SSA petition to allow transponder to be turned off

[Eric Greenwell]

Check out the SSA website for the complete info on this petition, and
consider commenting to the FAA (comments due by March 1, via web site,
mail, fax, "eRulemaking portal"):

SSA Transponder Petition Published
By Dennis Wright
Posted Thursday, February 19, 2004

The SSA petition asks that SSA members be allowed to operate
transponder-equipped gliders with the transponders turned off, when the
glider is being operated more than 40 nautical miles from the primary
airport in Class B airspace and more than 20 nautical miles from the
primary airport in Class C airspace. Currently, Federal Aviation
Regulation 91.215[c] requires that all aircraft equipped with a
transponder and operating in controlled airspace have the transponder on.

....more on the web site
--
-----
change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Ian Cant]

This appeared out of the blue, at least to me. If
approved as it stands, it certainly would be an encouragement
to install a transponder. But what is the SSA's position
if the FAA comes back at some future date and says
'Yes, but now that you have pointed out that battery-operated
transponders are available, there is no reason why
ALL non-electric aircraft should not be REQUIRED to
have a transponder installed' ? Like the part 103
ultralights, maybe it is best not to tamper with an
existing favorable exemption.

Ian

At 18:48 21 February 2004, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>Check out the SSA website for the complete info on
>this petition, and
>consider commenting to the FAA (comments due by March
>1, via web site,
>mail, fax, 'eRulemaking portal'):
>
>SSA Transponder Petition Published
>By Dennis Wright
>Posted Thursday, February 19, 2004
>
>The SSA petition asks that SSA members be allowed to
>operate
>transponder-equipped gliders with the transponders
>turned off, when the
>glider is being operated more than 40 nautical miles
>from the primary
>airport in Class B airspace and more than 20 nautical
>miles from the
>primary airport in Class C airspace. Currently, Federal
>Aviation
>Regulation 91.215[c] requires that all aircraft equipped
>with a
>transponder and operating in controlled airspace have
>the transponder on.
>
>....more on the web site
>--
>-----
>change 'netto' to 'net' to email me directly
>
>Eric Greenwell
>Washington State
>USA
>
>

[BTIZ]

I agree Ian... certainly opens a can-o-worms with the.. "if we are far
enough away can we turn it off, because we are exempt any way argument"...

They keep it up and we'll be restricted to lower altitudes without a
transponder.

BT

"Ian Cant" > wrote in message
...
> This appeared out of the blue, at least to me. If
> approved as it stands, it certainly would be an encouragement
> to install a transponder. But what is the SSA's position
> if the FAA comes back at some future date and says
> 'Yes, but now that you have pointed out that battery-operated
> transponders are available, there is no reason why
> ALL non-electric aircraft should not be REQUIRED to
> have a transponder installed' ? Like the part 103
> ultralights, maybe it is best not to tamper with an
> existing favorable exemption.
>
> Ian
>
> At 18:48 21 February 2004, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> >Check out the SSA website for the complete info on
> >this petition, and
> >consider commenting to the FAA (comments due by March
> >1, via web site,
> >mail, fax, 'eRulemaking portal'):
> >
> >SSA Transponder Petition Published
> >By Dennis Wright
> >Posted Thursday, February 19, 2004
> >
> >The SSA petition asks that SSA members be allowed to
> >operate
> >transponder-equipped gliders with the transponders
> >turned off, when the
> >glider is being operated more than 40 nautical miles
> >from the primary
> >airport in Class B airspace and more than 20 nautical
> >miles from the
> >primary airport in Class C airspace. Currently, Federal
> >Aviation
> >Regulation 91.215[c] requires that all aircraft equipped
> >with a
> >transponder and operating in controlled airspace have
> >the transponder on.
> >
> >....more on the web site
> >--
> >-----
> >change 'netto' to 'net' to email me directly
> >
> >Eric Greenwell
> >Washington State
> >USA
> >
> >
>
>
>

[Martin Hellman]

Eric Greenwell > wrote in message >...
> Check out the SSA website for the complete info on this petition, and
> consider commenting to the FAA (comments due by March 1, via web site,
> mail, fax, "eRulemaking portal"):
>
> SSA Transponder Petition Published
> By Dennis Wright
> Posted Thursday, February 19, 2004 ...

Eric,

Where is it? I went to the SSA web site and did several searches, such
as "faa transponder petition", and found nothing. Thanks for pointing
this out as I think the current rule may add to discouraging glider
pilots from installing transponders, even though many areas, such as
Minden, would really benefit from them. I'm lucky in that I have
plenty of battery power, solar cells (2 amps worth) and a solid state
Becker xponder that doesn't draw much, so I am able to abide by the
rule. But most gliders couldn't and it's clearly much better for them
to have transponders on in high traffic areas than never. Along the
same lines, I'd love to see a rule that would allow gliders to install
transponders without a 337. That's another rule that is way over-used.
When I changed my German altimeter for an American made one, I needed
a 337! Unscrewing three screws, pulling out an altimeter, putting in
another, and rescrewing three screws is a major modification to
airframe??

Anything we can do to get transponders in more gliders is a plus. When
flying in the Minden area and listening to Reno approach on a busy
day. I've heard things like:

"Southwest 123, descend to one zero thousand, targets at 2 o'clock ten
miles, 12 thousand feet, and a swarm of targets, altitudes unknown,
from 10 o'clock to 3 o'clock. Presumed gliders."

Makes me really happy I'm squawking. I realize I'm lucky to be able to
afford the setup I have and rules changes like this would help
increase transponder usage for a greater number of people who are on
more limited budgets.

