A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Soaring
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Another midair in the pattern



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old January 15th 11, 09:44 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
tstock
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 122
Default 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  
Old January 15th 11, 09:54 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Scott[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 256
Default 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  
Old January 15th 11, 10:43 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Andy[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,565
Default 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  
Old January 15th 11, 10:47 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Jim Beckman[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 186
Default 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  
Old January 15th 11, 11:31 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Mike Schumann
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 539
Default 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  
Old January 16th 11, 03:20 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Scott[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 256
Default 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  
Old January 16th 11, 04:54 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Bob Whelan[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 400
Default 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  
Old January 16th 11, 05:05 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Eric Greenwell[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,939
Default 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  
Old January 16th 11, 05:13 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Eric Greenwell[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,939
Default 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  
Old January 16th 11, 05:56 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Hagbard Celine
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 58
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 05:06 AM
Crowded Pattern Michael 182 Piloting 7 October 8th 05 03:02 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:49 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.