The difference in standards comes from a couple of reasons.

The first is that most of the radios we use were designed with the assumption that a good supply of reliable power was available from the alternator, and probably little design attention was paid to transmit performance with depleted batteries running through old wiring and dicky fuses.

We may have got a "reading you 5" from the glider next to us in the morning with a fully charged battery but it doesn't mean much in the circuit after a 5 hour flight.

The second is that a glider radio is less useful for situational awareness than the radio in a powered aircraft, because powered aircraft tracks and particularly altitudes are far more predictable. Also, we don't chat to ATC much. So in fact, a radio in a glider is less useful and less used for official communication, and so less respected, maintained, etc....

Then there are an increasing number of pilots who use their radios like mobile phones. I just switch off when those idiots start. It improves my safety because I can hear myself think.

Cheers


 /Tim/

/tra dire e fare c'รจ mezzo il mare/


On 23/03/2012 10:45, Mark Newton wrote:
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 08:40:57AM +1100, ian mcphee wrote:

  >  I think 50% radio problems could be fixed with new fuse,use
  >  holder or circuit breaker, 16g quality wire, check SWR and replace
  >  BNC or aerial if needbe, and use QUALITY charger with new dual
  >  batteries.

I think 100% of radio problems could be fixed by following the
manufacturer's installation instructions :)

  >  I admit some radios are getting near their useby date~how many
  >  electronic items do you have that are 20+ years old~not many I
  >  suspect.

The radio installation in the typical Cessna 152 is at least as
old as that, if not older;  and arguably installed into a more
hostile environment (vibration).  Yet it works well enough to
carry out conversations with ATC every day.

Not sure why a glider tug is different from that 152 in that
respect.  As Robert said, their radios tend to be pretty poor
too, yet they'd have been installed and maintained by the
same LAMEs that install and maintain the radios in the local
flying school's Cessnas.  Why the difference in standards?

   - mark
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
To check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
To check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring

Reply via email to