Martin

[Jim Phoenix]

"Martin Hellman" > wrote in message

<When I changed my German altimeter for an American made one, I needed
a 337! Unscrewing three screws, pulling out an altimeter, putting in
another, and rescrewing three screws is a major modification to
airframe??>

Nope, not in my opinion it's not a major alteration. (43 Appendix A)

Sometimes some guys (including A&P's, IA's and sometimes even the FAA dudes)
don't read the rule, sometimes they rely on memory, what they were told,
what the guidance says, etc. I'm guilty as well and have learned to go back
and read the rule - some rules are very clear, others not.

Swapping an altimeter for another one, especially if it's TSO'd, does not
meet the definition of a major alteration. If your glider is experimental,
you need not be in 43 at all. (43.1) But you do need to comply with the
operating limitations.

Jim

[Jack]

On 2/21/04 7:31 PM, in article ,
"Ian Cant" > wrote:

> If approved as it stands, it certainly would be an encouragement
> to install a transponder. But what is the SSA's position
> if the FAA comes back at some future date and says
> 'Yes, but now that you have pointed out that battery-operated
> transponders are available, there is no reason why
> ALL non-electric aircraft should not be REQUIRED to
> have a transponder installed' ?

ans:

Now that battery-operated transponders are available, there is no reason why
ALL non-electric aircraft should not be REQUIRED to have a transponder
installed.

Period.



-----
Jack
-----

[Eric Greenwell]

The SSA has been discussing this with the FAA for years. This is the
farthest it's ever gotten. Steve Northcraft, our Regional Director and
SSA Government Laison, told me a while ago that the FAA is very aware of
the low-power transponders that are available. They didn't have to learn
it from us.

The issue is: should we be allowed to turn off our transponders when
their use has little value? I'm inclined to encourage that approach.

Ian Cant wrote:
> This appeared out of the blue, at least to me. If
> approved as it stands, it certainly would be an encouragement
> to install a transponder. But what is the SSA's position
> if the FAA comes back at some future date and says
> 'Yes, but now that you have pointed out that battery-operated
> transponders are available, there is no reason why
> ALL non-electric aircraft should not be REQUIRED to
> have a transponder installed' ? Like the part 103
> ultralights, maybe it is best not to tamper with an
> existing favorable exemption.
>
> Ian
>
> At 18:48 21 February 2004, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>
>>Check out the SSA website for the complete info on
>>this petition, and
>>consider commenting to the FAA (comments due by March
>>1, via web site,
>>mail, fax, 'eRulemaking portal'):
>>
>>SSA Transponder Petition Published
>>By Dennis Wright
>>Posted Thursday, February 19, 2004
>>
>>The SSA petition asks that SSA members be allowed to
>>operate
>>transponder-equipped gliders with the transponders
>>turned off, when the
>>glider is being operated more than 40 nautical miles
>
>>from the primary
>
>>airport in Class B airspace and more than 20 nautical
>>miles from the
>>primary airport in Class C airspace. Currently, Federal
>>Aviation
>>Regulation 91.215[c] requires that all aircraft equipped
>>with a
>>transponder and operating in controlled airspace have
>>the transponder on.
>>
>>....more on the web site
>>--
>>-----
>>change 'netto' to 'net' to email me directly
>>
>>Eric Greenwell
>>Washington State
>>USA
>>
>>
>
>
>
>

--
-----
change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Eric Greenwell]

It's on the Home page (www.ssa.org), second item. Or go directly to the
link at:

http://www.ssa.org/ListNewsArticleDtl.asp?id=389

I also feel a lot safer with the transponder on, even over our little
airport, because the airliners are sometimes vectored right over it, and
they've been surprised a few times to discover a glider there. In Minden
and southern California, I'm very pleased to have one. The power drain
is low enough for almost any glider now, but the ~$2000 is still a
problem for a lot of people.

Martin Hellman wrote:

> Eric Greenwell > wrote in message >...
>
>>Check out the SSA website for the complete info on this petition, and
>>consider commenting to the FAA (comments due by March 1, via web site,
>>mail, fax, "eRulemaking portal"):
>>
>>SSA Transponder Petition Published
>>By Dennis Wright
>>Posted Thursday, February 19, 2004 ...
>
>
> Eric,
>
> Where is it? I went to the SSA web site and did several searches, such
> as "faa transponder petition", and found nothing. Thanks for pointing
> this out as I think the current rule may add to discouraging glider
> pilots from installing transponders, even though many areas, such as
> Minden, would really benefit from them. I'm lucky in that I have
> plenty of battery power, solar cells (2 amps worth) and a solid state
> Becker xponder that doesn't draw much, so I am able to abide by the
> rule. But most gliders couldn't and it's clearly much better for them
> to have transponders on in high traffic areas than never. Along the
> same lines, I'd love to see a rule that would allow gliders to install
> transponders without a 337. That's another rule that is way over-used.
> When I changed my German altimeter for an American made one, I needed
> a 337! Unscrewing three screws, pulling out an altimeter, putting in
> another, and rescrewing three screws is a major modification to
> airframe??
>
> Anything we can do to get transponders in more gliders is a plus. When
> flying in the Minden area and listening to Reno approach on a busy
> day. I've heard things like:
>
> "Southwest 123, descend to one zero thousand, targets at 2 o'clock ten
> miles, 12 thousand feet, and a swarm of targets, altitudes unknown,
> from 10 o'clock to 3 o'clock. Presumed gliders."
>
> Makes me really happy I'm squawking. I realize I'm lucky to be able to
> afford the setup I have and rules changes like this would help
> increase transponder usage for a greater number of people who are on
> more limited budgets.
>
> Martin

