Mid-Air at Winter Haven

So, what technology gives the best fatality reduction per AMU? Shouldn't we pursue the most effective technology and not the least?
Radios? ADSB (Has the mid air rate gone down as ADSB equip rates have gone up?) Accurate fuel gauges? Medicals? Weather radar? More inspections? Ritalin? More training? Mandatory cog screen? Bucket hats?
 
Half Fast said:
No, it's really more simple than that. Do radios make us safer? Clearly, yes they do. Just how much safety we will never know, because most planes do have radios and avoided incidents are not reported. BUT, radios do add a layer of safety. Therefore, safety will increase if NORDO planes add radios.

That increase might be very small, some would say insignificant, but it might have been very significant to four people in Winter Haven.

If someone chooses to fly over Iowa cornfields NORDO, no big deal. But to fly NORDO in the Winter Haven airport area, when $200 handhelds are available, is poor judgment and creates an unneccessary additional risk.
Click to expand...
Someone once told me, "If you think there's a simple solution, you don't understand the problem." Or maybe I made it up.
Resources are finite. Resources directed to putting radios and transponders in can't be used elsewhere. And the question isn't just "Do radios make us safer?" It's more like "Given that most planes have radios already, and collisions with NORDO aircraft occur with some frequency, would requiring existing NORDO aircraft to equip with radios affect safety materially more than the alternative applications of the resources that would require?"

And don't forget that even airplanes that have radios aren't required to actually use them where this accident occurred.

As for the $200 handheld, is it waterproof? Are these cubs already equipped with intercoms? What range will it have without an external antenna?
 
Last edited:
RyanShort1 said:
Somebody count how many logical fallacies are in the post above.
Click to expand...

How about you listing them, rather than expecting us to do the detective work.

To start, you may have already committed one by “shifting the burden of proof”.

He who makes the assertion - in this case that there are “numerous logical fallacies in the post above” - bears the burden of proof. Unless you just wanted to give us a homework assignment, but don’t expect that to sit well with an adult audience.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
So, what technology gives the best fatality reduction per AMU? Shouldn't we pursue the most effective technology and not the least?
Radios? ADSB (Has the mid air rate gone down as ADSB equip rates have gone up?) Accurate fuel gauges? Medicals? Weather radar? More inspections? Ritalin? More training? Mandatory cog screen? Bucket hats?
Click to expand...
Depends on whose AMUs you're talking about.

From the point of view of the pilot's wallet, the best fatality reduction is the complete elimination of uncontrolled flight. Towers and radars at ALL airports, takeoff, landing, and all enroute actions controlled by ATC, NWS must certify that the weather is suitable for the requested flight, MDs must examine all pilots prior to takeoff and administer alcohol and drug tests, and FAA examiners must verify that the pilot has sufficient training and skill for each flight. All aircraft must have radios, transponders, and ADS-B.

After all, safety is 100% paramount...right? Of course, humans are still going to be humans. You'll see a reduction (not an elimination!) in Continued VFR into IFR Conditions, saving at the most 25-50 lives per year (all estimates are rough), 10-25 deaths due to pilot incapacitation per year, etc. But pilots are still going to mess up, and unless the feds have remote control the aircraft, they're still going to try to fly routes they shouldn't. Remember, all maintenance (other than Experimentals) is ALREADY controlled by FAA regulations, and is performed by FAA-licensed technicians.

If you're just wanting to reduce midairs, from the point of view of the pilot's wallet, the best approach is for the Government to supply, install, and maintain the equipment people insisting are necessary for safe flight. All the antique/classic aircraft get shielded magnetos and radios, all aircraft get transponders and ADS-B Out and In. There's about 4,000 Cubs on the registry and about 2,500 Aeronca Champs. Let's assume there are another few thousand odds and sods and that 10,000 airplanes need new mags, radios, and ADS B. $2,500 for the mags, $2,000 for the radio, $5,000 for the transponder (including labor). Round that up as well, and we're looking at $100M...a drop in the bucket, in the Federal budget, and it's (mostly) a one-time expenditure (you implement a requirement that new aircraft must include the equipment in their baseline cost). Double that to put transponders and ADS-B into the lucky few that don't have it already.

