Radio out- Would you fly?

[Robert Tenet]

The situation:

The aircraft was originally certified without an electrical
system. It's usually flown with a handheld radio powered by
a battery. The battery is dead. The airport is
non-towered. The wind is nearly 90 degrees crosswind. You
haven't been able to fly in 4 weeks, and if you don't fly
today, you won't be able to get in the air for at least
another week.

Would you fly?

[Mike Schumann]

How busy is the field? How strong is the crosswind?

Mike Schumann

"Robert Tenet" > wrote in message
...
> The situation:
>
> The aircraft was originally certified without an electrical
> system. It's usually flown with a handheld radio powered by
> a battery. The battery is dead. The airport is
> non-towered. The wind is nearly 90 degrees crosswind. You
> haven't been able to fly in 4 weeks, and if you don't fly
> today, you won't be able to get in the air for at least
> another week.
>
> Would you fly?
>
>

[Jose]

> The aircraft was originally certified without an electrical
> system. It's usually flown with a handheld radio powered by
> a battery. The battery is dead. The airport is
> non-towered. The wind is nearly 90 degrees crosswind. You
> haven't been able to fly in 4 weeks, and if you don't fly
> today, you won't be able to get in the air for at least
> another week.
>
> Would you fly?

Not enough information. Radio out in and of itself at an uncontrolled
field wouldn't stop me, but that would depend on the field too. There
can be other NORDOs in the pattern, and the pattern could also be empty.
Assuming my MK-1 eyeball is in good shape, that's what one uses primarily.

What is the strength of the wind. 6 knots at 90 degrees in a nosewheel
is different from 20 knots at 90 degrees in a tailwagger.

Although it's been a month since my last flight, how proficient am I?
Maybe quite proficient, maybe too rusty to solo on a calm day - it
depends on experience, competence, and other things.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[ET]

Robert Tenet > wrote in
:

> The situation:
>
> The aircraft was originally certified without an electrical
> system. It's usually flown with a handheld radio powered by
> a battery. The battery is dead. The airport is
> non-towered. The wind is nearly 90 degrees crosswind. You
> haven't been able to fly in 4 weeks, and if you don't fly
> today, you won't be able to get in the air for at least
> another week.
>
> Would you fly?
>
>
>

If the crosswind component was within my personal, and the aircraft's
limits, yeah, why not?

--
-- ET >:-)

"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

[Gene Seibel]

I would. But of course ATC won't be able to help you if your engine
stalls. ;) ;)
--
Gene Seibel
Tales of Flight - http://pad39a.com/gene/tales.html
Because I fly, I envy no one.

[Robert Tenet]

"Mike Schumann" > wrote:

>How busy is the field? How strong is the crosswind?

One operation every 10-20 minutes. Crosswind strong, but
easily within your capabilities. However, it is variable
enough that after takeoff it might change the preferred T/O
or landing direction.

[Maule Driver]

Only if I felt comfortable


Robert Tenet wrote:
> The situation:
>
> The aircraft was originally certified without an electrical
> system. It's usually flown with a handheld radio powered by
> a battery. The battery is dead. The airport is
> non-towered. The wind is nearly 90 degrees crosswind. You
> haven't been able to fly in 4 weeks, and if you don't fly
> today, you won't be able to get in the air for at least
> another week.
>
> Would you fly?
>
>

[Darkwing]

"Jose" > wrote in message
. ..
>> The aircraft was originally certified without an electrical
>> system. It's usually flown with a handheld radio powered by
>> a battery. The battery is dead. The airport is
>> non-towered. The wind is nearly 90 degrees crosswind. You
>> haven't been able to fly in 4 weeks, and if you don't fly
>> today, you won't be able to get in the air for at least
>> another week.
>>
>> Would you fly?
>
> Not enough information. Radio out in and of itself at an uncontrolled
> field wouldn't stop me, but that would depend on the field too. There can
> be other NORDOs in the pattern, and the pattern could also be empty.
> Assuming my MK-1 eyeball is in good shape, that's what one uses primarily.
>
> What is the strength of the wind. 6 knots at 90 degrees in a nosewheel is
> different from 20 knots at 90 degrees in a tailwagger.
>
> Although it's been a month since my last flight, how proficient am I?
> Maybe quite proficient, maybe too rusty to solo on a calm day - it depends
> on experience, competence, and other things.
>
> Jose
> --
> The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Thankfully the plane also has a Mode S transponder and fish finder that is
installed and working as well as a G1000 panel! I'll fly it.