--
-----
change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Tim Mara]

you know..I sell transponders and have sold a lot of them to glider
owners....I have however been afraid from the start that once the FAA starts
to recognize larger numbers of gliders with transponders it could come back
to haunt us all...If we lose the exemption requiring transponders in
gliders, and we might now that the FAA sees that they can indeed be operated
from our battery power it could be just the straw that breaks the camels
back...Soaring as a sport isn't growing even now in the US, adding more cost
to owning and operating gliders surely will not help...to many clubs and
many owners adding $2000+ to each and every glider plus the added expense to
keep them certified and working will certainly take more club type and older
gliders off line. Large number of these gliders still today do not even have
radios installed. A large number of club gliders are still tied outside,
still have no battery installed many don't even have audio variometers let
alone radios, (I really do think all gliders should have at least a decent
radio and audio variometer for basic safety reasons even at small
out-of-the-way airports).
I hear a lot of grumbling about near misses while flying in and around
approaches to busy metro airports, while flying near military bases and so
on.....the simple truth is, if this is happening and I'm sure it is, the
answer is not in adding one more piece of electronics, the answer is in not
flying in these busy corridors....doing so will eventually cause this
airspace to be closed to all non-commercial aircraft and the eventual loss
of this and other airspace where traffic is not a problem and before we all
know it an end to soaring as we know it today in this country...Public
opinion will outnumber the small number of pilots wishing to fly for fun.
Let the evening news, 60 minutes or 20/20 run some special on the dangers
glider pilots pose to airliners and every politician will support the public
opinion polls and side with them to get votes.....the more we depend on
electronics the more we are keeping our heads down in the cockpits...with
GPS and pocket nav's to guide us, flight computers to calculate for us and
transponders to shield (?) us we are also forgetting what we started doing
this for to begin with....look outside, there is real beauty to be seen
through the clear mecaplex that surrounds us....fly safe, but always fly for
fun
BTW, I also sell canopy cleaner, but sales of this are on a steady decline..
tim


> Now that battery-operated transponders are available, there is no reason
why
> ALL non-electric aircraft should not be REQUIRED to have a transponder
> installed.
>
> Period.
>
>
>
> -----
> Jack
> -----
>

[Mark Zivley]

I'm definitely in favor of gliders w/ transponders and see this as
another step towards conserving battery power for when you need it.
i.e. when you are near a high traffic airspace where the chances of
crossing paths with someone with either TCAS or ATC coverage is increased.

What about a discrete transponder code specifically for gliders??????

I understand that there is at least one area which has an agreement to
use (seems like it's 0440 or something similar) a code specifically for
gliders. Why not also work on getting this code agreed to for all of
the U.S. at the same time that they are working on the below mentioned
waiver.

Keep up the good work!

Mark

Eric Greenwell wrote:
> Check out the SSA website for the complete info on this petition, and
> consider commenting to the FAA (comments due by March 1, via web site,
> mail, fax, "eRulemaking portal"):
>
> SSA Transponder Petition Published
> By Dennis Wright
> Posted Thursday, February 19, 2004
>
> The SSA petition asks that SSA members be allowed to operate
> transponder-equipped gliders with the transponders turned off, when the
> glider is being operated more than 40 nautical miles from the primary
> airport in Class B airspace and more than 20 nautical miles from the
> primary airport in Class C airspace. Currently, Federal Aviation
> Regulation 91.215[c] requires that all aircraft equipped with a
> transponder and operating in controlled airspace have the transponder on.
>
> ...more on the web site

[Eric Greenwell]

Tim Mara wrote:
> you know..I sell transponders and have sold a lot of them to glider
> owners....I have however been afraid from the start that once the FAA starts
> to recognize larger numbers of gliders with transponders it could come back
> to haunt us all...If we lose the exemption requiring transponders in
> gliders, and we might now that the FAA sees that they can indeed be operated
> from our battery power it could be just the straw that breaks the camels
> back

First, this cat jumped out of the bag a couple of years ago: the FAA
knows about the Becker, and Microair, and they'll know about the Filser
and the others, as they become available.

....Soaring as a sport isn't growing even now in the US, adding more cost
> to owning and operating gliders surely will not help...to many clubs and
> many owners adding $2000+ to each and every glider plus the added expense to
> keep them certified and working will certainly take more club type and older
> gliders off line.

Second, I've been told by my director that the FAA is not keen to burden
the sport with another requirement; that they understand our situation.

snip

> I hear a lot of grumbling about near misses while flying in and around
> approaches to busy metro airports, while flying near military bases and so
> on.....the simple truth is, if this is happening and I'm sure it is, the
> answer is not in adding one more piece of electronics, the answer is in not
> flying in these busy corridors.
>...doing so will eventually cause this
> airspace to be closed to all non-commercial aircraft and the eventual loss
> of this and other airspace where traffic is not a problem

These corridors also have general aviation airplanes flying in them, so
we'd have a lot of allies if such restrictions were ever attempted. I
think losing the use airspace just because transponder equipped gliders
are flying in it is most unlikely. The idea that this could somehow lead
to losing airspace for general avaiation in areas that AREN'T busy is
incredible to me.

and before we all
> know it an end to soaring as we know it today in this country...Public
> opinion will outnumber the small number of pilots wishing to fly for fun.
> Let the evening news, 60 minutes or 20/20 run some special on the dangers
> glider pilots pose to airliners and every politician will support the public
> opinion polls and side with them to get votes.

These doomsday scenarios are so hard to predict, I don't think we should
even try. Keep in mind that a there are a lot more general avaition
airplanes than there are gliders, and they fly into these busy areas a
lot more than we do, yet no one is suggesting they rip out their
transponders and just fly in the rural areas.

>....the more we depend on
> electronics the more we are keeping our heads down in the cockpits.

Transponder use doesn't do this: turn it on when you turn on the radio,
turn it off when you land. You don't look at it, you don't tune it, you
don't listen to it. It's just there.

