Radio out- Would you fly?

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.

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.

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 :-)

"Jose" wrote

OSP? RSP?
--
Jim in NC

"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.

"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.

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.

"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

"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?

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