Another midair in the pattern

[JJ Sinclair[_2_]]

When I see the NTSB report 2 aircraft accidents at the same date, time
& place, it only means one thing. They came together in the air or on
the ground. On 12/20/10 in Madras Origon, a Taylorcraft and Cessna
came together while both were trying to land on runway16. The
Taylorcraft didn't have a radio! Please don't fly without a radio and
use it, Establish communication with your tow pilot by a simple com-
check like; Red tow this is JJ, how do you read? If I get a "loud and
clear", I know we can communicate if necessary. Next use your radio to
call entering the pattern, like "Madras traffic, glider JJ is entering
a left down-wind for runway 16 at Madras.

We lost 2 good men in Region 11 last year because the tow ship didn't
have a radio. Klem Bowman was killed in the Standard Class Nationals
when his stab fell and he didn't hear the call to release because he
was on the wrong frequency. An instructor died and his student was
severly injured when the battery went dead and they didn't hear the
tow pilot call, "Close your spoilers", a few years back at Minden.

The FAA hasn't seen fit to make radios mandatory, but we can put a
stop to this needless loss of life.Refuse to fly without a
radio.......... I believe proper use of the radio is nothing more than
good airmanship.

JJ Sinclair

[ray conlon]

On Jan 14, 10:26*am, JJ Sinclair > wrote:
> When I see the NTSB report 2 aircraft accidents at the same date, time
> & place, it only means one thing. They came together in the air or on
> the ground. On 12/20/10 in Madras Origon, a Taylorcraft and Cessna
> came together while both were trying to land on runway16. The
> Taylorcraft didn't have a radio! Please don't fly without a radio and
> use it, Establish communication with your tow pilot by a simple com-
> check like; Red tow this is JJ, how do you read? If I get a "loud and
> clear", I know we can communicate if necessary. Next use your radio to
> call entering the pattern, like "Madras traffic, glider JJ is entering
> a left down-wind for runway 16 at Madras.
>
> We lost 2 good men in Region 11 last year because the tow ship didn't
> have a radio. Klem Bowman was killed in the Standard Class Nationals
> when his stab fell and he didn't hear the call to release because he
> was on the wrong frequency. An instructor died and his student was
> severly injured when the battery went dead and they didn't hear the
> tow pilot call, "Close your spoilers", a few years back at Minden.
>
> The FAA hasn't seen fit to make radios mandatory, but we can put a
> stop to this needless loss of life.Refuse to fly without a
> radio.......... I believe proper use of the radio is nothing more than
> good airmanship.
>
> JJ Sinclair

There was a midair at SHD in Va. on 12/31 a helicopter and a C172,
everyone with radios, mode C squawing 1200 etc, and all talking/
monitoring the Unicom 123.00.....it still happens, a good pair of
20/20 eyeballs and some common sense goes a long way.

[Randy[_2_]]

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.
When we get an alert from our TCAS, it really helps
us to locate the position of the threat, otherwise we
we don't need to look at it.
Everyone General Aviation/Glider pilot should have
a PCAS or FLARM. A midair with a commercial aircraft
will have devastating consequences for all of us.




Randy

[Andy[_1_]]

On Jan 14, 3:02*pm, 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.
> When we get an alert from our TCAS, it really helps
> us to locate the position of the threat, otherwise we
> we don't need to look at it.
> Everyone General Aviation/Glider pilot should have
> a PCAS or FLARM. A midair with a commercial aircraft
> will have devastating consequences for all of us.
>
> Randy

Sorry to be pedantic but if you fly with TCAS (actually TCAS II on a
777) you really should know what it is - "Traffic Alert and Collision
Avoidance System" not "Traffic Collision Alert System".

Don't take my word for it - http://adsb.tc.faa.gov/TCAS.htm and
numerous other references.

Andy

[Mike Schumann]

On 1/14/2011 5:02 PM, 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.
> When we get an alert from our TCAS, it really helps
> us to locate the position of the threat, otherwise we
> we don't need to look at it.
> Everyone General Aviation/Glider pilot should have
> a PCAS or FLARM. A midair with a commercial aircraft
> will have devastating consequences for all of us.
>
>
>
>
> Randy

If you are flying a 777 outside of Class A or Class B airspace, you need
to be looking out the window too. If you are flying IFR, ATC is only
providing separation services with other IFR aircraft. It is the
pilot's responsibility in both IFR and VFR aircraft to visually see and
avoid each other.

TCAS was never designed as the primary collision avoidance system. It
is not foolproof and was designed as a last line of defense when
everything else fails. That's how it should be getting used.

--
Mike Schumann

[Walt Connelly]

;759969']When I see the NTSB report 2 aircraft accidents at the same date, time
& place, it only means one thing. They came together in the air or on
the ground. On 12/20/10 in Madras Origon, a Taylorcraft and Cessna
came together while both were trying to land on runway16. The
Taylorcraft didn't have a radio! Please don't fly without a radio and
use it, Establish communication with your tow pilot by a simple com-
check like; Red tow this is JJ, how do you read? If I get a "loud and
clear", I know we can communicate if necessary. Next use your radio to
call entering the pattern, like "Madras traffic, glider JJ is entering
a left down-wind for runway 16 at Madras.

We lost 2 good men in Region 11 last year because the tow ship didn't
have a radio. Klem Bowman was killed in the Standard Class Nationals
when his stab fell and he didn't hear the call to release because he
was on the wrong frequency. An instructor died and his student was
severly injured when the battery went dead and they didn't hear the
tow pilot call, "Close your spoilers", a few years back at Minden.

The FAA hasn't seen fit to make radios mandatory, but we can put a
stop to this needless loss of life.Refuse to fly without a
radio.......... I believe proper use of the radio is nothing more than
good airmanship.

JJ Sinclair

I agree. I transitioned to gliders a bit over a year ago and will admit that I was somewhat concerned that the trainers and other rental aircraft available had no radios. I purchased my own hand held and carry it on each flight, doing a radio check with the tow plane prior to take off. While the standard signals from the tow plane and glider are fine, the addition of the radio makes things a bit safer. Returning to the pattern for landing and announcing one's intentions over the radio enhances the safety margin unless of course there are aircraft which cannot hear the announcement or make one themselves.

Even at uncontrolled fields, powered aircraft generally announce their position and intentions on unicom. Why do we in the glider world think things should be any different, especially when we can't do a go around on landing? We share our gliderport with a number of powered aircraft and while everyone seems to do a fine job, one never knows when someone isn't looking. Looking and listening and announcing your position and intentions only enhances the safety factor.

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

[Bob Whelan[_3_]]

Folks wrote...
>> When I see the NTSB report 2 aircraft accidents at the same
>> date, time
>> & place, it only means one thing. They came together in the air or on
>> the ground. On 12/20/10 in Madras Origon, a Taylorcraft and Cessna
>> came together while both were trying to land on runway16. The
>> Taylorcraft didn't have a radio! Please don't fly without a radio and
>> use it<Snips...>

>
> I agree. <Snips...>...the addition of the radio makes things a bit safer. Returning to
> the pattern for landing and announcing one's intentions over the radio
> enhances the safety margin unless of course there are aircraft which
> cannot hear the announcement or make one themselves.
>
> Even at uncontrolled fields, powered aircraft generally announce their
> position and intentions on unicom. Why do we in the glider world think
> things should be any different, especially when we can't do a go around
> on landing?...
<Snips...>

I'm not about to argue against the proposition that having and (wisely) using
a radio is not a (potentially, as distinct from automatically and inevitably)
good thing, but I do think it (perhaps) worthwhile mentioning at this point in
this particular discussion that some significant portion of the powerplane GA
fleet (e.g. that subset of those certified and built and remaining without an
electrical system) still do NOT have radios. Nor am I about to back any effort
to mandate they (or anyone else legally enjoying certain [large] areas of U.S.
airspace) be forced to do so. Life entails risk; flight perhaps more so than
if we choose to remain ground-bound.

Is there an honest pilot who doesn't admit we don't live in a risk-free world?
Is there an honest pilot who sees a way to get TO a risk-free world? Or do
some amongst us wish to mandate (in addition to immediately junking perfectly
airworthy 2-33's and every L-13 in sight [WARNING: wry humor nearby]) we also
junk every ATC-ed and airworthy powerplane lacking electrical systems?

While I understand the sentiments and pain behind lost fellow pilots (and
friends) - my own personal strictly-weekend-flyer total is nearing double
figures - I hope none of my living friends seriously would support such a mandate.

Seriously,
Bob W.

[Andy[_1_]]

On Jan 14, 7:21*pm, Bob Whelan > wrote:
> Folks wrote...
> >> When I see the NTSB report 2 aircraft accidents at the same
> >> date, time
> >> & *place, it only means one thing. They came together in the air or on
> >> the ground. On 12/20/10 in Madras Origon, a Taylorcraft and Cessna
> >> came together while both were trying to land on runway16. The
> >> Taylorcraft didn't have a radio! Please don't fly without a radio and
> >> use it<Snips...>
>
> > I agree. *<Snips...>...the addition of the radio makes things a bit safer. *Returning to
> > the pattern for landing and announcing one's intentions over the radio
> > enhances the safety margin unless of course there are aircraft which
> > cannot hear the announcement or make one themselves.
>
> > Even at uncontrolled fields, powered aircraft generally announce their
> > position and intentions on unicom. *Why do we in the glider world think
> > things should be any different, especially when we can't do a go around
> > on landing?...
>
> <Snips...>
>
> I'm not about to argue against the proposition that having and (wisely) using
> a radio is not a (potentially, as distinct from automatically and inevitably)
> good thing, but I do think it (perhaps) worthwhile mentioning at this point in
> this particular discussion that some significant portion of the powerplane GA
> fleet (e.g. that subset of those certified and built and remaining without an
> electrical system) still do NOT have radios. Nor am I about to back any effort
> to mandate they (or anyone else legally enjoying certain [large] areas of U.S.
> airspace) be forced to do so. Life entails risk; flight perhaps more so than
> if we choose to remain ground-bound.
>
> Is there an honest pilot who doesn't admit we don't live in a risk-free world?
> Is there an honest pilot who sees a way to get TO a risk-free world? Or do
> some amongst us wish to mandate (in addition to immediately junking perfectly
> airworthy 2-33's and every L-13 in sight [WARNING: wry humor nearby]) we also
> junk every ATC-ed and airworthy powerplane lacking electrical systems?
>
> While I understand the sentiments and pain behind lost fellow pilots (and
> friends) - my own personal strictly-weekend-flyer total is nearing double
> figures - I hope none of my living friends seriously would support such a mandate.
>
> Seriously,
> Bob W.

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

[Mike Schumann]

On 1/14/2011 9:21 PM, Bob Whelan wrote:
> Folks wrote...
>>> When I see the NTSB report 2 aircraft accidents at the same
>>> date, time
>>> & place, it only means one thing. They came together in the air or on
>>> the ground. On 12/20/10 in Madras Origon, a Taylorcraft and Cessna
>>> came together while both were trying to land on runway16. The
>>> Taylorcraft didn't have a radio! Please don't fly without a radio and
>>> use it<Snips...>
>
>>
>> I agree. <Snips...>...the addition of the radio makes things a bit
>> safer. Returning to
>> the pattern for landing and announcing one's intentions over the radio
>> enhances the safety margin unless of course there are aircraft which
>> cannot hear the announcement or make one themselves.
>>
>> Even at uncontrolled fields, powered aircraft generally announce their
>> position and intentions on unicom. Why do we in the glider world think
>> things should be any different, especially when we can't do a go around
>> on landing?...
> <Snips...>
>
> I'm not about to argue against the proposition that having and (wisely)
> using a radio is not a (potentially, as distinct from automatically and
> inevitably) good thing, but I do think it (perhaps) worthwhile
> mentioning at this point in this particular discussion that some
> significant portion of the powerplane GA fleet (e.g. that subset of
> those certified and built and remaining without an electrical system)
> still do NOT have radios. Nor am I about to back any effort to mandate
> they (or anyone else legally enjoying certain [large] areas of U.S.
> airspace) be forced to do so. Life entails risk; flight perhaps more so
> than if we choose to remain ground-bound.
>
> Is there an honest pilot who doesn't admit we don't live in a risk-free
> world? Is there an honest pilot who sees a way to get TO a risk-free
> world? Or do some amongst us wish to mandate (in addition to immediately
> junking perfectly airworthy 2-33's and every L-13 in sight [WARNING: wry
> humor nearby]) we also junk every ATC-ed and airworthy powerplane
> lacking electrical systems?
>
> While I understand the sentiments and pain behind lost fellow pilots
> (and friends) - my own personal strictly-weekend-flyer total is nearing
> double figures - I hope none of my living friends seriously would
> support such a mandate.
>
> Seriously,
> Bob W.