---------------------------------------------
DW

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Robert Tenet > wrote:

> Would you fly?

probably.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[g n p]

Do not feed the trolls.

[Jose]

> One operation every 10-20 minutes. Crosswind strong, but
> easily within your capabilities. However, it is variable
> enough that after takeoff it might change the preferred T/O
> or landing direction.

Sure, I'd fly. In a heartbeat.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose]

> Do not feed the trolls.

What troll? It's a legitimate question, especially considering that not
everyone here has oodles of experience.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[g n p]

"Jose" > wrote in message
. ..
>
>> Do not feed the trolls.
>
> What troll? It's a legitimate question, especially considering that not
> everyone here has oodles of experience.
>
> Jose
> --
> The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.



Check out Wikipedia "Internet Trolls"

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Robert Tenet" > wrote in message
...
>
> The situation:
>
> The aircraft was originally certified without an electrical
> system. It's usually flown with a handheld radio powered by
> a battery. The battery is dead. The airport is
> non-towered. The wind is nearly 90 degrees crosswind. You
> haven't been able to fly in 4 weeks, and if you don't fly
> today, you won't be able to get in the air for at least
> another week.
>
> Would you fly?
>

Yes.

[Newps]

You can't be serious.....possibly not flying because there's no radio.

Robert Tenet wrote:

> The situation:
>
> The aircraft was originally certified without an electrical
> system. It's usually flown with a handheld radio powered by
> a battery. The battery is dead. The airport is
> non-towered. The wind is nearly 90 degrees crosswind. You
> haven't been able to fly in 4 weeks, and if you don't fly
> today, you won't be able to get in the air for at least
> another week.
>
> Would you fly?
>
>

[Jose]

> Check out Wikipedia "Internet Trolls"

Why? I know what a troll is.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Al]

"Jose" > wrote in message
.. .
>> One operation every 10-20 minutes. Crosswind strong, but
>> easily within your capabilities. However, it is variable
>> enough that after takeoff it might change the preferred T/O
>> or landing direction.
>
> Sure, I'd fly. In a heartbeat.
>

Me too. The crosswind would make it fun, and the lack of radio would make it
quiet and peaceful. We have nordo traffic all the time, (KRBG), and folks
have learned to keep a sharp eye.

Al

[Dave Stadt]

"Robert Tenet" > wrote in message
...
> The situation:
>
> The aircraft was originally certified without an electrical
> system. It's usually flown with a handheld radio powered by
> a battery. The battery is dead. The airport is
> non-towered. The wind is nearly 90 degrees crosswind. You
> haven't been able to fly in 4 weeks, and if you don't fly
> today, you won't be able to get in the air for at least
> another week.
>
> Would you fly?


Absolutely without a doubt. What the heck does a radio have to do with a
crosswind?

[Roger]

On 4 May 2006 14:04:02 -0500, Robert Tenet > wrote:

>The situation:
>
>The aircraft was originally certified without an electrical

>system. It's usually flown with a handheld radio powered by
>a battery. The battery is dead. The airport is
>non-towered. The wind is nearly 90 degrees crosswind. You
>haven't been able to fly in 4 weeks, and if you don't fly

There are several "It all depends" and how much traffic, what kind of
traffic and if the winds change would your have to go to another
airport and is there one nearby that can handle NORDO traffic?

But basically I'd even fly the Deb.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

>today, you won't be able to get in the air for at least
>another week.
>
>Would you fly?
>

[John T]

"Robert Tenet" > wrote in message

>
> The aircraft was originally certified without an electrical
> system. It's usually flown with a handheld radio powered by
> a battery. The battery is dead. The airport is
> non-towered. The wind is nearly 90 degrees crosswind. You
> haven't been able to fly in 4 weeks, and if you don't fly
> today, you won't be able to get in the air for at least
> another week.
>
> Would you fly?

At my airport? No - but not due to the conditions you described. :)
http://skyvector.com/#8-23-3-1563-1031

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/TknoFlyer
Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com
____________________

[Cub Driver]

On 4 May 2006 14:04:02 -0500, Robert Tenet > wrote:

>Would you fly?

