I need to get a biannual transponder check. I would like to do it
October 1st instead of sometime near the end of September to get an
"extra" month the next time around. The FARs say that I can operate
without a transponder in the airspace where a Mode C transponder is
normally required by requesting an ATC deviation. I would fly the
aircraft with the transponder off, VFR, from Torrance, CA airport to
Hawthorne, CA airport, about 4 miles away where the pitot static and
transponder check is to be made. The pitot static test is not a
problem as it is only required to be current if the aircraft is to be
flown under IFR.

The FAR text regarding flight without an "operable" transponder is:
(d) ATC authorized deviations. Requests for ATC authorized
deviations
must be made to the ATC facility having jurisdiction over the
concerned
airspace within the time periods specified as follows:
(1) For operation of an aircraft with an operating transponder but
without
operating automatic pressure altitude reporting equipment having a
Mode C
capability, the request may be made at any time.
(2) For operation of an aircraft with an inoperative transponder
to the
airport of ultimate destination, including any intermediate stops,
or to
proceed to a place where suitable repairs can be made or both, the
request
may be made at any time.

I would be requesting under (d) (2). It I take off from Torrance
Airport that is Class C airspace, I guess that would be the immediate
ATC jusrisdiction. But I am also under the Class B airspace of LAX
where a transponder is also required. It it sufficient to get an O.K.
from Torrance tower?

On 13 Sep 2004 09:24:55 -0700, (flyer) wrote:

>I need to get a biannual transponder check. I would like to do it
>October 1st instead of sometime near the end of September to get an
>"extra" month the next time around. The FARs say that I can operate
>without a transponder in the airspace where a Mode C transponder is
>normally required by requesting an ATC deviation. I would fly the
>aircraft with the transponder off, VFR, from Torrance, CA airport to
>Hawthorne, CA airport, about 4 miles away where the pitot static and
>transponder check is to be made. The pitot static test is not a
>problem as it is only required to be current if the aircraft is to be
>flown under IFR.
>
>The FAR text regarding flight without an "operable" transponder is:
> (d) ATC authorized deviations. Requests for ATC authorized
>deviations
> must be made to the ATC facility having jurisdiction over the
>concerned
> airspace within the time periods specified as follows:
> (1) For operation of an aircraft with an operating transponder but
>without
> operating automatic pressure altitude reporting equipment having a
>Mode C
> capability, the request may be made at any time.
> (2) For operation of an aircraft with an inoperative transponder
>to the
> airport of ultimate destination, including any intermediate stops,
>or to
> proceed to a place where suitable repairs can be made or both, the
>request
> may be made at any time.
>
>I would be requesting under (d) (2). It I take off from Torrance
>Airport that is Class C airspace, I guess that would be the immediate
>ATC jusrisdiction. But I am also under the Class B airspace of LAX
>where a transponder is also required. It it sufficient to get an O.K.
>from Torrance tower?


If you're really concerned with adhering to the letter of the law when
out of inspection for just one day, I'd call my local FSDO and get a
ferry permit. Then you can use the transponder during the flight, not
need a waiver, and be ok.

HTH.
z

(flyer) wrote

> I need to get a biannual transponder check.

Nope! You need a "24 month" transponder check.
Biannual means twice-a-year.

Bob Moore
ATP CFI

"Bob Moore" > wrote in message
. 172...
> > I need to get a biannual transponder check.
>
> Nope! You need a "24 month" transponder check.
> Biannual means twice-a-year.

You need to get off that horse; it's a little too high. "Biannual" means
both twice a year, and biennial.

biannual or biennial
A biannual event happens twice a year: We make a biannual visit to the
in-laws: once at Christmas and again in the summer. A biennial event happens
every two years: The school was due for its biennial inspection. (A biennial
plant lasts two years.)

Peter,

I have not seen any other definition for biannual, but that would not
surprise me. I did quote from an online dictionary (see below). Biannual =
twice per year, Biennial = every 2 years. Does FAA wording refer to Biannual
or Biennial?



My source was:

http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/dictionaries/english/data/d0081646.html

Also, according to Webster's, biannual is twice a year:

http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/biannual

MSN Encarta seems to support the same definition as above:
http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861590290/biannual.html

"zatatime" > wrote in message
...
> On 13 Sep 2004 09:24:55 -0700, (flyer) wrote:
>
>>I need to get a biannual transponder check. I would like to do it
>>October 1st instead of sometime near the end of September to get an
>>"extra" month the next time around. The FARs say that I can operate
>>without a transponder in the airspace where a Mode C transponder is
>>normally required by requesting an ATC deviation. I would fly the
>>aircraft with the transponder off, VFR, from Torrance, CA airport to
>>Hawthorne, CA airport, about 4 miles away where the pitot static and
>>transponder check is to be made. The pitot static test is not a
>>problem as it is only required to be current if the aircraft is to be
>>flown under IFR.
>
> If you're really concerned with adhering to the letter of the law when
> out of inspection for just one day, I'd call my local FSDO and get a
> ferry permit. Then you can use the transponder during the flight, not
> need a waiver, and be ok.

Come on... Just use the transponder for the short trip. The transponder (and
ATC) doesn't know it has been two years since it has been checked and will
still work on October 1st just like it did/does on September 30th.

Either that, or just take the plane over on the 30th and have the work done
and signed off on the 1st.

On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 23:29:07 GMT, "rv9er" > wrote:

>. Does FAA wording refer to Biannual
>or Biennial?

FAA wording in 91.413 is "24 calendar months".

"rv9er" > wrote
> I have not seen any other definition for biannual, but that would not
> surprise me. I did quote from an online dictionary (see below).
> Biannual = twice per year, Biennial = every 2 years. Does FAA wording
> refer to Biannual or Biennial?

FAR states "within the preceding 24 calender months".

Bob Moore

Specifically to prevent threads like the one we have just endured.


Bob Moore > wrote in
72:

> "rv9er" > wrote
>> I have not seen any other definition for biannual, but that would not
>> surprise me. I did quote from an online dictionary (see below).
>> Biannual = twice per year, Biennial = every 2 years. Does FAA wording
>> refer to Biannual or Biennial?
>
> FAR states "within the preceding 24 calender months".
>
> Bob Moore
>

Peter Duniho wrote:

> American Heritage
> Merriam-Webster

Maybe, but to me, the only authoritative source is the Oxford English
Dictionary (the big one), which states:

biennial (Origin: Latin biennium, space of two years)
1. Existing or lasting for two years; changed every two years.
2. Recurring, happening, or taking place once in every two years.

biannual
Used as = Half-yearly.

with no alternatives.

Interesting are the references to the first occurences:
biennial: 1621
biannual: 1877


Stefan

"Stefan" > wrote in message
...
> Maybe, but to me, the only authoritative source is the Oxford English
> Dictionary (the big one)

When you get every single English-speaking person to agree with you that
that's "the only authoritative source", then maybe you'll have something.

Until then, you'll just have to accept that not only do some people use
biannual to mean every two years, there are dictionaries considered just as
authoritative by others that agree with those people.

The thing I find most ironic (the proper use of that word, by the way) is
that idiotic and petty corrections of a person's English are not only
tolerated, but when someone tries to point out that the corrections aren't
even correct, that someone is criticized. Never mind that the original post
purporting to correct the original person's English is out of place and out
of line. And yet, corrections regarding how a trim system works are met
with disdain and argumentativeness.

It's amazing what passes for "good newsgroup fodder" around here.
Apparently bogus grammar corrections are in, on-topic airplane control
comments are out. I forget, what newsgroup is this again?

Cheers,
Pete