Another midair in the pattern

When I see the NTSB report 2 aircraft accidents at the same date, time
& place, it only means one thing. They came together in the air or on
the ground. On 12/20/10 in Madras Origon, a Taylorcraft and Cessna
came together while both were trying to land on runway16. The
Taylorcraft didn't have a radio! Please don't fly without a radio and
use it, Establish communication with your tow pilot by a simple com-
check like; Red tow this is JJ, how do you read? If I get a "loud and
clear", I know we can communicate if necessary. Next use your radio to
call entering the pattern, like "Madras traffic, glider JJ is entering
a left down-wind for runway 16 at Madras.

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.

JJ Sinclair

Originally Posted by JJ Sinclair[_2_]

When I see the NTSB report 2 aircraft accidents at the same date, time
& place, it only means one thing. They came together in the air or on
the ground. On 12/20/10 in Madras Origon, a Taylorcraft and Cessna
came together while both were trying to land on runway16. The
Taylorcraft didn't have a radio! Please don't fly without a radio and
use it, Establish communication with your tow pilot by a simple com-
check like; Red tow this is JJ, how do you read? If I get a "loud and
clear", I know we can communicate if necessary. Next use your radio to
call entering the pattern, like "Madras traffic, glider JJ is entering
a left down-wind for runway 16 at Madras.

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.

JJ Sinclair

I agree. I transitioned to gliders a bit over a year ago and will admit that I was somewhat concerned that the trainers and other rental aircraft available had no radios. I purchased my own hand held and carry it on each flight, doing a radio check with the tow plane prior to take off. While the standard signals from the tow plane and glider are fine, the addition of the radio makes things a bit safer. Returning to the pattern for landing and announcing one's intentions over the radio enhances the safety margin unless of course there are aircraft which cannot hear the announcement or make one themselves.

Even at uncontrolled fields, powered aircraft generally announce their position and intentions on unicom. Why do we in the glider world think things should be any different, especially when we can't do a go around on landing? We share our gliderport with a number of powered aircraft and while everyone seems to do a fine job, one never knows when someone isn't looking. Looking and listening and announcing your position and intentions only enhances the safety factor.

I am looking for a headset with a PTT set up for my hand held, one cannot be too safe.

After a few close calls in thermals with other gliders I have also added a parachute to my list of required items. Most of the privately owned glass ship pilots wear chutes, no reason why one in a rental should not.

Walt

Folks wrote...
When I see the NTSB report 2 aircraft accidents at the same
date, time
& place, it only means one thing. They came together in the air or on
the ground. On 12/20/10 in Madras Origon, a Taylorcraft and Cessna
came together while both were trying to land on runway16. The
Taylorcraft didn't have a radio! Please don't fly without a radio and
use itSnips...


I agree. Snips......the addition of the radio makes things a bit safer. Returning to
the pattern for landing and announcing one's intentions over the radio
enhances the safety margin unless of course there are aircraft which
cannot hear the announcement or make one themselves.

Even at uncontrolled fields, powered aircraft generally announce their
position and intentions on unicom. Why do we in the glider world think
things should be any different, especially when we can't do a go around
on landing?...
Snips...

I'm not about to argue against the proposition that having and (wisely) using
a radio is not a (potentially, as distinct from automatically and inevitably)
good thing, but I do think it (perhaps) worthwhile mentioning at this point in
this particular discussion that some significant portion of the powerplane GA
fleet (e.g. that subset of those certified and built and remaining without an
electrical system) still do NOT have radios. Nor am I about to back any effort
to mandate they (or anyone else legally enjoying certain [large] areas of U.S.
airspace) be forced to do so. Life entails risk; flight perhaps more so than
if we choose to remain ground-bound.

Is there an honest pilot who doesn't admit we don't live in a risk-free world?
Is there an honest pilot who sees a way to get TO a risk-free world? Or do
some amongst us wish to mandate (in addition to immediately junking perfectly
airworthy 2-33's and every L-13 in sight [WARNING: wry humor nearby]) we also
junk every ATC-ed and airworthy powerplane lacking electrical systems?

While I understand the sentiments and pain behind lost fellow pilots (and
friends) - my own personal strictly-weekend-flyer total is nearing double
figures - I hope none of my living friends seriously would support such a mandate.

Seriously,
Bob W.