Probably. I did most of my flying without a radio, but bought a
handheld after a twin with a student at the controls made a
straight-in approach to the home airport, which does all flight
training with NORDO Cubs. I figured that if there were imbecilic
instructors out there who'd let a student do that (and with the
instructor on board!), a radio was a wise tool.

The radio is pretty useless for transmissions, but it does tell me
what foolishness may be going on in the air around me ("Any traffic,
please advise"!) and the earphones are good for quelling engine noise.
So I keep it going whenever I'm flying. But I would fly without it,
just as I would fly without my GPS or even a full tank of gas, with
caution level raised accordingly.



-- all the best, Dan Ford

email: usenet AT danford DOT net

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

[Robert Tenet]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote:

>> Would you fly?
>Absolutely without a doubt. What the heck does a radio have to do with a
>crosswind?


OK, no one said "No," and in fact, that's what I did - I
flew. The answer to the question of "What the heck does a
radio have to do with a crosswind?" is that I was concerned
about traffic switching ends. I couldn't monitor AWOS or
hear traffic announcements. That didn't actually bother me
at all - I'm a "see and avoid" guy who is quite happy NORDO,
but I'm at a new airport and didn't want to get a reputation
for recklessness and turning on final for runway 27 as some
other aircraft taxis onto runway 9 for departure - which is
of course exactly what happened.

Another question was why I didn't just buy batteries. The
handheld radio was wired into a portable intercom/radio
power system that used a lead acid rechargeable. The
handheld part worked, but it's impossible to hear outside of
the intercom. I actually carried a spare lead acid battery.
I thought they were both dead, but it later turned out to be
a damaged wire inside the portable system.

We've looked at my decision to fly - let's work on other
decisions I made and see how they hold up under the
withering r.a.p spotlight (criticism? analysis?).

1) This aircraft has not been in the air in a a month, and
it's 60 years old, with a tiny (low climb rate, but
relatively quiet) engine. I'm going to do one pattern just
to check things out. My personal preference is to stay well
within gliding range of the airport at all times on this
first pattern. To completely achieve that desired safety
goal, given my limited climb rate, means I would have to
cheat on the noise abatement (fly rwy hdng 'til 1000' AGL)
and the pattern altitude (1000'AGL). What would you do on
this first flight?
a) Fly well beyond glide range and comply exactly
with noise abatement/pattern altitude, or
b) Fudge altitudes to stay closer.

2)I departed in the direction the last aircraft used, which
seemed a reasonable direction in the variable wind. As I
turned final I saw an aircraft rising into the air at the
opposite end of the runway. Initially I thought it was
moving away from me, but then realized it was coming towards
me. It's moving to my left, his right, and will be well to
one side of the runway and above my altitude if I continue
my descent to land. There is no other visible traffic. What
would you do ...
a) maneuver and reenter the pattern. If you
maneuver, how would you maneuver?
b) land anyway.

Thanks for your comments.







It's moving off runway centerline to my left and , but
then

[Casey Wilson]

"Robert Tenet" > wrote in message
...
> The situation:
>
> The aircraft was originally certified without an electrical
> system. It's usually flown with a handheld radio powered by
> a battery. The battery is dead. The airport is
> non-towered. The wind is nearly 90 degrees crosswind. You
> haven't been able to fly in 4 weeks, and if you don't fly
> today, you won't be able to get in the air for at least
> another week.
>
> Would you fly?
>
If it was only to do "bumps and rounds" (learned that from my Brit
pals in the Royal Marines) about the home patch..., yeah, probably. But KIYK
(Inyokern, CA) is nestled deep into R-2508, snuggled right alongside R2505,
and just minutes from R-2506, not to mention a page full of MOAs. I would
NOT venture far from the patch without being able to communicate with
"Joshua."
Interestingly, the only time I've seen a military jet flying close
to my position was when I was driving on the highway -- he missed me by
about 200 feet high and a quarter-mile crossing right to left. It was back
in the days of the F-4 and I saw the smoky exhaust trail before I spotted
the airplane, so it must have been Air Force.

