Handheld Tranceiver Recommendation

[nospamPlease]

I am thinking of purchasing a hand held radio (tranceiver).

Can anyone recommend one ? I am a student pilot.

Please reply to this newsgroup and not via email.

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, nospamPlease > said:
>I am thinking of purchasing a hand held radio (tranceiver).
>
>Can anyone recommend one ? I am a student pilot.

No, but I can categorically state that you must not, under any
circumstances, buy the Sporty's one. It's a horrible piece of crap. The
display is almost unreadable under most lighting conditions, it loses all
its memory when you change the batteries, and the range is laughable. Oh,
unless you want to buy mine used, in which case they're great.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
"A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction into a
battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day."
- Calvin discovers Usenet

[Thomas Borchert]

NospamPlease,

> I am thinking of purchasing a hand held radio (tranceiver).
>
> Can anyone recommend one ? I am a student pilot.
>

Vertex/Yaesu and Icom are the two brands that come to mind. I don't
like the antiquated (IMHO) design of the Sporty's unit.

What do you want to do with it? I'd humbly suggest there are quite some
things a student pilot might want to spend 250 $ on before getting a
handheld radio.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Jay Honeck]

> Can anyone recommend one ? I am a student pilot.

Watch Ebay for a used ICOM AC-20 or -21. They are bigger than the new ones,
but bulletproof. You can probably pick one up for peanuts, compared to a
new one.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[RD]

Yaesu. Amazing unit and you can get them for very good prices on Ebay.

--
Thank You,
Ryan


"nospamPlease" > wrote in message
...
>
> I am thinking of purchasing a hand held radio (tranceiver).
>
> Can anyone recommend one ? I am a student pilot.
>
> Please reply to this newsgroup and not via email.

[[email protected]]

We just received our new ICOM - A-23..

Ist impresions are very good, nd the VOR actually works!

Well.. at 3000 feet and 44 miles anyway.. :) (As far as we
tried it so far), and it gave us the same radial as the panel unit
in our 172.. Actually did an intercept with it... tiny numbers of
course, but a tiny radio...

We shopped harder than most (I thin. Posted here, got several
opinions.. the ICOM seemed to come out on tip, for what we wanted..

Very good so far...

Dave


On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 16:09:26 GMT, nospamPlease
> wrote:

>
>I am thinking of purchasing a hand held radio (tranceiver).
>
>Can anyone recommend one ? I am a student pilot.
>
>Please reply to this newsgroup and not via email.

[Cub Driver]

I would buy a Vertex 5 watt radio with any nav feature. If the radio
is only for backup, then you might want to consider alkalines, but I
like the rechargable because it's my only radio. The version I own is
a Yaseu, predecessor of the Vertex.

Others will tell you Icom. Before the Yaseu, I owned a Sporty's, but I
didn't like it. I found the nav feature useless, the whole thing
rather bulky and heavy, the display not easy to read--and it ate
batteries.

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

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

[Peter Gottlieb]

I have an older Icom and I tried the new Vertex model that a couple of
friends got. Both do the job. The Vertex seems like a very sexy little
radio, but side by side the Icom was noticeably more sensitive (could have
been just normal unit to unit differences and not model specific). If I had
to get one today I would probably lean towards a Vertex with 2m capability.


"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> I would buy a Vertex 5 watt radio with any nav feature. If the radio
> is only for backup, then you might want to consider alkalines, but I
> like the rechargable because it's my only radio. The version I own is
> a Yaseu, predecessor of the Vertex.
>
> Others will tell you Icom. Before the Yaseu, I owned a Sporty's, but I
> didn't like it. I found the nav feature useless, the whole thing
> rather bulky and heavy, the display not easy to read--and it ate
> batteries.
>
> all the best -- Dan Ford
> email: -- put Cubdriver in subject line!
>
> see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
> and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[S Narayan]

I bought an Icom A-22 many years ago. It's a sturdy radio, but I have lost
one of the rubber knobs (inner). Also, the NiCd cells lost their ability to
hold charge after 5 years. Recently I rebuilt the battery pack myself. As
good as new. The VOR accuracy appears to be good, but have not used it in
flight. .