...with
> GPS and pocket nav's to guide us, flight computers to calculate for us and
> transponders to shield (?) us we are also forgetting what we started doing
> this for to begin with....look outside, there is real beauty to be seen
> through the clear mecaplex that surrounds us....fly safe, but always fly for
> fun

These are worthy issues, but separate from transponders.

--
-----
change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Eric Greenwell]

Mark Zivley wrote:

> I'm definitely in favor of gliders w/ transponders and see this as
> another step towards conserving battery power for when you need it. i.e.
> when you are near a high traffic airspace where the chances of crossing
> paths with someone with either TCAS or ATC coverage is increased.
>
> What about a discrete transponder code specifically for gliders??????
>
> I understand that there is at least one area which has an agreement to
> use (seems like it's 0440 or something similar) a code specifically for
> gliders. Why not also work on getting this code agreed to for all of
> the U.S. at the same time that they are working on the below mentioned
> waiver.

Contacting your director will likely get you the latest information on
this subject, but here's what I was told last year:

-The Reno area does use 0440, and it works for them, because there are
many gliders flying there that do have transponders, and the controllers
are familiar with how a glider operate, so knowing which blip is a
glider is useful.

-The above is not true for most of the USA.

-The specific code, 0440, is used for other things around the country -
not many, but it means other changes would have to be made.

-Some have suggested making gliders easily identifiable by a specific
code might not work in our favor because controllers and others would
know "who" to be annoyed at, justified or not.

-So, the last I heard, doing a special code was likely to be on a
cas-by-case basis.
>
> Keep up the good work!
>
> Mark
>
> Eric Greenwell wrote:
>
>> Check out the SSA website for the complete info on this petition, and
>> consider commenting to the FAA (comments due by March 1, via web site,
>> mail, fax, "eRulemaking portal"):
>>
>> SSA Transponder Petition Published
>> By Dennis Wright
>> Posted Thursday, February 19, 2004
>>
>> The SSA petition asks that SSA members be allowed to operate
>> transponder-equipped gliders with the transponders turned off, when
>> the glider is being operated more than 40 nautical miles from the
>> primary airport in Class B airspace and more than 20 nautical miles
>> from the primary airport in Class C airspace. Currently, Federal
>> Aviation Regulation 91.215[c] requires that all aircraft equipped with
>> a transponder and operating in controlled airspace have the
>> transponder on.
>>
>> ...more on the web site
>
>

--
-----
change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Bill Daniels]

"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
...

SNIP-----
> >....the more we depend on
> > electronics the more we are keeping our heads down in the cockpits.
>
SNIP------

> Eric Greenwell
> Washington State
> USA
>

Eric, I think you've been flying gliders as long as I have, but I must
strongly disagree with the statement above. I remember flying cross country
without a single electronic device - not even a radio. (A good retrieve
crew had to know how to set the dwell and adjust the carburetor on a Chevy
as well as how to outsmart the phone company with person-to-person, collect
calls.)

You can't argue that folding maps, scribbling notes on pads and working a
"prayer wheel" trying to make navigation by pilotage work when spending half
the time flying in tight circles is less distracting. Often you could add
trying to get it a pellet vario unstuck at the same time. That was a
serious "heads down" situation.(I still carry a well marked sectional and
little notebook with all the important facts and numbers.)

By comparison, grabbing a quick glance at a computer screen that tells me
everything and them returning my gaze outside is vastly safer and easier.
The only time "heads down" becomes a problem is when a pilot doesn't know
how to work the electronics. The present problem is pilots trying to learn
to use avionics in the air instead of on the ground. (A good season prep:
go sit in your glider for a couple of hours reading manuals and pushing
buttons.)

Like it or not, ubiquitous computing is a part of everyday life - including
gliding - and the "good 'ole days" weren't all that great.

Bill Daniels

[Eric Greenwell]

Hi Bill,

I agree with you completely. The quoted statement is Tim Mara's, not mine.

Bill Daniels wrote:

> "Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> SNIP-----
>
>>>....the more we depend on
>>>electronics the more we are keeping our heads down in the cockpits.
>>
> SNIP------
>
>
>>Eric Greenwell
>>Washington State
>>USA
>>
>
>
> Eric, I think you've been flying gliders as long as I have, but I must
> strongly disagree with the statement above. I remember flying cross country
> without a single electronic device - not even a radio. (A good retrieve
> crew had to know how to set the dwell and adjust the carburetor on a Chevy
> as well as how to outsmart the phone company with person-to-person, collect
> calls.)
>
> You can't argue that folding maps, scribbling notes on pads and working a
> "prayer wheel" trying to make navigation by pilotage work when spending half
> the time flying in tight circles is less distracting. Often you could add
> trying to get it a pellet vario unstuck at the same time. That was a
> serious "heads down" situation.(I still carry a well marked sectional and
> little notebook with all the important facts and numbers.)
>
> By comparison, grabbing a quick glance at a computer screen that tells me
> everything and them returning my gaze outside is vastly safer and easier.
> The only time "heads down" becomes a problem is when a pilot doesn't know
> how to work the electronics. The present problem is pilots trying to learn
> to use avionics in the air instead of on the ground. (A good season prep:
> go sit in your glider for a couple of hours reading manuals and pushing
> buttons.)
>
> Like it or not, ubiquitous computing is a part of everyday life - including
> gliding - and the "good 'ole days" weren't all that great.
>
> Bill Daniels
>

--
-----
change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[d b]

I'd have to disagree about the predictability of airspace loss. It
was predictable when the FAA came into existance. So far, the
predictions have been met or exceeded.

The predicton is simple. If it is possible to use a rule to restrict
those who now use the airspace, it will be used to restrict those
who use the airspace. The second corollary is that all rules are
restrictions in one form or another.

