New Nationwide Squawk Code [Archive]

Frank Whiteley

April 2nd 10, 07:09 PM

On Apr 2, 11:56*am, Greg Arnold > wrote:
> On 4/2/2010 10:52 AM, Frank Whiteley wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 2, 11:42 am, > *wrote:
> >> SoaringNV is sponsoring a Minden Wave Camp this week. *As part of our
> >> camp we have invited the tower controllers from Reno TRACON to talk to
> >> us about communication with them, something we do for every camp. *We
> >> learned, quite inadvertantly, that a nationwide transponder squawk
> >> code has been assigned to gliders: 1201.
>
> >> SO, from now on your transponder should be set to squawk 1201 anywhere
> >> in the US (including the Reno airspace, where we have used a different
> >> squawk code by agreement between PASCO and the controllers.)
>
> >> Please use 1201 squawk code in your glider transponder.
>
> >> Fred LaSor
> >> SoaringNV
> >> 775 790-4314
> >> Minden, NV
>
> > Referenced here
>
> >http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/JO%207110.66D%20.pdf
>
> This has been the law since November, and no one has known about it?

Para 4 may give some indication as it cancels a long standing order.

I wonder if the discrete 440 was still being used out of Reno even
after this order appeared?

Maybe someone in the field finally used it. At least we now. It will
be interesting to see happens in centers when the 1201 code starts
appearing. Some will need to go to the bookshelf.

jcarlyle

April 2nd 10, 07:13 PM

Man! Talk about keeping things under the radar! Why did the FAA not
let the glider community know about this??

-John

On Apr 2, 12:52 pm, Frank Whiteley > wrote:
> Referenced here
>
> http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/JO%207110.66D%20.pdf

Greg Arnold[_3_]

April 2nd 10, 07:14 PM

On 4/2/2010 11:09 AM, Frank Whiteley wrote:
> On Apr 2, 11:56 am, Greg > wrote:
>> On 4/2/2010 10:52 AM, Frank Whiteley wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 2, 11:42 am, > wrote:
>>>> SoaringNV is sponsoring a Minden Wave Camp this week. As part of our
>>>> camp we have invited the tower controllers from Reno TRACON to talk to
>>>> us about communication with them, something we do for every camp. We
>>>> learned, quite inadvertantly, that a nationwide transponder squawk
>>>> code has been assigned to gliders: 1201.
>>
>>>> SO, from now on your transponder should be set to squawk 1201 anywhere
>>>> in the US (including the Reno airspace, where we have used a different
>>>> squawk code by agreement between PASCO and the controllers.)
>>
>>>> Please use 1201 squawk code in your glider transponder.
>>
>>>> Fred LaSor
>>>> SoaringNV
>>>> 775 790-4314
>>>> Minden, NV
>>
>>> Referenced here
>>
>>> http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/JO%207110.66D%20.pdf
>>
>> This has been the law since November, and no one has known about it?
>
> Para 4 may give some indication as it cancels a long standing order.
>
> I wonder if the discrete 440 was still being used out of Reno even
> after this order appeared?
>
> Maybe someone in the field finally used it. At least we now. It will
> be interesting to see happens in centers when the 1201 code starts
> appearing. Some will need to go to the bookshelf.

Isn't the SSA in contact with the FAA about this type of thing?
Shouldn't the SSA have let us know?

Frank Whiteley

April 2nd 10, 07:24 PM

On Apr 2, 12:14*pm, Greg Arnold > wrote:
> On 4/2/2010 11:09 AM, Frank Whiteley wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 2, 11:56 am, Greg > *wrote:
> >> On 4/2/2010 10:52 AM, Frank Whiteley wrote:
>
> >>> On Apr 2, 11:42 am, > * *wrote:
> >>>> SoaringNV is sponsoring a Minden Wave Camp this week. *As part of our
> >>>> camp we have invited the tower controllers from Reno TRACON to talk to
> >>>> us about communication with them, something we do for every camp. *We
> >>>> learned, quite inadvertantly, that a nationwide transponder squawk
> >>>> code has been assigned to gliders: 1201.
>
> >>>> SO, from now on your transponder should be set to squawk 1201 anywhere
> >>>> in the US (including the Reno airspace, where we have used a different
> >>>> squawk code by agreement between PASCO and the controllers.)
>
> >>>> Please use 1201 squawk code in your glider transponder.
>
> >>>> Fred LaSor
> >>>> SoaringNV
> >>>> 775 790-4314
> >>>> Minden, NV
>
> >>> Referenced here
>
> >>>http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/JO%207110.66D%20.pdf
>
> >> This has been the law since November, and no one has known about it?
>
> > Para 4 may give some indication as it cancels a long standing order.
>
> > I wonder if the discrete 440 was still being used out of Reno even
> > after this order appeared?
>
> > Maybe someone in the field finally used it. *At least we now. *It will
> > be interesting to see happens in centers when the 1201 code starts
> > appearing. *Some will need to go to the bookshelf.
>
> Isn't the SSA in contact with the FAA about this type of thing?
> Shouldn't the SSA have let us know?

The SSA was tracking this with the expectation that code 0000 might be
assigned in February as was announced. SSA later announced that 0000
would not be used and that 1201 was being considered, but that was the
latest word, which was after the date of this order. If you've ever
been in the federal government or the military you might understand
that the new order replaced the old order, but no one was particularly
screening such orders for niche changes, despite the fact this
particular item was bolded in the order. At the SSB seminar,
transponders were discussed at length and a surprising number of
attendees raised their hands when asked if they flew with
transponders. None commented about this assignment and several are
high time commercial pilots. Not clear where the conversation broke
down, but the word's out now. Thanks Fred.

Frank Whiteley

Mike Mike Ground

April 2nd 10, 08:50 PM

On Apr 2, 10:42*am, Fred > wrote:
> SoaringNV is sponsoring a Minden Wave Camp this week. *As part of our
> camp we have invited the tower controllers from Reno TRACON to talk to
> us about communication with them, something we do for every camp. *We
> learned, quite inadvertantly, that a nationwide transponder squawk
> code has been assigned to gliders: 1201.
>
> SO, from now on your transponder should be set to squawk 1201 anywhere
> in the US (including the Reno airspace, where we have used a different
> squawk code by agreement between PASCO and the controllers.)
>
> Please use 1201 squawk code in your glider transponder.
>
> Fred LaSor
> SoaringNV
> 775 790-4314
> Minden, NV

Thanks for breaking this news, Fred.

I’m also surprised the SSA wasn’t on top of this. Did the RNO
controllers mention any other changes to the PASCO procedures that we
have been using in the Reno area for the past few years?

Michael Mitton

CindyB[_2_]

April 2nd 10, 09:40 PM

Fred:

Thanks for posting, but don't everybody jump the gun.

SSA had started this request for a national code, about EIGHT YEARS
ago.
Following the NTSB recommendations following the Hawker incident, the
FAA
finally got off the dime. They had told usin Feb 2009 this was
underway -
but NOT that it had been published and hit the streets.

Local soaring organizations should CONTACT their local ATC friends to
inquire as
to what the local ATC would now like to do..... keep their current
agreement,
or switch to using the nationally assigned VFR code. There may be
local
advantages to having the local agreements continue.

Please COORDINATE locally, to not make for any confusion in local
relationships.

An article has been posted to the SSA website, to further elaborate on
this
nice new development. Please consider fully the implications and
obligations
of using the glider code, and using see-and-avoid regardless. Having
a transponder
on and working, is not full protection from mid-airs.

Why didn't SSA 'know" about this coming active?
Because a few of us don't have the hours in the dark of night to read
ALL the
continuing flow of federal publications, and still be able to get to
work in daylight.
(Maybe I am qualified to be a congressional representative? ;-) )
And, the Feds didn't drop us a phone call to advise us.

Kind of like the same favorable change in data plate requirements.
SSA asked for it, repeatedly.
When it finally got shoveled off someone's desk, they were done
and no one told SSA about it.

Thanks for helping us find things as they enter the real world.

Cindy B
SSA Governmental Liaison Committee

>
> > SO, from now on your transponder should be set to squawk 1201 anywhere
> > in the US (including the Reno airspace, where we have used a different
> > squawk code by agreement between PASCO and the controllers.)
>

> Please use 1201 squawk code in your glider transponder.
>
> > Fred LaSor
> > SoaringNV
> > 775 790-4314
> > Minden, NV
>
> Thanks for breaking this news, Fred.
>
> I’m also surprised the SSA wasn’t on top of this. * Did the RNO
> controllers mention any other changes to the PASCO procedures that we
> have been using in the Reno area for the past few years?
>
> Michael Mitton

Eric Greenwell

April 2nd 10, 10:59 PM

CindyB wrote:
> Fred:
>
> Thanks for posting, but don't everybody jump the gun.
>
> SSA had started this request for a national code, about EIGHT YEARS
> ago. Following the NTSB recommendations following the Hawker incident, the
> FAA finally got off the dime. They had told usin Feb 2009 this was
> underway - but NOT that it had been published and hit the streets.
>
> Local soaring organizations should CONTACT their local ATC friends to
> inquire as to what the local ATC would now like to do..... keep their current
> agreement, or switch to using the nationally assigned VFR code. There may be
> local advantages to having the local agreements continue.
The "Order" talks about code allocations, and states that 1201 is
_reserved_ for gliders, but doesn't seem to state what a glider pilot is
to do; for example, is it the glider pilot's choice to use 1200 or 1201
as desired, or is it required, or encouraged, or just available?