[Jose]

> My personal preference is to stay well
> within gliding range of the airport at all times on this
> first pattern. To completely achieve that desired safety
> goal, given my limited climb rate, means I would have to
> cheat on the noise abatement (fly rwy hdng 'til 1000' AGL)
> and the pattern altitude (1000'AGL). What would you do on
> this first flight?

This depends on how "first" the flight is. If I had a concern for
safety, that overrides all noise abatements rules. What's ahead of me
and around the airport that could be used as a (safe but less
convenient) landing spot should the fan stop? Flat farmland? I'd
probably fly the regular pattern unless I had reason to think something
was amiss. Rocky pointy things all around, and this is a first flight
after maintanance? I'd cheat noise abatement... I might even ignore it
totally.

> 2)I departed in the direction the last aircraft used, which
> seemed a reasonable direction in the variable wind. As I
> turned final I saw an aircraft rising into the air at the
> opposite end of the runway. Initially I thought it was
> moving away from me, but then realized it was coming towards
> me. It's moving to my left, his right, and will be well to
> one side of the runway and above my altitude if I continue
> my descent to land.

I'd probably cheat to the right to let him pass to my left, continuing
my approach to land, being especially vigilant for another takeoff and
for other traffic that might be landing. One airplane going the wrong
way does not change the pattern at an uncontrolled airport - he might
have just been near his departure end and didn't want to taxi. Some
pilots are like that, and if the wind is not clearly favoring either
runway (you said it was 90 degree crosswind), you are NORDO and he
didn't see you take off, it's not unreasonable either. (It can be
argued that it is unreasonable for him to not see you in the pattern,
but that's another argument and not relevant, since it is incumbant upon
you to watch out for the dummies :)

Even if you had a radio, he might not be using one.

At uncontrolled airports, OSP is far more important than RSP.

Jose
*Optical separation procedures, Radio separation protocol.
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Kingfish]

>>>It was back in the days of the F-4 and I saw the smoky exhaust trail before I spotted
the airplane, so it must have been Air Force.<<<

Coulda been Navy(?) The USAF didn't own the only smoke-emitting
Phantoms.

[Larry Dighera]

On 5 May 2006 08:54:01 -0500, Robert Tenet > wrote in
>::

>I'm at a new airport and didn't want to get a reputation
>for recklessness

Have you considered purchasing a new battery for your handheld?

Just a thought. :-)

[Larry Dighera]

On 5 May 2006 09:09:51 -0700, "Kingfish" > wrote
in . com>::

>Coulda been Navy(?) The USAF didn't own the only smoke-emitting
>Phantoms.

Yep. A Navy A-4 even hit a glider in 1986:


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice how the NTSB failed to find the military pilot to have
contributed to the cause of this civil/military MAC despite his
violation of § 91.113(d(2): A glider has the right-of-way over an
airship, powered parachute, weight-shift-control aircraft, airplane,
or rotorcraft::


NTSB Identification: LAX86MA186A. The docket is stored on NTSB
microfiche number 31421.

Accident occurred Sunday, April 20, 1986 at WARNER SPRINGS, CA
Aircraft:LTV AEROSPACE INDUSTRIES A7E, registration: USN
Injuries: 2 Uninjured.

A ROLLADEN-SCHNEIDER LS-4 GLIDER AND AN LTV A7E JET COLLIDED OVER HOT
SPRINGS MTN, NEAR WARNER SPRINGS, CA. THE A7E WAS ATTEMPTING A RAPID
PULL UP AND THE GLIDER WAS ATTEMPTING A NOSE DOWN, 30 DEG RIGHT TURN
WHEN THEY COLLIDED. BOTH AIRCRAFT WERE OPERATING UNDER VISUAL FLT
RULES AND LANDED WITHOUT FURTHER INCIDENT. NEITHER PILOT WAS INJURED.
THE GLIDER LEFT WING OUTBD 3 FT SECTION WAS SEVERED. THE A7E NOSE
COWLING WAS SUBSTANTIALLY DAMAGED AND THE ENGINE INGESTED EXTENSIVE
FIBERGLASS MATERIAL. THE COLLISION OCCURRED AS THE A7E WAS EXECUTING A
SOUTHBOUND TURN ON VR 1257 AND WAS WITHIN THE ROUTE WIDTH (4 NM); THE
GLIDER WAS ATTEMPTING TO GAIN LIFT ON THE WEST SIDE OF HOT SPRINGS MTN
AND WAS WITHIN VR 1257 ROUTE STRUCTURE. THE A7E PLT HAD INFORMED THE
NECESSARY FLT SERV STATIONS THAT THE ROUTE WAS ACTIVE; THE GLIDER PLT
HAD NOT CONTACTED THE FLT SERV STATIONS TO DETERMINE IF THE ROUTE WAS
ACTIVE.

