Another midair in the pattern

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.

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)

On 1-16-2011 04:13, Eric Greenwell wrote:
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.

But after mandating radios and a few planes still come together, then
transponders will be mandatory. Mark my words. Then when they STILL
come together, VFR will go away and all flights will be IFR with ATC
telling you to go "that way" when you know that thermal is "this way".
The government will not stop until they control every aspect of your
life, especially if you let them. No, it's not conspiracy theory. Just
look at how much flying has changed since 9-11. TFR? Hardly ever had
any of them before 9-11. Now, a simple NFL football game causes one.

On 1/16/2011 4:57 AM, Scott wrote:
On 1-16-2011 04:13, Eric Greenwell wrote:
ssed?

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

But after mandating radios and a few planes still come together, then
transponders will be mandatory. Mark my words. Then when they STILL come
together, VFR will go away and all flights will be IFR with ATC telling
you to go "that way" when you know that thermal is "this way". The
government will not stop until they control every aspect of your life,
especially if you let them. No, it's not conspiracy theory. Just look at
how much flying has changed since 9-11. TFR? Hardly ever had any of them
before 9-11. Now, a simple NFL football game causes one.

Radios have been available and in use in GA for, like, 70 years;
transponders have been available and in use in GA for about 40 years.
And yet, we glider folk still aren't mandated to use either, so the idea
that any minute now, the government will suddenly decide to "control
every aspect of your life" seems, well, overheated. It would be easier
for me to make the argument the FAA is negligent, rather than overreaching.

That's why I'm not excited about claims we have to stop this
encroachment NOW before it's TOO LATE! But, I am somewhat interested in
discussions about the value of radios and how much we should encourage
their use. At $200, cost really isn't an issue for anyone that can
afford to fly in the first place.

I say "somewhat" interested, because where I fly in various parts of
North America, everyone is already using a radio, most also have a crew
radio (more of them have crew radios than crew, these days), and many
have a spare in addition.

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

Now Bob - you used the words rational and government servant in one
sentence. (You know that is an oxymoron.)

I am very concerned at the ever increasing bureaucracy and interference
in aviation by people who have little domain expertise, even in a
related discipline, let alone in soaring. In my experience such
interventions - well intentioned or for less honourable reasons - are
generally bad for our sport. Both from a safety perspective and from a
participation perspective. In a recreational activity, it is not too
difficult to exceed participants tolerance for admin and rules. Get it
wrong and you start losing experienced, thinking people. There are a lot
of other sports out there where you don't have the same interference in
your activities.

My experience is as safety officer for a small club at a unicom equipped
public airfield with a fair amount of power, some ultralight and the
occasional charter operation.

The government and local soaring approved procedures do not mandate
radio use. As a club we generally decline to launch a glider without a
radio that is operational on the airfield frequency. (someone will put a
handheld into your hand and explain how to use it)

The reasons are simple -
Courtesy to other aviators who we share the field with.
Common sense - our field is conveniently situated for a lot of first
solo cross country power fliers, and has a great restaurant so there are
a lot of weekend warriors enjoying an expensive breakfast. Best to
communicate.
Safety - sometimes the only warning we have before someone does
something unexpected is a radio announcement of intentions.
Safety - the launch marshal knows where all the gliders are, and what
they are doing, and can advise what is happening at the field.
Safety - we winch launch from a dedicated strip remote from but roughly
parallel to the main runway - and the thresholds are not visible.
Frequently the only way to co-ordinate movements is by radio. You could
really ruin someone's day dropping a couple of kms of steel wire on them
as they lift off. And cable breaks happen.

The fellow aviators are sometimes surprised to hear from the "silent
aviators" as we are infamous for not making any noise, engine or radio.
But they always appreciate it, and show us more consideration when they
know what we are doing.

Conversely we have found that mandating things and making rules, tends
to move responsibility to the rule maker. Far better to have information
available, to advocate safe actions and to make good airmanship the
pilot's responsibility. The results are better. So far the worst we have
is one broken finger (don't ask how) in just over 5000 launches on my
watch.

There are folk who have no common sense and some who will be reckless.
Developing personal strategies for them works better than rule making.
If you can't motivate someone to fly sensibly and with consideration
then they can be encouraged to take up something that requires less
discipline.

Cheers
Bruce

On 2011/01/16 5:54 AM, 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'.

Bob W.

--
Bruce Greeff
T59D #1771 & Std Cirrus #57

On Jan 15, 8:54*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'.

Bob W.

As usual, Bob offers a good analysis.

Nearly all my near misses have been near airports with both of us
talking to the tower or approach. I suspect that while there is
additional safety from having a radio, it's largely offset by pilot's
(and ATC's) over-reliance on that protection.

I'm not opposed to radios - I have several and use them. A greater
problem is those who use them inappropriately. (Beyond blocking the
frequency with incessant variometer reports.)

Professionals can be just as bad as glider pilots. On several
occasions I've had commuter crews make their first announcement on
CTAF while on short final to the runway where I was back taxiing. The
first time that happened, I taxied off the runway into the grass to
get out of their way. Next time I transmitted, "Go around, it's my
runway 'til I get off of it." Instead of going around, the Beech 1900
buzzed me at 20' AGL. I wrote a long report to the FAA, cosigned by
the airport manager who was watching and listening.

On another occasion, airline crews were using 123.3 to discuss union
negotiations. Using my gruffest voice, I transmitted, "Lets have some
discipline on the frequency". The labor relations discussion went
silent.