All to reduce...not eliminate, no way to guarantee that... about 20 deaths from midair collisions each year, or 0.35 deaths per year in midairs involving NORDO airplanes. Remember, some of the midairs are occurring at controlled fields, some are happening to aircraft operating at uncontrolled fields close to each other. Won't eliminate them all.

For those who are complaining about NORDO aircraft, the solution is simple: Walk up to the owners and say, "I'll pay for shielded mags, a radio, and ADS-B out". After all, if *they* don't feel endangered, why should they pay for equipment to make *you* feel safer?

Ron Wanttaja
 
Personal judgement is a right....Most DUI drivers don't feel endangered. The rest of society doesnt see it that way.

I have no problem with NORDOs as long as they have common sense pilots in them. I personally wouldnt fly that way in my location, couple counties over it really wouldnt bother me
 
Lindberg said:
Someone once told me, "If you think there's a simple solution, you don't understand the problem." Or maybe I made it up.
Resources are finite. Resources directed to putting radios and transponders in can't be used elsewhere. And the question isn't just "Do radios make us safer?" It's more like "Given that most planes have radios already, and collisions with NORDO aircraft occur with some frequency, would requiring existing NORDO aircraft to equip with radios affect safety materially more than the alternative applications of the resources that would require?"

And don't forget that even airplanes that have radios aren't required to actually use them where this accident occurred.

As for the $200 handheld, is it waterproof? Are these cubs already equipped with intercoms? What range will it have without an external antenna?
Click to expand...


Let's take all that a piece at a time.

1 - If you'll read my posts in this thread, I believe you'll see that I have not advocated for a reg requiring all planes to get radios. What I have said repeatedly is that it is extremely poor judgment to fly in a busy airport environment such as Winter Haven without one. I still so contend. Fly around Nowhere, South Dakota NORDO to your heart's content.

2 - The finite resources argument in this context is a joke, given what we all spend on everything from avgas to iPads to headsets. For Jack Brown's, it's even sillier. Last I knew, JB's operated 3 (now 2) Cubs, some other Piper (Super Cub, maybe?), a Maule, and an Icon. A few hundred bucks for two or three handhelds for their CFIs is a rounding error on their books. Heck, many pilots and CFIs already own one anyway.

3 - I'd be very surprised if the Cubs had intercoms. So what? While there are portable battery operated ICs available, an IC is not necessary for one of the people on board to be monitoring traffic and communicating as necessary.

4 - No, they're not waterproof, so don't drop it in the water. Charts and other items carried on board aren't waterproof either. If you're worried about it, a ziploc bag or some saran-wrap can offer a little protection. There are waterproof boxes available if you aren't quite so cheap, uh, "frugal."

5 - Range? I can hear KGIF from at least 15 miles on my Yaesu handheld (farthest I tried it), and I can be heard from at least 5 miles. Plenty good enough for pattern coordination.

6 - Nope, can't force people to use a radio even if they have one. Back to that "extremely poor judgment" thing I mentioned above. I'll note that the Warrior was making radio calls (there's a recording of the CTAF), so even if the Cub was just listening they would have known where the other plane was.
 
Half Fast said:
Let's take all that a piece at a time.

1 - If you'll read my posts in this thread, I believe you'll see that I have not advocated for a reg requiring all planes to get radios. What I have said repeatedly is that it is extremely poor judgment to fly in a busy airport environment such as Winter Haven without one. I still so contend. Fly around Nowhere, South Dakota NORDO to your heart's content.

2 - The finite resources argument in this context is a joke, given what we all spend on everything from avgas to iPads to headsets. For Jack Brown's, it's even sillier. Last I knew, JB's operated 3 (now 2) Cubs, some other Piper (Super Cub, maybe?), a Maule, and an Icon. A few hundred bucks for two or three handhelds for their CFIs is a rounding error on their books. Heck, many pilots and CFIs already own one anyway.

3 - I'd be very surprised if the Cubs had intercoms. So what? While there are portable battery operated ICs available, an IC is not necessary for one of the people on board to be monitoring traffic and communicating as necessary.

4 - No, they're not waterproof, so don't drop it in the water. Charts and other items carried on board aren't waterproof either. If you're worried about it, a ziploc bag or some saran-wrap can offer a little protection. There are waterproof boxes available if you aren't quite so cheap, uh, "frugal."

5 - Range? I can hear KGIF from at least 15 miles on my Yaesu handheld (farthest I tried it), and I can be heard from at least 5 miles. Plenty good enough for pattern coordination.