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable
cause(s) of this accident as follows.

PREFLIGHT PLANNING/PREPARATION..IMPROPER..PILOT OF OTHER AIRCRAFT
IN-FLIGHT PLANNING/DECISION..IMPROPER..PILOT OF OTHER AIRCRAFT
CHECKLIST..POOR..PILOT OF OTHER AIRCRAFT


Contributing Factors

TERRAIN CONDITION..MOUNTAINOUS/HILLY
----------


NTSB Identification: LAX86MA186B. The docket is stored on NTSB
microfiche number 31421.

Accident occurred Sunday, April 20, 1986 at WARNER SPRINGS, CA
Aircraft:ROLADEN-SCHNIDEN LS-4, registration: N50EH
Injuries: 2 Uninjured.

A ROLLADEN-SCHNEIDER LS-4 GLIDER AND AN LTV A7E JET COLLIDED OVER HOT
SPRINGS MTN, NEAR WARNER SPRINGS, CA. THE A7E WAS ATTEMPTING A RAPID
PULL UP AND THE GLIDER WAS ATTEMPTING A NOSE DOWN, 30 DEG RIGHT TURN
WHEN THEY COLLIDED. BOTH AIRCRAFT WERE OPERATING UNDER VISUAL FLT
RULES AND LANDED WITHOUT FURTHER INCIDENT. NEITHER PILOT WAS INJURED.
THE GLIDER LEFT WING OUTBD 3 FT SECTION WAS SEVERED. THE A7E NOSE
COWLING WAS SUBSTANTIALLY DAMAGED AND THE ENGINE INGESTED EXTENSIVE
FIBERGLASS MATERIAL. THE COLLISION OCCURRED AS THE A7E WAS EXECUTING A
SOUTHBOUND TURN ON VR 1257 AND WAS WITHIN THE ROUTE WIDTH (4NM); THE
GLIDER WAS ATTEMPTING TO GAIN LIFT ON THE WEST SIDE OF HOT SPRINGS MTN
AND WAS WITHIN VR 1257 ROUTE STRUCTURE. THE A7E PLT HAD INFORMED THE
NECESSARY FLT SERV STATIONS THAT THE ROUTE WAS ACTIVE; THE GLIDER PLT
HAD NOT CONTACTED THE FLT SERV STATIONS TO DETERMINE IF THE ROUTE WAS
ACTIVE.

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable
cause(s) of this accident as follows.

PREFLIGHT PLANNING/PREPARATION..IMPROPER..PILOT IN COMMAND
IN-FLIGHT PLANNING/DECISION..IMPROPER..PILOT IN COMMAND
CHECKLIST..POOR..PILOT IN COMMAND

Contributing Factors

TERRAIN CONDITION..MOUNTAINOUS/HILLY

[Robert Tenet]

Larry Dighera > wrote:

>On 5 May 2006 08:54:01 -0500, Robert Tenet > wrote in
>::
>
>>I'm at a new airport and didn't want to get a reputation
>>for recklessness
>
>Have you considered purchasing a new battery for your handheld?

I thought I answered that elsewhere in the message you
quoted. The handheld didn't use batteries I could buy that
day. It was a choice between not flying because the radio
didn't work or flying without the radio. I asked here,
because I wondered if other pilots would consider it to be
reckless.

[Larry Dighera]

On 5 May 2006 12:38:01 -0500, Robert Tenet > wrote in
>::

>Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
>>On 5 May 2006 08:54:01 -0500, Robert Tenet > wrote in
>::
>>
>>>I'm at a new airport and didn't want to get a reputation
>>>for recklessness
>>
>>Have you considered purchasing a new battery for your handheld?
>
>I thought I answered that elsewhere in the message you
>quoted.

