Does VFR Operation Require A High Level Of Language Proficiency?

[Larry Dighera]

Does VFR Operation Require A High Level Of Language Proficiency? It
looks like some in Europe would think it might:

IAOPA WINS LANGUAGE REPRIEVE
(http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/974-full.html#196325)
The International Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association has
successfully lobbied the International Civil Aviation Organization
(ICAO) to delay by three years implementation of onerous language
proficiency rules it says would severely limit VFR flight in much
of Europe. Under the ICAO proposal, all pilots would require to
demonstrate a high level of proficiency in either English or the
language of the country in which they are flying. In an interview
with AVweb at AOPA Expo in Hartford, IAOPA General Secretary John
Sheehan said the rule makes sense for IFR operations but not for
recreational flyers. "For VFR people it doesn't make any sense,"
Sheehan said. "I don't think [VFR] requires a high level of
[language] proficiency."

Given the US's provision for NORDO VFR operations, that has probably
been in the regulations since their inception, one can only conclude
that VFR operation doesn't even require any communication at all.

[[email protected]]

On Oct 9, 1:41 pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> Does VFR Operation Require A High Level Of Language Proficiency? It
> looks like some in Europe would think it might:
>
> IAOPA WINS LANGUAGE REPRIEVE
> (http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/974-full.html#196325)
> The International Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association has
> successfully lobbied the International Civil Aviation Organization
> (ICAO) to delay by three years implementation of onerous language
> proficiency rules it says would severely limit VFR flight in much
> of Europe. Under the ICAO proposal, all pilots would require to
> demonstrate a high level of proficiency in either English or the
> language of the country in which they are flying. In an interview
> with AVweb at AOPA Expo in Hartford, IAOPA General Secretary John
> Sheehan said the rule makes sense for IFR operations but not for
> recreational flyers. "For VFR people it doesn't make any sense,"
> Sheehan said. "I don't think [VFR] requires a high level of
> [language] proficiency."
>
> Given the US's provision for NORDO VFR operations, that has probably
> been in the regulations since their inception, one can only conclude
> that VFR operation doesn't even require any communication at all.

The usual answer, it depends.
Flying from farm strips, staying out of busy airspace and the like not
a problem without (good)communication.
Operating from a busy field with ground, twr, approach freq. and in
controled airspace I think having good communication is rather
important, even for VFR.

My two cents.

-Kees

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Larry Dighera > wrote in
:

> Does VFR Operation Require A High Level Of Language Proficiency? It
> looks like some in Europe would think it might:
>
> IAOPA WINS LANGUAGE REPRIEVE
> (http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/974-full.html#196325)
> The International Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association has
> successfully lobbied the International Civil Aviation Organization
> (ICAO) to delay by three years implementation of onerous language
> proficiency rules it says would severely limit VFR flight in much
> of Europe. Under the ICAO proposal, all pilots would require to
> demonstrate a high level of proficiency in either English or the
> language of the country in which they are flying. In an interview
> with AVweb at AOPA Expo in Hartford, IAOPA General Secretary John
> Sheehan said the rule makes sense for IFR operations but not for
> recreational flyers. "For VFR people it doesn't make any sense,"
> Sheehan said. "I don't think [VFR] requires a high level of
> [language] proficiency."
>
> Given the US's provision for NORDO VFR operations, that has probably
> been in the regulations since their inception, one can only conclude
> that VFR operation doesn't even require any communication at all.
>
>

oes this mean that MXS wil have to display proficiency in gibberish since
he lives in cloud cuckoo land?

If so, mission accomplished.



Bertie

[[email protected]]

On Oct 9, 2:29 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Larry Dighera > wrote :
>
>
>
>
>
> > Does VFR Operation Require A High Level Of Language Proficiency? It
> > looks like some in Europe would think it might:
>
> > IAOPA WINS LANGUAGE REPRIEVE
> > (http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/974-full.html#196325)
> > The International Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association has
> > successfully lobbied the International Civil Aviation Organization
> > (ICAO) to delay by three years implementation of onerous language
> > proficiency rules it says would severely limit VFR flight in much
> > of Europe. Under the ICAO proposal, all pilots would require to
> > demonstrate a high level of proficiency in either English or the
> > language of the country in which they are flying. In an interview
> > with AVweb at AOPA Expo in Hartford, IAOPA General Secretary John
> > Sheehan said the rule makes sense for IFR operations but not for
> > recreational flyers. "For VFR people it doesn't make any sense,"
> > Sheehan said. "I don't think [VFR] requires a high level of
> > [language] proficiency."
>
> > Given the US's provision for NORDO VFR operations, that has probably
> > been in the regulations since their inception, one can only conclude
> > that VFR operation doesn't even require any communication at all.
>
> oes this mean that MXS wil have to display proficiency in gibberish since
> he lives in cloud cuckoo land?
>
> If so, mission accomplished.
>
> Bertie- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