What would be so onerous about a radio mandate, when handhelds are
widely available for ~$200?

--
Mike Schumann

[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)

[Walt Connelly]

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

[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 Beckman[_2_]]

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

[Walt Connelly]

;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

[JJ Sinclair[_2_]]

*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

[vontresc]

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

[Bob Whelan[_3_]]

> 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.

[Scott[_7_]]

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...

[Scott[_7_]]

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

[JJ Sinclair[_2_]]

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

[tstock]

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

[Scott[_7_]]

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).

[Andy[_1_]]

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

[Jim Beckman[_2_]]

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

[Mike Schumann]

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

[Scott[_7_]]

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?

[Bob Whelan[_3_]]

> 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.

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

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)

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

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)

[Hagbard Celine]

"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.

[Alan[_6_]]

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

[BruceGreeff]

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

[Scott[_7_]]

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...

[Scott[_7_]]

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.

[Scott[_7_]]

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?ev_id=20091010X63931&key=2
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20090525X10235&key=2
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20081208X81624&key=1
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20070518X00587&key=1
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20060209X00189&key=1

And here's one where ATC was even involved:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20080826X01316&key=1

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20110102X35752&key=2
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20090519X12854&key=2
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20090509X02427&key=1
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20060427X00489&key=1

[JJ Sinclair[_2_]]

>
> 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

[Scott[_7_]]

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).

[Scott[_7_]]

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=http://www.homebuiltairplanes.com/forums/attachments/classics/10d1043508813-nice-cessna-140-aeronca-11cc-scott-bloomer.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.homebuiltairplanes.com/forums/classics/52-nice-cessna-140-aeronca-11cc.html&usg=__pO8jQNwdOZrB6dhZKos_sTuzNcc=&h=340&w=559&sz=60&hl=en&start=0&zoom=1&tbnid=3IzelMcVrkpqRM:&tbnh=132&tbnw=193&ei=vg4zTfDzFI-WvAP-yPSVCw&prev=/images%3Fq%3Daeronca%2B11cc%26hl%3Den%26biw%3D1024 %26bih%3D550%26gbv%3D2%26tbs%3Disch:1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=122&vpy=86&dur=8150&hovh=175&hovw=288&tx=151&ty=96&oei=vg4zTfDzFI-WvAP-yPSVCw&esq=1&page=1&ndsp=12&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0

[Greg Arnold[_2_]]

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?ev_id=20091010X63931&key=2
> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20090525X10235&key=2
> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20081208X81624&key=1
> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20070518X00587&key=1
> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20060209X00189&key=1
>
> And here's one where ATC was even involved:
> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20080826X01316&key=1
>
> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20110102X35752&key=2
> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20090519X12854&key=2
> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20090509X02427&key=1
> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20060427X00489&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.

[Scott[_7_]]

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.

[Mike Schumann]

On 1/16/2011 12:45 PM, Scott wrote:
> 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.

If you want a scenario that will put an end to flying as we know it, it
would be a mid-air between a non-radio equipped GA aircraft and a
passenger jet, where the subsequent investigation uncovers a series of
internet postings by the GA pilot railing against the government's right
to force him to spend $200 on a hand-held radio.

--
Mike Schumann

[bildan]

On Jan 15, 8:54*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'.
>
> Bob W.

As usual, Bob offers a good analysis.

Nearly all my near misses have been near airports with both of us
talking to the tower or approach. I suspect that while there is
additional safety from having a radio, it's largely offset by pilot's
(and ATC's) over-reliance on that protection.

I'm not opposed to radios - I have several and use them. A greater
problem is those who use them inappropriately. (Beyond blocking the
frequency with incessant variometer reports.)

Professionals can be just as bad as glider pilots. On several
occasions I've had commuter crews make their first announcement on
CTAF while on short final to the runway where I was back taxiing. The
first time that happened, I taxied off the runway into the grass to
get out of their way. Next time I transmitted, "Go around, it's my
runway 'til I get off of it." Instead of going around, the Beech 1900
buzzed me at 20' AGL. I wrote a long report to the FAA, cosigned by
the airport manager who was watching and listening.

On another occasion, airline crews were using 123.3 to discuss union
negotiations. Using my gruffest voice, I transmitted, "Lets have some
discipline on the frequency". The labor relations discussion went
silent.

[Scott[_7_]]

On 1-16-2011 20:11, Mike Schumann wrote:

>
> If you want a scenario that will put an end to flying as we know it, it
> would be a mid-air between a non-radio equipped GA aircraft and a
> passenger jet, where the subsequent investigation uncovers a series of
> internet postings by the GA pilot railing against the government's right
> to force him to spend $200 on a hand-held radio.
>

So, a regulation mandating a radio trumps the regulation to see and avoid?

And, after instituting said regulation, and midairs still occur, what is
the next "fix"?

[Bob Whelan[_3_]]

A couple of responses here to two specific responders' posts...but first
topical refreshment:

This particular discussional thread began when - responding to a GA midair
between a T-cart and a Cessna - the OP wrote:

> <Snips...>
> We lost 2 good men in Region 11 last year because the tow ship didn't
> have a radio. Klem Bowman was killed in the Standard Class Nationals
> when his stab fell and he didn't hear the call to release because he
> was on the wrong frequency. An instructor died and his student was
> severly injured when the battery went dead and they didn't hear the
> tow pilot call, "Close your spoilers", a few years back at Minden.
>
> The FAA hasn't seen fit to make radios mandatory, but we can put a
> stop to this needless loss of life.Refuse to fly without a
> radio.......... I believe proper use of the radio is nothing more than
> good airmanship.

Because the post raised some obvious - and perhaps some not-so-obvious -
questions, I morphed the original thread into this one seeking to (perhaps)
encourage some of RAS' U.S. readers to seriously consider such things, maybe
even from some perspectives not previously considered. I happen to believe
thoughtful, open public discourse a good thing in a representational republic
(which, for the pedantic record, at the national level the U.S. is).

Eric G. soon commented:
> 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.

Mercy! I hope that for every person who views this sort of discussion a 'rant'
there are considerably more who recognize it as a genuine attempt to discuss
some serious philosophical questions that (should) directly impact our ability
as sailplane pilots in the U.S. to indulge in the wonderful sport. Further,
I'd hope that whether one views it as a rant or not, they express any
disinterest, or boredom, simply by ignoring the discussion rather than
indulging in the equivalent of splashing cold water on a matter that may be of
interest to others.
- - - - - -

On 1/16/2011 1:11 PM, Mike Schumann 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.

I'll readily grant your point is AN issue, and, worthy of being included in
the (much!) larger public policy discourse and (ultimately) the governmental
decision-making process. But to contend it is the ONLY issue, and thus the
only one worthy of consideration in formulating that public policy is (hugely
& 'exclusionally') simplistic. This, sadly, is the sort of rationale too-often
previously used by the FAA to justify additional airspace restrictions (some
would say, 'grabs') and mandatory equipment, often with fairly remote
relationships between (accident) cause and (FAA mandated) effects.

It isn't only the FAA who makes this error. In fact, the O.P. on the one hand
cited 3 fatal glider accidents, two of which *had* [and *used*] radios), and
on the other hand came pretty close to outright supporting mandated
radios...despite the demonstrated 'failure of radio usage' in those two
accidents. As a fellow 'soaring family member', "I feel his pain," but
struggle to reach the same (in this particular instance) 'policy recommendation.'

Just to be clear, nowhere have I suggested sailplane pilots should NOT (as a
general rule, though - as always - the devil is in the details) opt for
radios, nor have I any present reason to suppose the FAA is considering
mandating radios.

Nonetheless, the >600,000-member Experimental Airplane Association (EAA) has
worked consistently and diligently to ensure the FAA does NOT 'try to go
there' as anyone familiar with their various airspace, antique and Light Sport
Aircraft initiatives are likely aware. Presumably they wouldn't engage in the
effort if their leadership didn't have reason(s?) for concern. Consequently,
they've periodically striven to initiate (at a minimum) 'political pressure'
from within their membership to become some part of whatever public
discussion(s) can be supported. Whether or not a person thinks (say) SSA
should be doing the same thing (regardless of the 'radio stance' one might
have), is - to my way of thinking - less important than individuals taking it
upon themselves to form an educated, hopefully rational, opinion and at least
*try* to influence the public discourse before simply 'surrendering to the
(FAA-mandated/politically) inevitable.'
- - - - - -

As to the (sometimes implicit, sometimes dismissively explicit) rationale
expressible by 'the $200 handheld', how are we to reconcile on the one hand
the not-inconsiderable hand-wringing over 'cost barriers' to soaring entry on
the one hand (often/generally expressed when the decline is SSA's membership
is under discussion), and rationalistic acceptance of the 'safety device of
the (sometimes, political) moment' on the other? The reality is it ALL costs,
and it ALL, in some manner or other, forms mental barriers/hoops/irritants in
everyone's minds. Just because none of the barriers may have (yet?) halted
*your* soaring activities/reduced your motivations, is insufficient reason to
pretend or act as if every other (potential or otherwise) participant has
those same limits. Or financial resources. Or...

Ideas have consequences. Wouldn't it be great if all of the ideas (and
ultimately, policies) affecting U.S. soaring were essentially rationally
based, as opposed to 'fear-based'? (And, yes, I realize there's no universal
view of 'what is rational.')

I thank everyone in advance who reads nothing more into my reasons for
engaging in this discussion than what I've previously stated.

Bob W.

[[email protected]]

On Jan 16, 4:24*pm, Scott > wrote:
> On 1-16-2011 20:11, Mike Schumann wrote:
>
>
>
> > If you want a scenario that will put an end to flying as we know it, it
> > would be a mid-air between a non-radio equipped GA aircraft and a
> > passenger jet, where the subsequent investigation uncovers a series of
> > internet postings by the GA pilot railing against the government's right
> > to force him to spend $200 on a hand-held radio.
>
> So, a regulation mandating a radio trumps the regulation to see and avoid?
>
> And, after instituting said regulation, and midairs still occur, what is
> the next "fix"?

I haven't read all forty some odd posts, but (if nobody did already)
I would like to point out that radios are already pretty much mandated
by regulation.........Class A, Class B, Class C, and Class D
Airspaces........Wouldn't take much for the feds to expand that the
rest of the way....

Cookie

[[email protected]]

On Jan 16, 4:24*pm, Scott > wrote:
> On 1-16-2011 20:11, Mike Schumann wrote:
>
>
>
> > If you want a scenario that will put an end to flying as we know it, it
> > would be a mid-air between a non-radio equipped GA aircraft and a
> > passenger jet, where the subsequent investigation uncovers a series of
> > internet postings by the GA pilot railing against the government's right
> > to force him to spend $200 on a hand-held radio.
>
> So, a regulation mandating a radio trumps the regulation to see and avoid?
>
> And, after instituting said regulation, and midairs still occur, what is
> the next "fix"?

My old glider partner had an interesting vision of the future of the
sport of soaring....like 100 years from now.........
He figured the government would cordon off a section of Arizona, maybe
50 miles square, and everybody would only be allowed to fly gliders in
there, only certains hours each day, and only certain days of the
week, etc. Sort of like Disney World, but for soaring! LOL!

Cookie

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

On 1/16/2011 4:50 AM, Scott wrote:
> On 1-16-2011 04:05, Eric Greenwell wrote:

>> 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...

