Another midair in the pattern

In article tstock writes:
On Jan 15, 8:54=A0am, 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. =A0If you really want to be safe with
your
glider, leave it on the ground. =A0Never fly it. =A0That would be reall=
y,
really safe. =A0But *too* safe, right?

Jim Beckman

Jim, everything is meant to be within reason. =A0The 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. =A0 Each reduction in required manipulations allows for a
greater safety margin. =A0Sure, we could never leave the ground or for
that matter never leave our house but that would defeat the purpose,
would it not? =A0We should always be looking for ways to reduce the hazar=
d
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


Most of the radios (Icom, Yaesu/Vertex Standard) are from the same companies
that make amateur radio handhelds, which appear to use the same headsets.

It looks like some of the FRS/GMRS brands use headsets that match the Icom
radios. I saw a pair of lightweight headsets in a bag for $20 a while back.
(While I had a FRS radio that I thought would work with them, they didn't look
like they would work with my aircraft band or amateur radios.)

Some of the headsets have push to talk switches on the cord, some of the
makers have PTT adapter cords. Or, you can find how the push to talk connection
works (generally a resistor is involved) and build one. Then you could have
a convenient/comfortable PTT on the control stick.

Once that is done, the radio can be secured to the inside wall of the cockpit
with the antenna having a view out the canopy, and you have less chance of it
flying around in turbulence.


Alan

Now Bob - you used the words rational and government servant in one
sentence. (You know that is an oxymoron.)

I am very concerned at the ever increasing bureaucracy and interference
in aviation by people who have little domain expertise, even in a
related discipline, let alone in soaring. In my experience such
interventions - well intentioned or for less honourable reasons - are
generally bad for our sport. Both from a safety perspective and from a
participation perspective. In a recreational activity, it is not too
difficult to exceed participants tolerance for admin and rules. Get it
wrong and you start losing experienced, thinking people. There are a lot
of other sports out there where you don't have the same interference in
your activities.

My experience is as safety officer for a small club at a unicom equipped
public airfield with a fair amount of power, some ultralight and the
occasional charter operation.

The government and local soaring approved procedures do not mandate
radio use. As a club we generally decline to launch a glider without a
radio that is operational on the airfield frequency. (someone will put a
handheld into your hand and explain how to use it)

The reasons are simple -
Courtesy to other aviators who we share the field with.
Common sense - our field is conveniently situated for a lot of first
solo cross country power fliers, and has a great restaurant so there are
a lot of weekend warriors enjoying an expensive breakfast. Best to
communicate.
Safety - sometimes the only warning we have before someone does
something unexpected is a radio announcement of intentions.
Safety - the launch marshal knows where all the gliders are, and what
they are doing, and can advise what is happening at the field.
Safety - we winch launch from a dedicated strip remote from but roughly
parallel to the main runway - and the thresholds are not visible.
Frequently the only way to co-ordinate movements is by radio. You could
really ruin someone's day dropping a couple of kms of steel wire on them
as they lift off. And cable breaks happen.

The fellow aviators are sometimes surprised to hear from the "silent
aviators" as we are infamous for not making any noise, engine or radio.
But they always appreciate it, and show us more consideration when they
know what we are doing.

Conversely we have found that mandating things and making rules, tends
to move responsibility to the rule maker. Far better to have information
available, to advocate safe actions and to make good airmanship the
pilot's responsibility. The results are better. So far the worst we have
is one broken finger (don't ask how) in just over 5000 launches on my
watch.

There are folk who have no common sense and some who will be reckless.
Developing personal strategies for them works better than rule making.
If you can't motivate someone to fly sensibly and with consideration
then they can be encouraged to take up something that requires less
discipline.

Cheers
Bruce

On 2011/01/16 5:54 AM, 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.

--
Bruce Greeff
T59D #1771 & Std Cirrus #57

On 1-16-2011 04:05, Eric Greenwell wrote:
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?

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...

On 1-16-2011 04:13, Eric Greenwell wrote:
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.

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.

On 1-16-2011 04:05, Eric Greenwell wrote:


Are you a troll?


Again, no. Here are examples of midairs that occurred between aircraft
that were radio equipped. Obviously, radio wasn't the answer to avoid
these accidents.

The radio was specifically noted as being used:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...10X63931&key=2
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...25X10235&key=2
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...08X81624&key=1
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...18X00587&key=1
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...09X00189&key=1

And here's one where ATC was even involved:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...26X01316&key=1

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...02X35752&key=2
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...19X12854&key=2
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...09X02427&key=1
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...27X00489&key=1

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.

Scott,
The encounter you had with the Piper driver is the poster child for
midair collisions in the pattern, high wing Aeronca can't see well
above and low wing Piper can't see well
below...............................Did the thought occur to you after
your discussion with the guy who didn't see you that your life might
just be worth investing in a $200 hand held radio?
JJ

On 1-16-2011 14:57, JJ Sinclair wrote:

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.

Scott,
The encounter you had with the Piper driver is the poster child for
midair collisions in the pattern, high wing Aeronca can't see well
above and low wing Piper can't see well
below...............................Did the thought occur to you after
your discussion with the guy who didn't see you that your life might
just be worth investing in a $200 hand held radio?
JJ

Already had one. Just didn't work in the Aeronca as it did not have
shielded ignition harness. Ignition noise imposed on the TX audio made
it non-understanable to others (as tested with ATC in La Crosse)...and
this was not the classic case...I was above him and I could see him fine
and he should have been able to see me just fine, especially when I was
directly in front of him and above with nothing but sky behind me and I
was a traditionally painted Aeronca 11CC...kind of a Cub yellow and
maroon stripe (factory paint colors and scheme).

On 1-16-2011 15:21, Scott wrote:
I was above him and I could see him fine
and he should have been able to see me just fine, especially when I was
directly in front of him and above with nothing but sky behind me and I
was a traditionally painted Aeronca 11CC...kind of a Cub yellow and
maroon stripe (factory paint colors and scheme).

And here is a picture of my old Chief...

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=...1t:429,r:0,s:0

On 1/16/2011 5:40 AM, Scott wrote:
On 1-16-2011 04:05, Eric Greenwell wrote:


Are you a troll?


Again, no. Here are examples of midairs that occurred between aircraft
that were radio equipped. Obviously, radio wasn't the answer to avoid
these accidents.

The radio was specifically noted as being used:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...10X63931&key=2
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...25X10235&key=2
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...08X81624&key=1
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...18X00587&key=1
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...09X00189&key=1

And here's one where ATC was even involved:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...26X01316&key=1

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...02X35752&key=2
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...19X12854&key=2
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...09X02427&key=1
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...27X00489&key=1

The issue isn't whether having a radio will avoid all midairs. It is
whether having a radio will reduce the number of midairs.

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.