Spanaway crash

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 16:45:57 GMT, "Chris Hoffmann"
wrote:

(from the KGW report)
It is not known whether the two pilots were communicating. Scappoose Airport
is uncontrolled, meaning pilots are not required to communicate with one
another in the airfield.

News to me. I thought the regs stated that if you had a radio, you had
to use it.

The KEX radio report I heard the following Monday reported "The pilot
was under 'visual flight rules' which means he was flying by reference
to what he could see, rather than using the onboard instruments."

(And to think, I spend time in every pattern looking at that
altimeter...)

Clearly most reporters need to get the *&^&*%^%^& out of aviation
reporting.

Rob

--
[You] don't make your kids P.C.-proof by keeping them
ignorant, you do it by helping them learn how to
educate themselves.

-- Orson Scott Card

Robert Perkins wrote:


News to me. I thought the regs stated that if you had a radio, you had
to use it.

No, the radio is optional.



The KEX radio report I heard the following Monday reported "The pilot
was under 'visual flight rules' which means he was flying by reference
to what he could see, rather than using the onboard instruments."

That's accurate.

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 04:03:07 GMT, Newps wrote:

The KEX radio report I heard the following Monday reported "The pilot
was under 'visual flight rules' which means he was flying by reference
to what he could see, rather than using the onboard instruments."

That's accurate.

It's difficult, in a written medium, to convey the level of confidence
the reporter has in saying that, that flying VFR was more risky than
flying by reference to the instruments.

Rob

--
[You] don't make your kids P.C.-proof by keeping them
ignorant, you do it by helping them learn how to
educate themselves.

-- Orson Scott Card

Robert Perkins wrote in message . ..

News to me. I thought the regs stated that if you had a radio, you had
to use it.

Would you mind sharing with us what regulation
says this?

Thanks,
Sydney

Robert Perkins wrote:

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 16:45:57 GMT, "Chris Hoffmann"
wrote:

(from the KGW report)
It is not known whether the two pilots were communicating. Scappoose Airport
is uncontrolled, meaning pilots are not required to communicate with one
another in the airfield.

News to me. I thought the regs stated that if you had a radio, you had
to use it.

Nope. It's pretty dumb NOT to use the radio you have (especially at a field
like Scappoose that's often pretty busy), but it's not reequired by the regs.

David H
Boeing Field (BFI), Seattle, WA
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Visit the Pacific Northwest Flying forum:
http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/pnwflying

"David H" wrote in message
...
Nope. It's pretty dumb NOT to use the radio you have (especially at a
field
like Scappoose that's often pretty busy), but it's not reequired by the
regs.

Surely, being dumb is a violation of 91.13?

-- David Brooks

(not sure whether to add the smiley or not :-) )

Robert Perkins wrote:

News to me. I thought the regs stated that if you had a radio, you had
to use it.

You're probably thinking of the transponder.

Clearly most reporters need to get the *&^&*%^%^& out of aviation
reporting.

Most reporters are abysmally ignorant of anything other than the peculiarities
of their own jobs and hobbies. If expertise in the subject matter were required,
the profession would be eliminated.

George Patterson
To a pilot, altitude is like money - it is possible that having too much
could prove embarassing, but having too little is always fatal.