Another midair in the pattern

On 1/16/2011 5:40 AM, Scott wrote:
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

The issue isn't whether having a radio will avoid all midairs. It is
whether having a radio will reduce the number of midairs.

On 1-16-2011 17:07, Greg Arnold wrote:


The issue isn't whether having a radio will avoid all midairs. It is
whether having a radio will reduce the number of midairs.


My "issue" is why do people think we need (more) regulation to "reduce"
midairs? The government will keep adding regulations until it is
illegal to fly. That will be the final solution and WILL reduce midairs
to zero, presumably their goal (midairs = zero) if they were to mandate
radios.

I'm NOT saying radios can't help. I AM saying we don't need to have a
regulation that says we MUST have a radio aboard.

On 1/16/2011 12:45 PM, Scott wrote:
On 1-16-2011 17:07, Greg Arnold wrote:


The issue isn't whether having a radio will avoid all midairs. It is
whether having a radio will reduce the number of midairs.


My "issue" is why do people think we need (more) regulation to "reduce"
midairs? The government will keep adding regulations until it is illegal
to fly. That will be the final solution and WILL reduce midairs to zero,
presumably their goal (midairs = zero) if they were to mandate radios.

I'm NOT saying radios can't help. I AM saying we don't need to have a
regulation that says we MUST have a radio aboard.

If you want a scenario that will put an end to flying as we know it, it
would be a mid-air between a non-radio equipped GA aircraft and a
passenger jet, where the subsequent investigation uncovers a series of
internet postings by the GA pilot railing against the government's right
to force him to spend $200 on a hand-held radio.

--
Mike Schumann

On 1-16-2011 20:11, Mike Schumann wrote:


If you want a scenario that will put an end to flying as we know it, it
would be a mid-air between a non-radio equipped GA aircraft and a
passenger jet, where the subsequent investigation uncovers a series of
internet postings by the GA pilot railing against the government's right
to force him to spend $200 on a hand-held radio.


So, a regulation mandating a radio trumps the regulation to see and avoid?

And, after instituting said regulation, and midairs still occur, what is
the next "fix"?

On Jan 16, 4:24*pm, Scott wrote:
On 1-16-2011 20:11, Mike Schumann wrote:



If you want a scenario that will put an end to flying as we know it, it
would be a mid-air between a non-radio equipped GA aircraft and a
passenger jet, where the subsequent investigation uncovers a series of
internet postings by the GA pilot railing against the government's right
to force him to spend $200 on a hand-held radio.

So, a regulation mandating a radio trumps the regulation to see and avoid?

And, after instituting said regulation, and midairs still occur, what is
the next "fix"?

I haven't read all forty some odd posts, but (if nobody did already)
I would like to point out that radios are already pretty much mandated
by regulation.........Class A, Class B, Class C, and Class D
Airspaces........Wouldn't take much for the feds to expand that the
rest of the way....

Cookie

On Jan 16, 4:24*pm, Scott wrote:
On 1-16-2011 20:11, Mike Schumann wrote:



If you want a scenario that will put an end to flying as we know it, it
would be a mid-air between a non-radio equipped GA aircraft and a
passenger jet, where the subsequent investigation uncovers a series of
internet postings by the GA pilot railing against the government's right
to force him to spend $200 on a hand-held radio.

So, a regulation mandating a radio trumps the regulation to see and avoid?

And, after instituting said regulation, and midairs still occur, what is
the next "fix"?

My old glider partner had an interesting vision of the future of the
sport of soaring....like 100 years from now.........
He figured the government would cordon off a section of Arizona, maybe
50 miles square, and everybody would only be allowed to fly gliders in
there, only certains hours each day, and only certain days of the
week, etc. Sort of like Disney World, but for soaring! LOL!

Cookie

A couple of responses here to two specific responders' posts...but first
topical refreshment:

This particular discussional thread began when - responding to a GA midair
between a T-cart and a Cessna - the OP wrote:

Snips...
We lost 2 good men in Region 11 last year because the tow ship didn't
have a radio. Klem Bowman was killed in the Standard Class Nationals
when his stab fell and he didn't hear the call to release because he
was on the wrong frequency. An instructor died and his student was
severly injured when the battery went dead and they didn't hear the
tow pilot call, "Close your spoilers", a few years back at Minden.