So you did:

Another question was why I didn't just buy batteries. The
handheld radio was wired into a portable intercom/radio
power system that used a lead acid rechargeable. The
handheld part worked, but it's impossible to hear outside of
the intercom. I actually carried a spare lead acid battery.
I thought they were both dead, but it later turned out to be
a damaged wire inside the portable system.

So it seems that investment in an adapter to permit you to plug your
headset into the handheld might be prudent if something similar should
occur in the future. Then all you'll need are AA batteries.

>The handheld didn't use batteries I could buy that day.

[Robert Tenet]

Larry Dighera > wrote:

>So it seems that investment in an adapter to permit you to plug your
>headset into the handheld might be prudent if something similar should
>occur in the future. Then all you'll need are AA batteries.

I'm definitely in favor of redundancy. If I had my meter
with me, I could have gotten the system up and running, so
now my flight bag has an inexpensive meter in it for
troubleshooting. I'm not sure if it adds much to this
discussion, but I actually had the necessary
headset-to-handheld adapter. I even had some spare AA's for
a GPS handheld. What I didn't have was a handheld that
accepts AA batteries. I use the radio without its lower
half (which is an OEM rechargeable battery) and power it
from the main or backup SLA 12 volt rechargable battery. I
didn't bring the lower half that day - I figured the two big
batteries were OK. For longer trips I carry a D-cell pack
that replaces the SLA battery.

[Larry Dighera]

On 5 May 2006 13:47:06 -0500, Robert Tenet > wrote in
>::

>I'm definitely in favor of redundancy.

Right.

>If I had my meter with me, I could have gotten the system
>up and running, so now my flight bag has an inexpensive
>meter in it for troubleshooting.

Well, that's one approach. But with that philosophy, you'd have to
carry a toolbox to address every eventuality. I find it better to
address the fundamental cause of the issue rather than adding another
layer of complexity.

>I'm not sure if it adds much to this
>discussion, but I actually had the necessary
>headset-to-handheld adapter. I even had some spare AA's for
>a GPS handheld. What I didn't have was a handheld that
>accepts AA batteries.

There's the crux of the issue.

>I use the radio without its lower
>half (which is an OEM rechargeable battery) and power it
>from the main or backup SLA 12 volt rechargable battery. I
>didn't bring the lower half that day - I figured the two big
>batteries were OK. For longer trips I carry a D-cell pack
>that replaces the SLA battery.

Personally, I discarded the Yeasu VXA-100's NiCad battery pack in
favor of using AA alkaline batteries, because they are universally
available. I use alkaline batteries to power the portable equipment
in my flight bag. That way it is less likely that I will be caught
without power when I need it. While the cost of AA alkaline batteries
may exceed the use of rechargeable, I believe they afford a more
reliable solution.

[Larry Dighera]

On 5 May 2006 13:47:06 -0500, Robert Tenet > wrote in
>::

>I'm not sure if it adds much to this discussion, ...

With regard to your trepidation about flying NORADO, I have found over
the years, that if I find myself questioning my judgment, the question
is actually already answered as a result of that questioning; I just
don't want to accept the consequences of the answer.

So while operating NORADO is probably safe enough in some situations,
there can be little doubt that an operable radio enhances safety.

[Robert Tenet]

Larry Dighera > wrote:

>With regard to your trepidation about flying NORADO, I have found over
>the years, that if I find myself questioning my judgment, the question
>is actually already answered as a result of that questioning; I just
>don't want to accept the consequences of the answer.

In my initial post I was attempting to be silent about my
own thoughts on flying NORDO. I felt no trepidation about
flying without the radio. I use the radio as an aid to
others. For myself, I pretty much have to expect that half
the trafic will be NORDO, half the transmissions will be
telling me the wrong runway, location or altitude and the
AWOS will be warning me of blowing snow in July. The Mark I
eyeball is about all I really trust. But I did wonder what
others would do and how they perceived my decision.

>So while operating NORADO is probably safe enough in some situations,
>there can be little doubt that an operable radio enhances safety.