I'm trying to think of an example where the opposite has happened.
I can think of no airspace that was unavailable in the past and is
now available.

The trick is to decide when restrictions are really required. I contend
that the airspace rules that were in effect in 1959 were just as safe
as what we have now.


In article >, Eric Greenwell
> wrote:
>Tim Mara wrote:
>> you know..I sell transponders and have sold a lot of them to glider
>> owners....I have however been afraid from the start that once the FAA starts
>> to recognize larger numbers of gliders with transponders it could come back
>> to haunt us all...If we lose the exemption requiring transponders in
>> gliders, and we might now that the FAA sees that they can indeed be operated
>> from our battery power it could be just the straw that breaks the camels
>> back
>
>First, this cat jumped out of the bag a couple of years ago: the FAA
>knows about the Becker, and Microair, and they'll know about the Filser
>and the others, as they become available.
>
>....Soaring as a sport isn't growing even now in the US, adding more cost
>> to owning and operating gliders surely will not help...to many clubs and
>> many owners adding $2000+ to each and every glider plus the added expense to
>> keep them certified and working will certainly take more club type and older
>> gliders off line.
>
>Second, I've been told by my director that the FAA is not keen to burden
>the sport with another requirement; that they understand our situation.
>
>snip
>
>> I hear a lot of grumbling about near misses while flying in and around
>> approaches to busy metro airports, while flying near military bases and so
>> on.....the simple truth is, if this is happening and I'm sure it is, the
>> answer is not in adding one more piece of electronics, the answer is in not
>> flying in these busy corridors.
>>...doing so will eventually cause this
>> airspace to be closed to all non-commercial aircraft and the eventual loss
>> of this and other airspace where traffic is not a problem
>
>These corridors also have general aviation airplanes flying in them, so
>we'd have a lot of allies if such restrictions were ever attempted. I
>think losing the use airspace just because transponder equipped gliders
>are flying in it is most unlikely. The idea that this could somehow lead
>to losing airspace for general avaiation in areas that AREN'T busy is
>incredible to me.
>
> and before we all
>> know it an end to soaring as we know it today in this country...Public
>> opinion will outnumber the small number of pilots wishing to fly for fun.
>> Let the evening news, 60 minutes or 20/20 run some special on the dangers
>> glider pilots pose to airliners and every politician will support the public
>> opinion polls and side with them to get votes.
>
>These doomsday scenarios are so hard to predict, I don't think we should
>even try. Keep in mind that a there are a lot more general avaition
>airplanes than there are gliders, and they fly into these busy areas a
>lot more than we do, yet no one is suggesting they rip out their
>transponders and just fly in the rural areas.
>
>>....the more we depend on
>> electronics the more we are keeping our heads down in the cockpits.
>
>Transponder use doesn't do this: turn it on when you turn on the radio,
>turn it off when you land. You don't look at it, you don't tune it, you
>don't listen to it. It's just there.
>
>...with
>> GPS and pocket nav's to guide us, flight computers to calculate for us and
>> transponders to shield (?) us we are also forgetting what we started doing
>> this for to begin with....look outside, there is real beauty to be seen
>> through the clear mecaplex that surrounds us....fly safe, but always fly for
>> fun
>
>These are worthy issues, but separate from transponders.
>

[Eric Greenwell]

d b wrote:
> I'd have to disagree about the predictability of airspace loss. It
> was predictable when the FAA came into existance. So far, the
> predictions have been met or exceeded.
>
> The predicton is simple. If it is possible to use a rule to restrict
> those who now use the airspace, it will be used to restrict those
> who use the airspace. The second corollary is that all rules are
> restrictions in one form or another.
>
> I'm trying to think of an example where the opposite has happened.
> I can think of no airspace that was unavailable in the past and is
> now available.

The Hanford nuclear reservation (near Richland, WA, where I live) had a
640 square mile, 10,000' restriction on it when I began to fly gliders
in the 70's. In the early '80s, the FAA badgered the DOE into dropping
that restriction, and now we fly freely over it.

The FAA's objections, along with others, have kept the Yakima Firing
Range restricted area (Washington state) from growing, for which we are
very thankful.

We have added several wave windows in Washington and Oregon over the
last 20 years, so we can now use Class A airspace that was previously
unavailable.

The Umatilla Depot TFR (Oregon) that was imposed after 9/11 was a 5 mile
radius restriction to 10,000'; it was recently reduced to one fifth of
that and to only 5000'.

I'm sure you will understand why I might have different view of the FAA.
--
-----
change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[F.L. Whiteley]

At the SSA convention, the discrete glider code was discussed again and
nothing's really changed from what Eric states. Unfortunately, code
assignments are exhausted in some regions and there is no likelihood of
securing a national glider code in any near term. The next time the FAA
asks Congress for billion$ to update the obsolete and failing system (FUD)
again, I suggest you write your representative WRT moving from 8-bit to
16-bit
codes for future expansion, since we're in the 21st century now. Since
there's no prospect of a single discrete code, there's no incentive for
development of a lower cost single code transponder for gliders. Squawk
09AF works for me. Can't imagine the situation getting any better in the
future.

In many cases this might seem to only require reasonable firmware and
software changes and wouldn't necessarily obsolete a lot of older
equipment. Like to hear if this is technically feasible or not.

Or maybe ask the FAA to assign the 'X' pulse to gliders exclusively. The
addition or supression of the X pulse (opposite of what it now does during a
reply) could ident the airframe as a glider to any interrogation. May open
the door for a single code with some software, firmware updates.