6 - Nope, can't force people to use a radio even if they have one. Back to that "extremely poor judgment" thing I mentioned above. I'll note that the Warrior was making radio calls (there's a recording of the CTAF), so even if the Cub was just listening they would have known where the other plane was.
Click to expand...
Well said.
 
Half Fast said:
Let's take all that a piece at a time.

1 - If you'll read my posts in this thread, I believe you'll see that I have not advocated for a reg requiring all planes to get radios. What I have said repeatedly is that it is extremely poor judgment to fly in a busy airport environment such as Winter Haven without one. I still so contend. Fly around Nowhere, South Dakota NORDO to your heart's content.

2 - The finite resources argument in this context is a joke, given what we all spend on everything from avgas to iPads to headsets. For Jack Brown's, it's even sillier. Last I knew, JB's operated 3 (now 2) Cubs, some other Piper (Super Cub, maybe?), a Maule, and an Icon. A few hundred bucks for two or three handhelds for their CFIs is a rounding error on their books. Heck, many pilots and CFIs already own one anyway.

3 - I'd be very surprised if the Cubs had intercoms. So what? While there are portable battery operated ICs available, an IC is not necessary for one of the people on board to be monitoring traffic and communicating as necessary.

4 - No, they're not waterproof, so don't drop it in the water. Charts and other items carried on board aren't waterproof either. If you're worried about it, a ziploc bag or some saran-wrap can offer a little protection. There are waterproof boxes available if you aren't quite so cheap, uh, "frugal."

5 - Range? I can hear KGIF from at least 15 miles on my Yaesu handheld (farthest I tried it), and I can be heard from at least 5 miles. Plenty good enough for pattern coordination.

6 - Nope, can't force people to use a radio even if they have one. Back to that "extremely poor judgment" thing I mentioned above. I'll note that the Warrior was making radio calls (there's a recording of the CTAF), so even if the Cub was just listening they would have known where the other plane was.
Click to expand...
The majority of midair collisions don't happen in traffic patterns, so are you just trying to solve this one crash? Because it's too late for that. Charts are cheap. Radios are not. I'm not going to put one in a seaplane that's going to be toast the first time it gets wet (probably the first flight).
 
Lindberg said:
The majority of midair collisions don't happen in traffic patterns,
Click to expand...

No, they don't happen in traffic patterns, since pattern traffic is moving in a known direction with known and predictable turns.

The majority do happen in the vicinity of airports, as that's where planes congregate and there's a higher traffic density. I will note that in this case the Cub was NOT in the traffic pattern.


Lindberg said:
I'm not going to put one in a seaplane that's going to be toast the first time it gets wet (probably the first flight).
Click to expand...


That's your call. Fly NORDO all you like. My only request is that you stay away from very busy airports. Especially, don't fly through an airport's pattern going in the opposite direction at near pattern altitude.
 
Lindberg said:
I'm not going to put one in a seaplane that's going to be toast the first time it gets wet (probably the first flight).
Click to expand...
Why would a radio in a seaplane get wet? My $1000 headset doesn't. My phone doesn't. The portable intercoms in the Jack Brown Cubs don't. They're planes, not submarines.
 
Half Fast said:
No, they don't happen in traffic patterns, since pattern traffic is moving in a known direction with known and predictable turns.

The majority do happen in the vicinity of airports, as that's where planes congregate and there's a higher traffic density. I will note that in this case the Cub was NOT in the traffic pattern.
Click to expand...

Actually, if you plot the data out, it gets kind of interesting. I took the NTSB's terminology and combined it a bit:
midair phase2.JPG
It's a roughly 1/3rd breakdown... about a third of midairs happen in the pattern, about half En Route, and about half "Maneuvering." The in-pattern ones should be obvious, as are the en-route ones, but the "Maneuvering" ones are interesting.

Usual practice for the NTSB is to list the distance from the nearest airport. The majority are not that close. There's one listed a half-mile away (aircraft entering pattern in non standard way, helicopter landing at a hospital helipad ERA11FA101A). There's one two miles, one three miles, and the rest seem to be further out. For the most part, pilot's stink at eyeballing distances and bearings. Someone that calls "Five miles northwest" may well not be either five miles nor northwest of the airport. ADS-B Out and In are probably the only way to get a better feel for where other planes are. But most of the formation/Balbo accidents, gliders and balloons bumping into each other, planes blundering into aerobatic boxes, etc. fall under the "Maneuvering" heading.