"nospamPlease" > wrote in message
...
>
> I am thinking of purchasing a hand held radio (tranceiver).
>
> Can anyone recommend one ? I am a student pilot.
>
> Please reply to this newsgroup and not via email.

[Andrew Sarangan]

A transceiver might be useful as a backup if you fly in Class B a lot,
and for IFR. But I can't think of any other reason why a student pilot
would need a transceiver. If you are interested in listening to ATC
communications, buy a scanner.


nospamPlease > wrote in message >...
> I am thinking of purchasing a hand held radio (tranceiver).
>
> Can anyone recommend one ? I am a student pilot.
>
> Please reply to this newsgroup and not via email.

[Al Gilson]

(snip)
>
> What do you want to do with it? I'd humbly suggest there are quite some
> things a student pilot might want to spend 250 $ on before getting a
> handheld radio.

As a student pilot on my dual cross country, both radios in my
instructor's plane failed on approach to the Lewiston, Idaho airport. He
whipped out his handheld, dialed in the tower frequency, and we were back
in business.

I purchased a Yaesu VX 120 Pro II the following day. I used it as a
student to listen to the ground, tower and approach chatter, and get the
ATIS while driving to the airport. Finally, when I purchased an aircraft
with only one nav/com, I used it as a second radio in the cockpit to
listen to the ATIS while keeping my my radio on the communications
frequency.

Even after I upgraded to two radios in the plane, I never leave the ground
without it...remembering that one flight when everything went toast.

- - - - -
Al Gilson
1964 Skyhawk
Spokane, WA USA

--
Al Gilson
Spokane, WA USA
1970 VW Convertible
1964 Cessna Skyhawk

[Shirley]

(Andrew Sarangan) wrote:

>A transceiver might be useful as a backup if you
>fly in Class B a lot, and for IFR. But I can't think
>of any other reason why a student pilot would
>need a transceiver. If you are interested in
>listening to ATC communications, buy a scanner.

It can be a useful backup even if you aren't flying in Class B or IFR. And why
does a person have to *need* one for it to make sense to have one?? It's
helpful to be able to observe *and* listen when you're trying to learn the
radios, and you can do that at or near most airports with a handheld. You can
check the ATIS while you're at home (if you're within range). I love my Yaesu
and often bring it with me even when I'm not flying so I can listen. And having
experienced radio failure, I like knowing it's there, just in case. I don't
know why anyone would discourage a person from getting one.

[Ross Oliver]

Paul Tomblin > wrote:
>No, but I can categorically state that you must not, under any
>circumstances, buy the Sporty's one. It's a horrible piece of crap. The
>display is almost unreadable under most lighting conditions, it loses all
>its memory when you change the batteries, and the range is laughable. Oh,
>unless you want to buy mine used, in which case they're great.


I must respectfully disagree with Paul. I actually returned an
Icom A23 in favor of the Sporty's SP-200 for the following reasons:

- A23 would not transmit across my living room on alkaline batteries;
the SP-200 reaches the tower 5x5 out to 5-6 miles on alkalines, with
no external antenna (although my aircraft is composite, not metal).

- SP-200 displays a CDI for localizers, A23 does not (only VORs).

- Although the SP-200 display is more sensitive to viewing angle,
the CDI portion is much larger than that of the A23. I tried both
in the cockpit in flight, and I found the A23's tiny CDI display
very difficult to view while flying the aircraft.

- I actually prefer the SP-200's larger size, and the SP-200 with 8 photo
lithium AAs weighs about the same as the A23 with 6 alkalines.

Whatever your favorite, I highly recommend that you TRY before you BUY.
Find someone who owns the model you're considering and try it out.


Happy landings,
Ross Oliver

[BTIZ]

I have the ICOM A-22, I do not use alkaline batteries.. they only last one
day in glider operations.. I have had my A-22 for 6 years and only had to
replace the battery once, I went from the factory 1000mAhr NiCD to a
1500mAhr NiMH and that was four years ago.