On Jan 14, 7:21*pm, Bob Whelan wrote:
Folks wrote...
When I see the NTSB report 2 aircraft accidents at the same
date, time
& *place, it only means one thing. They came together in the air or on
the ground. On 12/20/10 in Madras Origon, a Taylorcraft and Cessna
came together while both were trying to land on runway16. The
Taylorcraft didn't have a radio! Please don't fly without a radio and
use itSnips...

I agree. *Snips......the addition of the radio makes things a bit safer. *Returning to
the pattern for landing and announcing one's intentions over the radio
enhances the safety margin unless of course there are aircraft which
cannot hear the announcement or make one themselves.

Even at uncontrolled fields, powered aircraft generally announce their
position and intentions on unicom. *Why do we in the glider world think
things should be any different, especially when we can't do a go around
on landing?...

Snips...

I'm not about to argue against the proposition that having and (wisely) using
a radio is not a (potentially, as distinct from automatically and inevitably)
good thing, but I do think it (perhaps) worthwhile mentioning at this point in
this particular discussion that some significant portion of the powerplane GA
fleet (e.g. that subset of those certified and built and remaining without an
electrical system) still do NOT have radios. Nor am I about to back any effort
to mandate they (or anyone else legally enjoying certain [large] areas of U.S.
airspace) be forced to do so. Life entails risk; flight perhaps more so than
if we choose to remain ground-bound.

Is there an honest pilot who doesn't admit we don't live in a risk-free world?
Is there an honest pilot who sees a way to get TO a risk-free world? Or do
some amongst us wish to mandate (in addition to immediately junking perfectly
airworthy 2-33's and every L-13 in sight [WARNING: wry humor nearby]) we also
junk every ATC-ed and airworthy powerplane lacking electrical systems?

While I understand the sentiments and pain behind lost fellow pilots (and
friends) - my own personal strictly-weekend-flyer total is nearing double
figures - I hope none of my living friends seriously would support such a mandate.

Seriously,
Bob W.

I have quite a bit of time in a Piper J3 and also in an Aeronca 11BC.
Neither had an electrical system but both had radios. The fact that
there is no electrical system is not a reason not to have a radio in a
powered aircraft any more than it is in a glider.

I'm not saying carrying and using a radio should be mandatory, just
that not having an electrical system is no reason not to.

A local glider FBO has no radios in its tow planes. Just one of the
reasons I don't fly there any more.

Andy

On 1-15-2011 03:06, Andy wrote:


I have quite a bit of time in a Piper J3 and also in an Aeronca 11BC.
Neither had an electrical system but both had radios. The fact that
there is no electrical system is not a reason not to have a radio in a
powered aircraft any more than it is in a glider.

I'm not saying carrying and using a radio should be mandatory, just
that not having an electrical system is no reason not to.

A local glider FBO has no radios in its tow planes. Just one of the
reasons I don't fly there any more.

Andy


When I had my Aeronca 11CC with no radio, a guy in a low wing Piper
tried to mid air me twice while in the pattern, with me observing him
while making my evasive manuevers. After finally getting on the ground
and walking up to him as he was fueling up, I asked if he ever SAW me.
His first answer was, "Weren't you on the radio?" At this point I
explained that not all planes have elctrical systems and/or radios.
Then I asked him while on short final, he decided to turn at me as I had
just started my base leg. His answer was that at an uncontrolled
airport, all turns were to be made to the left when going around. I
asked him if it might have been better to proceed straight ahead and
climb and re-enter on the crosswind leg. He said, ya that probably
would have been better.

My point is, having a radio CAN be a crutch and then assuming nobody is
around if you don't hear somebody answer your call. LOOK OUT THE
WINDOW. I'm not saying we must fly without radios, but don't assume
you're the only one in the sky on any given day just because you don't
hear me on the radio. I do have a handheld in my current (electric-less
airplane) Corben, but I still rely on visually identifying targets.
Radio is just a back-up to me...

When I had my Aeronca 11CC with no radio, a guy in a low wing Piper
tried to mid air me twice while in the pattern, with me observing him
while making my evasive manuevers.

Scott,
The encounter you had with the Piper driver is the poster child for
midair collisions in the pattern, high wing Aeronca can't see well
above and low wing Piper can't see well
below...............................Did the thought occur to you after
your discussion with the guy who didn't see you that your life might
just be worth investing in a $200 hand held radio?
JJ

On 1/14/2011 9:21 PM, Bob Whelan wrote:
Folks wrote...
When I see the NTSB report 2 aircraft accidents at the same
date, time
& place, it only means one thing. They came together in the air or on
the ground. On 12/20/10 in Madras Origon, a Taylorcraft and Cessna
came together while both were trying to land on runway16. The
Taylorcraft didn't have a radio! Please don't fly without a radio and
use itSnips...