There are also at least one other case of planes operating from adjacent airport running into each other, similar to what happened in Florida.

Ron Wanttaja
 
Salty said:
I’m not sure radios make any difference. I hear calls at kgif all the time that give me no useful information on where the aircraft is. Perhaps them being able to hear me helps. Dunno.
Click to expand...
Nordo has its place, but not there. If the cub had a transponder and a radio, everyone would probably be alive today. I have had discussions with the NORDO crowd and it has not gone well. No excuse for it with the electronics of today. I have stopped flying to local flyins because of all of the NORDO traffic.
 
Lindberg said:
Someone once told me, "If you think there's a simple solution, you don't understand the problem." Or maybe I made it up.
Resources are finite. Resources directed to putting radios and transponders in can't be used elsewhere. And the question isn't just "Do radios make us safer?" It's more like "Given that most planes have radios already, and collisions with NORDO aircraft occur with some frequency, would requiring existing NORDO aircraft to equip with radios affect safety materially more than the alternative applications of the resources that would require?"

And don't forget that even airplanes that have radios aren't required to actually use them where this accident occurred.

As for the $200 handheld, is it waterproof? Are these cubs already equipped with intercoms? What range will it have without an external antenna?
Click to expand...

No 2- way radio required.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/225479110570?hash=item347f9a2faa:g:2OcAAOSwQCZkD48v
https://www.ebay.com/itm/334795011080?hash=item4df3567408:g:KYkAAOSw2qNkFLO0&amdata=enc:AQAHAAAAwNAvnYFRl8cD9dSZy2rfYdR7QjCTwuZL+VNyy8Xm+z6b3dbOqs4PKrXq+Lw+RllvCa6fHrlub38mqKefQGSPc1dP5SiSojm10KhNAzQ987Jr/yGI9Gfd/hEQgKMTr6f/SohVRWcEO0TsuDTbXqlVz9Bc5L8q5ktuHdSoByqTefofHyQMLm44FzeCvZuLeU9toMzk4QqX8TJKy6gJzbH5gx/yae+ibe91NJgenlIjQUZXC5ooigt/CjFa1TezLHOkJg==|tkp:Bk9SR9S12fPeYQ
$150 and ATC could have told the Warrior "traffic at 10 oclock, Type unknown" Warrior, "No joy". ATC " deviate 20 degrees to your right for traffic" And a family still has a child. And no orphans either.
A lot cheaper than funerals and lawyers.
The rules of conduct require me to let it go with this.
 
Last edited:
Morgan3820 said:
$150 and ATC could have told the Warrior "traffic at 10 oclock, Type unknown" Warrior, "No joy". ATC " deviate 20 degrees to your right for traffic" And a family still has a child. And no orphans either.
Click to expand...
What ATC? Two VFR planes at a non-controlled airport.
 
Punkinhead said:
What ATC? Two VFR planes at a non-controlled airport.
Click to expand...
And...I have to again point out that I'm based on an uncontrolled field surrounded by three towered ones. The instructors bring their students to our airport for practice, and shut their radios off because it's too distracting.

I actually kind of like this. Trains the students to use the radio as a tool, not a crutch.

Ron Wanttaja
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
So, what technology gives the best fatality reduction per AMU? Shouldn't we pursue the most effective technology and not the least?
Radios? ADSB (Has the mid air rate gone down as ADSB equip rates have gone up?) Accurate fuel gauges? Medicals? Weather radar? More inspections? Ritalin? More training? Mandatory cog screen? Bucket hats?
Click to expand...

my guess....
lights. Massive bright flashing wig wag lights all around. lots of them.

radios.....nah, not the solution. Yeah it might have clued someone in that somebody was somewhere nearby working a pattern...but what pattern? high, low, wide, close? On base...... but is that 'on' base, or turning base, or about to turn base. More confusion abounds from radio calls in my opinion.

ADS-b.... I'm old school and it seems to me that stuff promotes looking inside and down...not where a pilot in a VFR pattern should be looking. Yes, I can certainly see they have a place and are HUGELY useful, but

smoke oil.... yeah, that might help in this sort of situation.
 