I use the radio all day every weekend, I charge it after every second
weekend. I do carry the AA battery pack in my flight bag for when I forget
to charge, does not happen often. When I did have to use the AA pack, it
only lasted about 5 hours.

When on the ground, I find the A-22 able to reach aircraft about 9-10nm
distant. From the air, I have used the A-22 to talk with approach control
25nm away from a composite glider.

I always use the "rubber ducky" antenna, and I prefer the "at extra expense"
Speaker/Mic to clip to my parachute harness while flying.

I know other pilots who have abandoned the Sporty's model (failure), and
also had problems with the Yeasue (small radios, small battery packs) not
many options.

BT

"nospamPlease" > wrote in message
...
>
> I am thinking of purchasing a hand held radio (tranceiver).
>
> Can anyone recommend one ? I am a student pilot.
>
> Please reply to this newsgroup and not via email.

[Cub Driver]

On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 17:33:39 -0500, Cub Driver
> wrote:

>I would buy a Vertex 5 watt radio with any nav feature. I

Arggh! Fingers turned to thumbs! That should be: WITHOUT any nav
feature. When I had it on my Sporty's, I used it once, to see if it
worked (it did). I think I would rather scud-run than bother with
that.

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

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

[Cub Driver]

>I can't think of any other reason why a student pilot
>would need a transceiver.

Because he will be flying solo?

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

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

[Thomas Borchert]

Cub,

> Because he will be flying solo?
>

That requires a handheld now? Hmm, must have missed that in the regs.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Andrew Sarangan]

Cub Driver > wrote in message >...
> >I can't think of any other reason why a student pilot
> >would need a transceiver.
>
> Because he will be flying solo?
>

Are you talking about an aircraft which has no radio? In that case you
are correct. Perhaps I misunderstood the original post.

[Cub Driver]

>> Because he will be flying solo?
>>
>
>That requires a handheld now? Hmm, must have missed that in the regs.

You will find it in the same regulation that requires you to carry a
backup handheld as a certificated pilot, or indeed the regulation that
requires you to have a radio of any kind.

Control K!

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

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

[Malcolm Teas]

nospamPlease > wrote in message >...
> I am thinking of purchasing a hand held radio (tranceiver).
>
> Can anyone recommend one ? I am a student pilot.
>
> Please reply to this newsgroup and not via email.

I bought the Yaseu/Vertex VXA-700 (The company changed it's name).
It's got the LiON battery with a nice long battery life, it was the
only handheld with a LiON battery when I bought it roughly a year ago.
It's small enough and light enough that I don't hesitate to carry it
- which is the point in a back up radio.

It receives VOR and COMM frequencies, weather radio in the US, and FM
commercial band as well as VHF 2 meter band. (So, if you're in CAP,
it can get their freqs too.)

I bought it when the DC ADIZ was set up, and used it when on a student
cross country with radio problems. Neither comm would work. Pretty
much a serious situation here. I plugged my headset into the handheld
(with the adapter I'd bought with the radio for that purpose) and was
able to re-enter the ADIZ and get back to home base.

(With the wisdom of more hours now, I should have landed outside and
phoned home. But having the extra radio is a good thing these days in
any case.)

Note that any handheld won't work as effectively as the plane's radio
since the antenna's not as good. Altitude helps of course, as does a
relay. I've seen people with their own plane put in an extra antenna
that can be plugged into the handheld too. But, you need your own
plane first... <grin>

-Malcolm Teas

[jsmith]

The only regs that require a radio are operation in CBAS, CCAS, or CDAS.
Outside controlled airspace, there is no requirement for a radio.

Andrew Sarangan wrote:
>
> Cub Driver > wrote in message >...
> > >I can't think of any other reason why a student pilot
> > >would need a transceiver.
> >
> > Because he will be flying solo?
> >
>
> Are you talking about an aircraft which has no radio? In that case you
> are correct. Perhaps I misunderstood the original post.

