On 1/15/2011 3:54 PM, Scott wrote:
On 1-15-2011 19:19, JJ Sinclair wrote:
Scott& Bob,
If we suck a glider through a jet at a unicom airport, mandatory
radios will be the least of our worries. Many 'uncontrilled' 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 unscaved.
JJ

Well, I knew it wouldn't be long before a ****ing contest arose. What
gives passenger "A" any more "right" to arrive at the airport that MY
"right" to arrive? So, if I understand you correctly, MY rights STOP if
it interferes with YOUR rights? I think I have the right not to get
sucked into the turbine because the pilot (of the turbine) was not
looking out the window to see me.

I'm not against radios. I have one. I use it. I do NOT depend on it to
alert me to traffic. That is why I continue to take the eye test at
physical time.

I don't need the government to 'mandate' something additional that is
clearly already in the statutes (see and avoid).

One needs to keep some perspective. There are certain things that
affect your personal safety, and have no impact on anyone else (seat
belts, motorcycle helmets, parachutes). You have a legitimate argument
that you should have the freedom to make your own decision. I would
support that 100%, as long as you don't expect me to pick up your
medical expenses resulting from your lack of taking prudent precautions.

Radios and transponders fall into a different category. These items
don't just affect your personal safety, but also others around you. At
this point, the argument becomes a little more nuanced. Now you need to
balance the impact of the mandate on an unwilling participant, both in
cost and convenience, against the resulting increase in safety to
innocent bystanders.

When you are looking at a $2,000 transponder investment for a $6,000
glider, in a rural area where TCAS equipped aircraft are unlikely to be
encountered, rational people can obviously have justifiably different
points of view.

However, when you are looking at a $200 investment in a radio (or even
$0 investment, if you borrow a hand-held from a friend), it's not
unreasonable for people to view your refusal to take advantage of that
kind of safety measure as needlessly reckless. Sometimes it makes sense
to have mandates to protect ourselves, to the extent that we can, from
people without common sense.

--
Mike Schumann