OK, just that it normally takes at least a $2000 transponder to trigger
a broad anti-government rant on this group, so when someone goes
ballistic over the suggestion that $200 radio might enhance everyone's
survival rate, I start to wonder if a troll has dropped in.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)

[Scott[_7_]]

On 1-17-2011 00:59, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> On 1/16/2011 4:50 AM, Scott wrote:
>> On 1-16-2011 04:05, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>
>>> 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...
>
> OK, just that it normally takes at least a $2000 transponder to trigger
> a broad anti-government rant on this group, so when someone goes
> ballistic over the suggestion that $200 radio might enhance everyone's
> survival rate, I start to wonder if a troll has dropped in.
>
Who went ballistic? I must have missed that one.

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

On 1/16/2011 4:57 AM, Scott wrote:
> On 1-16-2011 04:13, Eric Greenwell wrote:
ssed?
>>
>> 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.

Radios have been available and in use in GA for, like, 70 years;
transponders have been available and in use in GA for about 40 years.
And yet, we glider folk still aren't mandated to use either, so the idea
that any minute now, the government will suddenly decide to "control
every aspect of your life" seems, well, overheated. It would be easier
for me to make the argument the FAA is negligent, rather than overreaching.

That's why I'm not excited about claims we have to stop this
encroachment NOW before it's TOO LATE! But, I am somewhat interested in
discussions about the value of radios and how much we should encourage
their use. At $200, cost really isn't an issue for anyone that can
afford to fly in the first place.

I say "somewhat" interested, because where I fly in various parts of
North America, everyone is already using a radio, most also have a crew
radio (more of them have crew radios than crew, these days), and many
have a spare in addition.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)

[JJ Sinclair[_2_]]

Scott wrote........
> > 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...

Oh come on Scott, that argument is pathetic. Its like saying cars use
head lights to aid in seeing each other at night, but we still have
accidents at night, soooooooooooooooo we don't need headlights! No,
make that ludicrous!
The radio is an aid, it helps to show who is near you especially when
trying to take off or land. Many power pilots who reguraly fly near
soaring operations will make a call in the blind like......GLUDER
GLIDER GLIDER thei is turbo bla bla I'm descending over the
pine nuts passing 12,000 any gliders in my area? No government madate
told him to do this, he just used is common sense and did it, like he
does when entering the pattern.............or how about prior to
takeoff? Can you see everyone who may be in the pattern? Wouldn't
listening to one of those hated radios be prudent?
JJ

[[email protected]]

On Jan 17, 9:22*am, JJ Sinclair > wrote:
> *Scott wrote........
> > > 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...
>
> Oh come on Scott, that argument is pathetic. Its like saying cars use
> head lights to aid in seeing each other at night, but we still have
> accidents at night, soooooooooooooooo we don't need headlights! No,
> make that ludicrous!
> The radio is an aid, it helps to show who is near you especially when
> trying to take off or land. Many power pilots who reguraly fly near
> soaring operations will make a call in the blind like......GLUDER
> GLIDER * * GLIDER * * * *thei is turbo bla bla I'm descending over the
> pine nuts passing 12,000 any gliders in my area? No government madate
> told him to do this, he just used is common sense and did it, like he
> does when entering the pattern.............or how about prior to
> takeoff? Can you see everyone who may be in the pattern? Wouldn't
> listening to one of those hated radios be prudent?
> JJ

You gave a perfect example of a MISUSE of the two way radio.
Radio calls like "Anybody in the pattern?" Or "Anybody on base or
final?" Or, "What runway are you using?" are among the many misuses
of the radio............

Cookie

[Mike Schumann]

On 1/17/2011 9:46 AM, wrote:
> On Jan 17, 9:22 am, JJ > wrote:
>> Scott wrote........
>>>> 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...
>>
>> Oh come on Scott, that argument is pathetic. Its like saying cars use
>> head lights to aid in seeing each other at night, but we still have
>> accidents at night, soooooooooooooooo we don't need headlights! No,
>> make that ludicrous!
>> The radio is an aid, it helps to show who is near you especially when
>> trying to take off or land. Many power pilots who reguraly fly near
>> soaring operations will make a call in the blind like......GLUDER
>> GLIDER GLIDER thei is turbo bla bla I'm descending over the
>> pine nuts passing 12,000 any gliders in my area? No government madate
>> told him to do this, he just used is common sense and did it, like he
>> does when entering the pattern.............or how about prior to
>> takeoff? Can you see everyone who may be in the pattern? Wouldn't
>> listening to one of those hated radios be prudent?
>> JJ
>
> You gave a perfect example of a MISUSE of the two way radio.
> Radio calls like "Anybody in the pattern?" Or "Anybody on base or
> final?" Or, "What runway are you using?" are among the many misuses
> of the radio............
>
> Cookie

If you don't identify what airport you are talking about, that would be
misuse. If you identify your location and keep it short, why would this
be misuse?

--
Mike Schumann

[JJ Sinclair[_2_]]

> You gave a perfect example of a MISUSE of the two way radio.
> Radio calls like "Anybody in the pattern?" *Or "Anybody on base or
> final?" *Or, "What runway are you *using?" are among the many misuses
> of the radio............
>
> Cookie- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Any use of the radio that prevents a midair is not in any way misuse.
Had the Hawker made this call and got an answer from the 29 he ran
into........
JJ

[[email protected]]

On Jan 17, 4:29*pm, JJ Sinclair > wrote:
> > You gave a perfect example of a MISUSE of the two way radio.
> > Radio calls like "Anybody in the pattern?" *Or "Anybody on base or
> > final?" *Or, "What runway are you *using?" are among the many misuses
> > of the radio............
>
> > Cookie- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Any use of the radio that prevents a midair is not in any way misuse.
> Had the Hawker made this call and got an answer from the 29 he ran
> into........
> JJ


The radio is an aid, it helps to show who is near you especially when
trying to take off or land. Many power pilots who reguraly fly near
soaring operations will make a call in the blind like......GLUDER
GLIDER GLIDER thei is turbo bla bla I'm descending over
the
pine nuts passing 12,000 any gliders in my area? No government madate
told him to do this, he just used is common sense and did it, like he
does when entering the pattern.............or how about prior to
takeoff? Can you see everyone who may be in the pattern? Wouldn't
listening to one of those hated radios be prudent?
JJ

JJ,

You're heart is in the right place, but.....

BTW...I love radios. I install aircraft radios for a living. I use
radio in every glider or airplane I fly. I do understand that there
are limitations of what two way radio for collision avoidance,
however

But, if you want to prevent midairs, you have to use the tools
correctly and wisely.
There are a couple of problems with your radio broadcast above……..
First of all, on which frequency would that power pilot broadcast?
CTAF? 123.3? 123.5?
Would the gliders in the area be on the frequency on which he
broadcast? Maybe the ones in or near the traffic pattern would be on
CTAF but the others flying around would most likely not.
Now the pilots asks a question, a yes or no question, (this is the
improper part)…..He asks, “Any gliders in my area?” Well, what would
you expect him to hear in return?
“Nope, no gliders”??? Of course not, because if there were no
gliders there would be nobody to answer “no!” But what if there were
gliders around, but they did not hear the transmission, or they did
not answer for any of a bunch of reasons (on a different freq)?.……So
now can this pilot assume there are no gliders, because nobody
answered his question? Of course not.

So the only possible answer to this "yes or no question" is
“yes” (So why ask in the first place?)

Let’s say somebody does answer……so it goes like this…(Q)”Any gliders
in my area?”….(A)”yep”….ok so now what?……It becomes a game of twenty
questions…

“Where are you?” “No, where are you? Etc.”

Now let’s say there are 10 gliders in the area, and five of them
answer the radio call, all at the same time!!!! Garble!

Let’s say that three answer and 15 don’t……….See nothing useful is
gained from this improper radio work!

But let’s go back to the beginning………this guy is flying over a glider
operation….he knows this because it says so on the sectional, and the
facilities directory…….so he already has the answer to the dumb
question…….”YES! there are gliders in my area!” (no need to ask on
the radio....just assume there are gliders around!)

I would be just as dumb to fly around asking, “Are there any jet
liners in my area? Or maybe flying over Akron and transmitting, “Any
blimps around here?, please advise”

So how should it work? Big difference.

The pilot should first identify to whom he is talking…….

“Joe’s gliderport….. traffic…..

Then who he is….

“Beechcraft twin N55BC”

Then where he is:

“5 miles east, 14000 descending to 12000

Then his intentions:

“Transitioning your area, 12,000 westbound”

Then shut up and listen and look out the window…………..

That’s all there is to it………..
Other aircraft in the area (gliders or airplanes or whatever)….if they
hear this transmission, will simply decide if it is a factor or not…
If not…they do nothing…..If it is a factor they simply follow up…

“Beechcraft 55BC…..this is glider…..4 miles east of Joe’s…..
12,000…..looking for you.

Done!….simple to the point…..


Cookie

So you expect the pilots who fly around in Hawkers to continuously
broadcast, "Any gliders in my area?"

[BruceGreeff]

JJ - She - not he...

Not often we can comment on lady drivers in this sport :-)

On 2011/01/17 11:29 PM, JJ Sinclair wrote:
>
>> You gave a perfect example of a MISUSE of the two way radio.
>> Radio calls like "Anybody in the pattern?" Or "Anybody on base or
>> final?" Or, "What runway are you using?" are among the many misuses
>> of the radio............
>>
>> Cookie- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Any use of the radio that prevents a midair is not in any way misuse.
> Had the Hawker made this call and got an answer from the 29 he ran
> into........
> JJ
>

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

[JJ Sinclair[_2_]]

On Jan 17, 5:08*pm, "
> wrote:
> On Jan 17, 4:29*pm, JJ Sinclair > wrote:
>
> > > You gave a perfect example of a MISUSE of the two way radio.
> > > Radio calls like "Anybody in the pattern?" *Or "Anybody on base or
> > > final?" *Or, "What runway are you *using?" are among the many misuses
> > > of the radio............
>
> > > Cookie- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Any use of the radio that prevents a midair is not in any way misuse.
> > Had the Hawker made this call and got an answer from the 29 he ran
> > into........
> > JJ
>
> The radio is an aid, it helps to show who is near you especially when
> trying to take off or land. Many power pilots who reguraly fly near
> soaring operations will make a call in the blind like......GLUDER
> GLIDER * * GLIDER * * * *thei is turbo bla bla I'm descending over
> the
> pine nuts passing 12,000 any gliders in my area? No government madate
> told him to do this, he just used is common sense and did it, like he
> does when entering the pattern.............or how about prior to
> takeoff? Can you see everyone who may be in the pattern? Wouldn't
> listening to one of those hated radios be prudent?
> JJ
>
> JJ,
>
> You're heart is in the right place, but.....
>
> BTW...I love radios. * I install aircraft radios for a living. * I use
> radio in every glider or airplane I fly. *I do understand that there
> are *limitations of what two way radio for collision avoidance,
> however
>
> But, if you want to prevent midairs, you have to use the tools
> correctly and wisely.
> There are a couple of problems with your radio broadcast above……..
> First of all, on which frequency would that power pilot broadcast?
> CTAF? *123.3? *123.5?
> Would the gliders in the area be on the frequency on which he
> broadcast? *Maybe the ones in or near the traffic pattern would be on
> CTAF but the others flying around would most likely not.
> Now the pilots asks a question, a yes or no question, *(this is the
> improper part)…..He asks, “Any gliders in my area?” * Well, what would
> you expect him to hear in return?
> “Nope, no gliders”??? * Of course not, because if there were no
> gliders there would be nobody to answer “no!” *But what if there were
> gliders around, but they did not hear the transmission, or they did
> not answer for any of a bunch of reasons (on a different freq)?.……So
> now can this pilot assume there are no gliders, because nobody
> answered his question? * Of course not.
>
> So the only possible answer to this "yes or no question" is
> “yes” * (So why ask in the first place?)
>
> Let’s say somebody does answer……so it goes like this…(Q)”Any gliders
> in my area?”….(A)”yep”….ok so now what?……It becomes a game of twenty
> questions…
>
> “Where are you?” * “No, where are you? *Etc.”
>
> Now let’s say there are 10 gliders in the area, and five of them
> answer the radio call, all at the same time!!!! * *Garble!
>
> Let’s say that three answer and 15 don’t……….See nothing useful is
> gained from this improper radio work!
>
> But let’s go back to the beginning………this guy is flying over a glider
> operation….he knows this because it says so on the sectional, and the
> facilities directory…….so he already has the answer to the dumb
> question…….”YES! *there are gliders in my area!” *(no need to ask on
> the radio....just assume there are gliders around!)
>
> I would be just as dumb to fly around asking, “Are there any jet
> liners in my area? * Or maybe flying over Akron and transmitting, “Any
> blimps around here?, please advise”
>
> So how should it work? *Big difference.
>
> The pilot should first identify to whom he is talking…….
>
> “Joe’s gliderport….. traffic…..
>
> Then who he is….
>
> “Beechcraft twin N55BC”
>
> Then where he is:
>
> “5 miles east, 14000 descending to 12000
>
> Then his intentions:
>
> “Transitioning your area, 12,000 westbound”
>
> Then shut up and listen and look out the window…………..
>
> That’s all there is to it………..
> Other aircraft in the area (gliders or airplanes or whatever)….if they
> hear this transmission, will simply decide if it is a factor or not…
> If not…they do nothing…..If it is a factor they simply follow up…
>
> “Beechcraft *55BC…..this is glider…..4 miles east of Joe’s…..
> 12,000…..looking for you.
>
> Done!….simple to the point…..
>
> Cookie
>
> So you expect the pilots who fly around in Hawkers to continuously
> broadcast, "Any gliders in my area?"