Let's put this in perspective - I'm safer sitting at home
rather than indulging my insane (according to some)
thrillseeking hobby of flying around the sky. It's not as
though I was actually doing anything useful, aside from
keeping up my crosswind skills so I can conduct some more
pointless flying more safely. The differential between
having a radio and not having it during a flight around the
pattern does not strike me as particularly great as compared
to the differential between flying and not flying at all.
Sure, I found myself on final with another aircraft taking
off ... but the Mark 1 eyeballs in both aircraft did what
they were supposed to do. There was no point at which
either of us were in any danger. We both had lots of
options. Certainly I want to maximize safety, but
realistically, some risk has to be accepted to fly an
antique taildragger aircraft (but probably less than one
built yesterday :-)

[Morgans]

"Jose" > wrote

OSP? RSP?
--
Jim in NC

[Tater Schuld]

"Robert Tenet" > wrote in message
...
> The situation:
>
> The aircraft was originally certified without an electrical
> system. It's usually flown with a handheld radio powered by
> a battery. The battery is dead. The airport is
> non-towered. The wind is nearly 90 degrees crosswind. You
> haven't been able to fly in 4 weeks, and if you don't fly
> today, you won't be able to get in the air for at least
> another week.
>
> Would you fly?
>
yes, because I would pull out the battery adapter that I have on hand and
crossfeed it to any 12V system I could.

no, it isn't star trek.

A lot of gear I've converted to run of 12V dc, and I've collected a lot of
12v batteries of different pedigrees, so it is almost impossible for me to
lack for radio. not hard to do, just make sure to adopt connectors that are
nearly universal.

not a pilot. ham radio operator. model rocket enthusiast. SkyWarn and ARES
and RACES trained and capable.

[Morgans]

"Tater Schuld" > wrote

> yes, because I would pull out the battery adapter that I have on hand and
> crossfeed it to any 12V system I could.
>
> no, it isn't star trek.

I think I'm going to puke, now.

[Jose]

> OSP? RSP?

Optical separation procedures.
Radio separation protocol.

It was under my name (but above the sig separator. :)

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Morgans]

"Jose" > wrote
>
> Optical separation procedures.
> Radio separation protocol.
>
> It was under my name (but above the sig separator. :)

How about that. :-) Another example of "if you don't look for it, you
won't see it."

I tend to not notice things in the sig line, for people's posts I see all of
the time, I guess.
--
Jim in NC

[Casey Wilson]

"Kingfish" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>>>>It was back in the days of the F-4 and I saw the smoky exhaust trail
>>>>before I spotted
> the airplane, so it must have been Air Force.<<<
>
> Coulda been Navy(?) The USAF didn't own the only smoke-emitting
> Phantoms.
>
Nope, the J-79 engines used by the USAF were notorious for smoking.
It's one reason their F-4s were called Olde Smokey. During my stint with
Uncle Sam's Misguided Children (USMC), we always knew one of ours from one
of theirs. IIRC, it had something to do with the Navy's (and Marine's)
engines coming from a different source that used some different parts... or
maybe teflon somethingies.

I could be wrong, of course.

Care to weigh in on this Dudley?

[Mike]

Robert Tenet wrote:
> The situation:
>
> The aircraft was originally certified without an electrical
> system. It's usually flown with a handheld radio powered by
> a battery. The battery is dead. The airport is
> non-towered. The wind is nearly 90 degrees crosswind. You
> haven't been able to fly in 4 weeks, and if you don't fly
> today, you won't be able to get in the air for at least
> another week.
>
> Would you fly?
>
>
Why wouldn't you just spend the few dollars to get a new battery on your
way to the airport? Am I missing something? The safety benefits of a
radio far outweigh the cost of a new battery.

--
Mike

[Kingfish]

>>>Nope, the J-79 engines used by the USAF were notorious for smoking.
It's one reason their F-4s were called Olde Smokey. During my stint
with
Uncle Sam's Misguided Children (USMC), we always knew one of ours from
one
of theirs. IIRC, it had something to do with the Navy's (and Marine's)
engines coming from a different source that used some different
parts... or
maybe teflon somethingies.<<<

Nope what? Read my post again. I said the USAF didn't own the *only*
smoke-belching F-4s, the USN and USMC Phantoms also had the Pratt J79
engines that left the smoke trail IIRC. Far as I know the only F-4s
that didn't smoke were the Royal Navy R-R Spey-engined planes. I too
could be wrong here - where's Dudley when you need him??