Backup COMM or Nav/Comm?

[BrianL99]

"I

I don't necessarily 'disagree' with you I just don't see your point.

In its simplest form, but point is ... there's no excuse in my opinion, for someone flying without the benefit of a radio and transponder. If you can't afford the basic equipment, I don't think you should be flying.

Would you drive a car without windshield wipers? Without headlights? Without a horn?

Not to stereotype, but I will. In almost every instance I've see on someone flying without a radio and not properly adhering to proper procedures around and airport, are the "old timers" who think they rules don't apply to them, because they've been flying too long.

I can excuse a student on his first solo or early in his flying career, he's learning and typically trying as best he can. It's the "crusty veterans" who wouldn't know D Space, until a Controller yells at them.

[Merlinspop]

In its simplest form, but point is ... there's no excuse in my opinion, for someone flying without the benefit of a radio and transponder. If you can't afford the basic equipment, I don't think you should be flying.

I disagree with your opinion. I believe there is room for those flying vintage aircraft that have been NORDO since leaving the factory to be flown and enjoyed by those who know and follow the VFR rules for such aircraft.
Where I would agree with you is that people with airplanes that are equipped with radios and transponders, that they should keep them in good working order and, as requirements change for the type and location of flying that they do, that they keep their equipment up to the current standard. But MORE than that, they should know how to properly use their equipment and do so in addition to following the rules that apply to all.

Would you drive a car without windshield wipers? Without headlights? Without a horn?

1 - Yes, but not in the rain.
2 - Yes, but not at night.
3 - Yes, because I don't use a horn as an extension of my personality to display my dissatisfaction with every other driver on the road (This was sarcasm and not intended to be an affront to anyone on this list - I spend a lot of time in downtown DC and that's the only use of a horn I've ever heard there).

Not to stereotype, but I will. In almost every instance I've see on someone flying without a radio and not properly adhering to proper procedures around and airport, are the "old timers" who think they rules don't apply to them, because they've been flying too long.

My experience flying in the DC 'burbs is nearly the polar opposite of yours. It's the aggressive, uber-successful, "my time is more valuable than yours" folks who fly as though they are not bound by established rules and procedures. It's the old timers and new pilots who will take the time to do proper pattern entries and, if so equipped, make the proper calls.

I can excuse a student on his first solo or early in his flying career, he's learning and typically trying as best he can. It's the "crusty veterans" who wouldn't know D Space, until a Controller yells at them.

I can excuse the student and newbie as well, but will also approach her in a courteous, professional manner and attempt to discuss my observations. Sometimes it's welcomed, sometimes it's not. If it's egregious enough, I can look up the phone numbers to call.

[3Dreaming]

In its simplest form, but point is ... there's no excuse in my opinion, for someone flying without the benefit of a radio and transponder. If you can't afford the basic equipment, I don't think you should be flying.

Would you drive a car without windshield wipers? Without headlights? Without a horn?

Not to stereotype, but I will. In almost every instance I've see on someone flying without a radio and not properly adhering to proper procedures around and airport, are the "old timers" who think they rules don't apply to them, because they've been flying too long.

I can excuse a student on his first solo or early in his flying career, he's learning and typically trying as best he can. It's the "crusty veterans" who wouldn't know D Space, until a Controller yells at them.

I find your stereotype to be quite different than mine, but maybe it has to do with the sample size. Like I said before I manage a small airport, and I am here pretty much 7 days a week. The biggest offenders of not following procedures are young flight instructors from towered airports and professional pilots flying charter or corporate. Most everybody I know who flies no radio follow pattern procedures.

Merlinspop, good post.

Around here you have to be 3000 AGL before a transponder will do you much good.

[Nomore767]

"I

I don't necessarily 'disagree' with you I just don't see your point.

In its simplest form, but point is ... there's no excuse in my opinion, for someone flying without the benefit of a radio and transponder. If you can't afford the basic equipment, I don't think you should be flying.

Would you drive a car without windshield wipers? Without headlights? Without a horn?

Not to stereotype, but I will. In almost every instance I've see on someone flying without a radio and not properly adhering to proper procedures around and airport, are the "old timers" who think they rules don't apply to them, because they've been flying too long.