He lives in France not Switzerland, and besides MX is using south
gibberish and in cuckoo land they use main stream gibberish. Everybody
knows that.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

wrote in
ps.com:

> On Oct 9, 2:29 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Larry Dighera > wrote
>> :
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > Does VFR Operation Require A High Level Of Language Proficiency?
>> > It looks like some in Europe would think it might:
>>
>> > IAOPA WINS LANGUAGE REPRIEVE
>> > (http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/974-full.html#
196325
>> > )
>> > The International Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association has
>> > successfully lobbied the International Civil Aviation
>> > Organization
>> > (ICAO) to delay by three years implementation of onerous language
>> > proficiency rules it says would severely limit VFR flight in
>> > much of Europe. Under the ICAO proposal, all pilots would
>> > require to demonstrate a high level of proficiency in either
>> > English or the language of the country in which they are
>> > flying. In an interview with AVweb at AOPA Expo in Hartford,
>> > IAOPA General Secretary John Sheehan said the rule makes sense
>> > for IFR operations but not for recreational flyers. "For VFR
>> > people it doesn't make any sense," Sheehan said. "I don't think
>> > [VFR] requires a high level of [language] proficiency."
>>
>> > Given the US's provision for NORDO VFR operations, that has
>> > probably been in the regulations since their inception, one can
>> > only conclude that VFR operation doesn't even require any
>> > communication at all.
>>
>> oes this mean that MXS wil have to display proficiency in gibberish
>> since he lives in cloud cuckoo land?
>>
>> If so, mission accomplished.
>>
>> Bertie- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> He lives in France not Switzerland, and besides MX is using south
> gibberish and in cuckoo land they use main stream gibberish. Everybody
> knows that.
>


Oops, my bad.


Bertie
>

[Robert M. Gary]

On Oct 9, 4:41 am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> Does VFR Operation Require A High Level Of Language Proficiency? It
> looks like some in Europe would think it might:
>
> IAOPA WINS LANGUAGE REPRIEVE
> (http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/974-full.html#196325)
> The International Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association has
> successfully lobbied the International Civil Aviation Organization
> (ICAO) to delay by three years implementation of onerous language
> proficiency rules it says would severely limit VFR flight in much
> of Europe. Under the ICAO proposal, all pilots would require to
> demonstrate a high level of proficiency in either English or the
> language of the country in which they are flying. In an interview
> with AVweb at AOPA Expo in Hartford, IAOPA General Secretary John
> Sheehan said the rule makes sense for IFR operations but not for
> recreational flyers. "For VFR people it doesn't make any sense,"
> Sheehan said. "I don't think [VFR] requires a high level of
> [language] proficiency."
>
> Given the US's provision for NORDO VFR operations, that has probably
> been in the regulations since their inception, one can only conclude
> that VFR operation doesn't even require any communication at all.

Most pilots would consider NORDO to be an emergency operation. All
public use airports need communication. Flying into an airport (even a
very small one) without talking could certainly be considered careless
or reckless.

-Robert

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
oups.com:

> On Oct 9, 4:41 am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>> Does VFR Operation Require A High Level Of Language Proficiency? It
>> looks like some in Europe would think it might:
>>
>> IAOPA WINS LANGUAGE REPRIEVE
>> (http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/974-full.html#196325)
>> The International Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association has
>> successfully lobbied the International Civil Aviation
Organization
>> (ICAO) to delay by three years implementation of onerous language
>> proficiency rules it says would severely limit VFR flight in much
>> of Europe. Under the ICAO proposal, all pilots would require to
>> demonstrate a high level of proficiency in either English or the
>> language of the country in which they are flying. In an interview
>> with AVweb at AOPA Expo in Hartford, IAOPA General Secretary John
>> Sheehan said the rule makes sense for IFR operations but not for
>> recreational flyers. "For VFR people it doesn't make any sense,"
>> Sheehan said. "I don't think [VFR] requires a high level of
>> [language] proficiency."
>>
>> Given the US's provision for NORDO VFR operations, that has probably
>> been in the regulations since their inception, one can only conclude
>> that VFR operation doesn't even require any communication at all.
>
> Most pilots would consider NORDO to be an emergency operation. All
> public use airports need communication. Flying into an airport (even a
> very small one) without talking could certainly be considered careless
> or reckless.
>
By some maybe, not by me.


I have flown thousands of hours of no radio ops. The place I did this
most at has had one midair over the years. Someon (with a radio) bucked
traffic because he'd made a unicom broadcast and collided with one of
our tow planes.

K've flown the length and breadth of the US and canada in airplanes with
no radios whatsoever in them.

Flew right over the top of JFK in one, as a matter of fact

Bertie


Bertie

[TheSmokingGnu]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Flew right over the top of JFK in one, as a matter of fact

That must not have been very hard; what was he, 6 foot something?