My my, Cookie how you can ramble. The turbo pilot makes that call as
he passes east of Minden because he knows thats where we can be found
frolicking. He calls on all three freq's. If he hears nothing, does he
assume there are no gliders up? Hell no, he keeps his head out of the
cockpit, like the gal in the Hawker should have been
doing...........actually she did one hell of a good job after the
collision, but thats another story. If I hear the call I respond;
Glider JJ is at 12K on the ridge just south of Dayton and he replies
with no factor or looking. Damned good use of the radio, I say. One
can hear a lot of misuse like: Hey Joe, where are you? I'm over here.
I don't see you, etc.
JJ

[[email protected]]

On Jan 18, 9:02*am, JJ Sinclair > wrote:
> On Jan 17, 5:08*pm, "
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > On Jan 17, 4:29*pm, JJ Sinclair > wrote:
>
> > > > You gave a perfect example of a MISUSE of the two way radio.
> > > > Radio calls like "Anybody in the pattern?" *Or "Anybody on base or
> > > > final?" *Or, "What runway are you *using?" are among the many misuses
> > > > of the radio............
>
> > > > Cookie- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > Any use of the radio that prevents a midair is not in any way misuse.
> > > Had the Hawker made this call and got an answer from the 29 he ran
> > > into........
> > > JJ
>
> > The radio is an aid, it helps to show who is near you especially when
> > trying to take off or land. Many power pilots who reguraly fly near
> > soaring operations will make a call in the blind like......GLUDER
> > GLIDER * * GLIDER * * * *thei is turbo bla bla I'm descending over
> > the
> > pine nuts passing 12,000 any gliders in my area? No government madate
> > told him to do this, he just used is common sense and did it, like he
> > does when entering the pattern.............or how about prior to
> > takeoff? Can you see everyone who may be in the pattern? Wouldn't
> > listening to one of those hated radios be prudent?
> > JJ
>
> > JJ,
>
> > You're heart is in the right place, but.....
>
> > BTW...I love radios. * I install aircraft radios for a living. * I use
> > radio in every glider or airplane I fly. *I do understand that there
> > are *limitations of what two way radio for collision avoidance,
> > however
>
> > But, if you want to prevent midairs, you have to use the tools
> > correctly and wisely.
> > There are a couple of problems with your radio broadcast above……..
> > First of all, on which frequency would that power pilot broadcast?
> > CTAF? *123.3? *123.5?
> > Would the gliders in the area be on the frequency on which he
> > broadcast? *Maybe the ones in or near the traffic pattern would be on
> > CTAF but the others flying around would most likely not.
> > Now the pilots asks a question, a yes or no question, *(this is the
> > improper part)…..He asks, “Any gliders in my area?” * Well, what would
> > you expect him to hear in return?
> > “Nope, no gliders”??? * Of course not, because if there were no
> > gliders there would be nobody to answer “no!” *But what if there were
> > gliders around, but they did not hear the transmission, or they did
> > not answer for any of a bunch of reasons (on a different freq)?.……So
> > now can this pilot assume there are no gliders, because nobody
> > answered his question? * Of course not.
>
> > So the only possible answer to this "yes or no question" is
> > “yes” * (So why ask in the first place?)
>
> > Let’s say somebody does answer……so it goes like this…(Q)”Any gliders
> > in my area?”….(A)”yep”….ok so now what?……It becomes a game of twenty
> > questions…
>
> > “Where are you?” * “No, where are you? *Etc.”
>
> > Now let’s say there are 10 gliders in the area, and five of them
> > answer the radio call, all at the same time!!!! * *Garble!
>
> > Let’s say that three answer and 15 don’t……….See nothing useful is
> > gained from this improper radio work!
>
> > But let’s go back to the beginning………this guy is flying over a glider
> > operation….he knows this because it says so on the sectional, and the
> > facilities directory…….so he already has the answer to the dumb
> > question…….”YES! *there are gliders in my area!” *(no need to ask on
> > the radio....just assume there are gliders around!)
>
> > I would be just as dumb to fly around asking, “Are there any jet
> > liners in my area? * Or maybe flying over Akron and transmitting, “Any
> > blimps around here?, please advise”
>
> > So how should it work? *Big difference.
>
> > The pilot should first identify to whom he is talking…….
>
> > “Joe’s gliderport….. traffic…..
>
> > Then who he is….
>
> > “Beechcraft twin N55BC”
>
> > Then where he is:
>
> > “5 miles east, 14000 descending to 12000
>
> > Then his intentions:
>
> > “Transitioning your area, 12,000 westbound”
>
> > Then shut up and listen and look out the window…………..
>
> > That’s all there is to it………..
> > Other aircraft in the area (gliders or airplanes or whatever)….if they
> > hear this transmission, will simply decide if it is a factor or not…
> > If not…they do nothing…..If it is a factor they simply follow up…
>
> > “Beechcraft *55BC…..this is glider…..4 miles east of Joe’s…...
> > 12,000…..looking for you.
>
> > Done!….simple to the point…..
>
> > Cookie
>
> > So you expect the pilots who fly around in Hawkers to continuously
> > broadcast, "Any gliders in my area?"
>
> My my, Cookie how you can ramble. The turbo pilot makes that call as
> he passes east of Minden because he knows thats where we can be found
> frolicking. He calls on all three freq's. If he hears nothing, does he
> assume there are no gliders up? Hell no, he keeps his head out of the
> cockpit, like the gal in the Hawker should have been
> doing...........actually she did one hell of a good job after the
> collision, but thats another story. If I hear the call I respond;
> Glider JJ is at 12K on the ridge just south of Dayton and he replies
> with no factor or looking. Damned good use of the radio, I say. One
> can hear a lot of misuse like: Hey Joe, where are you? I'm over here.
> I don't see you, etc.
> JJ- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

JJ,

Three frequencies at the same time?

Cookie

[Tony V]

here's something that I wrote for GBSC students a long time ago.
http://home.comcast.net/~verhulst/GBSC/student/radio.html

Tony

[[email protected]]

On Jan 18, 10:00*am, Tony V > wrote:
> here's something that I wrote for GBSC students a long time ago.http://home.comcast.net/~verhulst/GBSC/student/radio.html
>
> Tony

Nice!

You mention that when we make "blind" transmissions that we don't
expect an answer........

This is my point about the problem with JJ's scenario...You can't go
asking questions on CTAF.

Cookie

[JJ Sinclair[_2_]]

> This is my point about the problem with JJ's *scenario...You can't go
> asking questions on CTAF.
>
> Cookie

Why not? I have been known to appoint myself the local flight ops
officer when several people are trying to land. You are number 3, Sven
Vctor, I'm on downwind and Bavo Charlie is on
final................there is a tow plane in the area, where are you
Blue Tow?
The 'proper use' of the radio is not about some imagined users code,
its about establishing and maintaining seperation among airport users,
some of who can't loiter or go around.
JJ

[Tony V]

wrote:
> On Jan 18, 10:00 am, Tony V > wrote:
>> here's something that I wrote for GBSC students a long time ago.http://home.comcast.net/~verhulst/GBSC/student/radio.html
>>
>> Tony
>
> Nice!

Thank you.


> You mention that when we make "blind" transmissions that we don't
> expect an answer........
>
> This is my point about the problem with JJ's scenario...You can't go
> asking questions on CTAF.

Generally true. IMHO, but if I'm in the pattern and somebody else
announces the pattern and I don't see them, I've been known to ask
questions on CTAF. :-)

Tony

[Paul Moggach]

When we get away from the $200 argument, and the basic freedoms, etc. We
should get on to the real issues with radios.

The facts are that they are pretty useless in preventing any accidents
when they are used in the blind calling mode. Further, even with directed
communications in controlled settings, they are often ineffective. Humans
have great filters for getting rid of audio input that they aren't
interested in. So unless you can unleash some pyrotechnics when you are
transmitting, their ineffectiveness in preventing accidents will remain.
The reason that Transponders, TCAS and FLARM devices etc. exist is a
direct result of the admission of how ineffective audio communications
are.

So are radios useful? Sure, but not particularly for accident prevention.
Will FLARM be useful? Probably, in congested traffic areas, but likely
will not limit midairs while thermalling.

So I've seen some good arguments for radios about dealing with general
traffic in a directed fashion. However when these are extended with some
notion that they will measurably contribute to safety, the evidence is not
good. So making radios mandatory equipment or not is irrelevant to me from
a safety viewpoint.

The real questions are what might be effective, and in what environment?
Radios are ineffective everywhere. Money aside, TCAS, and FLARM are much
better at getting your attention, and hold much more promise of affecting
safety than radios ever will.

Paul Moggach

[[email protected]]

On Jan 18, 1:01*pm, Paul Moggach > wrote:
> When we get away from the $200 argument, and the basic freedoms, etc. *We
> should get on to the real issues with radios.
>
> The facts are that they are pretty useless in preventing any accidents
> when they are used in the blind calling mode. *Further, even with directed
> communications in controlled settings, they are often ineffective. *Humans
> have great filters for getting rid of audio input that they aren't
> interested in. *So unless you can unleash some pyrotechnics when you are
> transmitting, their ineffectiveness in preventing accidents will remain.
> The reason that Transponders, TCAS and FLARM devices etc. exist is a
> direct result of the admission of how ineffective audio communications
> are.
>
> So are radios useful? *Sure, but not particularly for accident prevention.
> *Will FLARM be useful? *Probably, in congested traffic areas, but likely
> will not limit midairs while thermalling.
>
> So I've seen some good arguments for radios about dealing with general
> traffic in a directed fashion. *However when these are extended with some
> notion that they will measurably contribute to safety, the evidence is not
> good. *So making radios mandatory equipment or not is irrelevant to me from
> a safety viewpoint.
>
> The real questions are what might be effective, and in what environment?
> Radios are ineffective everywhere. *Money aside, TCAS, and FLARM are much
> better at getting your attention, and hold much more promise of affecting
> safety than radios ever will.
>
> Paul Moggach

Paul,

All good points.

They address JJ's concept that the Hawker collision could have been
somehow been prevented with a simple radio transmission.

So if we want to create an idiot proof world, based on government
regulation and advanced technology, we have a whole alphabet of stuff
available (or soon to be).

To add to your list, we have: Mode C, Mode S, PCAS, TIS, ADS-B.....

All viable solutions, to some degree..