The FAA hasn't seen fit to make radios mandatory, but we can put a
stop to this needless loss of life.Refuse to fly without a
radio.......... I believe proper use of the radio is nothing more than
good airmanship.

Because the post raised some obvious - and perhaps some not-so-obvious -
questions, I morphed the original thread into this one seeking to (perhaps)
encourage some of RAS' U.S. readers to seriously consider such things, maybe
even from some perspectives not previously considered. I happen to believe
thoughtful, open public discourse a good thing in a representational republic
(which, for the pedantic record, at the national level the U.S. is).

Eric G. soon commented:
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.

Mercy! I hope that for every person who views this sort of discussion a 'rant'
there are considerably more who recognize it as a genuine attempt to discuss
some serious philosophical questions that (should) directly impact our ability
as sailplane pilots in the U.S. to indulge in the wonderful sport. Further,
I'd hope that whether one views it as a rant or not, they express any
disinterest, or boredom, simply by ignoring the discussion rather than
indulging in the equivalent of splashing cold water on a matter that may be of
interest to others.
- - - - - -

On 1/16/2011 1:11 PM, Mike Schumann wrote:

The issue isn't whether having a radio will avoid all midairs. It is
whether having a radio will reduce the number of midairs.

I'll readily grant your point is AN issue, and, worthy of being included in
the (much!) larger public policy discourse and (ultimately) the governmental
decision-making process. But to contend it is the ONLY issue, and thus the
only one worthy of consideration in formulating that public policy is (hugely
& 'exclusionally') simplistic. This, sadly, is the sort of rationale too-often
previously used by the FAA to justify additional airspace restrictions (some
would say, 'grabs') and mandatory equipment, often with fairly remote
relationships between (accident) cause and (FAA mandated) effects.

It isn't only the FAA who makes this error. In fact, the O.P. on the one hand
cited 3 fatal glider accidents, two of which *had* [and *used*] radios), and
on the other hand came pretty close to outright supporting mandated
radios...despite the demonstrated 'failure of radio usage' in those two
accidents. As a fellow 'soaring family member', "I feel his pain," but
struggle to reach the same (in this particular instance) 'policy recommendation.'

Just to be clear, nowhere have I suggested sailplane pilots should NOT (as a
general rule, though - as always - the devil is in the details) opt for
radios, nor have I any present reason to suppose the FAA is considering
mandating radios.

Nonetheless, the 600,000-member Experimental Airplane Association (EAA) has
worked consistently and diligently to ensure the FAA does NOT 'try to go
there' as anyone familiar with their various airspace, antique and Light Sport
Aircraft initiatives are likely aware. Presumably they wouldn't engage in the
effort if their leadership didn't have reason(s?) for concern. Consequently,
they've periodically striven to initiate (at a minimum) 'political pressure'
from within their membership to become some part of whatever public
discussion(s) can be supported. Whether or not a person thinks (say) SSA
should be doing the same thing (regardless of the 'radio stance' one might
have), is - to my way of thinking - less important than individuals taking it
upon themselves to form an educated, hopefully rational, opinion and at least
*try* to influence the public discourse before simply 'surrendering to the
(FAA-mandated/politically) inevitable.'
- - - - - -

As to the (sometimes implicit, sometimes dismissively explicit) rationale
expressible by 'the $200 handheld', how are we to reconcile on the one hand
the not-inconsiderable hand-wringing over 'cost barriers' to soaring entry on
the one hand (often/generally expressed when the decline is SSA's membership
is under discussion), and rationalistic acceptance of the 'safety device of
the (sometimes, political) moment' on the other? The reality is it ALL costs,
and it ALL, in some manner or other, forms mental barriers/hoops/irritants in
everyone's minds. Just because none of the barriers may have (yet?) halted
*your* soaring activities/reduced your motivations, is insufficient reason to
pretend or act as if every other (potential or otherwise) participant has
those same limits. Or financial resources. Or...

Ideas have consequences. Wouldn't it be great if all of the ideas (and
ultimately, policies) affecting U.S. soaring were essentially rationally
based, as opposed to 'fear-based'? (And, yes, I realize there's no universal
view of 'what is rational.')

I thank everyone in advance who reads nothing more into my reasons for
engaging in this discussion than what I've previously stated.

Bob W.