[Andrew Sarangan]

The question was whether a student pilot should purchase a handheld
transceiver. If the aircraft does not have any radios, then a handheld
transceiver would be very useful to have. Although a radio is not
required in class E and uncontrolled airspaces, it certainly makes things
safer. However, a transceiver as a backup radio to the aircraft radio may
be an excessive measure. That was the point I was trying to make.






jsmith > wrote in :

> The only regs that require a radio are operation in CBAS, CCAS, or
> CDAS. Outside controlled airspace, there is no requirement for a
> radio.
>
> Andrew Sarangan wrote:
>>
>> Cub Driver > wrote in message
>> >...
>> > >I can't think of any other reason why a student pilot
>> > >would need a transceiver.
>> >
>> > Because he will be flying solo?
>> >
>>
>> Are you talking about an aircraft which has no radio? In that case
>> you are correct. Perhaps I misunderstood the original post.

[jsmith]

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

Andrew Sarangan wrote:
> The question was whether a student pilot should purchase a handheld
> transceiver. If the aircraft does not have any radios, then a handheld
> transceiver would be very useful to have. Although a radio is not
> required in class E and uncontrolled airspaces, it certainly makes things
> safer. However, a transceiver as a backup radio to the aircraft radio may
> be an excessive measure. That was the point I was trying to make.

[Ron Lee]

jsmith > wrote:

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

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

Ron Lee

[d b]

My experience has been the opposite. More close encounters with comm
than without. But that only is good for the last 40 years. I think the comm
or lack of it is not a factor at all. Situation awareness seems to be the
bigger player.

In article >, wrote:
>jsmith > wrote:
>
>>Teaching them initially to fly without a radio teaches them to look
>>outside and scan for traffic.
>>It's the fools with radios that think just because they broadcast over
>>the airwaves that they have the right of way and everyone should let
>>them play through.
>
>And my experience is that assuming that see and avoid will keep you
>alive is one path to validating Darwinism.
>
>Ron Lee

[Dave Stadt]

"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
> jsmith > wrote:
>
> >Teaching them initially to fly without a radio teaches them to look
> >outside and scan for traffic.
> >It's the fools with radios that think just because they broadcast over
> >the airwaves that they have the right of way and everyone should let
> >them play through.
>
> And my experience is that assuming that see and avoid will keep you
> alive is one path to validating Darwinism.
>
> Ron Lee

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

[Bill Denton]

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

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

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



"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
om...
>
> "Ron Lee" > wrote in message
> ...
> > jsmith > wrote:
> >
> > >Teaching them initially to fly without a radio teaches them to look
> > >outside and scan for traffic.
> > >It's the fools with radios that think just because they broadcast over
> > >the airwaves that they have the right of way and everyone should let
> > >them play through.
> >
> > And my experience is that assuming that see and avoid will keep you
> > alive is one path to validating Darwinism.
> >
> > Ron Lee
>
> I would like to see evidence to support your statement. On the contrary,
> Quincy, IL, Bob Collins and six people killed while talking to Meigs tower
> all took place in northern IL within a few years and all involved people
> talking on a radio and not looking . Darwin would probably see the
> invention of radio as a way to improve the breed.
>
>
>

[Andrew Sarangan]

I have found that most students religiously annouce all their turns in
the traffic pattern but fail to listen to other airplanes. A radio is
actually a liability in the early stages of training. Hence my
recommendation against carrying a backup radio.



jsmith > wrote in :

> Teaching them initially to fly without a radio teaches them to look
> outside and scan for traffic.
> It's the fools with radios that think just because they broadcast over
> the airwaves that they have the right of way and everyone should let
> them play through.
>
> Andrew Sarangan wrote:
>> The question was whether a student pilot should purchase a handheld
>> transceiver. If the aircraft does not have any radios, then a
>> handheld transceiver would be very useful to have. Although a radio
>> is not required in class E and uncontrolled airspaces, it certainly
>> makes things safer. However, a transceiver as a backup radio to the
>> aircraft radio may be an excessive measure. That was the point I was
>> trying to make.