It's not at all obvious, as Cindy points out, that ATC everywhere is
now expecting all transpondered gliders to be on 1201 instead of 1200.
It could be they have not been informed, nor had any training in what to
expect from a 1201 coded aircraft, or how to respond to a 1201 code
aircraft that contacts them on the radio. It may cause them grief if
their radar display software hasn't been upgraded to treat 1201 as VFR,
and starts issuing collision alerts.

I'm staying with 1200 until I hear ATC is ready for 1201!

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (netto to net to email me)

BT[_3_]

April 3rd 10, 12:17 AM

our local Jump planes were using 1201 and 1202 in an agreement with the
local TRACON.

Guess they are going to get Bumped.

BT

"CindyB" > wrote in message
...
>
> Fred:
>
> Thanks for posting, but don't everybody jump the gun.
>
> SSA had started this request for a national code, about EIGHT YEARS
> ago.
> Following the NTSB recommendations following the Hawker incident, the
> FAA
> finally got off the dime. They had told usin Feb 2009 this was
> underway -
> but NOT that it had been published and hit the streets.
>
> Local soaring organizations should CONTACT their local ATC friends to
> inquire as
> to what the local ATC would now like to do..... keep their current
> agreement,
> or switch to using the nationally assigned VFR code. There may be
> local
> advantages to having the local agreements continue.
>
> Please COORDINATE locally, to not make for any confusion in local
> relationships.
>
> An article has been posted to the SSA website, to further elaborate on
> this
> nice new development. Please consider fully the implications and
> obligations
> of using the glider code, and using see-and-avoid regardless. Having
> a transponder
> on and working, is not full protection from mid-airs.
>
> Why didn't SSA 'know" about this coming active?
> Because a few of us don't have the hours in the dark of night to read
> ALL the
> continuing flow of federal publications, and still be able to get to
> work in daylight.
> (Maybe I am qualified to be a congressional representative? ;-) )
> And, the Feds didn't drop us a phone call to advise us.
>
> Kind of like the same favorable change in data plate requirements.
> SSA asked for it, repeatedly.
> When it finally got shoveled off someone's desk, they were done
> and no one told SSA about it.
>
> Thanks for helping us find things as they enter the real world.
>
> Cindy B
> SSA Governmental Liaison Committee
>
>>
>> > SO, from now on your transponder should be set to squawk 1201 anywhere
>> > in the US (including the Reno airspace, where we have used a different
>> > squawk code by agreement between PASCO and the controllers.)
>>
>
>
> > Please use 1201 squawk code in your glider transponder.
>>
>> > Fred LaSor
>> > SoaringNV
>> > 775 790-4314
>> > Minden, NV
>>
>> Thanks for breaking this news, Fred.
>>
>> I’m also surprised the SSA wasn’t on top of this. Did the RNO
>> controllers mention any other changes to the PASCO procedures that we
>> have been using in the Reno area for the past few years?
>>
>> Michael Mitton
>

Greg Arnold[_3_]

April 3rd 10, 12:36 AM

On 4/2/2010 2:59 PM, Eric Greenwell wrote:

>
> It's not at all obvious, as Cindy points out, that ATC everywhere is now
> expecting all transpondered gliders to be on 1201 instead of 1200. It
> could be they have not been informed, nor had any training in what to
> expect from a 1201 coded aircraft, or how to respond to a 1201 code
> aircraft that contacts them on the radio. It may cause them grief if
> their radar display software hasn't been upgraded to treat 1201 as VFR,
> and starts issuing collision alerts.
>
> I'm staying with 1200 until I hear ATC is ready for 1201!
>

A soaring pilot contacted an approach controller at the tower in our
area today, and he said NOT to use 1201 because their computer is not
programmed to handle it.

kd6veb

April 3rd 10, 02:59 AM

Hi Gang and Fred
If I am flying my motor glider say in the San Francisco Bay Area to
San Jose in the self powered mode should I use 1200 or 1201. Think
about it? My Stemme is a glider (axillary powered) by FAA rules and
according to this ruling I should squawk 1201. How would ATC
interpretate this? That I am an unpowered glider surely? No I will use
1200 so that they know I have power.
I wish we had a more active involvement in this decision making -
the SSA does not seem to me capable of doing a good job here. Gliders
are considered below the radar and not worth consideration by most of
the flying community - a pity.
Dave

On Apr 2, 10:42*am, Fred > wrote:
> SoaringNV is sponsoring a Minden Wave Camp this week. *As part of our
> camp we have invited the tower controllers from Reno TRACON to talk to
> us about communication with them, something we do for every camp. *We
> learned, quite inadvertantly, that a nationwide transponder squawk
> code has been assigned to gliders: 1201.
>
> SO, from now on your transponder should be set to squawk 1201 anywhere
> in the US (including the Reno airspace, where we have used a different
> squawk code by agreement between PASCO and the controllers.)
>
> Please use 1201 squawk code in your glider transponder.
>
> Fred LaSor
> SoaringNV
> 775 790-4314
> Minden, NV

haven

April 3rd 10, 02:42 PM

On Apr 2, 10:42*am, Fred > wrote:
> SoaringNV is sponsoring a Minden Wave Camp this week. *As part of our
> camp we have invited the tower controllers from Reno TRACON to talk to
> us about communication with them, something we do for every camp. *We
> learned, quite inadvertantly, that a nationwide transponder squawk
> code has been assigned to gliders: 1201.
>
> SO, from now on your transponder should be set to squawk 1201 anywhere
> in the US (including the Reno airspace, where we have used a different
> squawk code by agreement between PASCO and the controllers.)
>
> Please use 1201 squawk code in your glider transponder.
>
> Fred LaSor
> SoaringNV
> 775 790-4314
> Minden, NV

Does this mean that when the engine quits in my 150 I should
immediately change my squawk for 1200 to 1201? H...

Wayne Paul

April 3rd 10, 02:50 PM

I know your comment was intended as a joke; however, I would suggest when the 150's engine quits you squawk 7700.

"Haven" > wrote in message ...
On Apr 2, 10:42 am, Fred > wrote:

Does this mean that when the engine quits in my 150 I should
immediately change my squawk for 1200 to 1201? H...

Fred[_5_]

April 3rd 10, 03:58 PM

Dave asks a good question here. He and I discussed this in the hangar
before he posted it, and I didn't have a good answer then. After
giving it more thought I tend to lean in favor of 1200 because he is
flying in airspace where gliders are not a common experience (into and
out of San Jose's busy airspace) and he can maneuver differently than
I am able to do in a Duo Discus -- which I wouldn't fly into San Jose
or the Bay Area in any case.

But I'd be interested in other thoughts on this question.

Fred LaSor
SoaringNV
Minden, NV

Brian[_1_]

April 3rd 10, 04:51 PM

>
> Does this mean that when the engine quits in my 150 I should
> immediately change my squawk for 1200 to 1201? *H...- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Only if you start climbing (thermaling or wave):)

CindyB[_2_]

April 3rd 10, 08:30 PM

Dave:

It irks me a bit that you would sling rocks at SSA on this topic.

We wouldn't have this option of a nationwide, glider TXP code if it
weren't
for SSA asking for it.

If you want to fault us for not knowing when FAA finally enacted this
(eight years after the request began, and through several followup
inquiries,
and them enacting it in a publication where we didn't quite expect),
then
perhaps that makes you feel better.

And like many things legislative for gliders, all soaring pilots will
benefit from this whether or not they happen to be SSA members.
If folks find value from our efforts, maybe they will please renew
their
memberships in SSA.
I appreciate that someone(anyone) shared the information that this did
hit the street, as I don't spend every dark night trolling through
new federal publications . . . .

IMMEDIATELY - SSA provided informational guidance to members
through a news item on their web page. And the same guidance was
sent out to SSA Directors to share into the local levels.

I think it is appropriate that you use 1200 when you are 'acting' like
a powered piece of air traffic. When you transition to a soaring
activity and are more distant from downtown, you might like to
switch to a 1201 code use to enhance our 'visibility' as a
sailplane operation in the entire aviation/ATC community with your
very capable machine.

That would be an additional service to soaring.
(Now I'm headed back out to fly some wave lift.)

Sincerely,
Cindy B
Region 12 SSA Director

On Apr 2, 8:59*pm, kd6veb > wrote:
> Hi Gang and Fred
> * If I am flying my motor glider say in the San Francisco Bay Area to
> San Jose in the self powered mode should I use 1200 or 1201. Think
> about it? My Stemme is a glider (axillary powered) by FAA rules and
> according to this ruling I should squawk 1201. How would ATC
> interpretate this? That I am an unpowered glider surely? No I will use
> 1200 so that they know I have power.
> * I wish we had a more active involvement in this decision making -
> the SSA does not seem to me capable of doing a good job here. Gliders
> are considered below the radar and not worth consideration by most of
> the flying community - a pity.
> Dave
>

Greg Arnold[_3_]

April 3rd 10, 08:45 PM

I think Cindy and the other unpaid volunteers are doing a great job.

