Another midair in the pattern

On 1-15-2011 04:19, Mike Schumann wrote:


What would be so onerous about a radio mandate, when handhelds are
widely available for ~$200?


Just MORE regulation (ie LESS freedom). Next, they (Feds) say we must
fly with TCAS, or Mode S, or SATCOM (for reliable communications), etc.

Those that trade safety for liberty shall have neither (paraphrased
quote from some famous guy)...actually,

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

* This was written by Franklin, with quotation marks but almost
certainly his original thought, sometime shortly before February 17,
1775 as part of his notes for a proposition at the Pennsylvania
Assembly, as published in Memoirs of the life and writings of Benjamin
Franklin (1818). A variant of this was published as:
o Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a
little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
+ This was used as a motto on the title page of An
Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania.
(1759); the book was published by Franklin; its author was Richard
Jackson, but Franklin did claim responsibility for some small excerpts
that were used in it. From: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin

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

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).

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

On 1-15-2011 22:31, Mike Schumann wrote:


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.


I DO have a handheld raio in my non-electric powered plane and I DO use
it. I just do NOT depend on it as the sole source of traffic location.
Even so, I am against MORE regulation from the government. Why does
it seem so hard for people to take more responsibility upon themselves
and look out the big window in front rather than beg big brother to
watch out for your every need?

On 1/15/2011 6:20 PM, Scott wrote:
On 1-15-2011 22:31, Mike Schumann wrote:


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.


I DO have a handheld raio in my non-electric powered plane and I DO use
it. I just do NOT depend on it as the sole source of traffic location.
Even so, I am against MORE regulation from the government. Why does it
seem so hard for people to take more responsibility upon themselves and
look out the big window in front rather than beg big brother to watch
out for your every need?

Are you a troll?

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

On 1-16-2011 04:05, Eric Greenwell wrote:
On 1/15/2011 6:20 PM, Scott wrote:
On 1-15-2011 22:31, Mike Schumann wrote:


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.


I DO have a handheld raio in my non-electric powered plane and I DO use
it. I just do NOT depend on it as the sole source of traffic location.
Even so, I am against MORE regulation from the government. Why does it
seem so hard for people to take more responsibility upon themselves and
look out the big window in front rather than beg big brother to watch
out for your every need?

Are you a troll?

Absolutely not. Just a freedom loving American who doesn't need
government to grow ever bigger and dictate every aspect of my life. I
consider myself to be responsible enough to watch out for myself.
Powered planes (modern ones with electrical systems) almost always have
radios and they sometimes meet in midair. I think they call these
events 'accidents', same as car crashes. Do cars need radios installed
so drivers can communicate their every move to each other? If everyone
cries to the government to "Please, save us!" they certainly will step
up to the task. I'm not looking for a Nanny State...

On 1-16-2011 04:05, Eric Greenwell wrote:


Are you a troll?


Again, no. Here are examples of midairs that occurred between aircraft
that were radio equipped. Obviously, radio wasn't the answer to avoid
these accidents.

The radio was specifically noted as being used:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...10X63931&key=2
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...25X10235&key=2
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...08X81624&key=1
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...18X00587&key=1
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...09X00189&key=1

And here's one where ATC was even involved:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...26X01316&key=1

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...02X35752&key=2
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...19X12854&key=2
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...09X02427&key=1
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...27X00489&key=1

"What
gives passenger "A" any more "right" to arrive at the airport that MY
"right" to arrive"

Easy: the fundamental North American law that states "Whoever burns
the most oil is the most righteous."

Oddly enough, the only near accident I've seen that had lack of radio
communication as the primary factor involved a Cessna Citation and a
regional airline King Air at a small uncontrolled airport. The King
Air was on the airfield frequency and on final, the Citation was on
some other frequency and entered the runway and took off downwind
directly at the King air which had to go around rather abruptly. All
those radios don't do much good if they're not being used properly!

Fortunately all the club and private gliders at my field have radios
and we have several handhelds too. The only problem we have are the
pilots who don't seem to pay much attention to what is being said on
air. "Sierra Sierra this is Sierra Tango, are you intending to enter
the circuit?"......."Sierra Sierra this is Sierra Tango
over?."...."Sierra Sierra, Sierra Tango, over?"...."Sierra Tango to
any traffic, radio check please?","Sierra Tango this is Sierra
Uniform, reading you five by five","Thank you Sierra
Uniform"...."Sierra Sierra this is Sierra Tango do you read me, do you
read me over?"..............................."Was someone calling
Sierra Sierra?"...........etc, etc.

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'.

Bob W.