
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).
Fuji_Abound wrote:
why for the life of me you wouldnt want to improve your visibility to others i have no idea
Even though I don’t share that view, I can think of at least two valid reasons: Privacy and that it’s presumably harder to prosecute you for airspace infringements with primary radar only.
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.
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.
