Handheld Tranceiver Recommendation

"Dave Stadt" wrote:
And my experience is that assuming that see and avoid will keep you
alive is one path to validating Darwinism.

Ron Lee

I would like to see evidence to support your statement.

True story. I was travelling west and almost over my home airport
runway. Started a right circling turn and as I was facing north had a
feeling that traffic was to my right. As I looked to the east I had
bright lights of an aircraft facing me with no apparent motion.

The CRJ passed behind me and perhaps 200' higher. I was on my aiport
Unicom frequency and not local approach as I usually am at that
altitude. Also had the transponder removed earlier that day for
repairs. The CRJ was travelling WSW so it is unlikely that I could
see it behind me...and I was close to the sun for the other pilots.

I use visual, onboard traffic detector and approach/center to improve
my chances. Not one is infallible. But the combination of all three
is better than any one alone.

Ron Lee

On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 22:59:01 GMT, (d b) wrote:

My experience has been the opposite

Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I've tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To know that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: -- put Cubdriver in subject line!

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

(Ron Lee) wrote
I use visual, onboard traffic detector and approach/center to improve
my chances. Not one is infallible. But the combination of all three
is better than any one alone.

I suppose that it is a miracle that I am still here. I learned to fly
way back in 1958....no RADAR, no transponders, no traffic detectors,
and no use of radio. At precisely 0800 hours every morning, we launched
15-20 T-34s into the skies around NAS Saufley Field, Florida with nary
a radio call being made. Exactly 1.3 hours later, they all returned and
landed, again, without a single radio transmission. The Tower and all
aircraft were radio equipped and monitored, but not used. Saufley Tower
played no part in the departure and arrival of local training flights.
This same scenario was repeated every afternoon. At NAS Whitting Field,
the situation was much the same only with 20-30 T-28s launching and
retrieving at the same time twice-a-day.
Following prescribed procedures, using good visual scanning techniques,
and lots of clearing turns while in the practice areas did a completely
adequate job of keeping us all separated.
Never used the radio once during 115 hours of T-34/T-28 flying in a very
concentrated flight training area.

Bob Moore

I stand corrected as to the arrival airport in the Collins incident, it was
Waukegan, as you stated, not Palwaukee.

However, I must take issue with you on some of the other points. Please
reference the following link:

http://www.thetracon.com/news/times050601.htm

You stated: "The accident was caused by both pilots not seeing and
avoiding."

However, the article states: "Student pilot Sharon Hock...was not mentioned
as a factor in the Feb. 8, 2000, accident."

Further: "The probable cause of the accident was Collins' "failure to
maintain clearance from the other airplane," said the NTSB report, which is
in line with a previous federal report outlining the facts of the accident."

Additionally: ""Factors relating to the accident were the pilot's [Collins']
poor visual lookout, and the . . . local controller's failure to provide
effective sequencing,"

And: "Fowler (controller) said he told Hock to turn "based on his estimate
of the elapsed time before losing sight of [her plane], and the pilot's
(Collins) verbal report that he had crossed the shoreline.""

You stated: "It is a class D airport. Controllers are not responsible for
separation or sequencing at class D airports. A fact seemingly lost to many
pilots."

However, both the NTSB and the controller indicated that "separation and
sequencing" were part of the controller's responsibilities at Waukegan.

Further: AIM 4-3-2 indicates that the tower at Class D airports will provide
traffic control in the Class D airspace.

Am I missing something?




"Dave Stadt" wrote in message
om...

Bob Collins was killed at Waukegan not Palwaukee. He was returning from
lunch at Janesville. The accident was caused by both pilots not seeing
and
avoiding. It is a class D airport. Controllers are not responsible for
separation or sequencing at class D airports. A fact seemingly lost to
many
pilots. Quincy was a ground accident involving a commuter. Meigs was a
mid
air. All occurred in VFR conditions and all could have been avoided had
the
pilots been looking out the windows.

"Bill Denton" wrote in message
...
Actually, it happened at Palwaukee (KPWK) airport and tower, just north
of
Chicago O'Hare airport.

There were two fatals in Mr. Collins' plane, one fatal student pilot in
the
other plane.

The accident was the result of Mr. Collins mis-reporting his position.
The
controller used this information and directed the student pilot's plane
into
Mr. Collins' plane.



"Dave Stadt" wrote in message
om...

"Ron Lee" wrote in message
...
jsmith wrote:

Teaching them initially to fly without a radio teaches them to look
outside and scan for traffic.
It's the fools with radios that think just because they broadcast
over
the airwaves that they have the right of way and everyone should
let
them play through.

And my experience is that assuming that see and avoid will keep you
alive is one path to validating Darwinism.

Ron Lee

I would like to see evidence to support your statement. On the
contrary,
Quincy, IL, Bob Collins and six people killed while talking to Meigs
tower
all took place in northern IL within a few years and all involved
people
talking on a radio and not looking . Darwin would probably see the
invention of radio as a way to improve the breed.

