Another midair in the pattern

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)