Wacky Tracky

On Thursday, June 9, 2016 at 7:24:35 AM UTC-7, wrote:
Ramy quote:
"An FBO or the owner can refuse to tow you without a tracker, especially after they had to spend days searching for an aircraft which did not return in two separate occasions. In both cases the pilot probably thought that he did not need another stinkin electronic gadget in their cockpit, or could not afford $10 a month. In one case the pilot was found dead, in another he was found barely alive after couple of days."

As to if they want to refuse me a tow, that is their perogative. They own the business, they can do what they want. I have no problem with that. As for an official competition, same thing, whatever rules they want to set is their business, and I can choose to participate or not.

BUT, we sure are turning into a nanny state way faster than I realized. When I fly, I am on my own, I dont want anyone feeling obliged to look for me. I dont want outside folks setting up their own standards as to what they think constitutes an emergency involving me! Its no damn business where I fly or how I get there!

After working search and rescue for the last 20 years, I sure as hell dont depend on them. I hate to be brutal but sometimes the truth is brutal. The two incidents you mention are case in point. The dead guy screwed the pooch from the start so no amount of rescue is gonna help him, the second guy's life was also in his own hands. I dont know the particulars of his injury producing accident, I am sorry he got hurt and was lost and thankful he survived to fly another day, but it was HIS accident. Do not lay rules or requirments on me and other responsible pilots due to the poor decisions of others. I dont need rules committies or the FAA or other peoples opinions to "save me" from myself. I dont expect others to babysit me and I sure as hell hope you dont either!

I am no fool, as for "stinking electronics" (your words) I utilize "safety" oriented equipment, Spot, transponder etc, I have invested my cash into these systems but I do it knowing those tools are way way secondary to having my head screwed on straight when flying. We can armchair all we want after the fact, but the fact remains dang near every accident involving a sailplane boils down to pilot error. Prevent the pilot error and you prevent the accident. No accident is ever really "accidental".

Whether you want it or not, the reality is that if you dont return and no one heard from you, there are going to be multiple folks impacted, especially if you fly at a popular gliderport, and even more so if you are participating in a soaring event. Your buddies will likely be grounded due to SAR TFR and will spend time and money looking for you instead of flying (Remember Steve Fossett)? Been there, done that, don't want to repeat that.

Ramy

I've Been there done that on the Fossett fiasco as well as many other ELT and non-ELT chases.

Dear Dan:
The FBO leases the airport and they have the safety of their clients in mind when they make rules. I have not inquired as to how they enforce the rules as I respect the FBO and their rules. I like flying there and the FBO and family are very good people. If I was to speculate I would assume you cannot get a tow without the right equipment. I have never been ramped checked for equipment, compliance is expected and I certainly would not do anything to circumvent the rules. If you are flying xc a tracker is a good idea, weather or not you can self launch.

Kind regards,
Jon


On Wednesday, June 8, 2016 at 7:28:51 PM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
I'm curious:Â* How does an FBO forbid leaving the local area if an
aircraft does not have certain equipment that the FBO thinks is
good?

Does he refuse a to tow the glider?Â* He doesn't own the airport,
so I can fly there without Spot or InReach.Â* Or does
he own the airport?Â* Is there some special circumstance, terrain,
traffic situation, etc., which makes him feel the need to snoop in
my cockpit?Â* I understand the value of a transponder around Reno
and similar places.

I'm glad I don't need a tow plane any more.





On 6/7/2016 7:13 PM, Jonathan St. Cloud
wrote:



How on earth did lack of piloting skills get annexed to having a well equipped cockpit. They are separate events without a causal link. Virtually all glider pilots learn in gliders not fitted with GPS nor electronic audio varios. The march of technology has made the sport safer, radios, audio various, transponders, Flarm, GPS, spot... These have nothing to due with learning the basics of stick and rudder. If you can afford the latest, great. If you can't still good. We have several local 1-26 guys whom fly amazing distances, and we have glass guys from early glass to the latest glass flying amazing flights. All of them can fly and it doesn't matter what instruments they use. However, they all must have a spot or inreach to leave the local area, this is required from the FBO.

If someone is giving you grief, it is more about them than you. As far as the march of technology making lesser pilots, I have not witnessed this at the glider port, but multiple accidents and incidents of Air-carriers has shown this. Again this is more training and experience than instruments. I am thinking of Airfrance held aircraft in deep stall for over 3 minutes, Korean Air, couldn't even follow a VASI, recent asian air another stall from altitude, cargo carrier out of SF where the 747 lost two engines on one side, long haul pilot forgot he had rudders...

All the glider pilots I know can fly, navigate and communicate. The modern stuff is nice and I believe leads to less head down time in cockpit, folding a map, looking up freqs, ...

With no offense intended to any of the posters, but this thread has gotten senseless. If you fly without any electronics fine, but know that spot and Inreach are required in some places and are just a good idea period. So are Transponders and Flarm. I couldn't care less if you navigate by GPS, this has no effect on me.








--

Dan, 5J

Hi Jon, i dont disagree. Having a tracker is a good idea when flying xc. And no I have never been denied service anywhere. But I wonder how the rationale works out long haul. Tracking systems are not a FAA requirement, they are just a good idea. Does that FBO inspect all the aircraft that come through and refuse to sell fuel if a ship is not up to their standards? I am sure this is not the case and that the folks are good people but you get my point.