[Dave Stadt]

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

"Bill Denton" > wrote in message
...
> Actually, it happened at Palwaukee (KPWK) airport and tower, just north of
> Chicago O'Hare airport.
>
> There were two fatals in Mr. Collins' plane, one fatal student pilot in
the
> other plane.
>
> The accident was the result of Mr. Collins mis-reporting his position. The
> controller used this information and directed the student pilot's plane
into
> Mr. Collins' plane.
>
>
>
> "Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
> om...
> >
> > "Ron Lee" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > jsmith > wrote:
> > >
> > > >Teaching them initially to fly without a radio teaches them to look
> > > >outside and scan for traffic.
> > > >It's the fools with radios that think just because they broadcast
over
> > > >the airwaves that they have the right of way and everyone should let
> > > >them play through.
> > >
> > > And my experience is that assuming that see and avoid will keep you
> > > alive is one path to validating Darwinism.
> > >
> > > Ron Lee
> >
> > I would like to see evidence to support your statement. On the
contrary,
> > Quincy, IL, Bob Collins and six people killed while talking to Meigs
tower
> > all took place in northern IL within a few years and all involved people
> > talking on a radio and not looking . Darwin would probably see the
> > invention of radio as a way to improve the breed.
> >
> >
> >
>
>

[Dave Stadt]

It's not just students that fail to listen.

"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
. 158...
> I have found that most students religiously annouce all their turns in
> the traffic pattern but fail to listen to other airplanes. A radio is
> actually a liability in the early stages of training. Hence my
> recommendation against carrying a backup radio.
>
>
>
> jsmith > wrote in :
>
> > Teaching them initially to fly without a radio teaches them to look
> > outside and scan for traffic.
> > It's the fools with radios that think just because they broadcast over
> > the airwaves that they have the right of way and everyone should let
> > them play through.
> >
> > Andrew Sarangan wrote:
> >> The question was whether a student pilot should purchase a handheld
> >> transceiver. If the aircraft does not have any radios, then a
> >> handheld transceiver would be very useful to have. Although a radio
> >> is not required in class E and uncontrolled airspaces, it certainly
> >> makes things safer. However, a transceiver as a backup radio to the
> >> aircraft radio may be an excessive measure. That was the point I was
> >> trying to make.
>

[Ron Lee]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote:
>> And my experience is that assuming that see and avoid will keep you
>> alive is one path to validating Darwinism.
>>
>> Ron Lee
>
>I would like to see evidence to support your statement.

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

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

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

Ron Lee

[Cub Driver]

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

>My experience has been the opposite

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

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

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

[Robert Moore]

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

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

Bob Moore

[Bill Denton]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Am I missing something?




"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
om...
>
> Bob Collins was killed at Waukegan not Palwaukee. He was returning from
> lunch at Janesville. The accident was caused by both pilots not seeing
and
> avoiding. It is a class D airport. Controllers are not responsible for
> separation or sequencing at class D airports. A fact seemingly lost to
many
> pilots. Quincy was a ground accident involving a commuter. Meigs was a
mid
> air. All occurred in VFR conditions and all could have been avoided had
the
> pilots been looking out the windows.
>
> "Bill Denton" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Actually, it happened at Palwaukee (KPWK) airport and tower, just north
of
> > Chicago O'Hare airport.
> >
> > There were two fatals in Mr. Collins' plane, one fatal student pilot in
> the
> > other plane.
> >
> > The accident was the result of Mr. Collins mis-reporting his position.
The
> > controller used this information and directed the student pilot's plane
> into
> > Mr. Collins' plane.
> >
> >
> >
> > "Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > >
> > > "Ron Lee" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > jsmith > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >Teaching them initially to fly without a radio teaches them to look
> > > > >outside and scan for traffic.
> > > > >It's the fools with radios that think just because they broadcast
> over
> > > > >the airwaves that they have the right of way and everyone should
let
> > > > >them play through.
> > > >
> > > > And my experience is that assuming that see and avoid will keep you
> > > > alive is one path to validating Darwinism.
> > > >
> > > > Ron Lee
> > >
> > > I would like to see evidence to support your statement. On the
> contrary,
> > > Quincy, IL, Bob Collins and six people killed while talking to Meigs
> tower
> > > all took place in northern IL within a few years and all involved
people
> > > talking on a radio and not looking . Darwin would probably see the
> > > invention of radio as a way to improve the breed.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Richard Russell]