See http://www.airsport-corp.com/modec.htm

Frank Whiteley


"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
...
> Mark Zivley wrote:
>
> > I'm definitely in favor of gliders w/ transponders and see this as
> > another step towards conserving battery power for when you need it. i.e.
> > when you are near a high traffic airspace where the chances of crossing
> > paths with someone with either TCAS or ATC coverage is increased.
> >
> > What about a discrete transponder code specifically for gliders??????
> >
> > I understand that there is at least one area which has an agreement to
> > use (seems like it's 0440 or something similar) a code specifically for
> > gliders. Why not also work on getting this code agreed to for all of
> > the U.S. at the same time that they are working on the below mentioned
> > waiver.
>
> Contacting your director will likely get you the latest information on
> this subject, but here's what I was told last year:
>
> -The Reno area does use 0440, and it works for them, because there are
> many gliders flying there that do have transponders, and the controllers
> are familiar with how a glider operate, so knowing which blip is a
> glider is useful.
>
> -The above is not true for most of the USA.
>
> -The specific code, 0440, is used for other things around the country -
> not many, but it means other changes would have to be made.
>
> -Some have suggested making gliders easily identifiable by a specific
> code might not work in our favor because controllers and others would
> know "who" to be annoyed at, justified or not.
>
> -So, the last I heard, doing a special code was likely to be on a
> cas-by-case basis.
> >
> > Keep up the good work!
> >
> > Mark
> >
> > Eric Greenwell wrote:
> >
> >> Check out the SSA website for the complete info on this petition, and
> >> consider commenting to the FAA (comments due by March 1, via web site,
> >> mail, fax, "eRulemaking portal"):
> >>
> >> SSA Transponder Petition Published
> >> By Dennis Wright
> >> Posted Thursday, February 19, 2004
> >>
> >> The SSA petition asks that SSA members be allowed to operate
> >> transponder-equipped gliders with the transponders turned off, when
> >> the glider is being operated more than 40 nautical miles from the
> >> primary airport in Class B airspace and more than 20 nautical miles
> >> from the primary airport in Class C airspace. Currently, Federal
> >> Aviation Regulation 91.215[c] requires that all aircraft equipped with
> >> a transponder and operating in controlled airspace have the
> >> transponder on.
> >>
> >> ...more on the web site
> >
> >
>
> --
> -----
> change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>
> Eric Greenwell
> Washington State
> USA
>

[d b]

If the floor of "class A" was the same now as it was in 1958, would
you need the window as much? In your examples, the areas
were smaller or didn't exist.

The FAA really got nasty when Dole was administrator.

In article >, Eric Greenwell
> wrote:
>d b wrote:
>> I'd have to disagree about the predictability of airspace loss. It
>> was predictable when the FAA came into existance. So far, the
>> predictions have been met or exceeded.
>>
>> The predicton is simple. If it is possible to use a rule to restrict
>> those who now use the airspace, it will be used to restrict those
>> who use the airspace. The second corollary is that all rules are
>> restrictions in one form or another.
>>
>> I'm trying to think of an example where the opposite has happened.
>> I can think of no airspace that was unavailable in the past and is
>> now available.
>
>The Hanford nuclear reservation (near Richland, WA, where I live) had a
>640 square mile, 10,000' restriction on it when I began to fly gliders
>in the 70's. In the early '80s, the FAA badgered the DOE into dropping
>that restriction, and now we fly freely over it.
>
>The FAA's objections, along with others, have kept the Yakima Firing
>Range restricted area (Washington state) from growing, for which we are
>very thankful.
>
>We have added several wave windows in Washington and Oregon over the
>last 20 years, so we can now use Class A airspace that was previously
>unavailable.
>
>The Umatilla Depot TFR (Oregon) that was imposed after 9/11 was a 5 mile
>radius restriction to 10,000'; it was recently reduced to one fifth of
>that and to only 5000'.
>
>I'm sure you will understand why I might have different view of the FAA.

[Finbar]

I'll get to my rant at the end.

First, a question: what happens if you turn off a transponder in
flight? Hypothetically, of course: would anybody notice? Would S&R
be sent out to look?

Second, a recollection: it's my recollection that ATC radar is
designed to filter out slow-moving targets. If that's the case,
transponders are only of any use to TCAD-equipped aircraft.
Apparently some ATC facilities are seeing the glider Xpdrs, so maybe
my recollection is wrong?

Third, evidently I now have a choice between a low-priced TCAD-type
device or a Xpdr. Having both is not an option: my panel is already
full, so stuff has to start coming out in order for me to put things
in.

Fourth, it is NOT illegal for me to turn off the TCAD-type device to
save my batteries, but it is illegal for me to turn of the Xpdr (my
home field is 33 nm from the primary airport). Score one for passive
rather than active collision avoidance. The passive device uses a lot
less power. Score two. The passive device is cheaper. Score three.

Fifth, it seems to me that an Xpdr should be fitted with a separate
battery, so that it doesn't threaten the much more important nav and
vario equipment by draining power from them. Similarly the Xpdr
should not drain the battery required to relight self-launchers.
Legally, I have no idea where you stand when you have a "working" Xpdr
on board, "turned on" but with a dead battery. But it's safer than
the alternative.

Now my rant: bad enough that regulators make dumb laws, but worse when
SSA compounds the error. Here's why -

Regulations that impose requirements on safety equipment that isn't
even required in the first place are logically bad law (not that bad
law is particularly unusual) because they create a disincentive to the
use of safety equipment. It reminds me of the reg about parachutes:
if my chute is past its repack date, it's perfectly legal for me to
use a seat cushion instead and leave the chute in my car. If I take
the chute anyway (as a seat cushion), it's illegal and I can get
busted. My chute's always properly packed (go ahead, check) but
that's not the point. Which of our regulators wants to explain to a
grieving family that the totally unnecessary fatality was caused, not
by the out-of-date parachute (which probably would have worked fine),
but by a regulation that REQUIRED LEAVING IT ON THE GROUND!
Similarly, a regulation that requires the use of a transponder, if
fitted, when transponders are not required, is a regulation that
encourages people to... not fit transponders. Poor logic, bad law.