:P *awaits the brick*

TheSmokingGnu

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

TheSmokingGnu > wrote in
news:GVPOi.5804$j14.1276@trnddc06:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Flew right over the top of JFK in one, as a matter of fact
>
> That must not have been very hard; what was he, 6 foot something?
>
>:P *awaits the brick*


Grooooan!

Bertie

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 18:10:09 -0000, "Robert M. Gary"
> wrote in
. com>:

>On Oct 9, 4:41 am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>> Does VFR Operation Require A High Level Of Language Proficiency? It
>> looks like some in Europe would think it might:
>>
>> IAOPA WINS LANGUAGE REPRIEVE
>> (http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/974-full.html#196325)
>> The International Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association has
>> successfully lobbied the International Civil Aviation Organization
>> (ICAO) to delay by three years implementation of onerous language
>> proficiency rules it says would severely limit VFR flight in much
>> of Europe. Under the ICAO proposal, all pilots would require to
>> demonstrate a high level of proficiency in either English or the
>> language of the country in which they are flying. In an interview
>> with AVweb at AOPA Expo in Hartford, IAOPA General Secretary John
>> Sheehan said the rule makes sense for IFR operations but not for
>> recreational flyers. "For VFR people it doesn't make any sense,"
>> Sheehan said. "I don't think [VFR] requires a high level of
>> [language] proficiency."
>>
>> Given the US's provision for NORDO VFR operations, that has probably
>> been in the regulations since their inception, one can only conclude
>> that VFR operation doesn't even require any communication at all.
>
>Most pilots would consider NORDO to be an emergency operation.

ATC controller, Mr. McNicoll does it all the time, as does Mr. Ford. I
doubt they would concur.

>All public use airports need communication.

At controlled fields, light signals are quite effective for
communications, and they require no language ability.

>Flying into an airport (even a very small one) without talking could
>certainly be considered careless or reckless.

For some folks, flight of any kind might qualify as careless and
reckless, but the fact is, that the CFRs permit aircraft without
electrical systems (and hence radios) to operate at public use
airports, and it routinely occurs.

I haven't the time right now to research the NTSB database, but it
would be enlightening to know how the percentage of NORADO flights
that result in being the cause of or contribute to incidents and
accidents.

Don't get me wrong. If I were flying an aircraft certified without an
electrical system, you can bet I'd have a handheld radio. But that's
just me. I'm a cautious sort; I'd have a backup handheld too.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Larry Dighera > wrote in
:

> On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 18:10:09 -0000, "Robert M. Gary"
> > wrote in
> . com>:
>
>>On Oct 9, 4:41 am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>>> Does VFR Operation Require A High Level Of Language Proficiency? It
>>> looks like some in Europe would think it might:
>>>
>>> IAOPA WINS LANGUAGE REPRIEVE
>>> (http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/974-full.html#196325)
>>> The International Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association has
>>> successfully lobbied the International Civil Aviation Organization
>>> (ICAO) to delay by three years implementation of onerous language
>>> proficiency rules it says would severely limit VFR flight in much
>>> of Europe. Under the ICAO proposal, all pilots would require to
>>> demonstrate a high level of proficiency in either English or the
>>> language of the country in which they are flying. In an interview
>>> with AVweb at AOPA Expo in Hartford, IAOPA General Secretary John
>>> Sheehan said the rule makes sense for IFR operations but not for
>>> recreational flyers. "For VFR people it doesn't make any sense,"
>>> Sheehan said. "I don't think [VFR] requires a high level of
>>> [language] proficiency."
>>>
>>> Given the US's provision for NORDO VFR operations, that has probably
>>> been in the regulations since their inception, one can only conclude
>>> that VFR operation doesn't even require any communication at all.
>>
>>Most pilots would consider NORDO to be an emergency operation.
>
> ATC controller, Mr. McNicoll does it all the time, as does Mr. Ford. I
> doubt they would concur.
>
>>All public use airports need communication.
>
> At controlled fields, light signals are quite effective for
> communications, and they require no language ability.
>
>>Flying into an airport (even a very small one) without talking could
>>certainly be considered careless or reckless.
>
> For some folks, flight of any kind might qualify as careless and
> reckless, but the fact is, that the CFRs permit aircraft without
> electrical systems (and hence radios) to operate at public use
> airports, and it routinely occurs.
>
> I haven't the time right now to research the NTSB database, but it
> would be enlightening to know how the percentage of NORADO flights
> that result in being the cause of or contribute to incidents and
> accidents.
>
> Don't get me wrong. If I were flying an aircraft certified without an
> electrical system, you can bet I'd have a handheld radio. But that's
> just me. I'm a cautious sort; I'd have a backup handheld too.
>
>


If you're that reliant on ATC do you carry matches so you can set your
seats on fire for smoke signals?


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

John Doe > wrote in
:

> regular troll
>
> See also:
> Bertie the Bunyip <bertie_the_bunyip hotmail.com>
> Bertie the Bunyip >
> Mxsmanic > [impersonation]
>
>

BTW, I'm far from being a regular trol.