However, why is the SSA relying upon unpaid volunteers for this type of
work? Can't the SSA hire a professional with contacts at the FAA to
deal with the FAA? Maybe pay AOPA to use one of their people part time?

The SSA has no problem paying employees to fulfill tee shirt orders, but
no money to pay someone to deal with the FAA?

On 4/3/2010 12:30 PM, CindyB wrote:
>
> Dave:
>
> It irks me a bit that you would sling rocks at SSA on this topic.
>
> We wouldn't have this option of a nationwide, glider TXP code if it
> weren't
> for SSA asking for it.
>
> If you want to fault us for not knowing when FAA finally enacted this
> (eight years after the request began, and through several followup
> inquiries,
> and them enacting it in a publication where we didn't quite expect),
> then
> perhaps that makes you feel better.
>
> And like many things legislative for gliders, all soaring pilots will
> benefit from this whether or not they happen to be SSA members.
> If folks find value from our efforts, maybe they will please renew
> their
> memberships in SSA.
> I appreciate that someone(anyone) shared the information that this did
> hit the street, as I don't spend every dark night trolling through
> new federal publications . . . .
>
> IMMEDIATELY - SSA provided informational guidance to members
> through a news item on their web page. And the same guidance was
> sent out to SSA Directors to share into the local levels.
>
> I think it is appropriate that you use 1200 when you are 'acting' like
> a powered piece of air traffic. When you transition to a soaring
> activity and are more distant from downtown, you might like to
> switch to a 1201 code use to enhance our 'visibility' as a
> sailplane operation in the entire aviation/ATC community with your
> very capable machine.
>
> That would be an additional service to soaring.
> (Now I'm headed back out to fly some wave lift.)
>
> Sincerely,
> Cindy B
> Region 12 SSA Director
>
>
>
> On Apr 2, 8:59 pm, > wrote:
>> Hi Gang and Fred
>> If I am flying my motor glider say in the San Francisco Bay Area to
>> San Jose in the self powered mode should I use 1200 or 1201. Think
>> about it? My Stemme is a glider (axillary powered) by FAA rules and
>> according to this ruling I should squawk 1201. How would ATC
>> interpretate this? That I am an unpowered glider surely? No I will use
>> 1200 so that they know I have power.
>> I wish we had a more active involvement in this decision making -
>> the SSA does not seem to me capable of doing a good job here. Gliders
>> are considered below the radar and not worth consideration by most of
>> the flying community - a pity.
>> Dave
>>
>
>

Scott[_7_]

April 3rd 10, 09:07 PM

Haven wrote:
> On Apr 2, 10:42 am, Fred > wrote:
>> SoaringNV is sponsoring a Minden Wave Camp this week. As part of our
>> camp we have invited the tower controllers from Reno TRACON to talk to
>> us about communication with them, something we do for every camp. We
>> learned, quite inadvertantly, that a nationwide transponder squawk
>> code has been assigned to gliders: 1201.
>>
>> SO, from now on your transponder should be set to squawk 1201 anywhere
>> in the US (including the Reno airspace, where we have used a different
>> squawk code by agreement between PASCO and the controllers.)
>>
>> Please use 1201 squawk code in your glider transponder.
>>
>> Fred LaSor
>> SoaringNV
>> 775 790-4314
>> Minden, NV
>
> Does this mean that when the engine quits in my 150 I should
> immediately change my squawk for 1200 to 1201? H...

Depending on your altitude, 7700 might be more appropriate.

Mike Schumann

April 3rd 10, 09:28 PM

This is a classic example of why we should have a formal relationship
with AOPA, so that we can leverage their expertise in governmental
relations and other areas, where we will never have the kind of
resources that they do. In addition, having our headquarters in the
middle of nowhere can't help matters.

Mike Schumann

On 4/3/2010 3:45 PM, Greg Arnold wrote:
> I think Cindy and the other unpaid volunteers are doing a great job.
>
> However, why is the SSA relying upon unpaid volunteers for this type of
> work? Can't the SSA hire a professional with contacts at the FAA to deal
> with the FAA? Maybe pay AOPA to use one of their people part time?
>
> The SSA has no problem paying employees to fulfill tee shirt orders, but
> no money to pay someone to deal with the FAA?
>
>
>
> On 4/3/2010 12:30 PM, CindyB wrote:
>>
>> Dave:
>>
>> It irks me a bit that you would sling rocks at SSA on this topic.
>>
>> We wouldn't have this option of a nationwide, glider TXP code if it
>> weren't
>> for SSA asking for it.
>>
>> If you want to fault us for not knowing when FAA finally enacted this
>> (eight years after the request began, and through several followup
>> inquiries,
>> and them enacting it in a publication where we didn't quite expect),
>> then
>> perhaps that makes you feel better.
>>
>> And like many things legislative for gliders, all soaring pilots will
>> benefit from this whether or not they happen to be SSA members.
>> If folks find value from our efforts, maybe they will please renew
>> their
>> memberships in SSA.
>> I appreciate that someone(anyone) shared the information that this did
>> hit the street, as I don't spend every dark night trolling through
>> new federal publications . . . .
>>
>> IMMEDIATELY - SSA provided informational guidance to members
>> through a news item on their web page. And the same guidance was
>> sent out to SSA Directors to share into the local levels.
>>
>> I think it is appropriate that you use 1200 when you are 'acting' like
>> a powered piece of air traffic. When you transition to a soaring
>> activity and are more distant from downtown, you might like to
>> switch to a 1201 code use to enhance our 'visibility' as a
>> sailplane operation in the entire aviation/ATC community with your
>> very capable machine.
>>
>> That would be an additional service to soaring.
>> (Now I'm headed back out to fly some wave lift.)
>>
>> Sincerely,
>> Cindy B
>> Region 12 SSA Director
>>
>>
>>
>> On Apr 2, 8:59 pm, > wrote:
>>> Hi Gang and Fred
>>> If I am flying my motor glider say in the San Francisco Bay Area to
>>> San Jose in the self powered mode should I use 1200 or 1201. Think
>>> about it? My Stemme is a glider (axillary powered) by FAA rules and
>>> according to this ruling I should squawk 1201. How would ATC
>>> interpretate this? That I am an unpowered glider surely? No I will use
>>> 1200 so that they know I have power.
>>> I wish we had a more active involvement in this decision making -
>>> the SSA does not seem to me capable of doing a good job here. Gliders
>>> are considered below the radar and not worth consideration by most of
>>> the flying community - a pity.
>>> Dave
>>>
>>
>>
>

--
Mike Schumann

Eric Greenwell

April 4th 10, 03:23 AM

Mike Schumann wrote:
> This is a classic example of why we should have a formal relationship
> with AOPA, so that we can leverage their expertise in governmental
> relations and other areas, where we will never have the kind of
> resources that they do. In addition, having our headquarters in the
> middle of nowhere can't help matters.
>
> Mike Schumann
Do we know that AOPA was aware of these code allocations? I'm an AOPA
member, and I'm not aware of any notification of the AOPA members. A
search of their site for " National Beacon Code Allocation Plan" finds
results only in the AIM:Chapter 4, but that section doesn't mention
1201; searching for JO 7110.66D found no result. A Google search for JO
7110.66D finds it only on the FAA site.

"having our headquarters in the middle of nowhere can't help matters"

But it WILL hurt to move it to a different location, so, as long as it
doesn't hurt, no problem. This was a matter that could be handled by
telephone, letter, email or the web, but somehow, despite sustained
contact over many years by several SSA people, the SSA people were not
notified of the eventual "allocation". And, apparently, neither have all
the ATC people been informed of the situation and how to handle it.
Oddly, the people that did know about it, and will interact with it the
most - Reno ATC - didn't bother to contact anyone either, while gliders
continued to fly around using 0440!

I say "Thanks to the SSA folks", and shame on someone in the FAA for
their oversight.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (netto to net 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

Greg Arnold[_3_]

April 4th 10, 03:36 AM

On 4/3/2010 7:23 PM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> Mike Schumann wrote:
>> This is a classic example of why we should have a formal relationship
>> with AOPA, so that we can leverage their expertise in governmental
>> relations and other areas, where we will never have the kind of
>> resources that they do. In addition, having our headquarters in the
>> middle of nowhere can't help matters.
>>
>> Mike Schumann
> Do we know that AOPA was aware of these code allocations?

Probably AOPA didn't even know that SSA was trying to get a glider code.

If SSA was paying someone at AOPA to interact with the FAA on this
issue, hopefully the AOPA would have known.