I agree. Snips......the addition of the radio makes things a bit
safer. Returning to
the pattern for landing and announcing one's intentions over the radio
enhances the safety margin unless of course there are aircraft which
cannot hear the announcement or make one themselves.

Even at uncontrolled fields, powered aircraft generally announce their
position and intentions on unicom. Why do we in the glider world think
things should be any different, especially when we can't do a go around
on landing?...
Snips...

I'm not about to argue against the proposition that having and (wisely)
using a radio is not a (potentially, as distinct from automatically and
inevitably) good thing, but I do think it (perhaps) worthwhile
mentioning at this point in this particular discussion that some
significant portion of the powerplane GA fleet (e.g. that subset of
those certified and built and remaining without an electrical system)
still do NOT have radios. Nor am I about to back any effort to mandate
they (or anyone else legally enjoying certain [large] areas of U.S.
airspace) be forced to do so. Life entails risk; flight perhaps more so
than if we choose to remain ground-bound.

Is there an honest pilot who doesn't admit we don't live in a risk-free
world? Is there an honest pilot who sees a way to get TO a risk-free
world? Or do some amongst us wish to mandate (in addition to immediately
junking perfectly airworthy 2-33's and every L-13 in sight [WARNING: wry
humor nearby]) we also junk every ATC-ed and airworthy powerplane
lacking electrical systems?

While I understand the sentiments and pain behind lost fellow pilots
(and friends) - my own personal strictly-weekend-flyer total is nearing
double figures - I hope none of my living friends seriously would
support such a mandate.

Seriously,
Bob W.

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

--
Mike Schumann

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


For the record...

- my instructor told me to get a (club) parachute upon endorsing me for my 1st
1-26 solo; I've never flown without a 'chute since, including in 2-33's.
- I purchased a handheld ~1989 and have rarely flown without it or a fixed
radio since.
- I'm in 100% agreement w. (for example) Andy D.'s decision to not rent older
no-radio power planes. (His choice. Mine or others' may or may not be
different, depending upon our personal situations and views.)
- vario audios are wonderful devices & I highly recommend them to any aspiring
sailplane pilot.
- (somewhere in the RAS archives can be found that...) I suggested - some
years before FLARM appeared - a relatively simple device transmitting "Here I
am, don't hit me," information coupled with a receiver and computer
technology, would be a wonderful, relatively inexpensive device for the entire
flying community to have. I heartily applaud the FLARM folks for their
implementation(s) of it, and expect their devices will have beneficial effects
upon certain types of accident prevention. (Awesome!)
- I've worn seatbelts ever since my dad's 1966 Country Sedan station wagon
came with them...and think folks who don't are taking foolish/avoidable risks.

Those things noted, there's not a single panacea device in the above list -
or, imagined, at least so far as I'm aware - that will remove all the risk
from flying & soaring. And so it will ever be...

If an individual pilot opts for a certain safety device - excellent!

If that pilot's club opts for a certain safety device - excellent!

If the SSA opts for (mandates?) a certain safety device - well, maybe not so
unanimously excellent.

If the FAA mandates a certain safety device - clearly NOT unanimously excellent.

My point in raising the question of (in this particular instance) the proposed
desirability (or not) of a radio mandate centers on the reality that - in
addition to radios not being a panacea - the decision is ultimately intensely
personal, and dependent upon one's (present, ever-changing) worldview.
Technology - and associated cost - perpetually marches on. (Who else remembers
the STS handheld which burst on the glider scene 20+ years ago? Prior to then
handhelds for the glider market weren't obtainable at any price.)

My guess is had the FAA - or even I, had I been king - then mandated
handhelds, a howl of protest would have been raised...and rightly so, IMHO.

Given that all of us naturally struggle in making personal/individual choices
in our lives, (when?) is it justifiably 'desirable' to mandate choices for
*other* people's lives?

THAT is the philosophic question underlying this thread's (soaring-related) topic.

Regards,
Bob W.

On Jan 15, 10:46*am, Bob Whelan wrote:

(Who else remembers
the STS handheld which burst on the glider scene 20+ years ago? Prior to then
handhelds for the glider market weren't obtainable at any price.)

Not only remember the STS have but still have 3 of them. They are
down on performance though and have been replaced by a pair of Icom
IC-A5's. One of the STS radios still lives in the van as a backup
ground station.

Andy

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