Brad W said:
Yeah it might have clued someone in that somebody was somewhere nearby working a pattern
Click to expand...


Uh, no. Not nearly that vague.

Listen to the CTAF recording. It would have clued in the Cub that a Warrior was on downwind and then turning base for runway 29. The Cub was close to pattern altitude off the end of that runway. Had the Cub pilots been listening, they would have known they were in a very very bad place.
 
Brad W said:
my guess....
lights. Massive bright flashing wig wag lights all around. lots of them.
Click to expand...
One of our Fly Baby guys installed high-intensity LED strips in the leading edges of both wings. Seems like a wig/wag circuit wouldn't be too difficult. Does require an airplane with an electrical system, though.
Half Fast said:
Interestingly enough, we also have a sky writer at KGIF who flies an AgCat. He often gives a puff when turning base or final. Makes him real easy to spot!
Click to expand...
I've considered that. My only concern is bad public relations for an uncontrolled airport in the middle of a built-up town... letting off a streamer of smoke to let another pilot know where I'm at. The trouble is, 911 would probably be inundated with calls about an airplane on fire.

Then again, they'd probably be REAL upset with two plane's worth of wreckage crashing down on them.

Tried out a new headset today, ended up reminded this thread. The new headset had bad sound quality in the headphones, and the sidetone made it sound like my transmission quality stunk, too. Frankly, my homemade headsets work a lot better. Whole lot of being REALLY careful to spot other aircraft, and assume they might turn in on me....

Ron Wanttaja
 
Half Fast said:
The Cub was close to pattern altitude off the end of that runway. Had the Cub pilots been listening, they would have known they were in a very very bad place.
Click to expand...

I agree with your argument about radios ... but shouldn't the Cub pilots have known they were in a potentially bad place anyways?
 
Brad W said:
my guess....
lights. Massive bright flashing wig wag lights all around. lots of them.

radios.....nah, not the solution. Yeah it might have clued someone in that somebody was somewhere nearby working a pattern...but what pattern? high, low, wide, close? On base...... but is that 'on' base, or turning base, or about to turn base. More confusion abounds from radio calls in my opinion.

ADS-b.... I'm old school and it seems to me that stuff promotes looking inside and down...not where a pilot in a VFR pattern should be looking. Yes, I can certainly see they have a place and are HUGELY useful, but

smoke oil.... yeah, that might help in this sort of situation.
Click to expand...
"old school" I have not seen a lot of traffic, even with ATC calling it out to me, even with three poeple looking. How much more would I have missed being "old school"?

Every pilot has an absolute duty to use every means available to them to maximise safety within the airspace that they fly. Or do you disagree? If so, Help me understand that logic. Convince me that my statement is wrong.
 
Half Fast said:
Uh, no. Not nearly that vague.

Listen to the CTAF recording. It would have clued in the Cub that a Warrior was on downwind and then turning base for runway 29. The Cub was close to pattern altitude off the end of that runway. Had the Cub pilots been listening, they would have known they were in a very very bad place.
Click to expand...

sorry. I meant that more generically....not specific to this accident exactly. Yes I get that in this case there was a call....and hearing that call would have clued the Cub into at least knowing there was someone in the pattern and roughly were in the pattern they might be.

My point is that a lot of radio calls are poorly made, poorly timed, and even downright just useless. (& i'm not trying to say I'm in favor of NORDO operations necessarily...personally I see no point in not having at least a handheld) but Knowing someone is turning base to final gives us a very general direction to look, but an aircraft base to final could be anywhere in a very large piece of sky. Not necessarily all that helpful.
 
Ed Haywood said:
I agree with your argument about radios ... but shouldn't the Cub pilots have known they were in a potentially bad place anyways?
Click to expand...

Yes, they should have. But,....

Earlier in the day runway 5 was in use, then some pilots were using 29 and some were using 5. Runway 5 is the light wind runway. It's possible (but unknown) that the Cub guys thought 5 was in use, and they were safely away from the runway 5 pattern. That's nothing more than a guess, and worth less than you paid for it.
 
Brad W said:
...but an aircraft base to final could be anywhere in a very large piece of sky.
Click to expand...


True, and I understand your point. But I think I'd try not to be anywhere near pattern altitude in that very large piece of sky.
 
