On 1/15/2011 7:54 PM, Bob Whelan wrote:

If we suck a glider through a jet at a unicom airport, mandatory
radios will be the least of our worries. Many 'uncontrolled' airports
are quite large with passenger carrying jets using them, Minden,
Truckee and Montague to list some in region11. Your so called 'right'
to enter the pattern at these airports without announcing your
presents,... stops with the passangers 'right' to arrive unscathed.

This view nicely illustrates our governmental protectors' view of the
world insofar as them 'defining' an 'unspecified boundary' beyond which
draconian action becomes 'sans discussion' justifiable.

Imagine the exact same scenario, with the sole difference being both
planes had, and (though who would know for certain after the dreadful
fact?) used, radios.

Why would the both-radio scenario fundamentally show any *more*
responsibility on the dead pilots' parts than if the non-jet pilot had
no radio?

What '*should* have been' mandated in addition to radios to avoid such a
situation?

After such an accident, will we fire any bureaucrats for demonstrated
failure to perform their fundamental jobs? ...or will we allocate more
tax money to enlarge their numbers 'for public appearance's sake'?

I think strong, rational, public arguments can - and should - be made to
the effect that the unthinking mandating of 'safety for public safety's
sake' too easily becomes a costly, freedom-devouring,
personal-responsibility-devaluing pathway, too-quickly indistinguishable
from tyranny...all in the name and emotionally-based knee-jerk obeisance
to the 'God of Safety,' actual cause-and-effect be damned.

What price 'ultimate safety'? How fundamentally different are (e.g.) the
U.S.' TSA and (just to pick an obvious example) mandatory seat belt
*use* laws? Who best to decide what level of safety should be forcibly
applied to individuals?

In an attempt to put the above broad-brush philosophical questions into
(perhaps) a more 'real' arena (and intending no disrespect towards the
pilots/families/friends of the pilots involved, nor making any personal
judgments about situations with which I have no first-hand knowledge),
consider the following intensely personal and intimately-soaring-family
related questions.

Were the Crazy Creek pilots both unaware one of them did not have a
radio? Did it matter to them insofar as their decision to fly that day
was concerned? Did Clem Bowman have a radio? Why didn't it work to save
him that day? What mandate would have sufficed?

Where do we draw the line of 'forcibly acceptable safety mandates'?

Why?

I think such questions deserve to not only be thoughtfully considered by
every individual choosing to be a pilot, but a part of the public policy
debate, *before* we knee-jerkingly opt for surrender to perceived public
outcry...or worse, beg the government to pre-emptively make some (or
other) safety rule hoping to show our little community is 'responsible'
and 'pro-active' and consists entirely of meek, submissive citizens who
believe the government would 'do the right thing' if only they were
educated. If you find yourself leaning more toward that last view, I'd
(seriously) ask why education of our government servants should
automatically exclude alternative views of 'our rational world'.

Are we still talking about the wisdom of having at least a $200 handheld
on board? Or has something a lot more onerous been proposed that I missed?

For crying out loud, we aren't even required to have transponders, so a
rant about the mean old government seems unkind.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)