I'm an AOPA
> member, and I'm not aware of any notification of the AOPA members. A
> search of their site for " National Beacon Code Allocation Plan" finds
> results only in the AIM:Chapter 4, but that section doesn't mention
> 1201; searching for JO 7110.66D found no result. A Google search for JO
> 7110.66D finds it only on the FAA site.
>
> "having our headquarters in the middle of nowhere can't help matters"
>
> But it WILL hurt to move it to a different location, so, as long as it
> doesn't hurt, no problem. This was a matter that could be handled by
> telephone, letter, email or the web, but somehow, despite sustained
> contact over many years by several SSA people, the SSA people were not
> notified of the eventual "allocation". And, apparently, neither have all
> the ATC people been informed of the situation and how to handle it.
> Oddly, the people that did know about it, and will interact with it the
> most - Reno ATC - didn't bother to contact anyone either, while gliders
> continued to fly around using 0440!
>
> I say "Thanks to the SSA folks", and shame on someone in the FAA for
> their oversight.
>

MKoerner

April 4th 10, 07:10 AM

The nation-wide glider transponder code is great news. I think it will
be very helpful for controllers in allowing them identify and
anticipate behaviors unique to sailplanes such as stopping suddenly to
thermal, then gaining altitude vertically; and following predictable
weekend flight paths such as along the top of mountain ridges.
We are also very lucky to get this particular code. Apparently the
time it takes to transmit low numbers is shorter than that for higher
numbers. The battery drain with the 1201 code should be lower than
with a code closer to 7777.
With respect to AOPA: it’s a great organization (I’ve been a member
for 30 years). But with 400,000 members, don’t expect them to them to
bend over backward for 10,000 glider pilots. Furthermore, on many
issues, our best interests are not the same as theirs. The transponder
exclusion for gliders is a fine example.
Finally, with respect to the location of the SSA office, I recently
chaired a committee tasked with addressing this issue. We considered
the advantages of closer proximity to FAA headquarters in Washington
DC… or the small aircraft directorate in Kansas City which handles
certification issues an ADs relating to sailplanes… or the pilot
certification directorate in Oklahoma City. Many other aspects of
relocating the office were also considered. In the end, we recommended
against a move, at least in the near term. I think our report was
posted on the SSA web site, but I don’t see it there now. If you would
like a copy email me. My address can be found in the SSA member
locator.
Mike Koerner

Alan[_6_]

April 4th 10, 08:18 AM

In article > MKoerner > writes:
>The nation-wide glider transponder code is great news. I think it will
>be very helpful for controllers in allowing them identify and
>anticipate behaviors unique to sailplanes such as stopping suddenly to
>thermal, then gaining altitude vertically; and following predictable
>weekend flight paths such as along the top of mountain ridges.
>We are also very lucky to get this particular code. Apparently the
>time it takes to transmit low numbers is shorter than that for higher
>numbers. The battery drain with the 1201 code should be lower than
>with a code closer to 7777.

Actually, the reply time is constant. See
http://www.radartutorial.eu/13.ssr/sr07.en.html

Having only 3 bits being 1 in the code may reduce the power if the bits
are sent non-inverted with positive modulation.

The pulses are 0.45 microseconds long, so if all 12 of the bits, twice per
second, with an 80 percent efficient transmitter putting out 175 watts is
about 2.3 or 2.4 milliwatts of power input to the transmitter. The
difference between code 7777 and code 1201 is 9 bits, or 1.77 milliwatts
power. Since most are interrogated less often than twice per second, this
power savings will be less.

> The transponder
>exclusion for gliders is a fine example.

Now that gliders have their own code, how long do you think this exclusion
will last?

Alan

Darryl Ramm

April 4th 10, 10:44 AM

On Apr 4, 12:18*am, (Alan) wrote:
> In article > MKoerner > writes:
>
> >The nation-wide glider transponder code is great news. I think it will
> >be very helpful for controllers in allowing them identify and
> >anticipate behaviors unique to sailplanes such as stopping suddenly to
> >thermal, then gaining altitude vertically; and following predictable
> >weekend flight paths such as along the top of mountain ridges.
> >We are also very lucky to get this particular code. Apparently the
> >time it takes to transmit low numbers is shorter than that for higher
> >numbers. The battery drain with the 1201 code should be lower than
> >with a code closer to 7777.
>
> * Actually, the reply time is constant. *See
> * * * *http://www.radartutorial.eu/13.ssr/sr07.en.html
>
> * Having only 3 bits being 1 in the code may reduce the power if the bits
> are sent non-inverted with positive modulation.
>
> * The pulses are 0.45 microseconds long, so if all 12 of the bits, twice per
> second, with an 80 percent efficient transmitter putting out 175 watts is
> about 2.3 or 2.4 milliwatts of power input to the transmitter. *The
> difference between code 7777 and code 1201 is 9 bits, or 1.77 milliwatts
> power. *Since most are interrogated less often than twice per second, this
> power savings will be less.
>
> > The transponder
> >exclusion for gliders is a fine example.
>
> * Now that gliders have their own code, how long do you think this exclusion
> will last?
>
> * * * * Alan

A few random comments.

While a code like this may help reduce power consumption very slightly
doing that calculation requires a bit more work and it's likely to be
a very small overall benefit.

Power savings only apply to Mode A (squawk code) interrogations not
Mode C (altitude - where you can't control the pulse pattern returned)
interrogations. Different SSR systems can make Mode A and C
interrogations at different ratios/interlace patterns, it's not always
1:1.

Mode S transponders use a more advanced encoding than the traditional
Mode A/C pulse train and will have no power saving from this (when
interrogated as a Mode S transponder).

Many transponder interrogations come from TCAS and all those are Mode
C or Mode S only and there are no power savings for either of those
types of interrogations regardless or what the Mode A squawk code is.

Assumptions of a few interrogations per second will be way too low in
busy airspace. If you want to see the absolute worse case number
assume a interrogation rate of ~1 kHz, that's near the limit on most
transponders and can set a worst case upper bound on the power draw
numbers.

Modern transponders like the Mode S Trig TT-21 have very low power
consumption and power usage with modern transponders like these is
often a non-issue nowadays (but still run the numbers for your gliders
total power usage and battery capacity).

Darryl

kd6veb

April 4th 10, 06:18 PM

Hi Gang and Cindy
To me this is a classic example of lack of communications and follow
up. Who's to blame? Both the gliding community (SAA and Pasco) and the
FAA! Could there have been better communications? Absolutely. But
maybe there is little motivation to communicate.
A story. A couple of years ago I thoroughly researched what I should
do with the SparrowHawk. Should I register it experimental, ELSA or
just fly it under Part 103 with no registration. To make sure I got my
facts straight I contacted the local FSDO and had an FAA agent come
and inspect my SparrowHawk to determine if I would be legal under Part
103 and whether I was doing anything that might constitute a danger or
a liability. Nothing negative was found. At the same time I researched
who were the personnel at the FAA in Oklahoma who composed the rules
and regs around the then new LSA class of aircraft. I located the
authors and posed the question of why for a LSA glider was there a VNE
limitation of 120knots whereas for all other LSAs including balloons
there was not this limit? There was no answer and, of course, there is
no rational answer to that question. I then asked the question in
putting together the LSA rules for gliders had they worked with any
glider group such as the SSA or Pasco. No was the answer. So Cindy we
are now in 2010 and things have not changed. There is still no
meaningful dialog between the SSA and the FAA in the generation of
regs and rules. I stand by my original criticism of the SSA. The SSA
has shown itself to be a poor representative of the gliding community
over the years. As agreed by you there is a contradiction in what code
to use for a motor glider - 1200 or 1201. A little thought and better
communications might have avoided this contradiction and also the LSA
glider VNE spec.
Dave

PS If anyone is interested in my full writeup on the SparrowHawk and
the questions and answers whether to register it or not please email
me. If sufficient of you think it would be of interest I could post it
here on RAS.

Scott[_7_]

April 4th 10, 07:21 PM

kd6veb wrote:
> Hi Gang and Cindy
> To me this is a classic example of lack of communications and follow
> up. Who's to blame? Both the gliding community (SAA and Pasco) and the
> FAA! Could there have been better communications? Absolutely. But
> maybe there is little motivation to communicate.
> A story. A couple of years ago I thoroughly researched what I should
> do with the SparrowHawk. Should I register it experimental, ELSA or
> just fly it under Part 103 with no registration. To make sure I got my
> facts straight I contacted the local FSDO and had an FAA agent come
> and inspect my SparrowHawk to determine if I would be legal under Part
> 103 and whether I was doing anything that might constitute a danger or
> a liability. Nothing negative was found. At the same time I researched
> who were the personnel at the FAA in Oklahoma who composed the rules
> and regs around the then new LSA class of aircraft. I located the
> authors and posed the question of why for a LSA glider was there a VNE
> limitation of 120knots whereas for all other LSAs including balloons
> there was not this limit? There was no answer and, of course, there is
> no rational answer to that question. I then asked the question in
> putting together the LSA rules for gliders had they worked with any
> glider group such as the SSA or Pasco. No was the answer. So Cindy we
> are now in 2010 and things have not changed. There is still no
> meaningful dialog between the SSA and the FAA in the generation of
> regs and rules. I stand by my original criticism of the SSA. The SSA
> has shown itself to be a poor representative of the gliding community
> over the years. As agreed by you there is a contradiction in what code
> to use for a motor glider - 1200 or 1201. A little thought and better
> communications might have avoided this contradiction and also the LSA
> glider VNE spec.
> Dave
>
> PS If anyone is interested in my full writeup on the SparrowHawk and
> the questions and answers whether to register it or not please email
> me. If sufficient of you think it would be of interest I could post it
> here on RAS.
>

Maybe this will help explain the 120 Knot limit. Read through the whole
page and you will see it applies to gliders as well as powered aircraft.
http://www.sportpilot.org/learn/final_rule_synopsis.html

Greg Arnold[_3_]

April 4th 10, 07:31 PM

On 4/4/2010 11:21 AM, Scott wrote:
>
>
> Maybe this will help explain the 120 Knot limit. Read through the whole
> page and you will see it applies to gliders as well as powered aircraft.
> http://www.sportpilot.org/learn/final_rule_synopsis.html

"Maximum speed in level flight with maximum continuous power (Vh)—138
mph (120 knots) CAS"

A glider can't maintain 120 knots in level flight, so does this restrict
a glider VNE to 120 knots?