This request for an exemption suffers from the same faulty logic. The
place where transponders are most important is... around the primary
airports of Class B and Class C airspace. This exemption request
removes the disincentive to carrying Xpdrs everywhere... except where
Xpdrs are important!

Rant over.

[Eric Greenwell]

Finbar wrote:

> I'll get to my rant at the end.
>
> First, a question: what happens if you turn off a transponder in
> flight? Hypothetically, of course: would anybody notice?

Maybe. If you disappeared from a controllers screen, it would be
noticed. A TCAS equipped airliner might notice - I don't know if there
is an alert function for such an event.

> Would S&R
> be sent out to look?

No.

>
> Second, a recollection: it's my recollection that ATC radar is
> designed to filter out slow-moving targets.

That's primary radar, because of ground clutter problems. It would be a
most unusual situation to eliminate a transponder return. They certainly
don't do it out here in the Pacific Northwest - I've asked.

> If that's the case,
> transponders are only of any use to TCAD-equipped aircraft.
> Apparently some ATC facilities are seeing the glider Xpdrs, so maybe
> my recollection is wrong?

Yes, mainly because of a confusion between primary (skin reflection)
reflection processing and transponder return processing.

>
> Third, evidently I now have a choice between a low-priced TCAD-type
> device or a Xpdr. Having both is not an option: my panel is already
> full, so stuff has to start coming out in order for me to put things
> in.
>
> Fourth, it is NOT illegal for me to turn off the TCAD-type device to
> save my batteries, but it is illegal for me to turn of the Xpdr (my
> home field is 33 nm from the primary airport). Score one for passive
> rather than active collision avoidance. The passive device uses a lot
> less power. Score two. The passive device is cheaper. Score three.

I've wondered about this, also. In addition to the advantages mentioned,
they are portable and easily moved from one aircraft to another. The Big
Question: is the pilot safer with something like the Proxalert than a
transponder? I know one glider pilot using one, so we'll have at least
on experienced opinion in a few months.
>
> Fifth, it seems to me that an Xpdr should be fitted with a separate
> battery, so that it doesn't threaten the much more important nav and
> vario equipment by draining power from them.

Pilots choice: most pilots monitor their battery voltage, so they can
turn off the transponder if the voltage gets low.

> Similarly the Xpdr
> should not drain the battery required to relight self-launchers.

Again, pilots choice. Self-launchers typically have much larger
batteries than unpowered gliders (mine has 36 amp hours), so powering
the transponder AND still having enough to start isn't a problem at all.

> Legally, I have no idea where you stand when you have a "working" Xpdr
> on board, "turned on" but with a dead battery. But it's safer than
> the alternative.

It's not required to be transmitting if your battery is dead.

> Now my rant: bad enough that regulators make dumb laws, but worse when
> SSA compounds the error. Here's why -
>
> Regulations that impose requirements on safety equipment that isn't
> even required in the first place are logically bad law (not that bad
> law is particularly unusual) because they create a disincentive to the
> use of safety equipment.

I think it's an oversight, rather than foolishness: airplanes ARE
required to have transponders, and this rule was written for them.
Gliders aren't required to have transponders, and when the rules were
written, they were extremely rare in gliders.

It reminds me of the reg about parachutes:
> if my chute is past its repack date, it's perfectly legal for me to
> use a seat cushion instead and leave the chute in my car. If I take
> the chute anyway (as a seat cushion), it's illegal and I can get
> busted. My chute's always properly packed (go ahead, check) but
> that's not the point. Which of our regulators wants to explain to a
> grieving family that the totally unnecessary fatality was caused, not
> by the out-of-date parachute (which probably would have worked fine),
> but by a regulation that REQUIRED LEAVING IT ON THE GROUND!

It won't ever get explained that way: the puzzled regulator will be
dumbfounded that a pilot was so clueless, that he owned a parachute and
didn't take it along. The family should also be dumbfounded, as I would
be. Get it packed if the rule bothers you, carry it if doesn't. Sheesh.
Give it to a passenger...then I think you should have packed properly.

> Similarly, a regulation that requires the use of a transponder, if
> fitted, when transponders are not required, is a regulation that
> encourages people to... not fit transponders. Poor logic, bad law.

I believe that pilots that WANT to carry a transponder do so, and those
that want to turn if off when far from heavy traffic, also do so. No one
has been busted for turning off his transponder, and lots of pilots do.
I also believe a lot of pilots that don't want to use a transponder, use
this rule as a convenient excuse. Basically, I think, getting this
exemption is about removing this excuse. I don't think there will be
sudden surge in transponder installations by glider pilots that can't
stand to be scofflaws. Even noticed how many pilots fly near cloudbase?

> This request for an exemption suffers from the same faulty logic. The
> place where transponders are most important is... around the primary
> airports of Class B and Class C airspace. This exemption request
> removes the disincentive to carrying Xpdrs everywhere... except where
> Xpdrs are important!

I think you are saying it's a good idea. I do.