Cookie

[Mike Schumann]

On 1/18/2011 1:01 PM, Paul Moggach wrote:
> When we get away from the $200 argument, and the basic freedoms, etc. We
> should get on to the real issues with radios.
>
> The facts are that they are pretty useless in preventing any accidents
> when they are used in the blind calling mode. Further, even with directed
> communications in controlled settings, they are often ineffective. Humans
> have great filters for getting rid of audio input that they aren't
> interested in. So unless you can unleash some pyrotechnics when you are
> transmitting, their ineffectiveness in preventing accidents will remain.
> The reason that Transponders, TCAS and FLARM devices etc. exist is a
> direct result of the admission of how ineffective audio communications
> are.
>
> So are radios useful? Sure, but not particularly for accident prevention.
> Will FLARM be useful? Probably, in congested traffic areas, but likely
> will not limit midairs while thermalling.
>
> So I've seen some good arguments for radios about dealing with general
> traffic in a directed fashion. However when these are extended with some
> notion that they will measurably contribute to safety, the evidence is not
> good. So making radios mandatory equipment or not is irrelevant to me from
> a safety viewpoint.
>
> The real questions are what might be effective, and in what environment?
> Radios are ineffective everywhere. Money aside, TCAS, and FLARM are much
> better at getting your attention, and hold much more promise of affecting
> safety than radios ever will.
>
> Paul Moggach
>

If we could get universal deployment of FLARM, ADS-B, or something
similar (as long as everyone was using a common platform), where
everyone could see everyone else's position, the need for radios would
be significantly diminished. However, they would still be very useful
in sequencing, and being able to notify people of unsafe conditions
(i.e. spoilers out), etc.

--
Mike Schumann

[[email protected]]

On Jan 18, 1:32*pm, Mike Schumann >
wrote:
> On 1/18/2011 1:01 PM, Paul Moggach wrote:
>
>
>
> > When we get away from the $200 argument, and the basic freedoms, etc. *We
> > should get on to the real issues with radios.
>
> > The facts are that they are pretty useless in preventing any accidents
> > when they are used in the blind calling mode. *Further, even with directed
> > communications in controlled settings, they are often ineffective. *Humans
> > have great filters for getting rid of audio input that they aren't
> > interested in. *So unless you can unleash some pyrotechnics when you are
> > transmitting, their ineffectiveness in preventing accidents will remain..
> > The reason that Transponders, TCAS and FLARM devices etc. exist is a
> > direct result of the admission of how ineffective audio communications
> > are.
>
> > So are radios useful? *Sure, but not particularly for accident prevention.
> > * Will FLARM be useful? *Probably, in congested traffic areas, but likely
> > will not limit midairs while thermalling.
>
> > So I've seen some good arguments for radios about dealing with general
> > traffic in a directed fashion. *However when these are extended with some
> > notion that they will measurably contribute to safety, the evidence is not
> > good. *So making radios mandatory equipment or not is irrelevant to me from
> > a safety viewpoint.
>
> > The real questions are what might be effective, and in what environment?
> > Radios are ineffective everywhere. *Money aside, TCAS, and FLARM are much
> > better at getting your attention, and hold much more promise of affecting
> > safety than radios ever will.
>
> > Paul Moggach
>
> If we could get universal deployment of FLARM, ADS-B, or something
> similar (as long as everyone was using a common platform), where
> everyone could see everyone else's position, the need for radios would
> be significantly diminished. *However, they would still be very useful
> in sequencing, and being able to notify people of unsafe conditions
> (i.e. spoilers out), etc.
>
> --
> Mike Schumann

Mike,

You said the key word..."universal".....everybody has to be on the
same page...at the same time, all of the time....that's a tall order!

Not so today.....everybody has one or two pieces of the puzzle, but
never the whole picture.....

We have to be sure to understand the advantages and limitations of our
equipment, otherwise it can lead to false sense of security....or
expecting more out of the technology than the technology is designed
to give, etc.

So...."see and be seen" and "see and avoid", even though far from
perfect, are the closest to universal we have. for now...especially in
E or G airspace.

Cookie

[Jim Logajan]

" > wrote:
> .....everybody has to be on the
> same page...at the same time, all of the time....that's a tall order!
>
> Not so today.....everybody has one or two pieces of the puzzle, but
> never the whole picture.....

If a device with 15 W to 40 W power consumption is viable in a glider then
broadband radar could in theory be used and everyone would not need to be
"on the same page." I'm thinking specifically of the current cost and
capabilities of marine broadband radar systems; for example:

http://deanelectronics.com/index.php?act=viewCat&catId=3
(E.g. Furuno 1623 16 NM Mono Radar, cost US$1375.95; 12V or 24V, 36 W)

(By comparison, the Lowrance BR24 marine radar uses ~17W. See:
http://www.lowrance.com/Products/Marine/Broadband-Radar/
)

I am not sure, but I suspect the primary reason these systems aren't
available for aircraft is probably regulatory (the 2D field of view is a
technical limitation that I believe could be surmounted with some
engineering.) Certainly the costs seem comparable to ADS-B and even Power
Flarm systems being proposed. And radar doesn't depend on GPS or any other
external active systems.

[[email protected]]

On Jan 18, 7:41*pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> " > wrote:
> > .....everybody has to be on the
> > same page...at the same time, all of the time....that's a tall order!
>
> > Not so today.....everybody has one or two pieces of the puzzle, but
> > never the whole picture.....
>
> If a device with 15 W to 40 W power consumption is viable in a glider then
> broadband radar could in theory be used and everyone would not need to be
> "on the same page." I'm thinking specifically of the current cost and
> capabilities of marine broadband radar systems; for example:
>
> http://deanelectronics.com/index.php?act=viewCat&catId=3
> (E.g. Furuno 1623 16 NM Mono Radar, cost US$1375.95; 12V or 24V, 36 W)
>
> (By comparison, the Lowrance BR24 marine radar uses ~17W. See:http://www.lowrance.com/Products/Marine/Broadband-Radar/
> )
>
> I am not sure, but I suspect the primary reason these systems aren't
> available for aircraft is probably regulatory (the 2D field of view is a
> technical limitation that I believe could be surmounted with some
> engineering.) Certainly the costs seem comparable to ADS-B and even Power
> Flarm systems being proposed. And radar doesn't depend on GPS or any other
> external active systems.

Wow....interesting concept......

I must say I don't know a thing about boat radar......but that seems
like a too many watts to run from a 12 volt SLA battery, which is
commonly used in gliders now. I could see that by the time you
overcom the aircraft challanges, that the cost would be considerably
hihger than the boat units.

I always figured the "TIS" type systems on some planes these days was
to give the "effect" of having radar on board, without all the
complication and expense of an aircraft radar on board radar.

Beyond that, it seems that a transponders/ encoders might still be
required to be able to "see" the other aircraft. At least in the 3D
altitude sense.......

Would a boat type radar work at higher speeds? Would you be able to
process the information and figure out probable flight paths and
collision courses?

It seems to me that GPS works pretty well. I'd put my money on some
universal GPS based system. We're already pretty heavily wired up for
GPS anyway, for navigation, flight recording, and flight computer.

Cookie

[Mike Schumann]

On 1/18/2011 7:41 PM, Jim Logajan wrote:
> > wrote:
>> .....everybody has to be on the
>> same page...at the same time, all of the time....that's a tall order!
>>
>> Not so today.....everybody has one or two pieces of the puzzle, but
>> never the whole picture.....
>
> If a device with 15 W to 40 W power consumption is viable in a glider then
> broadband radar could in theory be used and everyone would not need to be
> "on the same page." I'm thinking specifically of the current cost and
> capabilities of marine broadband radar systems; for example:
>
> http://deanelectronics.com/index.php?act=viewCat&catId=3
> (E.g. Furuno 1623 16 NM Mono Radar, cost US$1375.95; 12V or 24V, 36 W)
>
> (By comparison, the Lowrance BR24 marine radar uses ~17W. See:
> http://www.lowrance.com/Products/Marine/Broadband-Radar/
> )
>
> I am not sure, but I suspect the primary reason these systems aren't
> available for aircraft is probably regulatory (the 2D field of view is a
> technical limitation that I believe could be surmounted with some
> engineering.) Certainly the costs seem comparable to ADS-B and even Power
> Flarm systems being proposed. And radar doesn't depend on GPS or any other
> external active systems.

The problem with radar is that you don't get altitude. A FLARM / ADS-B
solution would be much more accurate and elegant, and if produced in
volume, without the artificial certification / aviation product
liability costs, potentially less expensive.

--
Mike Schumann

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

On 1/18/2011 10:01 AM, Paul Moggach wrote:
> The real questions are what might be effective, and in what environment?
> Radios are ineffective everywhere.

Maybe you are using the wrong radios. My radios have been effective for
over 30 years. They have alerted me to traffic I can not see as I
approach the airport area, alerted other pilots to my intention and need
to land very soon after I arrive, let me keep the towplane from starting
the tow when I'm going to need the runway, gotten me the intentions of
airplanes sitting just off the end of the runway, kept me from flying
under the skydiver airplane that's 10,000' above me just before the
jumpers exit, let me inform other pilots I've joined their thermal (and
vice versa), and that sequencing thing JJ mentioned.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)

[[email protected]]

On Jan 18, 12:39*pm, JJ Sinclair > wrote:
> > This is my point about the problem with JJ's *scenario...You can't go
> > asking questions on CTAF.
>
> > Cookie
>
> Why not? I have been known to appoint myself the local flight ops
> officer when several people are trying to land. You are number 3, Sven
> Vctor, I'm on downwind and Bavo Charlie is on
> final................there is a tow plane in the area, where are you
> Blue Tow?
> The 'proper use' of the radio is not about some imagined users code,
> its about establishing and maintaining seperation among airport users,
> some of who can't loiter or go around.
> JJ

JJ,

I guess our arguement has degenerated into a tit for tat kind of small
detail thing...arguing for the sake of arguing now.

But to address you statements above.......

There *are* standard procedures for radio use. It's not "code" and
its not "imagined". It's real, and it uses plain english. There are
articles, books, circualrs, tapes, and CD's etc that explain radio
use, put out by EAA, FAA, AIM, SSA, etc.

Please find me one example, in any of these, which recommend the use
of those questions, like "Towplane where are you?" or, "any gliders
in my area?" (remember the old TV show, "Car 54 where are you ?"

Sorry JJ, it just doesn't work that way. If you re-read my previous
long winded reply, you will see that I give many examples of how
asking an open ended question on CTAF only adds to confusion at best.

In your towplane scenario above it works like this........

If the towplane is far away and out of the picture......the tow plane
pilot says nothing.........as the tow plane approaches the airport,
and landing pattern, he makes a call on CTAF, like......"Joe's
gliderport, towplane, 5 west, landing 07....."

The glider(s) in the area, or in the pattern should react
accordingly........announcing their position(s) as they go.

I don't think it is helpful for a guy on the ground to be trying to
act as a one man control tower.......


Cookie

[JJ Sinclair[_2_]]

> I don't think it is helpful for a guy on the ground to be trying to
> act as a one man control tower.......
>
> Cookie

I was number 2 in the pattern, not 'one guy on the ground trying to
act as a one man control tower', but you miss the real issue which is
to keep the ships separated. In my example I had seen red tow near the
airport, but he hadn't called down-wind and I wanted to know where he
was. All of my examples really happened, I'm not making them up. I say
again, any transmission that helps prevent a midair is in no way
misuse of the radio. Asking if anyone is in the pattern at XXX or any
gliders up near YYY may result in no reply 95% of the time, but what
harm has been done? Every now and then the asker will be alerted to
someone he hadn't seen or knew was there. I see this sort of call a
lot from pilots that regularly fly near gliderports. I see no harm in
being extra vigilant.
JJ

[150flivver]

On Jan 19, 9:14*am, JJ Sinclair > wrote:
> > I don't think it is helpful for a guy on the ground to be trying to
> > act as a one man control tower.......
>
> > Cookie
>
> I was number 2 in the pattern, not 'one guy on the ground trying to
> act as a one man control tower', but you miss the real issue which is
> to keep the ships separated. In my example I had seen red tow near the
> airport, but he hadn't called down-wind and I wanted to know where he
> was. All of my examples really happened, I'm not making them up. I say
> again, any transmission that helps prevent a midair is in no way
> misuse of the radio. Asking if anyone is in the pattern at XXX or any
> gliders up near YYY may result in no reply 95% of the time, but what
> harm has been done? Every now and then the asker will be alerted to
> someone he hadn't seen or knew was there. I see this sort of call a
> lot from pilots that regularly fly near gliderports. I see no harm in
> being extra vigilant.
> JJ

It irks me when pilots think the AIM is all inclusive and any
transmission not specifically called out in the AIM is a bad idea.
Around our field people listen to the radio and if they haven't heard
a transmission that provides the information they need, they ask. If
I'm wingrunning and I see a non-radio aircraft in the pattern, I'll
call his pattern legs over my handheld to help insure others know of
his presence. When I'm towing and returning to the field and I know
there's aircraft in the pattern, if I can't visually acquire them all
I'll ask for an updated position. If this "extra" AIM unapproved
radio transmission delays someone on the ground announcing he's
taxiing to the fuel pumps--tough.

