I just brought my plane back from annual. Apparently the shop forgot to
put the transponder antenna back on. I was impressed with how easy ATC
made flying IFR w/o the transponder. They did not require me to give
the full non-radar reports. They just asked me to verify my altitude
and report certain intersections. Some of the time they were able to
radar ID me based on my primary target but other times they claim they
didn't see anything.
I had to fly IFR once before w/o the mode C (it broke in flight) but
this was the first time w/o any trasponder.

-Robert

Robert M. Gary wrote:

> I had to fly IFR once before w/o the mode C (it broke in flight) but
> this was the first time w/o any trasponder.

Back before 9-11 I got to fly a few times in the Washington Class B
with no transponder. To cap it off the IAD primary radar was out (i.e.,
if you didn't have a transponder, you were invisible to them).

Of course, these days you'd get shot at if you tried such a thing here.

Robert M. Gary > wrote:
> I had to fly IFR once before w/o the mode C (it broke in flight) but
> this was the first time w/o any trasponder.

Around New York, there are a few places they pretty routinely lose
radar contact if you're down low (around Madison VOR and out near
Huegenot). It doesn't seem to bother them one bit.
PTA-whatever-it-is? Feh, they just ask you to report the next
waypoint and everybody's happy.

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
>
> Around New York, there are a few places they pretty routinely lose
> radar contact if you're down low (around Madison VOR and out near
> Huegenot). It doesn't seem to bother them one bit.
> PTA-whatever-it-is? Feh, they just ask you to report the next
> waypoint and everybody's happy.
>

PTAPTP

Position Time Altitude Position Time Position

"...Apparently the shop forgot to put the transponder antenna back
on..."

And you trust this shop to have your aircraft entirely complete why??

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> I just brought my plane back from annual. Apparently the shop forgot to
> put the transponder antenna back on. I was impressed with how easy ATC
> made flying IFR w/o the transponder. They did not require me to give
> the full non-radar reports. They just asked me to verify my altitude
> and report certain intersections. Some of the time they were able to
> radar ID me based on my primary target but other times they claim they
> didn't see anything.
> I had to fly IFR once before w/o the mode C (it broke in flight) but
> this was the first time w/o any trasponder.
>
> -Robert

I didn't get to make that decision until have I already took off. I
never thought to do an antenna inventory before departure. I did decowl
the plane though and make sure everything was connected.

Roy Smith wrote:

> Robert M. Gary > wrote:
>> I had to fly IFR once before w/o the mode C (it broke in flight) but
>> this was the first time w/o any trasponder.
>
> Around New York, there are a few places they pretty routinely lose
> radar contact if you're down low (around Madison VOR and out near
> Huegenot). It doesn't seem to bother them one bit.
> PTA-whatever-it-is? Feh, they just ask you to report the next
> waypoint and everybody's happy.

Millville has an approach that's non-RADAR. Where else?

- Andrew

Andrew Gideon wrote:
> Roy Smith wrote:
>
>
>>Robert M. Gary > wrote:
>>
>>>I had to fly IFR once before w/o the mode C (it broke in flight) but
>>>this was the first time w/o any trasponder.
>>
>>Around New York, there are a few places they pretty routinely lose
>>radar contact if you're down low (around Madison VOR and out near
>>Huegenot). It doesn't seem to bother them one bit.
>>PTA-whatever-it-is? Feh, they just ask you to report the next
>>waypoint and everybody's happy.
>
>
> Millville has an approach that's non-RADAR. Where else?

Helena, MT

In article >,
Newps > wrote:
>
>
>Andrew Gideon wrote:
>> Roy Smith wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Robert M. Gary > wrote:
>>>
>>>>I had to fly IFR once before w/o the mode C (it broke in flight) but
>>>>this was the first time w/o any trasponder.
>>>
>>>Around New York, there are a few places they pretty routinely lose
>>>radar contact if you're down low (around Madison VOR and out near
>>>Huegenot). It doesn't seem to bother them one bit.
>>>PTA-whatever-it-is? Feh, they just ask you to report the next
>>>waypoint and everybody's happy.
>>
>>
>> Millville has an approach that's non-RADAR. Where else?
>
>Helena, MT

Santa Fe, NM. Although towered, SAF does not have radar. Rather, it's
covered by Albuquerque Center, which clears you for the approach and
then hands you off to the tower.

-- Dane

"Dane Spearing" > wrote in message
...
>
> Santa Fe, NM. Although towered, SAF does not have radar. Rather, it's
> covered by Albuquerque Center, which clears you for the approach and
> then hands you off to the tower.
>

That's not a manual approach control, it's just a VFR tower with approach
control services provided by Center.

> Santa Fe, NM. Although towered, SAF does not have radar. Rather, it's
> covered by Albuquerque Center, which clears you for the approach and
> then hands you off to the tower.
>
> -- Dane

I don't know if that counts. How many class D airports do have radar?
40% maybe? Most work as you describe. Approach is still watching over
you.
-Robert

Robert M. Gary wrote:

>
>> Santa Fe, NM. Although towered, SAF does not have radar. Rather, it's
>> covered by Albuquerque Center, which clears you for the approach and
>> then hands you off to the tower.
>>
>> -- Dane
>
> I don't know if that counts. How many class D airports do have radar?
> 40% maybe? Most work as you describe. Approach is still watching over
> you.

The situation at Millville is different. One cannot be vectored for the
approach there as RADAR doesn't go so low. So one must follow the full
approach non-RADAR.

Flying a full approach is something we can request anywhere, but the places
around here where it's necessary are - in my small experience - few. Any
others around here?

- Andrew

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
online.com...
>
> The situation at Millville is different. One cannot be vectored for the
> approach there as RADAR doesn't go so low. So one must follow the full
> approach non-RADAR.
>
> Flying a full approach is something we can request anywhere, but the
> places
> around here where it's necessary are - in my small experience - few. Any
> others around here?
>

There are many out there.