Bertie

[JGalban via AviationKB.com]

Robert M. Gary wrote:

>
>Most pilots would consider NORDO to be an emergency operation.

I know of many pilots of both antique aircraft and gliders that would
likely disagree.

>All
>public use airports need communication. Flying into an airport (even a
>very small one) without talking could certainly be considered careless
>or reckless.

Considered careless or reckless by whom? Obviously the FAA doesn't think
so.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200710/1

[Mxsmanic]

Robert M. Gary writes:

> Most pilots would consider NORDO to be an emergency operation.

But some wouldn't, and it's perfectly legal.

> All public use airports need communication. Flying into an airport (even a
> very small one) without talking could certainly be considered careless
> or reckless.

It's legal and safe if done correctly (at small airports). It may not be as
flexible or prudent as having a radio, but it's allowed and it isn't careless
or reckless.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Robert M. Gary writes:
>
>> Most pilots would consider NORDO to be an emergency operation.
>
> But some wouldn't, and it's perfectly legal.
>
>> All public use airports need communication. Flying into an airport
>> (even a very small one) without talking could certainly be considered
>> careless or reckless.
>
> It's legal and safe if done correctly (at small airports). It may not
> be as flexible or prudent as having a radio, but it's allowed and it
> isn't careless or reckless.


How would you know?

You don't fly.

Never will.


bertie

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote

>All
> public use airports need communication. Flying into an airport (even a
> very small one) without talking could certainly be considered careless
> or reckless.

If that statement does not deserve and need a "IMHO" on it, I don't know
what does.

Perfectly acceptable proceedures are in place for no radio operations. It
happens safely, every day.
--
Jim in NC

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

wrote in
ps.com:

> On Oct 9, 3:45 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> John Doe > wrote
>> et:
>>
>> > regular troll
>>
>> > See also:
>> > Bertie the Bunyip <bertie_the_bunyip hotmail.com>
>> > Bertie the Bunyip >
>> > Mxsmanic > [impersonation]
>>
>> BTW, I'm far from being a regular trol.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> So I'm safe in assuming that you are an "irregular" troll?
>

Well, I was going for "exshepshenul" but I'm not picky once I'm not
regular.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Judah > wrote in news:Xns99C56199768AJudahnospamnet@
69.28.186.158:

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in news:feh70l$hli$4
> @blackhelicopter.databasix.com:
>
>> wrote in
>> ps.com:
>>
>>> On Oct 9, 3:45 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>> John Doe > wrote
>>>> et:
>>>>
>>>> > regular troll
>>>>
>>>> > See also:
>>>> > Bertie the Bunyip <bertie_the_bunyip hotmail.com>
>>>> > Bertie the Bunyip >
>>>> > Mxsmanic > [impersonation]
>>>>
>>>> BTW, I'm far from being a regular trol.
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>
>>> So I'm safe in assuming that you are an "irregular" troll?
>>>
>>
>> Well, I was going for "exshepshenul" but I'm not picky once I'm not
>> regular.
>>
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>
> This can help make you a regular troll again if you'd like.
>
> http://www.dolphinsdock.com/otherimg/nitrolax.gif
>

Thanks you. tihs is teh product I have been waiting for.

Bertie
>

[Robert M. Gary]

On Oct 9, 11:15 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

> I have flown thousands of hours of no radio ops. The place I did this
> most at has had one midair over the years.

For this you are proud? Wow baby! I've flown a lot of radioless
aircraft but damn, a JRC isn't that expensive and I keep on in my bag
at all times.

-Robert

[Dave[_5_]]

> The usual answer, it depends.
> Flying from farm strips, staying out of busy airspace and the like not
> a problem without (good)communication.
> Operating from a busy field with ground, twr, approach freq. and in
> controled airspace I think having good communication is rather
> important, even for VFR.

I'd agree. Some years ago I flew out of a busy Class C airport. Those
were the days when there were lots of foreign students around -
some of whom had a rather limited command of English. It sure threw a
monkey wrench into the works when one of them showed up.

David Johnson

[Roy Smith]

In article . com>,
Dave > wrote:

> > The usual answer, it depends.
> > Flying from farm strips, staying out of busy airspace and the like not
> > a problem without (good)communication.
> > Operating from a busy field with ground, twr, approach freq. and in
> > controled airspace I think having good communication is rather
> > important, even for VFR.
>
> I'd agree. Some years ago I flew out of a busy Class C airport. Those
> were the days when there were lots of foreign students around -
> some of whom had a rather limited command of English. It sure threw a
> monkey wrench into the works when one of them showed up.
>
> David Johnson

On the other hand, airline pilots the world over manage to get by with only
a limited command of English, and the do it in the most hectic airspace you
can imagine. The secret is that ATC communications use a limited
vocabulary of words and phrases (listed in the pilot-controller glossary).