Brad W said:
sorry. I meant that more generically....not specific to this accident exactly. Yes I get that in this case there was a call....and hearing that call would have clued the Cub into at least knowing there was someone in the pattern and roughly were in the pattern they might be.

My point is that a lot of radio calls are poorly made, poorly timed, and even downright just useless. (& i'm not trying to say I'm in favor of NORDO operations necessarily...personally I see no point in not having at least a handheld) but Knowing someone is turning base to final gives us a very general direction to look, but an aircraft base to final could be anywhere in a very large piece of sky. Not necessarily all that helpful.
Click to expand...
But, a whole lot better than nothing. People don't always use turn signals on cars correctly. But should we not have them? I for one am happy that NORDO is becoming less common.
 
Half Fast said:
Yes, they should have. But,....

Earlier in the day runway 5 was in use, then some pilots were using 29 and some were using 5. Runway 5 is the light wind runway. It's possible (but unknown) that the Cub guys thought 5 was in use, and they were safely away from the runway 5 pattern. That's nothing more than a guess, and worth less than you paid for it.
Click to expand...

And if the Cub pilot had a radio he would have known which runway was being used.

I appreciate the purists who want to fly a classic plane equipped with state of the art 1938 avionics. Like the classic car caravans/rally’s where 100 model T’s or similar drive the coast road or the freeway for their club. Thing is, when they do that, the road is generally closed or they have police escorts so people in 2023 Chargers don’t run them off the road.

A portable battery operated sentry adsb-in, an ipad so the Cub pilot can see the traffic around him and a battery operated radio would have been enough to provide the Cub pilot with all of the situation awareness he may need and allow him to adjust his flight plan accordingly. Not perfect for sure, but better than nothing.

If I was local to the area, there’s no way I would fly to Winterhaven knowing there were a bunch of planes flying in close proximity to the pattern in stealth mode.
 
Last edited:
Morgan3820 said:
No 2- way radio required.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/225479110570?hash=item347f9a2faa:g:2OcAAOSwQCZkD48v
https://www.ebay.com/itm/334795011080?hash=item4df3567408:g:KYkAAOSw2qNkFLO0&amdata=enc:AQAHAAAAwNAvnYFRl8cD9dSZy2rfYdR7QjCTwuZL+VNyy8Xm+z6b3dbOqs4PKrXq+Lw+RllvCa6fHrlub38mqKefQGSPc1dP5SiSojm10KhNAzQ987Jr/yGI9Gfd/hEQgKMTr6f/SohVRWcEO0TsuDTbXqlVz9Bc5L8q5ktuHdSoByqTefofHyQMLm44FzeCvZuLeU9toMzk4QqX8TJKy6gJzbH5gx/yae+ibe91NJgenlIjQUZXC5ooigt/CjFa1TezLHOkJg==|tkp:Bk9SR9S12fPeYQ
$150 and ATC could have told the Warrior "traffic at 10 oclock, Type unknown" Warrior, "No joy". ATC " deviate 20 degrees to your right for traffic" And a family still has a child. And no orphans either.
A lot cheaper than funerals and lawyers.
The rules of conduct require me to let it go with this.
Click to expand...
I guess that's a start. You also need an altitude encoder. And maybe an engine swap for one with an electrical system. And the warrior would have needed to be talking to ATC while in the traffic pattern at an untowered field.

People die every day, and even in the dangerous sport we call general aviation, this is not a common way they do it.
 
Last edited:
Lindberg said:
I guess that's a start. Your also need an altitude encoder. And maybe an engine swap for one with an electrical system. And the warrior would have needed to be taking to ATC while in the traffic pattern at an untowered field.

People die every day, and even in the dangerous sport we call general aviation, this is not a common way they do it.
Click to expand...

You're right. Let's not bother trying to make it a little safer. Que Sera Sera -
 
Lindberg said:
I guess that's a start. You also need an altitude encoder. And maybe an engine swap for one with an electrical system. And the warrior would have needed to be talking to ATC while in the traffic pattern at an untowered field.

People die every day, and even in the dangerous sport we call general aviation, this is not a common way they do it.
Click to expand...
I am sure that the families of the newly dead would find comfort in your words.
 
Craziness…..pilots advocating for more rules….especially people who have never flown nordo….or even been to jack browns/Winterhaven. Government faa rules do not make things better or safer. I almost always agree with the majority on this site….most of all i like the debates.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top