[[email protected]]

On Jan 19, 11:29*am, 150flivver > wrote:
> On Jan 19, 9:14*am, JJ Sinclair > wrote:
>
>
>
> > > I don't think it is helpful for a guy on the ground to be trying to
> > > act as a one man control tower.......
>
> > > Cookie
>
> > I was number 2 in the pattern, not 'one guy on the ground trying to
> > act as a one man control tower', but you miss the real issue which is
> > to keep the ships separated. In my example I had seen red tow near the
> > airport, but he hadn't called down-wind and I wanted to know where he
> > was. All of my examples really happened, I'm not making them up. I say
> > again, any transmission that helps prevent a midair is in no way
> > misuse of the radio. Asking if anyone is in the pattern at XXX or any
> > gliders up near YYY may result in no reply 95% of the time, but what
> > harm has been done? Every now and then the asker will be alerted to
> > someone he hadn't seen or knew was there. I see this sort of call a
> > lot from pilots that regularly fly near gliderports. I see no harm in
> > being extra vigilant.
> > JJ
>
> It irks me when pilots think the AIM is all inclusive and any
> transmission not specifically called out in the AIM is a bad idea.
> Around our field people listen to the radio and if they haven't heard
> a transmission that provides the information they need, they ask. *If
> I'm wingrunning and I see a non-radio aircraft in the pattern, I'll
> call his pattern legs over my handheld to help insure others know of
> his presence. *When I'm towing and returning to the field and I know
> there's aircraft in the pattern, if I can't visually acquire them all
> I'll ask for an updated position. *If this "extra" AIM unapproved
> radio transmission delays someone on the ground announcing he's
> taxiing to the fuel pumps--tough.

But your examples are not the same as JJ's open questions....."any
gliders in the area?" on thee frequencies....

Or"where is the tow plane?"

If the glider you lost track of, "plays by the rules" It will
announce its position...you shouldn't have to ask. You already knew
he was in the pattern.....If you can't find him then maybe leave the
pattern and re enter.

[[email protected]]

On Jan 19, 10:14*am, JJ Sinclair > wrote:
> > I don't think it is helpful for a guy on the ground to be trying to
> > act as a one man control tower.......
>
> > Cookie
>
> I was number 2 in the pattern, not 'one guy on the ground trying to
> act as a one man control tower', but you miss the real issue which is
> to keep the ships separated. In my example I had seen red tow near the
> airport, but he hadn't called down-wind and I wanted to know where he
> was. All of my examples really happened, I'm not making them up. I say
> again, any transmission that helps prevent a midair is in no way
> misuse of the radio. Asking if anyone is in the pattern at XXX or any
> gliders up near YYY may result in no reply 95% of the time, but what
> harm has been done? Every now and then the asker will be alerted to
> someone he hadn't seen or knew was there. I see this sort of call a
> lot from pilots that regularly fly near gliderports. I see no harm in
> being extra vigilant.
> JJ

Ok you win.....Maybe you can write up a nice article for Soaring
including all your suggested radio work for safety.

Especially cover the part about turbo aircraft in the vicinity of
glider operations broadcasting on three frequencies...."any gliders?


Cookie

[Jim Logajan]

" > wrote:
> Beyond that, it seems that a transponders/ encoders might still be
> required to be able to "see" the other aircraft. At least in the 3D
> altitude sense.......

Nothing stops radar from doing vertical sweeps in addition to horizontal
sweeps in order to get the extra dimension. Just not available with existing
marine units, though! (A technology known as phased array can eliminate the
physical movement of the antenna.)

But - my Zaon MRX PCAS, which relies on transponder mode C replies, actually
doesn't issue an alert until the altitude of a target approaches that of the
MRX. This was a deliberate design decision by Zaon. Current radar systems
appear to have vertical beam widths of +/- 30 degrees, which seems reasonable
value to compare with the MRX.

From my personal experience with the MRX, I'd trade the altitude information
in exchange for direction and distance. (The MRX shows altitude difference
and estimated range to a transponder target; the range is estimated based on
signal strength. Several times I've been in the run-up area when a plane
would land 250 feet away and the MRX was telling me it was 1.2 miles away!)

> Would a boat type radar work at higher speeds?

I couldn't find an answer to that, but if I understand the technology of
"broadband" (Frequency Modulated Continuous-wave) radar, the speed of
aircraft shouldn't measurably affect it.

> Would you be able to
> process the information and figure out probable flight paths and
> collision courses?

In the realm of the possible, but none of the units I've seen include that
capability today.

> It seems to me that GPS works pretty well. I'd put my money on some
> universal GPS based system. We're already pretty heavily wired up for
> GPS anyway, for navigation, flight recording, and flight computer.

Existing "dependent" systems do indeed have inertia of various kinds behind
them. I wouldn't have mentioned radar except that the subject of collisions
with objects not having appropriate equipment installed (such as birds,
balloons, and anything not having an electrical system) was brought up. Radar
and similar independent active detection systems are pretty much the only
realistic alternatives.

[Jim Logajan]

Mike Schumann > wrote:
> The problem with radar is that you don't get altitude.

True - for current units. But that is a limitation that could be overcome.
(But in my response to twocoolgliders I provide my own personal experience
on the limited value of knowing altitude of targets.)

> A FLARM /
> ADS-B solution would be much more accurate and elegant, and if
> produced in volume, without the artificial certification / aviation
> product liability costs, potentially less expensive.

Both ADS-B and FLARM are dependent on external systems and their targets to
be active participants. I do not consider those "elegant" systems precisely
because they are _dependent_ systems. Consider two aircraft, A & B, in one
case both using independent radar systems, and in another case both using
dependent ADS-B or FLARM system:

Let P be the probability that the system on one of the planes fails to
provide an alert before a collision (because it is broken, loss of
electrical power, or whatever,) then the probability that the _dependent_
system successfully averts a collision is given by:

P_success = (1 - P)*(1 - P)

So if P = 0.1 (10% chance of failure) then P_success = 0.81 (81% chance of
averting the collision.)

For an _independent_ system, the probability of averting a collision is
given by:

P_success = 1 - P*P

So if P = 0.1 (10% chance of failure) then P_success = 0.99 (99% chance of
averting the collision.)

The above should seem reasonable, I hope, since the equipment on both
aircraft has to function properly for ADS-B or FLARM to work. You have
twice as many failure points (actually more; the GPS signal may not be
available for many reasons and has several failure points of its own.)

For independent systems each aircraft is self reliant and equipment and
procedures would have to fail on _both_ for the whole system to fail. Even
though each plane exhibits a 10% failure probability, there is only a 1%
chance that both will not be working at any given collision event because
they back each other up.

[150flivver]

On Jan 19, 6:12*pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> " > wrote:
> > Beyond that, it seems that a transponders/ encoders might still be
> > required to be able to "see" the other aircraft. *At least in the 3D
> > altitude sense.......
>
> Nothing stops radar from doing vertical sweeps in addition to horizontal
> sweeps in order to get the extra dimension. Just not available with existing
> marine units, though! (A technology known as phased array can eliminate the
> physical movement of the antenna.)
>
> But - my Zaon MRX PCAS, which relies on transponder mode C replies, actually
> doesn't issue an alert until the altitude of a target approaches that of the
> MRX. This was a deliberate design decision by Zaon. Current radar systems
> appear to have vertical beam widths of +/- 30 degrees, which seems reasonable
> value to compare with the MRX.
>
> From my personal experience with the MRX, I'd trade the altitude information
> in exchange for direction and distance. (The MRX shows altitude difference
> and estimated range to a transponder target; the range is estimated based on
> signal strength. Several times I've been in the run-up area when a plane
> would land 250 feet away and the MRX was telling me it was 1.2 miles away!)
>
> > Would a boat type radar work at higher speeds?
>
> I couldn't find an answer to that, but if I understand the technology of
> "broadband" (Frequency Modulated Continuous-wave) radar, the speed of
> aircraft shouldn't measurably affect it.
>
> > *Would you be able to
> > process the information and figure out probable flight paths and
> > collision courses?
>
> In the realm of the possible, but none of the units I've seen include that
> capability today.
>
> > It seems to me that GPS works pretty well. *I'd put my money on some
> > universal GPS based system. We're already pretty heavily wired up for
> > GPS anyway, for navigation, flight recording, and flight computer.
>
> Existing "dependent" systems do indeed have inertia of various kinds behind
> them. I wouldn't have mentioned radar except that the subject of collisions
> with objects not having appropriate equipment installed (such as birds,
> balloons, and anything not having an electrical system) was brought up. Radar
> and similar independent active detection systems are pretty much the only
> realistic alternatives.

A radar beam has physical dimensions. Before computers and phased
arrays, the shape of the beam was dependent on the shape of the
antenna. For height finding, you need a beam that is wide in the
horizontal and narrow in the vertical vice versa for azimuth finding.
I don't see the cost of phased or planar array being as affordable as
a typical marine radar that is optimized for finding the azimuth and
range of surface targets only.

[150flivver]

On Jan 19, 11:13*am, "
> wrote:

> If the glider you lost track of, "plays by the rules" *It will
> announce its position...you shouldn't have to ask. * You already knew
> he was in the pattern.....If you can't find him then maybe leave the
> pattern and re enter.

Sure, everyone will eventually announce their position but if I
suspect there is a conflict, I want the information now-- not as I'm
spiralling to my death after a midair collision while waiting for an
"automatic" update at the conflicting aircraft's choosing. Many
pilots report only some of the corners of the pattern. Many's the
time someone calls turning off the crosswind to downwind and stays
silent even though someone announces they're on the 45 to enter--no
call of either seeing or even looking for the other as they converge
at midfield--each thinking that the other must see them or that it's
not a problem--each confident that they complied with the AIM's
suggestion to self announce their position but loath to ask for
confirmation for fear of cluttering up the frequency with "unapproved"
queries.

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

On 1/19/2011 4:45 PM, Jim Logajan wrote:

>
> For independent systems each aircraft is self reliant and equipment and
> procedures would have to fail on _both_ for the whole system to fail. Even
> though each plane exhibits a 10% failure probability, there is only a 1%
> chance that both will not be working at any given collision event because
> they back each other up.

Your math is fine, but it appears an independent system, other than the
eyeball, will have 100% failure probability for many years, as I'm not
aware of any device being considered, much less near the testing phase.

There was another interesting optical system offered for sale a few
years ago, but it disappeared. Too bad - it was small and cheap at $1000
to $2000. It worked by comparing successive images, looking for
something that was getting bigger but not moving otherwise.

So, while the math favors an independent system, the reality is we have
several dependent devices that are in service and working. Inelegance
wins the race.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)

[Agriculture Online]

What do you think - if radios were mandated, would be be allowed to
use the same kinds of hand helds we do now or we would have to use an
FAA approved radio permanently mounted in the panel? Would these
radios then be part of an inspection and help to the same standards as
standard certificated planes? Or would we hope they would be required
but the government would not tell us what capability or features they
would need? One wonders if the decision to mandate a radio would
imply considerable regulation? Maybe the experts could comment.