In many ways, flying an airliner into JFK during the afternoon rush is an
easier communication situation than doing pattern work at East Podunk.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in news:1192125688.565381.284690@
19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com:

> On Oct 9, 11:15 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>> I have flown thousands of hours of no radio ops. The place I did this
>> most at has had one midair over the years.
>
> For this you are proud? Wow baby! I've flown a lot of radioless
> aircraft but damn, a JRC isn't that expensive and I keep on in my bag
> at all times.
>

WTF is a JRC?

And why would i need one.

And who said I was proud of it. BTW?

I merely stated a fact.



Bertie

[John Doe[_4_]]

Bertie the Bunyip <Sn rt.1> wrote:

> "Robert M. Gary" <N7093v gmail.com> wrote in news:1192125688.565381.284690
> 19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Oct 9, 11:15 am, Bertie the Bunyip <S... rt.1> wrote:
>>
>>> I have flown thousands of hours of no radio ops. The place I did this
>>> most at has had one midair over the years.
>>
>> For this you are proud? Wow baby! I've flown a lot of radioless
>> aircraft but damn, a JRC isn't that expensive and I keep on in my bag
>> at all times.
>>
>
> WTF is a JRC?

http://www.pilotsplace.com/
http://www.mypilotstore.com/
http://www.acespilotshop.com/
http://jakespilotshop.com/
http://www.spinnerspilotshop.com/
http://www.lcflight.com/jrc.html
http://www.tropicaero.com/
http://www.aviationboom.com/
http://www.aviatorcrew.com/
http://www.forpilots.com/
http://www.avionicswest.com/
http://www.vansairforce.com/
....
....
....
....











>
> And why would i need one.
>
> And who said I was proud of it. BTW?
>
> I merely stated a fact.
>
>
>
> Bertie
>
> Path: newsdbm02.news.prodigy.net!newsdst02.news.prodigy. net!prodigy.com!newscon02.news.prodigy.net!prodigy .net!wns14feed!worldnet.att.net!207.14.113.39!news .alt.net
> From: Bertie the Bunyip <Sn rt.1>
> Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
> Subject: Re: Does VFR Operation Require A High Level Of Language Proficiency?
> Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 04:18:55 +0000 (UTC)
> Organization: Your Company
> Lines: 24
> Message-ID: <Xns99C732EE8659A****upropeeh 207.14.116.130>
> References: <4kpmg39i4u7jgtc7unsai0bqbffmqhhjs7 4ax.com> <1191953409.785970.204300 o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com> <Xns99C4C0BF65FBA****upropeeh 207.14.116.130> <1192125688.565381.284690 19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>
> User-Agent: Xnews/5.04.25
> Xref: prodigy.net rec.aviation.piloting:604322
> X-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 00:18:56 EDT (newsdbm02.news.prodigy.net)
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

John Doe > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip <Sn rt.1> wrote:
>
>> "Robert M. Gary" <N7093v gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:1192125688.565381.284690 19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> On Oct 9, 11:15 am, Bertie the Bunyip <S... rt.1> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I have flown thousands of hours of no radio ops. The place I did
>>>> this most at has had one midair over the years.
>>>
>>> For this you are proud? Wow baby! I've flown a lot of radioless
>>> aircraft but damn, a JRC isn't that expensive and I keep on in my
>>> bag at all times.
>>>
>>
>> WTF is a JRC?
>
> http://www.pilotsplace.com/
> http://www.mypilotstore.com/
> http://www.acespilotshop.com/
> http://jakespilotshop.com/
> http://www.spinnerspilotshop.com/
> http://www.lcflight.com/jrc.html
> http://www.tropicaero.com/
> http://www.aviationboom.com/
> http://www.aviatorcrew.com/
> http://www.forpilots.com/
> http://www.avionicswest.com/
> http://www.vansairforce.com/
> ...
> ...
> ...
> ...
>
>
>


Whatg, shlurping now luser boi?


Bertie=


hey, watdya spect?

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Dave wrote:
>
> I'd agree. Some years ago I flew out of a busy Class C airport. Those
> were the days when there were lots of foreign students around -
> some of whom had a rather limited command of English.

You can hear that in New York. <G>

[Robert M. Gary]

On Oct 11, 9:18 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in news:1192125688.565381.284690@
> 19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com:
>
> > On Oct 9, 11:15 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> >> I have flown thousands of hours of no radio ops. The place I did this
> >> most at has had one midair over the years.
>
> > For this you are proud? Wow baby! I've flown a lot of radioless
> > aircraft but damn, a JRC isn't that expensive and I keep on in my bag
> > at all times.
>
> WTF is a JRC?

Its an inexpensive hand-held radio. One I've used in the Champ, Chief,
and J-3. Its hard to understand why anyone would fly around in a non-
radio airplane w/o putting out a few bucks for a radio.