Wayne Paul

April 4th 10, 09:11 PM

"Greg Arnold" > wrote in message ...
>
> "Maximum speed in level flight with maximum continuous power (Vh)—138
> mph (120 knots) CAS"
>
> A glider can't maintain 120 knots in level flight, so does this restrict
> a glider VNE to 120 knots?

What you say is true. It is obvious that FAA didn't know how to establish an appropriate speed limitation for gliders. It seemed to them that the obvious solution was to simply use the same number for both airplanes and gliders. There also seemed to be an underlying assumption that gliders are fragile; therefore the speed number should be assigned at Vne instead of Vh. It is all spelled out on page 44801 (and elsewhere) of the following document.
http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/regulatory/sport_rule.pdf

For us living here in the Western US, limiting altitude to Light Sports Pilots to 10,000 MSL instead of some height about the ground show an additional lack of understanding glider safety. I often fly out of an airport located in a valley that is 6,000 MLS. The mountain range next to the valley varies from 10,000 MSL to 12,600 MLS. Under the current regulations I would not be able to fly out of the valley.

Wayne
http://www.soaridaho.com/

kd6veb

April 4th 10, 10:45 PM

Hi Gang
A lot of misunderstanding in the last 3 posts. Lets start with the
easiest to explain:

1) Altitude limitations for all LSA flying machines used to be 10,000
feet msl for LSA licensed pilots ONLY. If you fly a LSA like I do with
a regular single engine power license then I can fly my LSA without
altitude limitations. That's the primary reason to get a more advanced
ticket than a LSA ticket. This applies to all LSAs including LSA
gliders/motorgliders where you reallydo need a regular glider
license. No one flies a LSA glider solely on a LSA glider ticket. I
hope that explains one confusion.
2) I obtained from the Web a couple of years ago the proposed first
set of modifications and corrections to the LSA regs. In that proposal
was an altitude limit change to read maximum altitude for a LSA
licensed pilot only. The new limitation would be 10,000 feet msl or
2,000 feet agl. I believe that has been approved and is now effective
and will allow you to get over that mountain.

Now I think a couple of you are confusing maximum cruise speeds and
VNE. There is a difference! Maximum continuous cruise speed for any
LSA is 120 knots but at what manufacturer specified power level? Max
power? Probably not. The manufacturer has figured this loop hole out
and will specify that for continuous operation in cruise mode is say
at a specified power level. So the result is most new LSAs have gone
to big powerful engines with placated maximum cruise speeds at a
continuous power levels of say 70% which limits the max cruise speeds
to 120 knots or less. This probably implies that many LSAs will be and
are flown illegally at cruise speeds in excess of 120 knots. What a
huge gaping loop hole!
Except for LSA gliders/motorgliders there are no VNE limits on any
LSA flying machines and in fact most LSAs, mine included, have much
higher placated VNEs than 120 knots. There has never been a VNE limit
dictated by the FAA for any flying machine ever except for a LSA
glider! Why? Surely it is the manufacturer who defines a VNE limit
based on flutter and other considerations. What was the FAA thinking
about? A royal screwup and why didn't the SSA catch it? Go figure. Was
no one minding the store? Occam's razor logic probably applies here -
the simplest explanation is often correct.
Dave

Mike Schumann

April 5th 10, 12:09 AM

One note of caution. If you fly an LSA powered aircraft above 10K', not
only do you need a private pilot license, but you also need a medical.

Mike Schumann

On 4/4/2010 5:45 PM, kd6veb wrote:
> Hi Gang
> A lot of misunderstanding in the last 3 posts. Lets start with the
> easiest to explain:
>
> 1) Altitude limitations for all LSA flying machines used to be 10,000
> feet msl for LSA licensed pilots ONLY. If you fly a LSA like I do with
> a regular single engine power license then I can fly my LSA without
> altitude limitations. That's the primary reason to get a more advanced
> ticket than a LSA ticket. This applies to all LSAs including LSA
> gliders/motorgliders where you reallydo need a regular glider
> license. No one flies a LSA glider solely on a LSA glider ticket. I
> hope that explains one confusion.
> 2) I obtained from the Web a couple of years ago the proposed first
> set of modifications and corrections to the LSA regs. In that proposal
> was an altitude limit change to read maximum altitude for a LSA
> licensed pilot only. The new limitation would be 10,000 feet msl or
> 2,000 feet agl. I believe that has been approved and is now effective
> and will allow you to get over that mountain.
>
> Now I think a couple of you are confusing maximum cruise speeds and
> VNE. There is a difference! Maximum continuous cruise speed for any
> LSA is 120 knots but at what manufacturer specified power level? Max
> power? Probably not. The manufacturer has figured this loop hole out
> and will specify that for continuous operation in cruise mode is say
> at a specified power level. So the result is most new LSAs have gone
> to big powerful engines with placated maximum cruise speeds at a
> continuous power levels of say 70% which limits the max cruise speeds
> to 120 knots or less. This probably implies that many LSAs will be and
> are flown illegally at cruise speeds in excess of 120 knots. What a
> huge gaping loop hole!
> Except for LSA gliders/motorgliders there are no VNE limits on any
> LSA flying machines and in fact most LSAs, mine included, have much
> higher placated VNEs than 120 knots. There has never been a VNE limit
> dictated by the FAA for any flying machine ever except for a LSA
> glider! Why? Surely it is the manufacturer who defines a VNE limit
> based on flutter and other considerations. What was the FAA thinking
> about? A royal screwup and why didn't the SSA catch it? Go figure. Was
> no one minding the store? Occam's razor logic probably applies here -
> the simplest explanation is often correct.
> Dave

--
Mike Schumann

Mike Schumann

April 5th 10, 12:29 AM

On 4/4/2010 1:18 PM, kd6veb wrote:
> Hi Gang and Cindy
> To me this is a classic example of lack of communications and follow
> up. Who's to blame? Both the gliding community (SAA and Pasco) and the
> FAA! Could there have been better communications? Absolutely. But
> maybe there is little motivation to communicate.
> A story. A couple of years ago I thoroughly researched what I should
> do with the SparrowHawk. Should I register it experimental, ELSA or
> just fly it under Part 103 with no registration. To make sure I got my
> facts straight I contacted the local FSDO and had an FAA agent come
> and inspect my SparrowHawk to determine if I would be legal under Part
> 103 and whether I was doing anything that might constitute a danger or
> a liability. Nothing negative was found. At the same time I researched
> who were the personnel at the FAA in Oklahoma who composed the rules
> and regs around the then new LSA class of aircraft. I located the
> authors and posed the question of why for a LSA glider was there a VNE
> limitation of 120knots whereas for all other LSAs including balloons
> there was not this limit? There was no answer and, of course, there is
> no rational answer to that question. I then asked the question in
> putting together the LSA rules for gliders had they worked with any
> glider group such as the SSA or Pasco. No was the answer. So Cindy we
> are now in 2010 and things have not changed. There is still no
> meaningful dialog between the SSA and the FAA in the generation of
> regs and rules. I stand by my original criticism of the SSA. The SSA
> has shown itself to be a poor representative of the gliding community
> over the years. As agreed by you there is a contradiction in what code
> to use for a motor glider - 1200 or 1201. A little thought and better
> communications might have avoided this contradiction and also the LSA
> glider VNE spec.
> Dave
>
> PS If anyone is interested in my full writeup on the SparrowHawk and
> the questions and answers whether to register it or not please email
> me. If sufficient of you think it would be of interest I could post it
> here on RAS.
>

Does the SSA have any national goals and strategies in its dealings with
the FAA? What are they? How does the SSA keep its members up to date
on what we are trying to accomplish.

To be effective in lobbying, do we have any regularly scheduled meetings
with top officials at the FAA to discuss our concerns and review the
status of initiatives? Do we invite any key FAA officials to our
meetings or our conventions? If so, do we do so in a timely manner, so
we actually have a chance on getting on their busy schedules?

In case we don't have any clearly defined objectives, here are some good
starting points:

1. Finalize and publicize the implementation of the 1201 squawk code,
including updates to the AIM and all related documentation, updates to
computers, training ATC personnel on what behaviors to expect from 1201
aircraft, etc.....