[[email protected]]

On Jan 19, 7:12*pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> " > wrote:
> > Beyond that, it seems that a transponders/ encoders might still be
> > required to be able to "see" the other aircraft. *At least in the 3D
> > altitude sense.......
>
> Nothing stops radar from doing vertical sweeps in addition to horizontal
> sweeps in order to get the extra dimension. Just not available with existing
> marine units, though! (A technology known as phased array can eliminate the
> physical movement of the antenna.)
>
> But - my Zaon MRX PCAS, which relies on transponder mode C replies, actually
> doesn't issue an alert until the altitude of a target approaches that of the
> MRX. This was a deliberate design decision by Zaon. Current radar systems
> appear to have vertical beam widths of +/- 30 degrees, which seems reasonable
> value to compare with the MRX.
>
> From my personal experience with the MRX, I'd trade the altitude information
> in exchange for direction and distance. (The MRX shows altitude difference
> and estimated range to a transponder target; the range is estimated based on
> signal strength. Several times I've been in the run-up area when a plane
> would land 250 feet away and the MRX was telling me it was 1.2 miles away!)
>
> > Would a boat type radar work at higher speeds?
>
> I couldn't find an answer to that, but if I understand the technology of
> "broadband" (Frequency Modulated Continuous-wave) radar, the speed of
> aircraft shouldn't measurably affect it.
>
> > *Would you be able to
> > process the information and figure out probable flight paths and
> > collision courses?
>
> In the realm of the possible, but none of the units I've seen include that
> capability today.
>
> > It seems to me that GPS works pretty well. *I'd put my money on some
> > universal GPS based system. We're already pretty heavily wired up for
> > GPS anyway, for navigation, flight recording, and flight computer.
>
> Existing "dependent" systems do indeed have inertia of various kinds behind
> them. I wouldn't have mentioned radar except that the subject of collisions
> with objects not having appropriate equipment installed (such as birds,
> balloons, and anything not having an electrical system) was brought up. Radar
> and similar independent active detection systems are pretty much the only
> realistic alternatives.

We have PCAS(Zaon) in our club gliders..........I am not convinced it
is at all accurate.......

Some of our pilots swear by it. If it figures distance by way of
signal strength, it can't be very accurate because I know that
transponders vary quite a bit. Some are rated at higher or lower
output wattages to begin with. I have also seen degradation due to
bad antenna, and bad antenna cable or connections.

But it is an interesting concept how PCAS determines the threat based
on relative altitude being a higher priority than the finite
distance. You certainly could apply this to radar, in the third
dimension.

BTW....I have also noticed that the PCAS is not always "calibrated"
correctly.......it needs to read out pressure altitude.....there is
one calibration that can be done by the pilot, another by the
factory.......I have seen it as much as 200' off..........But now, we
also have transponders, so the Zaon locks on to the transponder's
pressure altitude, and no calibration of the zaon is needed.........

When we first got the PCAS I found it distracting enough to be a
problem. I owuld see planes, and the PCAS did not....and visa
versa.......frankly, now I have the thing on, but don't really pay
attention to it.

Only when I am riding in the back seat, do I really try to make sense
out of it.....trying to quickly spot the aircraft the PCAS alerts me
to.

From what I understand, the power FLARM is taking PCAS a little
further...(when tracking other aircraft that are non flarm, but have
txpdr) showing relitive direction (the big zaon does this too) and
also an algorithim to figure out projected flight path of the aircraft
to separate threat and non threat.


Back to the radar idea.......I think its worth investigating. I am
old enough now to have witnessed some amazing advances in technology,
which I don't think anybody could have predicted exactly. Just look
at cell phones...they are full of accelerometers and all kinds or
crazy stuff now.....a freind sowed me how he uses his phone to keep
track of magnetic disturbances on the Sun...........I don't know whay
he needs to know that, but the damn phone tells him!

In the past, the idea of on board radar on an airplane meant big,
heavy, impractical, expensive etc.

But today? Or in 5 or ten years..........Radar might be the
answer......may become the simplest anti collision device!

Cookie

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

On 1/19/2011 8:33 PM, wrote:
>
> Back to the radar idea.......I think its worth investigating. I am
> old enough now to have witnessed some amazing advances in technology,
> which I don't think anybody could have predicted exactly. Just look
> at cell phones...they are full of accelerometers and all kinds or
> crazy stuff now.....a freind sowed me how he uses his phone to keep
> track of magnetic disturbances on the Sun...........I don't know whay
> he needs to know that, but the damn phone tells him!
>
> In the past, the idea of on board radar on an airplane meant big,
> heavy, impractical, expensive etc.
>
> But today? Or in 5 or ten years..........Radar might be the
> answer......may become the simplest anti collision device!

The silence from people that have a real understanding of radar suggests
it's not an easy answer. Sweeping the beam over 2 mile sphere centered
on the glider is one problem; making the beam small enough to locate
another aircraft with sufficient accuracy is another; and you'd also
have know the glider's attitude, altitude, and position to make sense of
the radar return.

A laser beam would make the first two problems easier, but might
introduce a hazard that would be hard to mitigate. It'd also need the
attitude.

Makes PowerFlarm seem simple.

--
Eric Green

[[email protected]]

On Jan 20, 1:01*am, Eric Greenwell > wrote:
> On 1/19/2011 8:33 PM, wrote:
>
>
>
> > Back to the radar idea.......I think its worth investigating. *I am
> > old enough now to have witnessed some amazing advances in technology,
> > which I don't think anybody could have predicted exactly. *Just look
> > at cell phones...they are full of accelerometers and all kinds or
> > crazy stuff now.....a freind sowed me how he uses his phone to keep
> > track of magnetic disturbances on the Sun...........I don't know whay
> > he needs to know that, but the damn phone tells him!
>
> > In the past, the idea of on board radar on an airplane meant big,
> > heavy, impractical, expensive etc.
>
> > But today? *Or in 5 or ten years..........Radar might be the
> > answer......may become the simplest anti collision device!
>
> The silence from people that have a real understanding of radar suggests
> it's not an easy answer. Sweeping the beam over 2 mile sphere centered
> on the glider is one problem; making the beam small enough to locate
> another aircraft with sufficient accuracy is another; and you'd also
> have know the glider's attitude, altitude, and position to make sense of
> the radar return.
>
> A laser beam would make the first two problems easier, but might
> introduce a hazard that would be hard to mitigate. It'd also need the
> attitude.
>
> Makes PowerFlarm seem simple.
>
> --
> Eric Green

We are pretty much playing "what if" here....

I don't think anybody is saying that radar is a present day solution.
The origianl post about radar pointed out that you can go to the store
and buy a boat radar for $1400......sure looks like you can see all
the other boats, and the land on that thing. Of course to adapt to
aviation is like 1000 x more complicated.....

Imagine, in 1945, saying that you wanted to launch 26 space
satellites, each with an atomic clock on board?

My "prediction for the future": GPS will still be the base of
anitcollision devices.........(but then again, I prediceted that
mountian bikes and skate boards were stupid and would never catch on)
LOL


Cookie

[Mike[_28_]]

>>The facts are that they are pretty useless in preventing any accidents
when they are used in the blind calling mode. Further, even with
directed
communications in controlled settings, they are often ineffective.
Humans
have great filters for getting rid of audio input that they aren't
interested in.

How can you say this? I fly at an uncontrolled airport and the vast
majority of traffic, including all gliders (club rules), have and use
a radio. Blind calls on CTAF are the norm and there is no way of
knowing how many accidents they have played a role in preventing.
Granted, they don't prevent the accidents on their own but they
absolutely help everyone minimize the potential. If a power guy is on
long final dragging it in and I enter the pattern at least we know
there is a heightened potential for some sort of conflict if we are
both using radios. I know, I know, we are both obligated to see and
avoid but it is much easier to do so if you know where to look.
Likewise "Piper XYZ departing to the west" has great value to me if
I'm there. I can simply keep an eye on him, or let him know I'm there
or move to a different area. Did the transmission prevent an accident?
Who knows? If blind calls don't aid in the prevention of accidents why
even do them?

As for the filtering of audio information - if you are not interested
in the radio traffic in the area that you are flying in then I suggest
your priorities are out of order.

My 2 cents

Mike F.

[Andy[_1_]]

On Jan 20, 7:13*am, Mike > wrote:
> >>The facts are that they are pretty useless in preventing any accidents
>
> when they are used in the blind calling mode. *Further, even with
> directed
> communications in controlled settings, they are often ineffective.
> Humans
> have great filters for getting rid of audio input that they aren't
> interested in.
>
> How can you say this? I fly at an uncontrolled airport and the vast
> majority of traffic, including all gliders (club rules), have and use
> a radio. Blind calls on CTAF are the norm and there is no way of
> knowing how many accidents they have played a role in preventing.
> Granted, they don't prevent the accidents on their own but they
> absolutely help everyone minimize the potential. If a power guy is on
> long final dragging it in and I enter the pattern at least we know
> there is a heightened potential for some sort of conflict if we are
> both using radios. I know, I know, we are both obligated to see and
> avoid but it is much easier to do so if you know where to look.
> Likewise "Piper XYZ departing to the west" has great value to me if
> I'm there. I can simply keep an eye on him, or let him know I'm there
> or move to a different area. Did the transmission prevent an accident?
> Who knows? If blind calls don't aid in the prevention of accidents why
> even do them?
>
> As for the filtering of audio information - if you are not interested
> in the radio traffic in the area that you are flying in then I suggest
> your priorities are out of order.
>
> My 2 cents
>
> Mike F.

There is a difference between a blind call that provides information
and a blind call that asks a question. A radio call that is directed
at a specific aircraft is not a blind call.

All this boils down to is that some people object to blind calls that
ask a question since everybody or nobody may answer and no useful
information may be exchanged. I don't think anyone has said they
object to blind calls that provide information about position or
intentions.

As an example - when waiting to takeoff from an uncontrolled field it
was common for a pilot to say "xxx ready for takeoff runway yy, anyone
in the pattern please advise". The recommended call would now be
something like "Podunk traffic xxx ready for takeoff runway yy, NW
departure, Podunk". Anyone on final would be expected to reply if
there would be a conflict. Anyone that may be a conflict on the NW
departure would also reply. No reason for everyone else in the
pattern to reply if there was no potential conflict.

If no one answers the pilot makes a last visual check for conflicts (I
still like to make the old fashioned 360 deg turn if the downwind leg
is behind me) before taking the runway and also make a further call
"Poduck traffic xxx taking runway yy for NW departure Podunk". This
gives another opportunity for any aircraft to declare a conflict.

And while we're talking about radio usage please you'all stop putting
a zero in front of a single digit runway number if it's not painted on
the runway or shown on the approach plate. Runway 8 is "Runway
eight", not "Runway zero eight".

Andy (GY)

[Burt Compton - Marfa]

Comment 1. “Any Traffic Please Advise”. Using this phrase is non-
productive and no longer recommended by the FAA per AIM 4-1-9 (g).

Comment 2. At our public airport in west Texas we had three runways, 3
- 21, 12 - 30, 8 - 26

Some of us local pilots agreed to put the "zero" before the 3 to
emphasize we were NOT landing on 30. Not sure if it worked but our
strong vocal emphasis of any runway number was always part of our
transmissions. We also talk slower out in west Texas, so it was easy
to identify the fast-talkin' transient pilots, and therefore raise our
awareness a bit. Seems that the faster the pilot talks, the faster
their airplane approach speed! (Just my casual observation, so y'all
take it easy and practice saying "grits" with three syllables.)

The confusion over runway 12 and 21 was even worse, as flying
downwind, those numbers as painted on the runway (the 2 in 12
appearing almost the same shape when viewed upside down) caused the
occasional wrong runway radio call from airplanes entering downwind.
Made it tricky if were were staging gliders on 21 when the approaching
airplane calling "landing on 21" was really landing on 12. (Are you
following all of this?) Luckily, Marfa Airport runways were recently
re-designated in 2010 by the FAA due to a change in magnetic
variation, so now we have the less confusing numbering of 4 - 22, 13 -
31, 9 - 27.

Comment 3. I have and use radios installed in all of my towplanes and
gliders. I do it because it assists the eyeball in see and avoid. I
do not want any government agency to make radios mandatory "for our
protection" as they like to infer. In my opinion, the FAA has already
made the concept of "see and avoid" mandatory by FAR 91.111 and
91.113, and that's all we need. Over and out.