>
> And why would i need one.

Because safe pilots believe that having a radio increases safety.

> And who said I was proud of it. BTW?
>
> I merely stated a fact.

I asked. Notice the question mark. That indicates a question in
English.

-Robert

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
oups.com:

> On Oct 11, 9:18 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
>> news:1192125688.565381.284690@ 19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > On Oct 9, 11:15 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>> >> I have flown thousands of hours of no radio ops. The place I did
>> >> this most at has had one midair over the years.
>>
>> > For this you are proud? Wow baby! I've flown a lot of radioless
>> > aircraft but damn, a JRC isn't that expensive and I keep on in my
>> > bag at all times.
>>
>> WTF is a JRC?
>
> Its an inexpensive hand-held radio. One I've used in the Champ, Chief,
> and J-3. Its hard to understand why anyone would fly around in a non-
> radio airplane w/o putting out a few bucks for a radio.

Because they didn't exist when I did it?


>
>>
>> And why would i need one.
>
> Because safe pilots believe that having a radio increases safety.
>
>> And who said I was proud of it. BTW?
>>
>> I merely stated a fact.
>
> I asked. Notice the question mark. That indicates a question in
> English.
>

And th etone was rhetorical, Smartass.

Bertie

[Robert M. Gary]

On Oct 12, 7:15 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote groups.com:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 11, 9:18 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
> >> news:1192125688.565381.284690@ 19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> > On Oct 9, 11:15 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> >> >> I have flown thousands of hours of no radio ops. The place I did
> >> >> this most at has had one midair over the years.
>
> >> > For this you are proud? Wow baby! I've flown a lot of radioless
> >> > aircraft but damn, a JRC isn't that expensive and I keep on in my
> >> > bag at all times.
>
> >> WTF is a JRC?
>
> > Its an inexpensive hand-held radio. One I've used in the Champ, Chief,
> > and J-3. Its hard to understand why anyone would fly around in a non-
> > radio airplane w/o putting out a few bucks for a radio.
>
> Because they didn't exist when I did it?

Are you asking me? I wasn't around during the days of the Wright
brothers how would I know?
My assumption is that the OP is not asking if it was safe to fly
without radios in 1910, I believe he was asking about today.

-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

On Oct 9, 2:04 pm, "JGalban via AviationKB.com" <u32749@uwe> wrote:
> Robert M. Gary wrote:
>
> >Most pilots would consider NORDO to be an emergency operation.
>
> I know of many pilots of both antique aircraft and gliders that would
> likely disagree.

I fly antique aircraft but am not so cheap as to not be able to afford
a couple hundred dollars for a portable radio. This isn't the 1920's
you know.

[Robert M. Gary]

On Oct 9, 12:00 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Larry Dighera > wrote :
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 18:10:09 -0000, "Robert M. Gary"
> > > wrote in
> > . com>:
>
> >>On Oct 9, 4:41 am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> >>> Does VFR Operation Require A High Level Of Language Proficiency? It
> >>> looks like some in Europe would think it might:
>
> >>> IAOPA WINS LANGUAGE REPRIEVE
> >>> (http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/974-full.html#196325)
> >>> The International Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association has
> >>> successfully lobbied the International Civil Aviation Organization
> >>> (ICAO) to delay by three years implementation of onerous language
> >>> proficiency rules it says would severely limit VFR flight in much
> >>> of Europe. Under the ICAO proposal, all pilots would require to
> >>> demonstrate a high level of proficiency in either English or the
> >>> language of the country in which they are flying. In an interview
> >>> with AVweb at AOPA Expo in Hartford, IAOPA General Secretary John
> >>> Sheehan said the rule makes sense for IFR operations but not for
> >>> recreational flyers. "For VFR people it doesn't make any sense,"
> >>> Sheehan said. "I don't think [VFR] requires a high level of
> >>> [language] proficiency."
>
> >>> Given the US's provision for NORDO VFR operations, that has probably
> >>> been in the regulations since their inception, one can only conclude
> >>> that VFR operation doesn't even require any communication at all.
>
> >>Most pilots would consider NORDO to be an emergency operation.
>
> > ATC controller, Mr. McNicoll does it all the time, as does Mr. Ford. I
> > doubt they would concur.
>
> >>All public use airports need communication.
>
> > At controlled fields, light signals are quite effective for
> > communications, and they require no language ability.
>
> >>Flying into an airport (even a very small one) without talking could
> >>certainly be considered careless or reckless.
>
> > For some folks, flight of any kind might qualify as careless and
> > reckless, but the fact is, that the CFRs permit aircraft without
> > electrical systems (and hence radios) to operate at public use
> > airports, and it routinely occurs.
>
> > I haven't the time right now to research the NTSB database, but it
> > would be enlightening to know how the percentage of NORADO flights
> > that result in being the cause of or contribute to incidents and
> > accidents.
>
> > Don't get me wrong. If I were flying an aircraft certified without an
> > electrical system, you can bet I'd have a handheld radio. But that's
> > just me. I'm a cautious sort; I'd have a backup handheld too.
>
> If you're that reliant on ATC do you carry matches so you can set your
> seats on fire for smoke signals?

