Radios at Non-Towered Fields

Earlier this summer, my wife and I ventured to a new airfield to practice soft field landings.  Like many airfields, it’s in Class G airspace where radios are not required.[1]  Neither does this field have a weather reporting system like an Automated Weather Observation System (AWOS) or Automated Surface Observation System (ASOS).  Planning for our arrival meant tuning in another airport’s AWOS several miles away, comparing that data to the most recent report on Foreflight, and comparing both of those to windsock indications once the field came into view.  With all three sources indicating a light wind out of the east and the chart supplement not indicating a right-hand traffic pattern, we entered a left downwind for the eastward grass landing strip.  Upon turning what would have been our base leg, a survey of the final approach saw another aircraft landing westbound, in the opposite direction.  We reapplied power to resume pattern altitude, called a crosswind leg, and then entered and announced a downwind leg for the westbound grass runway on the opposite side of the field.  While this location did have a Common Traffic Advisory Frequency (CTAF) for pilots to communicate with one another, what my wife and I didn’t know at the time was that we were talking to ourselves.  We were the only airplane in the pattern with a functioning radio and it was our eyes – not our ears – that saved us from a head-on encounter with a Piper Cub.

          A review of Chapter 3 of the Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM) lists where radios are required, by Class of Airspace.[2]  Flight in Class A, B, C, and D airspace each require a functioning radio and contact with Air Traffic Control (ATC), but the airspace directly over this field is uncontrolled.[3]  Other aircraft operating in this traffic pattern were not in violation of any regulation by neither speaking to us nor carrying a radio onboard.  Advisory Circular 90-66C – Non-Towered Airport Operations – confirms as much where Class E or Class G airspace exists at the surface and no tower is present or operating:

"Pilots should be aware that procedures at airports without operating control towers generally do not require the use of two-way radios; therefore, pilots should be especially vigilant for other aircraft while operating in the traffic pattern."[4]  

At first glance, a radio almost certainly would have prevented our entering the incorrect traffic pattern in the above example.  But if that’s truth, why doesn’t the FAA mandate their use through the National Aerospace System (NAS) regardless of the airspace class?  The FAA does not mandate their use in Class G precisely because that airspace class is uncontrolled – in other words, the requirement for a radio is predicated on the availability of ATC services and not the pilots’ need to communicate with each other.  Class E airspace is controlled and so ATC services are available (i.e., “flight following” in VFR), but the absence of a control tower doesn’t compel communicating with ATC.  In Class E airspace, ATC services are available but not mandatory in VFR.[5]  Bottom line:  outside of controlled airspace where ATC communication is required, the FAA has delegated the choice of radio installation and use to the pilot(s). 

With that freedom comes responsibility, however.  Not merely the simple choice between a radio or no radio, but the power to “identify, assess, and mitigate” the risks associated with communication in airspace that is either uncontrolled or sans a requirement to speak with ATC.  This is one of the many instances where applying the PAVE checklist your CFI taught you proves beneficial.  In the above example, “identification and assessment” of the environmental risks of flying into and out of a Class E or Class G airport with neither a tower nor a radio are obvious – aircraft collision and serious injury/death, respectively.[6] 

The means by which to “mitigate” the risk of aircraft collision are more complex, but can be found after asking the right question(s).  In this case:  what ways exist of mitigating the risk of no radio where non is required? 

• Flying the proper traffic pattern that enables both you and other pilots to “see and avoid.”[7]  The pattern is predictable – pilots know where to look when scanning for other traffic.

  
  

• Overflying the field and observing the traffic flow from above – an idea that hadn’t dawned on me before the above incident.[8]  Take care to remain well above the turbojet pattern altitude of 1,500 ft (i.e. 2,000 ft or more) Above Ground Level (AGL) if such aircraft frequent the field![9] 

  
  

• Call the destination Fixed Based Operator (FBO) and ask about the traffic pattern and traffic volume prior to departure.  The contact numbers for an FBO and the designated “calm wind runway” can be found in the chart supplement.

  
  

• An ADSB-in/out could also provide better situational awareness, but this comes with a contradiction that I’ll discuss in a moment.

While each of these options constitutes risk mitigation for no radio, I’ll opine that they fall short of the degree to which a radio assists in collision avoidance.  That “mental picture” a radio paints in the mind of a pilot – in combination with “see and avoid” – constitutes greater situational awareness.  Yes, radios built to TSO (Technical Standard Order) specifications cost thousands.  But as one of my students recently discovered, a $200 handheld aviation radio with a headset jack works great in the pattern so long as you remember to charge or change the batteries regularly.  That’s several hundred dollars cheaper than even a portable ADSB-in system!

I can’t say that the Piper Cub pilot or the others in the above example were wrong – not when I could have exercised another option to “see and avoid” them by overflying the field and certainly not when FAA regulation places the onus of collision avoidance on looking versus talking when radios use is not required.  I will say that pilots and aircraft owners can do better by opting for a radio to help identify potential collisions risks that our eyes sometimes miss.  The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) reported that 64 midair collisions and 165 associated fatalities occurred between 2008 and 2023.[10]  Advisory Circular 90-48D goes on to identify the “traffic pattern” as a leading location of midair collisions and Near Midair Collisions (NMACS).[11]  If the statistics indicate a higher risk of collisions in the traffic pattern, we should do more to mitigate that elevated risk versus simply “see and avoid.”  The radio is the second most powerful midair risk mitigation tool we pilots have access to – a system that nearly every pilot learns to use from day one in training.  Radios are not always required, but if given that option, consider better protecting yourself and others by investing in one.

Fly on Folks,

Josh Meyer     

[1] Aeronautical Information Manual, FAA, 2025, Chapter 3:  https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim_html/chap3_section_2.html

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Advisory Circular 90-66C, Not-Towered Airport Operations, FAA, 2023:  https://www.faa.gov/documentlibrary/media/advisory_circular/ac_90-66c.pdf

[5] Ibid.

[6] Risk Management Handbook, FAA, 2022, pages 1-2 – 1-3:  https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/2022-06/risk_management_handbook_2A.pdf

[7] Advisory Circular 90-66C, Pilot’s Role in Collision Avoidance, FAA, 2022:  https://www.faa.gov/documentlibrary/media/advisory_circular/ac_90-66c.pdf

[8] Ibid.

[9] Aeronautical Information Manual, FAA, 2025, Chapter 4:  https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim_html/chap4_section_3.html

[10] “US Civil Aviation Accident Dashboard: 2008-2023,” NTSB, 2025:  https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/StatisticalReviews/Pages/CivilAviationDashboard.aspx

[11] Advisory Circular 90-48E:  Pilots’ Role in Collision Avoidance, FAA, 2022:  https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_90-48E.pdf