Another midair in the pattern

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 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.

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"?

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.

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

On 1/16/2011 4:50 AM, Scott wrote:
On 1-16-2011 04:05, Eric Greenwell wrote:

Are you a troll?

Absolutely not. Just a freedom loving American who doesn't need
government to grow ever bigger and dictate every aspect of my life. I
consider myself to be responsible enough to watch out for myself.
Powered planes (modern ones with electrical systems) almost always have
radios and they sometimes meet in midair. I think they call these events
'accidents', same as car crashes. Do cars need radios installed so
drivers can communicate their every move to each other? If everyone
cries to the government to "Please, save us!" they certainly will step
up to the task. I'm not looking for a Nanny State...

OK, just that it normally takes at least a $2000 transponder to trigger
a broad anti-government rant on this group, so when someone goes
ballistic over the suggestion that $200 radio might enhance everyone's
survival rate, I start to wonder if a troll has dropped in.

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

On 1-17-2011 00:59, Eric Greenwell wrote:
On 1/16/2011 4:50 AM, Scott wrote:
On 1-16-2011 04:05, Eric Greenwell wrote:

Are you a troll?

Absolutely not. Just a freedom loving American who doesn't need
government to grow ever bigger and dictate every aspect of my life. I
consider myself to be responsible enough to watch out for myself.
Powered planes (modern ones with electrical systems) almost always have
radios and they sometimes meet in midair. I think they call these events
'accidents', same as car crashes. Do cars need radios installed so
drivers can communicate their every move to each other? If everyone
cries to the government to "Please, save us!" they certainly will step
up to the task. I'm not looking for a Nanny State...

OK, just that it normally takes at least a $2000 transponder to trigger
a broad anti-government rant on this group, so when someone goes
ballistic over the suggestion that $200 radio might enhance everyone's
survival rate, I start to wonder if a troll has dropped in.

Who went ballistic? I must have missed that 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)

Scott wrote........
Absolutely not. Just a freedom loving American who doesn't need
government to grow ever bigger and dictate every aspect of my life. I
consider myself to be responsible enough to watch out for myself.
Powered planes (modern ones with electrical systems) almost always have
radios and they sometimes meet in midair. I think they call these events
'accidents', same as car crashes. Do cars need radios installed so
drivers can communicate their every move to each other? If everyone
cries to the government to "Please, save us!" they certainly will step
up to the task. I'm not looking for a Nanny State...

Oh come on Scott, that argument is pathetic. Its like saying cars use
head lights to aid in seeing each other at night, but we still have
accidents at night, soooooooooooooooo we don't need headlights! No,
make that ludicrous!
The radio is an aid, it helps to show who is near you especially when
trying to take off or land. Many power pilots who reguraly fly near
soaring operations will make a call in the blind like......GLUDER
GLIDER GLIDER thei is turbo bla bla I'm descending over the
pine nuts passing 12,000 any gliders in my area? No government madate
told him to do this, he just used is common sense and did it, like he
does when entering the pattern.............or how about prior to
takeoff? Can you see everyone who may be in the pattern? Wouldn't
listening to one of those hated radios be prudent?
JJ