That's got to be the most sophomoric logic fallacy I've ever heard.

-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

On Oct 9, 2:34 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Robert M. Gary writes:

> It's legal and safe if done correctly (at small airports). It may not be as
> flexible or prudent as having a radio, but it's allowed and it isn't careless
> or reckless.

I think there is an upgrade available from Microsoft where you can
have full ATC.

-Robert

[Mxsmanic]

Roy Smith writes:

> On the other hand, airline pilots the world over manage to get by with only
> a limited command of English, and the do it in the most hectic airspace you
> can imagine.

That isn't entirely true. Often they are simply lucky, and the guesses made
by both pilot and controller alike, due to inadequate English skills on the
part of one part of the other, just happen to be correct.

> The secret is that ATC communications use a limited
> vocabulary of words and phrases (listed in the pilot-controller glossary).

The "secret" is that habit makes it easier to make a lucky guess.
Unfortunately gambling isn't entirely reliable, by definition.

> In many ways, flying an airliner into JFK during the afternoon rush is an
> easier communication situation than doing pattern work at East Podunk.

Which ways?

[JGalban via AviationKB.com]

Robert M. Gary wrote:

>
>I fly antique aircraft but am not so cheap as to not be able to afford
>a couple hundred dollars for a portable radio. This isn't the 1920's
>you know.

I'm not sure which one's you're flying, but the unshielded ignition systems
in many of the ones I've flown made my handheld radio just about useless. It
has nothing to do with being cheap.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com

[Robert M. Gary]

On Oct 11, 8:09 pm, Roy Smith > wrote:

> On the other hand, airline pilots the world over manage to get by with only
> a limited command of English, and the do it in the most hectic airspace you
> can imagine. The secret is that ATC communications use a limited
> vocabulary of words and phrases (listed in the pilot-controller glossary).

They may not be as successful as you think. This has become a
political issue lately.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ob7mc8gIyrE

-Robert

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
ups.com:

> On Oct 9, 12:00 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Larry Dighera > wrote
>> :
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 18:10:09 -0000, "Robert M. Gary"
>> > > wrote in
>> > . com>:
>>
>> >>On Oct 9, 4:41 am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>> >>> Does VFR Operation Require A High Level Of Language Proficiency?
>> >>> It looks like some in Europe would think it might:
>>
>> >>> IAOPA WINS LANGUAGE REPRIEVE
>> >>> (http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/974-full.html#
1963
>> >>> 25)
>> >>> The International Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association has
>> >>> successfully lobbied the International Civil Aviation
>> >>> Organization
>> >>> (ICAO) to delay by three years implementation of onerous language
>> >>> proficiency rules it says would severely limit VFR flight in
>> >>> much of Europe. Under the ICAO proposal, all pilots would
>> >>> require to demonstrate a high level of proficiency in either
>> >>> English or the language of the country in which they are
>> >>> flying. In an interview with AVweb at AOPA Expo in Hartford,
>> >>> IAOPA General Secretary John Sheehan said the rule makes
>> >>> sense for IFR operations but not for recreational flyers.
>> >>> "For VFR people it doesn't make any sense," Sheehan said. "I
>> >>> don't think [VFR] requires a high level of [language]
>> >>> proficiency."
>>
>> >>> Given the US's provision for NORDO VFR operations, that has
>> >>> probably been in the regulations since their inception, one can
>> >>> only conclude that VFR operation doesn't even require any
>> >>> communication at all.
>>
>> >>Most pilots would consider NORDO to be an emergency operation.
>>
>> > ATC controller, Mr. McNicoll does it all the time, as does Mr.
>> > Ford. I doubt they would concur.
>>
>> >>All public use airports need communication.
>>
>> > At controlled fields, light signals are quite effective for
>> > communications, and they require no language ability.
>>
>> >>Flying into an airport (even a very small one) without talking
>> >>could certainly be considered careless or reckless.
>>
>> > For some folks, flight of any kind might qualify as careless and
>> > reckless, but the fact is, that the CFRs permit aircraft without
>> > electrical systems (and hence radios) to operate at public use
>> > airports, and it routinely occurs.
>>
>> > I haven't the time right now to research the NTSB database, but it
>> > would be enlightening to know how the percentage of NORADO flights
>> > that result in being the cause of or contribute to incidents and
>> > accidents.
>>
>> > Don't get me wrong. If I were flying an aircraft certified without
>> > an electrical system, you can bet I'd have a handheld radio. But
>> > that's just me. I'm a cautious sort; I'd have a backup handheld
>> > too.
>>
>> If you're that reliant on ATC do you carry matches so you can set
>> your seats on fire for smoke signals?
>
> That's got to be the most sophomoric logic fallacy I've ever heard.
>
>
Um, yeah, that was obviously an attempt at logic.
IIRC my philosophy correctly, the Shophists were big on just that sort
of reasoning.






Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Roy Smith writes:
>
>> On the other hand, airline pilots the world over manage to get by
>> with only a limited command of English, and the do it in the most
>> hectic airspace you can imagine.
>
> That isn't entirely true. Often they are simply lucky, and the
> guesses made by both pilot and controller alike, due to inadequate
> English skills on the part of one part of the other, just happen to be
> correct.

Bullshti.

You have no idea what you;re talking about.


Not surprising since oyu don't fly.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
ups.com:

> On Oct 12, 7:15 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote
>> groups.com:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Oct 11, 9:18 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
>> >> news:1192125688.565381.284690@ 19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> >> > On Oct 9, 11:15 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>> >> >> I have flown thousands of hours of no radio ops. The place I
>> >> >> did this most at has had one midair over the years.
>>
>> >> > For this you are proud? Wow baby! I've flown a lot of radioless
>> >> > aircraft but damn, a JRC isn't that expensive and I keep on in
>> >> > my bag at all times.
>>
>> >> WTF is a JRC?
>>
>> > Its an inexpensive hand-held radio. One I've used in the Champ,
>> > Chief, and J-3. Its hard to understand why anyone would fly around
>> > in a non- radio airplane w/o putting out a few bucks for a radio.
>>
>> Because they didn't exist when I did it?
>
> Are you asking me? I wasn't around during the days of the Wright
> brothers how would I know?
> My assumption is that the OP is not asking if it was safe to fly
> without radios in 1910, I believe he was asking about today.
>

So what?


It's stil safe to fly without radios.

Millions of flights are made every year without them.
In fact, the field I mentioned is extremely busy to this day and still
most ops ae no -rad. the office doesn't have even hace a fixed set. They
did for a while in the .70,s, but they threw it out.


BTW this is no cowboy airport... In my day two chief pilots for Pan Am
operaed out of it as did several of the most famous airshow and
competiton aerobatic and glider pilots in the country...


I'm not anti radio, BTW, I used one several times tonight...

I jsut think people are overly reliant on ground services. ATC is a tool
for pilots to use, not their masters.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

John Doe > wrote in
. net:

>
> A nym shifting cross-posting follow-up changing foulmouthed regular
> troll
>

A k00k.



> See also:
> Bertie the Bunyip <bertie_the_bunyip hotmail.com>
> Bertie the Bunyip <Sn rt.1>
> Jane Doe <AA aa.a.a.a.a.>
> Mxsmanic <mxsmanic gmail.com>
>
>
> Path:
> newsdbm02.news.prodigy.net!newsdst02.news.prodigy. net!prodigy.com!
newsc
> on02.news.prodigy.net!prodigy.net!wns14feed!worldn et.att.net!
207.14.113
> .39!news.alt.net From: Bertie the Bunyip <Sn rt.1>
> Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
> Subject: Re: Does VFR Operation Require A High Level Of Language
> Proficiency? Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 04:18:55 +0000 (UTC)
> Organization: Your Company
> Lines: 24
> Message-ID: <Xns99C732EE8659A****upropeeh 207.14.116.130>
> References: <4kpmg39i4u7jgtc7unsai0bqbffmqhhjs7 4ax.com>
> <1191953409.785970.204300 o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com>
> <Xns99C4C0BF65FBA****upropeeh 207.14.116.130>
> <1192125688.565381.284690 19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com> User-Agent:
> Xnews/5.04.25 Xref: prodigy.net rec.aviation.piloting:604322
> X-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 00:18:56 EDT
> (newsdbm02.news.prodigy.net)
>
> "Robert M. Gary" <N7093v gmail.com> wrote in
> news:1192125688.565381.284690 19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Oct 9, 11:15 am, Bertie the Bunyip <S... rt.1> wrote:
>> [i]
>>> I have flown thousands of hours of no radio ops. The place I did
>>> this most at has had one midair over the years.
>>
>> For this you are proud? Wow baby! I've flown a lot of radioless
>> aircraft but damn, a JRC isn't that expensive and I keep on in my bag
>> at all times.
>>
>
> WTF is a JRC?
>
> And why would i need one.
>
> And who said I was proud of it. BTW?
>
> I merely stated a fact.
>
>
>
> Bertie
>
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
oups.com:

> On Oct 9, 2:34 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> Robert M. Gary writes:
>
>> It's legal and safe if done correctly (at small airports). It may
>> not be as flexible or prudent as having a radio, but it's allowed and
>> it isn't careless or reckless.
>
> I think there is an upgrade available from Microsoft where you can
> have full ATC.
>

God forbid you should sim without guidance from someone on the ground to
keep you out of trouble, eh?

Bertie