Another midair in the pattern

Originally Posted by tstock

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, I did the exact same thing. Having a glider start circling with
me in a thermal for the first time was both exciting and scary, and it
is startling how little time you have to spot traffic when approaching
head on. First thing I bought was a parachute, the 2nd thing I
bought was a radio, and the THIRD thing I bought was a pair of
polarized prescription sunglasses, for the exact same reasons you
mention. I haven't gotten to wear the parachute much because I have
always been with an instructor and it was an inconvenience, but now
that I have my glider license I will be wearing it every flight and
using my radio too even in the rentals.

Tom (helipilot)

Some interesting comments on this subject and while I see some are disturbed about the possibility of a mandate requiring radios it makes sense to acquire the technology that might help keep us alive. Our best warning system is our willingness to fly outside the cockpit and use our eyes. To that end I also purchased and wear an ASCENT audio vario. None of the rentals have audio varios and time spent looking at the needle means your are not looking outside where the danger lurks.

The original poster is right, some things just make sense and a radio makes sense. We are all potentially trying to occupy the same space at the same time and this just doesn't work. Seems that some contests will be requiring collision avoidance devices and when there are 60 gliders launching, flying and returning in quick succession, it just makes sense. There was a fatal accident at Uvalde recently, perhaps this would have helped. While I am not in favor of any more mandates than absolutely necessary the radio makes sense. Perhaps the SIXTH sense should be COMMON SENSE. JJ is right.

Walt

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

At 22:02 14 January 2011, Randy wrote:
Yesterday, while on a 15 mile final in a B777, we
has a Cessna 182 pass 300 feet below us.
We got a traffic alert from ATC and a warning on
our TCAS (Traffic Collision Alert System). This is
very similar to the FLARM. From about 1/2 mile, we
finally had him visually as we flew over him. If the
pilot was looking out his window, there is no way he
could have missed seeing us.

Sure, you're a bigger visual target than a 182, but I still have to
wonder how you could fail to see him from a half mile away, particularly
when you were already told where to look.

And even if he sees you, and you see him, the responsibility to avoid the
conflict applies equally to both aircraft, does it not? Admittedly,
you're landing, and you've got the right of way. But that doesn't give
you the right to run him down.

Jim Beckman

Originally Posted by Jim Beckman[_2_]

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

*First thing I bought was a parachute, *

Good point Tom,
I remember the G-102 flying at Truckee that was hit by a light
aircraft climbing out of the same airport. The prop would have cut the
boom off, only stopped when it came to the steel oxygen bottle! The
whole assend was soooo loose that elevator movement made it wiggle up
and down. But here is the best part of the story, the pilot didn't
have a parachute! Miraculously he was able to plunk it down safely in
the middle of the runway. To those who say, "flying is unsafe, deal
with it", Why not do all we can to improve our odds? Don't you hook
up your seat belt when driving? Don't you slow down when driving in
rain? Don't you announce your intensions when entering the pattern?
Don't you monitor 123.3 when thermalling with others? I do.
JJ

Your eyeballs are good but a traffic warning system will actually show
you how many planes you DIDN'T see. My power club recently got a DA40
with the G1000 and the traffic option. This one still uses the old
mode S TIS system (not TIS-B), but it has made me aware of other
planes I probably would never have spotted if I hadn't been alerted to
them. It's really nice to have an extra set of eyes out there.

Pete

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 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...

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

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