2. Establish certification standards to permit the commercialization of
MITRE's low cost ADS-B technology.

3. Permit pilots and their crews to use ground based fixed, handheld,
and mobile radios in support of glider operations without requiring FCC
ground station licenses (or obtain a blanket FCC license that covers all
SSA members).

One big issue is the lack of any transparency to the SSA membership of
what is going on. If you look at the governmental affairs homepage
(http://ssa.org/myhome.asp?mbr=8671991229&show=blog), it doesn't look
like there is much happening. Maybe that's not accurate. If there is
stuff going on behind the scenes, it should be made visible to the
membership (meeting schedules, minutes, correspondence, etc....), so
that SSA members who are interested in this area have the chance to
participate in the process.

--
Mike Schumann

Scott[_7_]

April 5th 10, 11:49 AM

Greg Arnold wrote:
> On 4/4/2010 11:21 AM, Scott wrote:
>>
>>
>> Maybe this will help explain the 120 Knot limit. Read through the whole
>> page and you will see it applies to gliders as well as powered aircraft.
>> http://www.sportpilot.org/learn/final_rule_synopsis.html
>
>
> "Maximum speed in level flight with maximum continuous power (Vh)—138
> mph (120 knots) CAS"
>
> A glider can't maintain 120 knots in level flight, so does this restrict
> a glider VNE to 120 knots?

I would guess no, as I'm guessing that some light-sport (powered)
aircraft have a Vne of more than 120 knots.

JJ Sinclair

April 5th 10, 02:09 PM

On Apr 5, 3:49*am, Scott > wrote:
> Greg Arnold wrote:
> > On 4/4/2010 11:21 AM, Scott wrote:
>
> >> Maybe this will help explain the 120 Knot limit. Read through the whole
> >> page and you will see it applies to gliders as well as powered aircraft.

Darryl Ramm

April 5th 10, 04:17 PM

On Apr 5, 6:09*am, JJ Sinclair > wrote:
> On Apr 5, 3:49*am, Scott > wrote:
>
> > Greg Arnold wrote:
> > > On 4/4/2010 11:21 AM, Scott wrote:
>
> > >> Maybe this will help explain the 120 Knot limit. Read through the whole
> > >> page and you will see it applies to gliders as well as powered aircraft.
> > >>http://www.sportpilot.org/learn/final_rule_synopsis.html
>
> > > "Maximum speed in level flight with maximum continuous power (Vh)—138
> > > mph (120 knots) CAS"
>
> > > A glider can't maintain 120 knots in level flight, so does this restrict
> > > a glider VNE to 120 knots?
>
> > I would guess no, as I'm guessing that some light-sport (powered)
> > aircraft have a Vne of more than 120 knots.
>
> Ok, now I'm confused.................do I start squawking 1201
> everywhere or not? Been squalking 1200 in the Sacramento Valley and
> 0440 around Reno.
> JJ * * Genesis-2

JJ

As Eric and Cindy have already stated I think it is best to do exactly
what you do today until it is confirmed that the appropriate ATC
facilities are actually set up to handle this. In the areas you are
referring to PASCO is going to clarify this with those facilities, so
stay tuned.

Darryl

soarski[_2_]

April 5th 10, 04:32 PM

On Apr 3, 8:58*am, Fred > wrote:
> Dave asks a good question here. He and I discussed this in the hangar
> before he posted it, and I didn't have a good answer then. *After
> giving it more thought I tend to lean in favor of 1200 because he is
> flying in airspace where gliders are not a common experience (into and
> out of San Jose's busy airspace) and he can maneuver differently than
> I am able to do in a Duo Discus -- which I wouldn't fly into San Jose
> or the Bay Area in any case.
>
> But I'd be interested in other thoughts on this question.
>
> Fred LaSor
> SoaringNV
> Minden, NV

Did I not just read in the FAA rules Code 1201 if not in contact with
ATC, which would mean in many cases that
we stay with 1200 as long as we take off at controlled airports or
similar. Leaving the area we might report switching to
1201??? ......Awaiting a possible question about that code? This
would apply to many motorgliders.

Dieter, Stemme S10V

Jim Logajan

April 6th 10, 03:58 AM

Frank Whiteley > wrote:
> On Apr 2, 11:42*am, Fred > wrote:
>> SoaringNV is sponsoring a Minden Wave Camp this week. *As part of our
>> camp we have invited the tower controllers from Reno TRACON to talk to
>> us about communication with them, something we do for every camp. *We
>> learned, quite inadvertantly, that a nationwide transponder squawk
>> code has been assigned to gliders: 1201.
>>
>> SO, from now on your transponder should be set to squawk 1201 anywhere
>> in the US (including the Reno airspace, where we have used a different
>> squawk code by agreement between PASCO and the controllers.)
>>
>> Please use 1201 squawk code in your glider transponder.
>>
>> Fred LaSor
>> SoaringNV
>> 775 790-4314
>> Minden, NV
>
> Referenced here
>
> http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/JO%207110.66D%20.pdf

Wait-a-minute!

But isn't the quoted document an FAA internal order to its ATO service
units? The section labeled "Audience" no where indicates this is a
regulatory requirement to gliders having transponders. If there is a
regulatory document where this is made clear, that would be helpful and
more convincing.

In fact the following order, dated February 11, 2010, doesn't list 1201 or
any special treatment of gliders with transponders:

http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/ATC/atc0502.html

While gliders with transponders in the Reno Nevada area may now be required
to use 1201, I can find no official publication by the FAA to support the
assertion that VFR glider pilots in the rest of the nation are now required
(or even allowed or advised) to use 1201 on an installed transponder.

In fact while searching I found that 1201 was recently used as one of the
beacon codes in the TFR of the 2010 Winter Olympics.

(Unless the FAA is now relying on Web viral postings and blogs as its new
means of publishing regulations? Very hip of them!)

jcarlyle

April 6th 10, 02:11 PM

I'm not sure that squawk code 1201 will ever be <required> for "VFR
gliders out of contact with ATC", the way 1200 is for aircraft flying
VFR and not in radio contact with ATC. But 1201 is now <officially
reserved> for gliders in that condition, and thus ATC facilities are
alerted that 1201 has a specific meaning.

Your point of who is responsible to start US gliders using 1201 is a
good one, though. In previous posts on this thread it was stated that
this should be decided locally, and it seems that remains the best way
forward for now. I agree it would be nice for clearer advice from the
FAA.

-John

On Apr 5, 10:58 pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> Wait-a-minute!
>
> But isn't the quoted document an FAA internal order to its ATO service
> units? The section labeled "Audience" no where indicates this is a
> regulatory requirement to gliders having transponders. If there is a
> regulatory document where this is made clear, that would be helpful and
> more convincing.
>
> In fact the following order, dated February 11, 2010, doesn't list 1201 or
> any special treatment of gliders with transponders:
>
> http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/ATC/atc0502.html
>
> While gliders with transponders in the Reno Nevada area may now be required
> to use 1201, I can find no official publication by the FAA to support the
> assertion that VFR glider pilots in the rest of the nation are now required
> (or even allowed or advised) to use 1201 on an installed transponder.
>
> In fact while searching I found that 1201 was recently used as one of the
> beacon codes in the TFR of the 2010 Winter Olympics.
>
> (Unless the FAA is now relying on Web viral postings and blogs as its new
> means of publishing regulations? Very hip of them!)

JJ Sinclair

April 6th 10, 02:16 PM

Ah, confusion rains supreme. Squawk this.......no squawk
that........don't squawk anything? What we have here is the makings of
a good cluster-fuxx. The unskilled led by the untrained, green troops
led by yellow leaders.......wait a minute, have I been recalled to
active duty? That must be it........New orders men.........Continue to
disregard the new squawking procedure until such time as Hq gets an
extraction tool to remove head from butt.
:>) JJ

Darryl Ramm

April 6th 10, 03:44 PM

On Apr 5, 4:29*pm, JJ Sinclair > wrote:
> PASCO's El President'a just pumped out orders for all troops to start
> squawking 1201 ASAP !
>
> SSSQQQUUUAAAWWWKKK !!!
>
> :>) JJ

Since JJ seem to be following up to his own question he posted here
about using 1201 near Reno *and* other locations (covered by NORCAL
approach, Travis AFB, etc.) let's just be clear that all PASCO has
said right now is use 1201 instead of 0440 at Reno. The question about
those other areas is being worked on.

Darryl

Darryl Ramm

April 6th 10, 04:34 PM

On Apr 5, 8:32*am, soarski > wrote:
> On Apr 3, 8:58*am, Fred > wrote:
>
> > Dave asks a good question here. He and I discussed this in the hangar
> > before he posted it, and I didn't have a good answer then. *After
> > giving it more thought I tend to lean in favor of 1200 because he is
> > flying in airspace where gliders are not a common experience (into and
> > out of San Jose's busy airspace) and he can maneuver differently than
> > I am able to do in a Duo Discus -- which I wouldn't fly into San Jose
> > or the Bay Area in any case.
>
> > But I'd be interested in other thoughts on this question.
>
> > Fred LaSor
> > SoaringNV
> > Minden, NV
>
> Did I not just read in the FAA rules Code 1201 if not in contact with
> ATC, which would mean in many cases that
> we stay with 1200 as long as we take off at controlled airports or
> similar. Leaving the area we might report switching to
> 1201??? *......Awaiting a possible question about that *code? *This
> would apply to many motorgliders.
>
> Dieter, Stemme S10V

This may be confusing the matter more than it needs to be. Putting
aside the question about motorgliders, "in contact with ATC" in this
case implies a facility with/providing radar services, i.e. situations
in which you were on a flight plan or flight following and would be
assigned a discrete squawk code, if you are just taking off say from a
typical Class D airport you are not receiving radar services.