I can excuse a student on his first solo or early in his flying career, he's learning and typically trying as best he can. It's the "crusty veterans" who wouldn't know D Space, until a Controller yells at them.

I just answered your points in a previous post but apparently you choose not to read them, you don't understand them or you choose to ignore them in a quest to make a rant about any pilot who flies without a radio or a transponder.

So now you've modified the rant to be about 'crusty veterans' and their poor procedures at Class D airports.
Okay so are you NOW saying it's not really the lack of a radio/transponder that ticks you off but the 'old timers' who don't fly well? In which case it wouldn't matter (to YOU) whether they have a radio/transponder because they just don't use them properly?

You say 'not to stereotype' and then just go and do it. Weak.

You can legally fly a non-radio, non-transponder airplane in the US. Just don't do it near YOU because you don't like it? Is that about right?

[Nomore767]

"there's no excuse in my opinion, for someone flying without the benefit of a radio and transponder. If you can't afford the basic equipment, I don't think you should be flying."

So please tell us what are the 'benefits' of flying WITH a radio and a transponder, as opposed to flying WITHOUT, which are so indispensable that if you don't have them you should be grounded?

Bear in mind…this is a forum about sport flying.

Perhaps you could outline your background and flying experience with examples of how, in your experience and opinion, radio/transponder equipped aircraft are safer than those not equipped as such?

Please don't avoid the questions, especially as they're asked because YOU brought the issues up. Enlighten us, please.

[SportPilot]

Delete...

[MrMorden]

I think we can have a discussion on the merits without resorting to caricatures and name calling.

I think radios and transponders *do* provide some safety, in the form of pilot communication with other pilots, and the ability of ATC to get altitude data on radar returns (in some areas).

That said, I'm fine with people flying without either device. They just have to realize they might have a less complete picture of what's happening around them and keep their heads in the game.

[SportPilot]

Delete...

[Merlinspop]

Tubes, fabric, engine, prop and a smattering of other parts & gauges ARE the basic equipment.

[SportPilot]

Delete...

[Nomore767]

"To suggest that flying sans radio is as safe for the pilot and other pilots, as flying with a radio is nonsense."

I think Jim's right…the ghost of a previous poster is lurking! Is that you Cecil? gBigs…whatever. He's still spouting the same inane remarks on another forum. Surely he's not back?

[Merlinspop]

SportPilot -

Digressing from the argument at hand (not between us):

-- I find it interesting that it took 14 years between mandating shoulder harnesses for fixed wing small aircraft and rotorcraft. I know the nature of a rotorcraft's flight would allow for no horizontal component during an incident, but certainly not in every sort of incident they could have. Seemed like they should have included them in the '78 requirement.

-- I noted no requirement for a radio and transponder. However, there is a requirement for anti-collision lights, which would have to be powered by some sort of electrical system. Isn't it stated somewhere else, that if an aircraft had an electrical system that it had to have a transponder? Or is that only if equipped with a generator/alternator? I suppose this would preclude anyone from trying to certify a more "original" Cub or era-peer aircraft. Even if I bought a vintage cub or T-craft, it'd have a shoulder harness installed PDQ, if one wasn't already there. And I'd have and use a hand-held transceiver. I don't see this as contradicting my position earlier in the thread, though. It would be my preference if I owned a Cub (or similar).

-- They did sort of tangle themselves up, language wise, by using "front seat", IMO. Kind of left tandem seated planes with controls at both seats open for interpretation... just a little.

Anyway, this was meant in the tone of a "hangar chat" rather than a debate. Respond with your thoughts if you feel like it.

[Wm.Ince]

. . . "If someone exhibits a certain attitude, expect to be called out." . . .

Fair enough. I understand and I am okay with that. All of us can learn from it.
That does not work on the CT Flier Forum though. As you well know, some people get a free pass. Any "calling out" or criticism of posts, by a certain individual, is always considered "a personal attack." I think I know why. It's BS. In that regard, I think this forum is much better.

[SportPilot]

Delete...

[SportPilot]

Delete...