Radio out- Would you fly?

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

"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

"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.

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.

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.

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. :-)

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

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.

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.

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.