Darryl

kd6veb

April 6th 10, 05:16 PM

Hi Gang
Since we all have had time to think through this let' summarize what
we know and maybe suggest ways to avoid this happening again. It is
clear that those in the FAA dealing with the glider issue probably
were not experienced glider pilots, had no understanding or maybe were
not aware that motor gliders exist and probably were incompetent to
deal with the subject. Has this happened before? Absolutely! Similar
errors with the LSA glider regs. We all don't seem to ever learn.
AOPA has been an effective organization for GA and actively
communicates with the FAA on almost all subjects relating to aviation.
However it does not have glider experience or knowledge and has not
been involved with issues with gliders. I don't think it could or
would be a spokesman for the gliding community. We do have that
organization in principle - the SSA. But being a member for 15 years
and watching it go through the problems of about 5 years ago when its
funds were stolen and it was totally ineffective, it now could, at
least in principle, be an effective organization to look after gliding
interests. Has it done so recently. In my opinion very poorly. It
truly has to set up by mandate a communication channel with the FAA.
It should list issues, locate the right people in the FAA to discuss
those issues with and communicate continuously with the gliding
community through the SSA magazine Soaring. Feedback from the
community is so important as we have seen with this thread on RAS. The
current example shows clearly what is wrong - don't just ask the FAA
for a special transponder code. Figure out how it will be used, what
its limitations are, how it will be communicated to all concerned and
so on. It can't be a hands off request. It requires thought and
people's inputs. COMMUNICATE - COMMUNICATE - COMMUNICATE Am I hitting
my head against a brick wall or could things be changed?
Dave

Mike the Strike

April 6th 10, 05:18 PM

This morning, I got the call from our local FSDO about the upcoming
ramp inspection for my Experimental/Exhibition/Racing glider (see
other threads). At the end of our discussion, I asked him if he knew
of the new discrete transponder code for gliders and whether it was
being implemented locally in Arizona. I know this isn't their
department, but thought I might as well ask. In any event, no-one at
the Scottsdale FSDO has heard about it.

Tucson TRACON has previously issued Tucson Soaring Club the discrete
code of 0400 and we will be following up with them to see if we should
keep it or change to 1201.

Mike

soarski[_2_]

April 6th 10, 11:40 PM

On Apr 6, 9:34*am, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
> On Apr 5, 8:32*am, soarski > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 3, 8:58*am, Fred > wrote:
>
> > > Dave asks a good question here. He and I discussed this in the hangar
> > > before he posted it, and I didn't have a good answer then. *After
> > > giving it more thought I tend to lean in favor of 1200 because he is
> > > flying in airspace where gliders are not a common experience (into and
> > > out of San Jose's busy airspace) and he can maneuver differently than
> > > I am able to do in a Duo Discus -- which I wouldn't fly into San Jose
> > > or the Bay Area in any case.
>
> > > But I'd be interested in other thoughts on this question.
>
> > > Fred LaSor
> > > SoaringNV
> > > Minden, NV
>
> > Did I not just read in the FAA rules Code 1201 if not in contact with
> > ATC, which would mean in many cases that
> > we stay with 1200 as long as we take off at controlled airports or
> > similar. Leaving the area we might report switching to
> > 1201??? *......Awaiting a possible question about that *code? *This
> > would apply to many motorgliders.
>
> > Dieter, Stemme S10V
>
> This may be confusing the matter more than it needs to be. Putting
> aside the question about motorgliders, "in contact with ATC" in this
> case implies a facility with/providing radar services, i.e. situations
> in which you were on a flight plan or flight following and would be
> assigned a discrete squawk code, if you are just taking off say from a
> typical Class D airport you are not receiving radar services
>
> Darryl- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Not quite so....Initially when I flew my S10 out of my airport, I did
not turn on my Transponder since I did not have to and do not have the
batteries for it. One day testing it, the tower found out that I had
one and pleaded to at least have it on while under power, since we
have an incredible amount of jet traffic here. They are very
appreciative about it. I am never on a flightplan or am asigned my own
code, just 1200! Tower controlers hardly look outside anymore, they
depend on their screens. Happily will point out traffic etc. I do not
see a big deal about all this. Remember Gliders do not need a TXponder
yet. So If one is used in a glider, you have a choice now, 1200 or
1201. If you use the later, it will help who ever is looking at you.
Wait till all of us have to use Mode S....Then ATC will know who you
are no matter what you are squaking including your phone #. Some
wheels turn slower than others, nothing to get exited about.
Most likely by the end of summer, leaving the local airspace, tower
might say as I climb thru 15000... You may squak 1201 now. If I am
behind Capitol Peak he wont see me anymore anyway, but some "fast
Heavy" arriving from the west
will or may not, depending what stage of the game my transponder and
my batteries are in.
BTW Tower and approach control is ATC also

soarski

Scott[_7_]

April 7th 10, 02:06 AM

JJ Sinclair wrote:
> Ah, confusion rains supreme. Squawk this.......no squawk
> that........don't squawk anything? What we have here is the makings of
> a good cluster-fuxx. The unskilled led by the untrained, green troops
> led by yellow leaders.......wait a minute, have I been recalled to
> active duty? That must be it........New orders men.........Continue to
> disregard the new squawking procedure until such time as Hq gets an
> extraction tool to remove head from butt.
> :>) JJ

Oh...wait...gliders (most) do not have an "engine driven charging
system" and are thus exempted from needing a transponder in the first
place when flying in class B or C airspace (maybe even class A??? I
don't know....the highest I go is about 4000 MSL). Squawk nothing :) I
fly my Corben (powered aircraft, no charging system) in Class C airspace
on occasion by calling the airspace authority on the telephone prior to
departure from an airport about 30 minutes out. I do have a handheld
radio and then call them on it about 10 miles from the outer edge. They
usually have me make a 90 degree turn for radar ID and then clear me in.
Simple as that! Then, to top THAT off, they've even re-route F-16s
etc. as necessary and pretty much give me priority (ie Springfield, IL
in this example) and then direct me on the ground to a place such as
Garrett Aviation for overnight parking and Garrett even put me in their
hangar overnight, tucked under the wing of a biz jet, all for FREE!

Scott[_7_]

April 7th 10, 02:22 AM

soarski wrote:
> On Apr 6, 9:34 am, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
>> On Apr 5, 8:32 am, soarski > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 3, 8:58 am, Fred > wrote:
>>>> Dave asks a good question here. He and I discussed this in the hangar
>>>> before he posted it, and I didn't have a good answer then. After
>>>> giving it more thought I tend to lean in favor of 1200 because he is
>>>> flying in airspace where gliders are not a common experience (into and
>>>> out of San Jose's busy airspace) and he can maneuver differently than
>>>> I am able to do in a Duo Discus -- which I wouldn't fly into San Jose
>>>> or the Bay Area in any case.
>>>> But I'd be interested in other thoughts on this question.
>>>> Fred LaSor
>>>> SoaringNV
>>>> Minden, NV
>>> Did I not just read in the FAA rules Code 1201 if not in contact with
>>> ATC, which would mean in many cases that
>>> we stay with 1200 as long as we take off at controlled airports or
>>> similar. Leaving the area we might report switching to
>>> 1201??? ......Awaiting a possible question about that code? This
>>> would apply to many motorgliders.
>>> Dieter, Stemme S10V
>> This may be confusing the matter more than it needs to be. Putting
>> aside the question about motorgliders, "in contact with ATC" in this
>> case implies a facility with/providing radar services, i.e. situations
>> in which you were on a flight plan or flight following and would be
>> assigned a discrete squawk code, if you are just taking off say from a
>> typical Class D airport you are not receiving radar services
>>
>> Darryl- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Not quite so....Initially when I flew my S10 out of my airport, I did
> not turn on my Transponder since I did not have to and do not have the
> batteries for it. One day testing it, the tower found out that I had
> one and pleaded to at least have it on while under power, since we
> have an incredible amount of jet traffic here. They are very
> appreciative about it. I am never on a flightplan or am asigned my own
> code, just 1200! Tower controlers hardly look outside anymore, they
> depend on their screens. Happily will point out traffic etc. I do not
> see a big deal about all this. Remember Gliders do not need a TXponder
> yet. So If one is used in a glider, you have a choice now, 1200 or
> 1201. If you use the later, it will help who ever is looking at you.
> Wait till all of us have to use Mode S....Then ATC will know who you
> are no matter what you are squaking including your phone #. Some
> wheels turn slower than others, nothing to get exited about.
> Most likely by the end of summer, leaving the local airspace, tower
> might say as I climb thru 15000... You may squak 1201 now. If I am
> behind Capitol Peak he wont see me anymore anyway, but some "fast
> Heavy" arriving from the west
> will or may not, depending what stage of the game my transponder and
> my batteries are in.
> BTW Tower and approach control is ATC also
>
> soarski

Actually, I don't believe 1200 is just for powered aircraft. 1200
signifies "VFR" flight. ANY type of aircraft can fly VFR...ultralights,
airships, gliders, rotorcraft, etc. Granted 1201 might be nice to help
ATC determine who has "right of way" in any situation...