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

>jsmith > wrote:
>
>>Teaching them initially to fly without a radio teaches them to look
>>outside and scan for traffic.
>>It's the fools with radios that think just because they broadcast over
>>the airwaves that they have the right of way and everyone should let
>>them play through.
>
>And my experience is that assuming that see and avoid will keep you
>alive is one path to validating Darwinism.
>
>Ron Lee


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

[Foster]

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

Bill Denton wrote:
> Actually, it happened at Palwaukee (KPWK) airport and tower, just north of
> Chicago O'Hare airport.
>
> There were two fatals in Mr. Collins' plane, one fatal student pilot in the
> other plane.
>
> The accident was the result of Mr. Collins mis-reporting his position. The
> controller used this information and directed the student pilot's plane into
> Mr. Collins' plane.
>
>
>
> "Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
> om...
>
>>"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>jsmith > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Teaching them initially to fly without a radio teaches them to look
>>>>outside and scan for traffic.
>>>>It's the fools with radios that think just because they broadcast over
>>>>the airwaves that they have the right of way and everyone should let
>>>>them play through.
>>>
>>>And my experience is that assuming that see and avoid will keep you
>>>alive is one path to validating Darwinism.
>>>
>>>Ron Lee
>>
>>I would like to see evidence to support your statement. On the contrary,
>>Quincy, IL, Bob Collins and six people killed while talking to Meigs tower
>>all took place in northern IL within a few years and all involved people
>>talking on a radio and not looking . Darwin would probably see the
>>invention of radio as a way to improve the breed.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

[Ron Natalie]

"Bill Denton" > wrote in message ...

> Further: AIM 4-3-2 indicates that the tower at Class D airports will provide
> traffic control in the Class D airspace.
>
> Am I missing something?

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

[Bill Denton]

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

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



"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bill Denton" > wrote in message
...
>
> > Further: AIM 4-3-2 indicates that the tower at Class D airports will
provide
> > traffic control in the Class D airspace.
> >
> > Am I missing something?
>
> Air traffic control does not necessarily mean SEPARATION services are
provided.
>
>

[Ron Natalie]

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

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

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

Otherwise there is no separation service provided.

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

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

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

[Bill Denton]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bill Denton" > wrote in message
...
> > As separation is a function of traffic control, when would traffic
control
> > not include separation?
>
> When not specifically provided. ATC is a set of services. Not all are
provided
> to all people at all times.
>
> IFR aircraft are separated from other IFR in controlled airspace.
> Everybody gets seperated in class A and B.
> VFR's get seperated in class C (and in the adjacent airspace) when in
radio and radar contact.
>
> Otherwise there is no separation service provided.
>
> How is a tower going to provide separation to a bunch of VFR's that are
buzzing around
> with the sole requirement that they were talking to him?
>
> > Who would be responsible for separation and sequencing under these
> > circumstances?
>
> You knew the answer to that. The responsibility falls on the pilot in
command.
>

[Dave Stadt]

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

Separation is not always a function of traffic control. In fact the AIM
says for Class D airports "No separation is provided for VFR aircraft." The
AIM is very clear as to what traffic services are provided for each class of
airport.

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

Ahhhh that would be you Bill, by the use of your eyes. The guy in the tower
with binoculars just doesn't cut it for separation or sequencing and the FAA
realizes that.

[Dave Stadt]

"Bill Denton" > wrote in message
...
> Let's first jump back to my original subject on the specifics of the
> accident:
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> ------
> You stated: "The accident was caused by both pilots not seeing and
> avoiding."
>
> However, the article states: "Student pilot Sharon Hock...was not
mentioned
> as a factor in the Feb. 8, 2000, accident."
>
> Further: "The probable cause of the accident was Collins' "failure to
> maintain clearance from the other airplane," said the NTSB report, which
is
> in line with a previous federal report outlining the facts of the
accident."
>
> Additionally: ""Factors relating to the accident were the pilot's
Collins']
> poor visual lookout, and the . . . local controller's failure to provide
> effective sequencing,"
>
> And: "Fowler (controller) said he told Hock to turn "based on his estimate
> of the elapsed time before losing sight of [her plane], and the pilot's
> Collins) verbal report that he had crossed the shoreline.""
>
> You stated: "It is a class D airport. Controllers are not responsible for
> separation or sequencing at class D airports. A fact seemingly lost to
many
> pilots."
>
> However, both the NTSB and the controller indicated that "separation and
> sequencing" were part of the controller's responsibilities at Waukegan.

