Merged: New rules for non-controlled aerodromes
Folks,
Sadly, the one really important and unanimous recommendation of the Part 91 Control Board, words to the effect that ALL aircraft with serviceable radio must use them, that there is nothing "optional" about the "appropriate" use of radio, anywhere, was not carried through.
It used to be the case (despite the trogs.) explicitly, but fell out when nobody was watching.
Tootle pip!!
Sadly, the one really important and unanimous recommendation of the Part 91 Control Board, words to the effect that ALL aircraft with serviceable radio must use them, that there is nothing "optional" about the "appropriate" use of radio, anywhere, was not carried through.
It used to be the case (despite the trogs.) explicitly, but fell out when nobody was watching.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: They seek him here, they seek him there
Posts: 141
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Part 91
Leadsled,
Glad to see that some finally agree that the current regs do not require radio equipped aircraft to broadcst at non CTAF(R) aerodromes. I recall that idea being disputed here and elsewhere.
Surely the Part 91 Control Board retains some ability to influence this though.
The current initiative of CASA only involves ammending CAR 166 and/or 166A.
When Part 91 comes into existance in place of CAR 166/166A it can mandate that radio equipped aircraft use them.
In fact the last draft of Part 91 I saw did exactly that. (refer Appendix 91.315 para 1.9 & 4.7)
Perhaps you can confirm that is still the case (I fear that my draft is out of date).
Glad to see that some finally agree that the current regs do not require radio equipped aircraft to broadcst at non CTAF(R) aerodromes. I recall that idea being disputed here and elsewhere.
Surely the Part 91 Control Board retains some ability to influence this though.
The current initiative of CASA only involves ammending CAR 166 and/or 166A.
When Part 91 comes into existance in place of CAR 166/166A it can mandate that radio equipped aircraft use them.
In fact the last draft of Part 91 I saw did exactly that. (refer Appendix 91.315 para 1.9 & 4.7)
Perhaps you can confirm that is still the case (I fear that my draft is out of date).