On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 20:54:57 GMT, (Ron Lee)
wrote:

jsmith wrote:

Teaching them initially to fly without a radio teaches them to look
outside and scan for traffic.
It's the fools with radios that think just because they broadcast over
the airwaves that they have the right of way and everyone should let
them play through.

And my experience is that assuming that see and avoid will keep you
alive is one path to validating Darwinism.

Ron Lee


These two "methods" are not mutually exclusive. Just because one has
a radio doesn't mean that he should not employ the see and avoid means
of staying alive. Belts and suspenders fellows. Why argue about
which is better when you can do both?
Rich Russell

Actually it happened at Waukegan airport - KUGN. Or at least on the
approach to it.

Bill Denton wrote:
Actually, it happened at Palwaukee (KPWK) airport and tower, just north of
Chicago O'Hare airport.

There were two fatals in Mr. Collins' plane, one fatal student pilot in the
other plane.

The accident was the result of Mr. Collins mis-reporting his position. The
controller used this information and directed the student pilot's plane into
Mr. Collins' plane.



"Dave Stadt" wrote in message
om...

"Ron Lee" wrote in message
...

jsmith wrote:


Teaching them initially to fly without a radio teaches them to look
outside and scan for traffic.
It's the fools with radios that think just because they broadcast over
the airwaves that they have the right of way and everyone should let
them play through.

And my experience is that assuming that see and avoid will keep you
alive is one path to validating Darwinism.

Ron Lee

I would like to see evidence to support your statement. On the contrary,
Quincy, IL, Bob Collins and six people killed while talking to Meigs tower
all took place in northern IL within a few years and all involved people
talking on a radio and not looking . Darwin would probably see the
invention of radio as a way to improve the breed.

"Bill Denton" wrote in message ...

Further: AIM 4-3-2 indicates that the tower at Class D airports will provide
traffic control in the Class D airspace.

Am I missing something?

Air traffic control does not necessarily mean SEPARATION services are provided.

As separation is a function of traffic control, when would traffic control
not include separation?

Who would be responsible for separation and sequencing under these
circumstances?



"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
...

"Bill Denton" wrote in message
...

Further: AIM 4-3-2 indicates that the tower at Class D airports will
provide
traffic control in the Class D airspace.

Am I missing something?

Air traffic control does not necessarily mean SEPARATION services are
provided.

"Bill Denton" wrote in message ...
As separation is a function of traffic control, when would traffic control
not include separation?

When not specifically provided. ATC is a set of services. Not all are provided
to all people at all times.

IFR aircraft are separated from other IFR in controlled airspace.
Everybody gets seperated in class A and B.
VFR's get seperated in class C (and in the adjacent airspace) when in radio and radar contact.

Otherwise there is no separation service provided.

How is a tower going to provide separation to a bunch of VFR's that are buzzing around
with the sole requirement that they were talking to him?

Who would be responsible for separation and sequencing under these
circumstances?

You knew the answer to that. The responsibility falls on the pilot in command.

Let's first jump back to my original subject on the specifics of the
accident:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
You stated: "The accident was caused by both pilots not seeing and
avoiding."

However, the article states: "Student pilot Sharon Hock...was not mentioned
as a factor in the Feb. 8, 2000, accident."

Further: "The probable cause of the accident was Collins' "failure to
maintain clearance from the other airplane," said the NTSB report, which is
in line with a previous federal report outlining the facts of the accident."

Additionally: ""Factors relating to the accident were the pilot's Collins']
poor visual lookout, and the . . . local controller's failure to provide
effective sequencing,"

And: "Fowler (controller) said he told Hock to turn "based on his estimate
of the elapsed time before losing sight of [her plane], and the pilot's
Collins) verbal report that he had crossed the shoreline.""

You stated: "It is a class D airport. Controllers are not responsible for
separation or sequencing at class D airports. A fact seemingly lost to many
pilots."

However, both the NTSB and the controller indicated that "separation and
sequencing" were part of the controller's responsibilities at Waukegan.

Further: AIM 4-3-2 indicates that the tower at Class D airports will provide
traffic control in the Class D airspace.
-------------------------------------------------------------

As I noted at that time: "both the NTSB and the controller indicated that
"separation and sequencing" were part of the controller's responsibilities
at Waukegan".

Do you have some information indicating that this is not correct?

You stated: 'When not specifically provided. ATC is a set of services.
Not all are provided to all people at all times."

Also, note that AIM 4-3-2 refers to "traffic control", Not ATC. I would
assume these references were to two entirely different things?



"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
...

"Bill Denton" wrote in message
...
As separation is a function of traffic control, when would traffic
control
not include separation?

When not specifically provided. ATC is a set of services. Not all are
provided
to all people at all times.

IFR aircraft are separated from other IFR in controlled airspace.
Everybody gets seperated in class A and B.
VFR's get seperated in class C (and in the adjacent airspace) when in
radio and radar contact.

Otherwise there is no separation service provided.

How is a tower going to provide separation to a bunch of VFR's that are
buzzing around
with the sole requirement that they were talking to him?

Who would be responsible for separation and sequencing under these
circumstances?

You knew the answer to that. The responsibility falls on the pilot in
command.