What makes a sailplane such a special case? Just cause I have no engine, does that make it less safe to do a little xc flight? We all know days when even a tin can can cruise around a 100km no sweat. Secondly, what constitutes xc? Is it one thermal away from home, 10, etc. xc for me and a 1-26 is "local flying" for a js1. You see the predicament with trying to make arbitrary decisions regarding what is or is not needed in terms of equipment.

If my arm was twisted and the FAA said I had to have a system in my glider, I would feel fine with simply putting a portable ELT in my bird. Simple, small, proven tecnology, no monthly maintenance fees. and some are mobile systems that can be taken with if hiking out and hurt.

Thanks Jon.

What people seem to miss is that my questions should answered at face
value. You did that and I appreciate it. The original post simply said
"the FBO" which, in the vast majority of aviation, is simply a business
on an airport, not the owner or leasee. I agree that the FBO in this
case has every right to allow or bar anyone for any reason that he
chooses (no shirt, no shoes, no service). Likewise, I would respect the
owner/leasee's wishes.


On 6/9/2016 2:46 PM, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
Dear Dan:
The FBO leases the airport and they have the safety of their clients in mind when they make rules. I have not inquired as to how they enforce the rules as I respect the FBO and their rules. I like flying there and the FBO and family are very good people. If I was to speculate I would assume you cannot get a tow without the right equipment. I have never been ramped checked for equipment, compliance is expected and I certainly would not do anything to circumvent the rules. If you are flying xc a tracker is a good idea, weather or not you can self launch.

Kind regards,
Jon


On Wednesday, June 8, 2016 at 7:28:51 PM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
I'm curious: How does an FBO forbid leaving the local area if an
aircraft does not have certain equipment that the FBO thinks is
good?

Does he refuse a to tow the glider? He doesn't own the airport,
so I can fly there without Spot or InReach. Or does
he own the airport? Is there some special circumstance, terrain,
traffic situation, etc., which makes him feel the need to snoop in
my cockpit? I understand the value of a transponder around Reno
and similar places.

I'm glad I don't need a tow plane any more.





On 6/7/2016 7:13 PM, Jonathan St. Cloud
wrote:



How on earth did lack of piloting skills get annexed to having a well equipped cockpit. They are separate events without a causal link. Virtually all glider pilots learn in gliders not fitted with GPS nor electronic audio varios. The march of technology has made the sport safer, radios, audio various, transponders, Flarm, GPS, spot... These have nothing to due with learning the basics of stick and rudder. If you can afford the latest, great. If you can't still good. We have several local 1-26 guys whom fly amazing distances, and we have glass guys from early glass to the latest glass flying amazing flights. All of them can fly and it doesn't matter what instruments they use. However, they all must have a spot or inreach to leave the local area, this is required from the FBO.

If someone is giving you grief, it is more about them than you. As far as the march of technology making lesser pilots, I have not witnessed this at the glider port, but multiple accidents and incidents of Air-carriers has shown this. Again this is more training and experience than instruments. I am thinking of Airfrance held aircraft in deep stall for over 3 minutes, Korean Air, couldn't even follow a VASI, recent asian air another stall from altitude, cargo carrier out of SF where the 747 lost two engines on one side, long haul pilot forgot he had rudders...

All the glider pilots I know can fly, navigate and communicate. The modern stuff is nice and I believe leads to less head down time in cockpit, folding a map, looking up freqs, ...

With no offense intended to any of the posters, but this thread has gotten senseless. If you fly without any electronics fine, but know that spot and Inreach are required in some places and are just a good idea period. So are Transponders and Flarm. I couldn't care less if you navigate by GPS, this has no effect on me.








--

Dan, 5J

--
Dan, 5J

On Thursday, June 9, 2016 at 6:34:08 PM UTC-4, wrote:
If my arm was twisted and the FAA said I had to have a system in my glider, I would feel fine with simply putting a portable ELT in my bird. Simple, small, proven tecnology, no monthly maintenance fees. and some are mobile systems that can be taken with if hiking out and hurt.

- right, except that it also costs $1000 (for a modern unit with 406 MHz and GPS), while a PLB (basically the same tech minus the impact switch) is $250.

True but I think the feds would ve satisfied with the elt approach and indtalation can be done by the owner with no stc bull to deal with. Its already proven and accepted tecnology as least as far as the feds opinion.

In actual use I prefer the older freq units, especially for work in densely vegitative or canyon terrain. The higher freq new units do not propigate very well in those terrains. We had a king air geophysical survey plane crash in guyana SA, they had both the new and the old freq units. We were able to get something of a spotty trans on the older lower freq unit, nothing in the high freq. While both are "strictly" line of sight, the lower freq does bend around and thru terrain features better.

On Friday, June 10, 2016 at 12:14:16 PM UTC-4, wrote:
... We had a king air geophysical survey plane crash in guyana SA, they had both the new and the old freq units. We were able to get something of a spotty trans on the older lower freq unit, nothing in the high freq. While both are "strictly" line of sight, the lower freq does bend around and thru terrain features better.

- did the SAR satellites pick up the 406 MHz signal in that case?

Moshe no thats the problem. That freq has a very hard time penetrating thru a heavy vegitative cover.

We must enjoy a bit of comedy.
Recouping:

The initial question was answered by a website issue and a larger than usual drinking water container.

Hopefully the rich buggers who can afford anything accusation wasn't aimed at myself or Ramy. Just a couple of everyday people having fun.

Lenny The Lurker was accused of showing up!
Where's Al MacDonald? We should work PW5s, Geese at 18000', etc. into this act.

Now it appears the loudest argument against trackers is saying ELTs don't work.

Jim
Coming up next: How to cure the World of all known diseases.