If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Another midair in the pattern
On Jan 15, 8:54*am, Walt Connelly Walt.Connelly.
wrote: 'Jim Beckman[_2_ Wrote: ;760006']At 01:07 15 January 2011, Walt Connelly wrote:- I am looking for a headset with a PTT set up for my hand held, one cannot be too safe.- Actually, one *can* be too safe. *If you really want to be safe with your glider, leave it on the ground. *Never fly it. *That would be really, really safe. *But *too* safe, right? Jim Beckman Jim, everything is meant to be within reason. *The PTT feature would give me one less thing to fiddle with in critical circumstances. PUlling the handheld from my pocket, holding it with one hand, usually my left while flying with the right can be cumbersome. The potential for dropping it is incurred each time it is employed which brings forth an added hazard. * Each reduction in required manipulations allows for a greater safety margin. *Sure, we could never leave the ground or for that matter never leave our house but that would defeat the purpose, would it not? *We should always be looking for ways to reduce the hazard potential and I am always open to listen to new and intelligent ideas. Walt -- Walt Connelly I clip my radio to my seat belt up near my shoulder. Problem is I need my left hand to press the transmit button which eliminates the possibility of holding the air brake lever as I am announcing my turn to base and final. I need a solution too |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Mandating Radios? (WAS: Another midair in the pattern)
On 1-15-2011 19:19, JJ Sinclair wrote:
Scott& Bob, If we suck a glider through a jet at a unicom airport, mandatory radios will be the least of our worries. Many 'uncontrilled' 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 unscaved. JJ Well, I knew it wouldn't be long before a ****ing contest arose. What gives passenger "A" any more "right" to arrive at the airport that MY "right" to arrive? So, if I understand you correctly, MY rights STOP if it interferes with YOUR rights? I think I have the right not to get sucked into the turbine because the pilot (of the turbine) was not looking out the window to see me. I'm not against radios. I have one. I use it. I do NOT depend on it to alert me to traffic. That is why I continue to take the eye test at physical time. I don't need the government to 'mandate' something additional that is clearly already in the statutes (see and avoid). |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Mandating Radios? (WAS: Another midair in the pattern)
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 |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Another midair in the pattern
At 13:54 15 January 2011, Walt Connelly wrote:
Jim, everything is meant to be within reason. The PTT feature woul give me one less thing to fiddle with in critical circumstances. PUllin the handheld from my pocket, holding it with one hand, usually my lef while flying with the right can be cumbersome. The potential fo dropping it is incurred each time it is employed which brings forth a added hazard. Clip the handheld to your shoulder harness, right next to your face. That's what I do when I use one. Jim Beckman |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Mandating Radios? (WAS: Another midair in the pattern)
On 1/15/2011 3:54 PM, Scott wrote:
On 1-15-2011 19:19, JJ Sinclair wrote: Scott& Bob, If we suck a glider through a jet at a unicom airport, mandatory radios will be the least of our worries. Many 'uncontrilled' 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 unscaved. JJ Well, I knew it wouldn't be long before a ****ing contest arose. What gives passenger "A" any more "right" to arrive at the airport that MY "right" to arrive? So, if I understand you correctly, MY rights STOP if it interferes with YOUR rights? I think I have the right not to get sucked into the turbine because the pilot (of the turbine) was not looking out the window to see me. I'm not against radios. I have one. I use it. I do NOT depend on it to alert me to traffic. That is why I continue to take the eye test at physical time. I don't need the government to 'mandate' something additional that is clearly already in the statutes (see and avoid). One needs to keep some perspective. There are certain things that affect your personal safety, and have no impact on anyone else (seat belts, motorcycle helmets, parachutes). You have a legitimate argument that you should have the freedom to make your own decision. I would support that 100%, as long as you don't expect me to pick up your medical expenses resulting from your lack of taking prudent precautions. Radios and transponders fall into a different category. These items don't just affect your personal safety, but also others around you. At this point, the argument becomes a little more nuanced. Now you need to balance the