[Scott[_7_]]

On 1-20-2011 20:04, Burt Compton - Marfa wrote:

>
> Comment 3. I have and use radios installed in all of my towplanes and
> gliders. I do it because it assists the eyeball in see and avoid. I
> do not want any government agency to make radios mandatory "for our
> protection" as they like to infer. In my opinion, the FAA has already
> made the concept of "see and avoid" mandatory by FAR 91.111 and
> 91.113, and that's all we need. Over and out.
>
>

Finally, someone else sees my point. Thanks Burt! (And as I've said in
all my other posts, I TOO have and use a radio...I just don't depend on
it alone to "paint a picture" of traffic in the area).

[Bob Whelan[_3_]]

Wow. How cool is this...that a potentially emotion-laden discussion rife with
potential for drifting hopelessly off-topic and/or going down in flames has
instead actually borne focused fruit...and maybe even clarified some folks'
thoughts on the topic?!? (*I* think it's ==>majorly<== cool!!!)

Just to play Joe Summarizer a bit, some recent stuff I think in spot-on-target
(and why):

1) Andy D. wrote:

> There is a difference between a blind call that provides information
> and a blind call that asks a question.<Snip...>
>
> All this boils down to is that some people object to blind calls that
> ask a question since everybody or nobody may answer and no useful
> information may be exchanged. I don't think anyone has said they
> object to blind calls that provide information about position or
> intentions.

A blind call "that provides information about position or intentions" is
exactly what I earlier 'broad-brushed' as "Here I am don't hit me," i.e.
concise, accurate dissemination (not necessarily limited to voice radio, of
course) of positional (and possibly intentional) information. Potentially
action-worthy on any recipient's part, always ignorable if not action-worthy,
ideally unambiguous. I *love* hearing this sort of radio call! (And even
though I'm not an instructor and so can't 'legally' encourage anyone to
practice mentally formulating and making such calls, I always have...and do! :))

2) Burt C. wrote:

> Comment 3. I have and use radios installed in all of my towplanes and
> gliders. I do it because it assists the eyeball in see and avoid. I
> do not want any government agency to make radios mandatory "for our
> protection" as they like to infer. In my opinion, the FAA has already
> made the concept of "see and avoid" mandatory by FAR 91.111 and
> 91.113, and that's all we need. Over and out.

Way to succinctly cover all the important conceptual and legal bases, Burt!
For anyone whose instructor hasn't said Burt's essence in some way, ask them
why they have not? Then discuss... (For the record, my club's gliders all have
radios, both tugs have transponders...as does at least one of our gliders. We
are *very* interested in PowerFLARM, without yet having made a Club decision.)

'Encouragedly,'
Bob W.

[[email protected]]

On Jan 20, 8:54*pm, Bob Whelan > wrote:
> Wow. How cool is this...that a potentially emotion-laden discussion rife with
> potential for drifting hopelessly off-topic and/or going down in flames has
> instead actually borne focused fruit...and maybe even clarified some folks'
> thoughts on the topic?!? (*I* think it's ==>majorly<== cool!!!)
>
> Just to play Joe Summarizer a bit, some recent stuff I think in spot-on-target
> (and why):
>
> 1) Andy D. wrote:
> > There is a difference between a blind call that provides information
> > and a blind call that asks a question.<Snip...>
>
> > All this boils down to is that some people object to blind calls that
> > ask a question since everybody or nobody may answer and no useful
> > information may be exchanged. I don't think anyone has said they
> > object to blind calls that provide information about position or
> > intentions.
>
> A blind call "that provides information about position or intentions" is
> exactly what I earlier 'broad-brushed' as "Here I am don't hit me," i.e.
> concise, accurate dissemination (not necessarily limited to voice radio, of
> course) of positional (and possibly intentional) information. Potentially
> action-worthy on any recipient's part, always ignorable if not action-worthy,
> ideally unambiguous. I *love* hearing this sort of radio call! (And even
> though I'm not an instructor and so can't 'legally' encourage anyone to
> practice mentally formulating and making such calls, I always have...and do! :))
>
> 2) Burt C. wrote:
> > Comment 3. *I have and use radios installed in all of my towplanes and
> > gliders. I do it because it assists the eyeball in see and avoid. *I
> > do not want any government agency to make radios mandatory "for our
> > protection" as they like to infer. *In my opinion, the FAA has already
> > made the concept of "see and avoid" mandatory by FAR 91.111 and
> > 91.113, and that's all we need. * Over and out.
>
> Way to succinctly cover all the important conceptual and legal bases, Burt!
> For anyone whose instructor hasn't said Burt's essence in some way, ask them
> why they have not? Then discuss... (For the record, my club's gliders all have
> radios, both tugs have transponders...as does at least one of our gliders.. We
> are *very* interested in PowerFLARM, without yet having made a Club decision.)
>
> 'Encouragedly,'
> Bob W.

And, If you haven't had enough of this yet....

http://www.avweb.com/news/pilotlounge/183931-1.html

http://www.faa-ground-school.com/library/Any-Traffic-Please-Advise.htm

A couple more of the many good articles available on the subject.

The one article explains where the incorrect phraseology originated,
why it didn't work, and why it seems to stick around, and the FAA's
opinion...........

Cookie

[Tony V]

Bob Whelan wrote:
> .....(And even though I'm not an instructor and so can't
> 'legally' encourage anyone to practice mentally formulating and making
> such calls, I always have...and do! :))


In the US, anyway, all that an instructor can 'legally' do is to make
logbook endorsements that the FAA cares about. :-)

Tony

[Tony V]

Tony V wrote:
> Bob Whelan wrote:
>> .....(And even though I'm not an instructor and so can't 'legally'
>> encourage anyone to practice mentally formulating and making such
>> calls, I always have...and do! :))
>
>
> In the US, anyway, all that an instructor can 'legally' do is to make
> logbook endorsements that the FAA cares about. :-)


What I meant was that *anybody* can instruct but only a CFI can make a
legal logbook endorsement.

Tony

[Jim Logajan]

Eric Greenwell > wrote:
> The silence from people that have a real understanding of radar suggests
> it's not an easy answer. Sweeping the beam over 2 mile sphere centered
> on the glider is one problem;

For most collision avoidance, I don't think one needs information on the
entire sphere around an airplane. If you have coverage of +/- 30 degrees of
your average flight plane, I believe you would be covered for most
reasonable climb and descent angles that you and other aircraft can muster.

True - someone on a nearly parallel course directly above or below could
collide with you on a climb or descent, so those would be blind spots. I'm
aware of the midairs that happen on final due to one plane landing on top
of another, so I don't dismiss the issue. I think it is a surmountable
issue that hasn't been addressed because the first market is the marine
one.

> making the beam small enough to locate
> another aircraft with sufficient accuracy is another;

Not sure I follow - what do you think the accuracy is today and why you
think it isn't sufficient? The Lowrance/Simrad/Northstar unit has a
claimed target resolution of 2 to 3 meter at 10 miles. It is interesting to
view their video ads to see what they can and can't do, particularly in
areas with lots of nearby targets:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEPgcPM6EmY

Two notable examples in the video: when their radar imaged birds on the
water and when it imaged a parasailor (their printed material says they can
image birds out to 500 feet at most, though:

http://www.lowrance.com/Products/Marine/Broadband-Radar/ )

> and you'd also
> have know the glider's attitude, altitude, and position to make sense
> of the radar return.

I'm not sure why I would need anything other than range and direction to a
possible collision hazard. More than that would be "too much information."
With a moving map of collision hazards, I think I could mentally project
where things are going well enough to avoid them, even with only "raw"
depiction of radar returns.

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

On 1/21/2011 4:49 PM, Jim Logajan wrote:
> For most collision avoidance, I don't think one needs information on the
> entire sphere around an airplane. If you have coverage of +/- 30 degrees of
> your average flight plane, I believe you would be covered for most
> reasonable climb and descent angles that you and other aircraft can muster.
>

I was thinking of a previous poster's distinction between "dependent"
(like Flarm) and "independent" collision avoidance technologies (like
airborne radar). If the radar doesn't have full coverage, then it's in
the "dependent" group. With the coverage you mention, it probably does
cover most of what you need. Now I'm trying to imagine where a dome that
size is placed on a glider. It's 11" by 19", 16 pounds, so an image of
an AWACS plane is forming in my mind.

> Not sure I follow - what do you think the accuracy is today and why you
> think it isn't sufficient? The Lowrance/Simrad/Northstar unit has a
> claimed target resolution of 2 to 3 meter at 10 miles.

I saw that statement under the video on YouTube (first link), but not on
the Lowrance site. The claim I saw there was a 5 degree width beam, and
I have no idea how a beam that wide could "resolve" targets 2 or 3
meters across at 10 miles. I can imagine it would _detect_ targets that
small at 10 miles, but it would not be possible to distinguish between
two targets even 20 or 30 meters apart at 10 miles.

> It is interesting to
> view their video ads to see what they can and can't do, particularly in
> areas with lots of nearby targets:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEPgcPM6EmY
>
> Two notable examples in the video: when their radar imaged birds on the
> water and when it imaged a parasailor (their printed material says they can
> image birds out to 500 feet at most, though:
>
> http://www.lowrance.com/Products/Marine/Broadband-Radar/ )
>
The modern units are much better than I found last time I looked, and
$2000 doesn't seem too bad. The power consumption is reasonable if you
scale it for the much smaller range the glider would need. The antenna
looks awfully big for a glider, and you need the width to keep that 5
degree beam size. If you aren't concerned about the elevation to the
target, then the vertical antenna dimension can remain small. Possibly,
a higher frequency could be used in a glider, allowing a smaller antenna.

>> and you'd also
>> have know the glider's attitude, altitude, and position to make sense
>> of the radar return.
>>
> I'm not sure why I would need anything other than range and direction to a
> possible collision hazard. More than that would be "too much information."
> With a moving map of collision hazards, I think I could mentally project
> where things are going well enough to avoid them, even with only "raw"
> depiction of radar returns.
>

If all you want is knowing something is out there, it really simplifies
things; still, I wonder what the screen image would look like as the
glider banks and pitches. It seems like it would be useless in a thermal
or near a gaggles, the times you would really like to know where people
are, especially vertically.

It'd be fun to explore the possibilities, but I'm not radar-savvy enough
to do it. All I can imagine is a lot of problems that make me think it
would be better to talk other pilots into getting PowerFlarm and MRX units.


--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm
http://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl
- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation Mar/2004" Much of what
you need to know tinyurl.com/yfs7tnz

[Jim Logajan]

Eric Greenwell > wrote:
> It'd be fun to explore the possibilities, but I'm not radar-savvy
> enough to do it. All I can imagine is a lot of problems that make me
> think it would be better to talk other pilots into getting PowerFlarm
> and MRX units.

I think that radar in small aircraft is getting more viable; many of the
problems could be overcome. If ADS-B had not been mandated, I think that in
10 years private radar units could have been available with equivalent
capabilities and cost to ADS-B. Alas, government mandate will cause anyone
interested in radar to pay twice to solve essentially the same problem. A
pity, in my humble opinion.

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

On 1/25/2011 7:43 PM, Jim Logajan wrote:
> Eric > wrote:
>> It'd be fun to explore the possibilities, but I'm not radar-savvy
>> enough to do it. All I can imagine is a lot of problems that make me
>> think it would be better to talk other pilots into getting PowerFlarm
>> and MRX units.
>
> I think that radar in small aircraft is getting more viable; many of the
> problems could be overcome. If ADS-B had not been mandated, I think that in
> 10 years private radar units could have been available with equivalent
> capabilities and cost to ADS-B. Alas, government mandate will cause anyone
> interested in radar to pay twice to solve essentially the same problem. A
> pity, in my humble opinion.

I don't think air-borne radar would solve many of the problems the FAA
is interested in, of which collision avoidance is just one. I also
suspect a few hundred radars operating in a busy airspace might be a
problem, just like mode A/C transponders cause.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)