A lot of the findings go against FARs and what is written in the AIM. The
report doesn't make sense in a lot of areas. I can't explain or understand
the government and quite honestly hope I never do.

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

Give paragraph 3-2-5 a read. Very last sentence of that section.

[Bill Denton]

Thanks for turning me on to AIM 4-3-2; it doesn't get much clearer than
that.

Is it possible that Waukegan has some special stuff going on because the
center of the airport is only 2 nm from the Chicago Class B?

BTW: I'm not one of those "argument for argument's sake" dudes, I'm just
trying to make sure I learn and thoroughly understand this stuff. Thanks for
your help!



"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bill Denton" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Let's first jump back to my original subject on the specifics of the
> > accident:
> >
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> > ------
> > You stated: "The accident was caused by both pilots not seeing and
> > avoiding."
> >
> > However, the article states: "Student pilot Sharon Hock...was not
> mentioned
> > as a factor in the Feb. 8, 2000, accident."
> >
> > Further: "The probable cause of the accident was Collins' "failure to
> > maintain clearance from the other airplane," said the NTSB report, which
> is
> > in line with a previous federal report outlining the facts of the
> accident."
> >
> > Additionally: ""Factors relating to the accident were the pilot's
> Collins']
> > poor visual lookout, and the . . . local controller's failure to provide
> > effective sequencing,"
> >
> > And: "Fowler (controller) said he told Hock to turn "based on his
estimate
> > of the elapsed time before losing sight of [her plane], and the pilot's
> > Collins) verbal report that he had crossed the shoreline.""
> >
> > You stated: "It is a class D airport. Controllers are not responsible
for
> > separation or sequencing at class D airports. A fact seemingly lost to
> many
> > pilots."
> >
> > However, both the NTSB and the controller indicated that "separation and
> > sequencing" were part of the controller's responsibilities at Waukegan.
>
> A lot of the findings go against FARs and what is written in the AIM. The
> report doesn't make sense in a lot of areas. I can't explain or
understand
> the government and quite honestly hope I never do.
>
> > Further: AIM 4-3-2 indicates that the tower at Class D airports will
> provide
> > traffic control in the Class D airspace.
>
> Give paragraph 3-2-5 a read. Very last sentence of that section.
>
>

[Dave Stadt]

"Bill Denton" > wrote in message
...
> Thanks for turning me on to AIM 4-3-2; it doesn't get much clearer than
> that.
>
> Is it possible that Waukegan has some special stuff going on because the
> center of the airport is only 2 nm from the Chicago Class B?

No. Flying into UGN is as normal as normal can be. The class B is at 3600
feet which isn't really a factor. At the time of the accident UGN had no
radar which makes the NTSB report even more absured. The accident was used
as justification to get tower radar.

> BTW: I'm not one of those "argument for argument's sake" dudes, I'm just
> trying to make sure I learn and thoroughly understand this stuff. Thanks
for
> your help!

Several years ago a flight of 52 near identical planes flew into Oshkosh as
a pretty tight gaggle. (Not during Airventure BTW) As we called in the
controller simply cleared each of us for landing. Didn't matter if someone
called in 10 miles out or 20 miles out, the response was "Cessna 12345
cleared to land." The controller made no attempt to sequence or separate
but simply stated "if you have to go around the procedure is such and such."
Really drove home the point we were each on our own as far as S & S was
concerned.

[jsmith]

Letters of Agreement with overlapping, adjacent ATC facilities, for instance.

Dave Stadt wrote:
> A lot of the findings go against FARs and what is written in the AIM. The
> report doesn't make sense in a lot of areas. I can't explain or understand
> the government and quite honestly hope I never do.