Darryl Ramm

April 7th 10, 04:48 AM

On Apr 6, 3:40*pm, soarski > wrote:
> On Apr 6, 9:34*am, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 5, 8:32*am, soarski > wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 3, 8:58*am, Fred > wrote:
>
> > > > Dave asks a good question here. He and I discussed this in the hangar
> > > > before he posted it, and I didn't have a good answer then. *After
> > > > giving it more thought I tend to lean in favor of 1200 because he is
> > > > flying in airspace where gliders are not a common experience (into and
> > > > out of San Jose's busy airspace) and he can maneuver differently than
> > > > I am able to do in a Duo Discus -- which I wouldn't fly into San Jose
> > > > or the Bay Area in any case.
>
> > > > But I'd be interested in other thoughts on this question.
>
> > > > Fred LaSor
> > > > SoaringNV
> > > > Minden, NV
>
> > > Did I not just read in the FAA rules Code 1201 if not in contact with
> > > ATC, which would mean in many cases that
> > > we stay with 1200 as long as we take off at controlled airports or
> > > similar. Leaving the area we might report switching to
> > > 1201??? *......Awaiting a possible question about that *code? *This
> > > would apply to many motorgliders.
>
> > > Dieter, Stemme S10V
>
> > This may be confusing the matter more than it needs to be. Putting
> > aside the question about motorgliders, "in contact with ATC" in this
> > case implies a facility with/providing radar services, i.e. situations
> > in which you were on a flight plan or flight following and would be
> > assigned a discrete squawk code, if you are just taking off say from a
> > typical Class D airport you are not receiving radar services
>
> > Darryl- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Not quite so....Initially when I flew my S10 out of my airport, I did
> not turn on my Transponder since I did not have to and do not have the
> batteries for it. One day testing it, the tower found out that I had
> one and pleaded to at least have it on while under power, since we
> have an incredible amount of jet traffic here. They are very
> appreciative about it. I am never on a flightplan or am asigned my own
> code, just 1200! *Tower controlers hardly look outside anymore, they
> depend on their screens. Happily will point out traffic etc. I do not
> see a big deal about all this. Remember Gliders do not need a TXponder
> yet. So If one is used in a glider, you have a choice now, 1200 or
> 1201. If you use the later, it will help who ever is looking at you.
> Wait till all of us have to use Mode S....Then ATC will know who you
> are no matter what you are squaking including your phone #. Some
> wheels turn slower than others, nothing to get exited about.
> Most likely by the end of summer, leaving the local airspace, tower
> might say as I climb thru 15000... You may squak 1201 now. If I am
> behind Capitol Peak he wont see me anymore anyway, but some "fast
> Heavy" arriving from the west
> will or may not, depending what stage of the game my transponder and
> my batteries are in.
> BTW Tower and approach control is ATC also
>
> soarski

No. No and No. Can I be any clearer?

Technically you are required to turn your transponder on if installed.
And the tower folks probably were bemused why you were not. A Stemme
should have lots of power available for a modern low-power transponder
(Becker, Trig etc). And for God's sake if it's installed and you are
flying near heavy traffic, turn it on.

Do you know for sure that the tower controllers have radar? Which
class D do you fly out of? The tower may well want to make sure you
are visible to approach/tracon radar services once you leave the
airport vicinity.

You won't get assigned a discreet code unless you file a flight plan
or use flight following. Just departing a class D airport VFR with no
flight plan you will not get a unique code, that's expected. You would
normally get a discrete code for flight following if you contact
approach or a similar facility providing radar services once airborne
and request flight following. It seems you are flying around traffic
near controlled airspace and maybe could do with sitting down with
somebody, maybe an power instructor, and going over how ATC operates,
how to use things like flight following, etc.

I am well aware what ATC is but I was trying to explain to you how it
was being used in what you were reading. The document was referring to
radar services when saying ATC and your question about squawking 1200
if in touch with a tower was confusing this discussion.

If is at all not clear that 1201 will automatically "help whoever is
looking at you". Did you miss the people in this thread warning to
check with your local ATC facilities (e.g. likely approach/TRACON not
tower) about wether they can handle 1201. I know some will treat 1201
exactly the same as 1200 and just see the "V" for VFR symbol on their
display (confirmed today that is the situation with Oakland ARTCC).
Some others facilities may have problems with 1201 and not want that
squawked. Clearly everybody has been caught hopping by this
announcement of the allocation, but it's an allocation of a national
code, not an national announcement that facilities are ready to handle
this or to pilots what to do.

Darryl

Darryl Ramm

April 7th 10, 04:54 AM

Eric Greenwell

April 7th 10, 06:53 AM

kd6veb wrote:
> The
> current example shows clearly what is wrong - don't just ask the FAA
> for a special transponder code. Figure out how it will be used, what
> its limitations are, how it will be communicated to all concerned and
> so on. It can't be a hands off request. It requires thought and
> people's inputs. COMMUNICATE - COMMUNICATE - COMMUNICATE Am I hitting
> my head against a brick wall or could things be changed?
> Dave
>
I think you are overreacting. A national transponder code WAS NOT an
important issue, as most glider pilots don't have a transponder, the
majority of those that do, don't fly in high traffic areas, and those
that did, could have local agreements. The fact the "allocation notice"
was missed is annoying but did not cause any problems whatsoever. Take a
deep breath, it's a glitch by the FAA, not an SSA failing.

The most important thing is to have a transponder in busy areas, and
having it set on 1200 will accomplish 99.9% of what's needed, excepting
those areas that have a local agreement. The code will supplant those
local agreements, eventually. It does not improve safety now, though it
might help some in the future.

Based on my conversations with the directors and others working with the
FAA on this issue over the years, I think this code was pursued with the
proper amount of diligence. I hope you have the chance to talk to some
of these people, so you can see it was far from a single request to the
FAA that got us to this code. They resisted it for quite while, so the
"requesting" had to be persistent over many years. It was simply a very
small issue to the FAA.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (netto to net 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

JJ Sinclair

April 9th 10, 02:26 PM

PASCO El Presedent'a confirms that we should "continue to disregard",
the new law and not squawl 1201 until further notice. He also requests
the "extraction tool" be sent to PASCO after HQ is finished using it.
:<) JJ

Darryl Ramm

April 9th 10, 03:10 PM

On Apr 9, 6:26*am, JJ Sinclair > wrote:
> PASCO El Presedent'a confirms that we should "continue to disregard",
> the new law and not squawl 1201 until further notice. He also requests
> the "extraction tool" be sent to PASCO after HQ is finished using it.
> :<) JJ

Can we please be careful how we communicate stuff about this. There is
an awful amount of confusion about this already.

There is no "new law" to ignore. There is technical allocation of
transponder codes. PASCO, which represents glider pilots in Nothern
California and Nevada did some careful checking and determined that
even if Reno TRACON was set up to handle the 1201 code today Oakland
ARTCC that provides overlapping coverage of the same area and other
facilities in Northern California were not. Other organizations/pilots
should check with their local radar facilities and see wether they
can handle 1201 today and if they prefer gliders to use that. So the
situation for now is gliders flying near Reno continue to squawk 0440
and squawk 1200 in other areas (unless of couse you are allocated a
discrete code by ATC).

Darryl

Darryl Ramm

April 9th 10, 03:17 PM

On Apr 9, 7:10*am, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
> On Apr 9, 6:26*am, JJ Sinclair > wrote:
>
> > PASCO El Presedent'a confirms that we should "continue to disregard",
> > the new law and not squawl 1201 until further notice. He also requests
> > the "extraction tool" be sent to PASCO after HQ is finished using it.
> > :<) JJ
>
> Can we please be careful how we communicate stuff about this. There is
> an awful amount of confusion about this already.
>
> There is no "new law" to ignore. There is technical allocation of
> transponder codes. PASCO, which represents glider pilots in Nothern
> California and Nevada did some careful checking and determined that
> even if Reno TRACON was set up to handle the 1201 code today Oakland
> ARTCC that provides overlapping coverage of the same area and other
> facilities in Northern California were not. Other organizations/pilots
> should check with their local radar facilities and see wether they
> can handle 1201 today and if they prefer gliders to use that. So the
> situation for now is gliders flying near Reno continue to squawk 0440
> and squawk 1200 in other areas (unless of couse you are allocated a
> discrete code by ATC).
>
> Darryl

grr. I meant to say continue for now to squawk 1200 in other ares of
Northern California. That situation is likely the same elsewhere but
check with your local radar facilities.

Darryl