[Morley]

Yesterday an aircraft started up and was readability 1 to 2 on occasion but mostly carrier wave only. I commented to tower that he was readability 2 also but the a/c took off anyway. Predictably 5 minutes later the frequency was interrupted every 30 secs or so by carrier wave as he was trying to get back. In the end it landed safely but in my opinion should not have taken off in the first place with a defective radio. Clogging up the frequency as he did was potentially dangerous. Views? (other than the radio/non-radio debate which is an entirely different issue, as radio is mandatory here)

[Jim Jones]

In a radio mandatory zone I would treat radio malfunction in the same way as a failure of a magneto. Taxy back and shut down, call the maintenace guys.

[greggj]

My personal opinion is that in the 21th century radio should be always required, regardless. So no go without it.

[Gertie]

I wouldn't go without it it. But that's because (a) I rent, so I'd just complain and ask for another aircraft, and (b) I fly from a field where non-radio isn't allowed anyway.

If I flew my own aircraft from my own strip that might be another matter.

[GrahamB]

My personal opinion is that in the 21th century radio should be always required, regardless. So no go without it.

Why should radio always be required? I'd like to understand your reasons for thinking that.

[fuzzy6988]

In a radio mandatory zone I would treat radio malfunction in the same way as a failure of a magneto. Taxy back and shut down, call the maintenance guys.

Seconded or use COM2. The mandatory zone is there for a reason (presumably too many airproxes in the past from non-radio traffic).

But it also depends what area I operate in.

If it's a remote private strip, low traffic density, and good weather all round then, even though I prefer to use the radio to make the odd air-to-air traffic call, I'm not fussed if it was broken. I just enjoy the flight.

But take London. The airspace is congested. Most likely I wouldn't fly if it was broken. And I can't get a clearance to enter CAS/ATZs without it.

I've got a backup hand-held just in case as well.

[greggj]

Why should radio always be required? I'd like to understand your reasons for thinking that.

It makes sense to be able to communicate always. Radios are not either expensive nor heavy these days, I see no reason not to have it.

[KNT754G]

You say radio is mandatory, but is this A/G, AFIS or ATC? What can be enforced could make a difference.

That aside, if radio is mandatory and strength 5 two way cannot be achieved then it is a no go decision.

[Keef]

Why should radio always be required? I'd like to understand your reasons for thinking that.

It makes sense to be able to communicate always. Radios are not either expensive nor heavy these days, I see no reason not to have it.

Cue Rob P...

No, you don't need to be able to communicate always. It's nice to have, but radio doesn't make aeroplanes fly.
If you have one radio and it doesn't work, you have to decide whether or not to fly. That's the pilot's call. I regularly fly with the radio turned down anyway, because there's nobody to talk to (or nobody I want to talk to). Sometimes I switch it to 121.5.

I happen to carry a handheld because I used to be in the habit of flying in controlled airspace. In the 20-odd years I've had it, the only times I've used it in anger have been to listen to ATIS and to call for start clearance on an IFR trip. An IFR-equipped aeroplane will have two COM radios: on occasions we've used both of them at once - P1 talking to tower for approach clearance, PNF talking to area control to sign off.

[William]

I suppose it depends what your starting point is - followed by where you are heading.

From Bournemouth - no decent communication with tower or ground means I don't even begin to taxi. From the middle of nowhere I probably wouldn't even know the radio wasn't working until I got airborne and tried to call someone. If that happened, however, and I was heading somewhere where I needed clearance, I would be heading back to my departure point at the first opportunity.

[ROG]

If flight was really necessary--unlikely--I would use my transceiver (which i always carry in case of a radio failure ) otherwise would cancel and get fixed.
PEOPLE WITH DODGY RADIOS ARE A MENACE TO THEMSELVES AND OTHERS.

[PeteSpencer]

Agree with ROG: an Icom in the flight bag is an essential: However, performance of a tranceiver is not as good as A/C radio and in similar situation I wouldn't have taken off just for a jolly, though might have if it was a case of a return trip to base.........

[greggj]

If flight was really necessary--unlikely--I would use my transceiver (which i always carry in case of a radio failure ) otherwise would cancel and get fixed.
PEOPLE WITH DODGY RADIOS ARE A MENACE TO THEMSELVES AND OTHERS.

+1

[Flyingmac]

. Radios are not either expensive nor heavy these days,

????????????? http://www.gps.co.uk/Transceivers/Garmi ... 2-261-273/

[greggj]

. Radios are not either expensive nor heavy these days,

????????????? http://www.gps.co.uk/Transceivers/Garmi ... 2-261-273/

Relatively

Compare that with the aircraft cost.