impact of the mandate on an unwilling participant, both in cost and convenience, against the resulting increase in safety to innocent bystanders. When you are looking at a $2,000 transponder investment for a $6,000 glider, in a rural area where TCAS equipped aircraft are unlikely to be encountered, rational people can obviously have justifiably different points of view. However, when you are looking at a $200 investment in a radio (or even $0 investment, if you borrow a hand-held from a friend), it's not unreasonable for people to view your refusal to take advantage of that kind of safety measure as needlessly reckless. Sometimes it makes sense to have mandates to protect ourselves, to the extent that we can, from people without common sense. -- Mike Schumann |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Mandating Radios? (WAS: Another midair in the pattern)
On 1-15-2011 22:31, Mike Schumann wrote:
However, when you are looking at a $200 investment in a radio (or even $0 investment, if you borrow a hand-held from a friend), it's not unreasonable for people to view your refusal to take advantage of that kind of safety measure as needlessly reckless. Sometimes it makes sense to have mandates to protect ourselves, to the extent that we can, from people without common sense. I DO have a handheld raio in my non-electric powered plane and I DO use it. I just do NOT depend on it as the sole source of traffic location. Even so, I am against MORE regulation from the government. Why does it seem so hard for people to take more responsibility upon themselves and look out the big window in front rather than beg big brother to watch out for your every need? |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Mandating Radios? (WAS: Another midair in the pattern)
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. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Mandating Radios? (WAS: Another midair in the pattern)
On 1/15/2011 6:20 PM, Scott wrote:
On 1-15-2011 22:31, Mike Schumann wrote: However, when you are looking at a $200 investment in a radio (or even $0 investment, if you borrow a hand-held from a friend), it's not unreasonable for people to view your refusal to take advantage of that kind of safety measure as needlessly reckless. Sometimes it makes sense to have mandates to protect ourselves, to the extent that we can, from people without common sense. I DO have a handheld raio in my non-electric powered plane and I DO use it. I just do NOT depend on it as the sole source of traffic location. Even so, I am against MORE regulation from the government. Why does it seem so hard for people to take more responsibility upon themselves and look out the big window in front rather than beg big brother to watch out for your every need? Are you a troll? -- Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me) |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Mandating Radios? (WAS: 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) |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Mandating Radios? (WAS: Another midair in the pattern)
"What
gives passenger "A" any more "right" to arrive at the airport that MY "right" to arrive" Easy: the fundamental North American law that states "Whoever burns the most oil is the most righteous." Oddly enough, the only near accident I've seen that had lack of radio communication as the primary factor involved a Cessna Citation and a regional airline King Air at a small uncontrolled airport. The King Air was on the airfield frequency and on final, the Citation was on some other frequency and entered the runway and took off downwind directly at the King air which had to go around rather abruptly. All those radios don't do much good if they're not being used properly! Fortunately all the club and private gliders at my field have radios and we have several handhelds too. The only problem we have are the pilots who don't seem to pay much attention to what is being said on air. "Sierra Sierra this is Sierra Tango, are you intending to enter the circuit?"......."Sierra Sierra this is Sierra Tango over?."...."Sierra Sierra, Sierra Tango, over?"...."Sierra Tango to any traffic, radio check please?","Sierra Tango this is Sierra Uniform, reading you five by five","Thank you Sierra Uniform"...."Sierra Sierra this is Sierra Tango do you read me, do you read me over?"..............................."Was someone calling Sierra Sierra?"...........etc, etc. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Pattern for IFR | Mxsmanic | Instrument Flight Rules | 8 | September 9th 08 03:37 PM |
C-182 pattern help | SilkB | Piloting | 16 | September 15th 06 10:55 PM |
Right of Way in the pattern? | Kingfish | Piloting | 12 | August 11th 06 10:52 AM |
The Pattern is Full! | Jay Honeck | Piloting | 3 | January 10th 06 04:06 AM |
Crowded Pattern | Michael 182 | Piloting | 7 | October 8th 05 03:02 PM |