--
-----
change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Tim Mara]

now, I am not going to try to justify the cycle period, and in fact this can
vary from country to country, and even most manufacturers will probably say
the 120 day cycle is too frequent for our typical use, but I can
understand the FAA rule on this, and anyone who doesn't see the reasoning is
why they have the rule...
plain and simple, if it were legal to wear an out of date parachute, would
you, or anyone else bother to have it inspected or repacked?? I rather doubt
it....in fact you're already suggested you wouldn't...
Rules are never a simple matter or what's right for the masses, but made
because some one or a few people have done something that was questionable,
or wrong. If we were all perfect, and always right we'd have far fewer
rules, regulations and restrictions....
tim


> It reminds me of the reg about parachutes:
> > if my chute is past its repack date, it's perfectly legal for me to
> > use a seat cushion instead and leave the chute in my car. If I take
> > the chute anyway (as a seat cushion), it's illegal and I can get
> > busted. My chute's always properly packed (go ahead, check) but
> > that's not the point. Which of our regulators wants to explain to a
> > grieving family that the totally unnecessary fatality was caused, not
> > by the out-of-date parachute (which probably would have worked fine),
> > but by a regulation that REQUIRED LEAVING IT ON THE GROUND!
>
> It won't ever get explained that way: the puzzled regulator will be
> dumbfounded that a pilot was so clueless, that he owned a parachute and
> didn't take it along. The family should also be dumbfounded, as I would
> be. Get it packed if the rule bothers you, carry it if doesn't. Sheesh.
> Give it to a passenger...then I think you should have packed properly.

[Jim Phoenix]

"Tim Mara" > wrote > Rules are never a simple matter
or what's right for the masses, but made
> because some one or a few people have done something that was
questionable,
> or wrong. If we were all perfect, and always right we'd have far fewer
> rules, regulations and restrictions....
> tim

Not too long ago there was a double fatality at a commercial skydiving
operation with of those two-person buddy jumps where they are attached to
the same harness (don't know the correct terminology for a tandem jump
arrangement, but I'm sure someone here does...)

Well, long story short they hit the ground and both died, the main chute
failed and the reserve did not open for whatever reason. Turned out neither
chute had been packed within the recency requirement, so the operator was
violated by the FAA as well. ( I *believe* only the reserve chute is
required to be re-packed in the 120 day period? Can't remember now.). I
don't recall the reason for the dual failure, but that fatality ended up in
court and they use the story in an FAA seminars now to drive home the reason
for why the chutes must be repacked on a regular basis. Tragic story, bad
ending and I would rather fly my 1-26 3.5 lbs. over gross than leave my
chute on the ground.

Jim

[Mark James Boyd]

>Finbar wrote:
>
>I think it's an oversight, rather than foolishness: airplanes ARE
>required to have transponders, and this rule was written for them.

>Gliders aren't required to have transponders, and when the rules were
>written, they were extremely rare in gliders.

Hmmm...as far as I know airplanes do not have a general requirement for
transponders. 91.215 is poorly written, but neither it nor 91.205
seem to require a transponder be installed in all airplanes. Not
sure where you may have seen this...

My reading seems to indicate that if an operable transponder is installed,
it must be inspected (91.411 and/or 91.413 as applies) and
turned on. There are various exceptions for how to operate
it if it's out of inspection or otherwise inop.

So if one IS installed, there are things to do, but I've never read any
requirement that a transponder MUST be installed in all airplanes.

Now beyond that there are some airspaces that require transponders,
with some exceptions for gliders, aircraft without engine-driven
electrics, etc. All to allow the Baby Aces and Cubs and gliders
and the like to access airports under B and C rings without requiring
a transponder. Grandfathered in, it seems... And we rode the coattails
of the ol' farts that kept it this way...

Beware, however, a much greater evil. The San Jose FSDO
required a local pilot who wanted to certify his Experimental
Speed Canard to install a transponder for certification.
Not optional, but required by the FSDO for his experimental.
I've never heard of this as a requirement for good ol'
152's and 172's when flown outside of 91.215(b)(1-5), so
I don't know why he got hit with it for his experimental
(especially since his home airport was in "G" airspace
with only "E" above).

As far as I know, the Fresno FSDO 100+ NM south didn't
require a transponder for the recent experimental certification
of an RV-3. Do FSDO's have the discretion to
require transponders of experimentals on a case by case basis?
Perhaps so. A bit odd and not too consistent it might seem...

I've personally had a mechanic pull out a transponder with
a log entry, and then flown a plane for 6 months without it
below 10,000 ft in "E" and "G" airspace. Even had an FAA DPE
do a checkride in the plane. Nobody even blinked...straight
faces all around...

But maybe I'm missing something and all airplanes with
engine driven electrics ARE required to have transponders.
Maybe someone can point me to a reference...

As far as getting a transponder OR getting a Proxalert (etc),
I'd definitely go proxalert first...no-brainer there.
Lots of squawking targets out there, and me squawking too
does almost nothing to improve safety (since radar watching ATC
will rarely be in contact with them in my most common
scenarios). Me watching the other squawks, and then
looking outside in that direction: now that'll help...

[Mark James Boyd]

In article >,
Tim Mara > wrote:
>now, I am not going to try to justify the cycle period, and in fact this can
>vary from country to country, and even most manufacturers will probably say
>the 120 day cycle is too frequent for our typical use, but I can
>understand the FAA rule on this, and anyone who doesn't see the reasoning is
>why they have the rule...
>plain and simple, if it were legal to wear an out of date parachute, would
>you, or anyone else bother to have it inspected or repacked?? I rather doubt
>it....in fact you're already suggested you wouldn't...

There's no rule requiring me to change my tidy-whities every week either,
but I DO IT! :P For health reasons, you know... Same for a chute.
I wouldn't just sit on the thing for 12 years and drip jelly on it
and drag it through the dirt all day and think it would open. But
if it's my own G*****n chute in a G*****n single-seat glider,
whose business is it anyway?

>Rules are never a simple matter or what's right for the masses, but made
>because some one or a few people have done something that was questionable,
>or wrong. If we were all perfect, and always right we'd have far fewer
>rules, regulations and restrictions....
>tim

A coupla guys weighing in heavy on an expired reserve on
a tandem skydiving jump is a hell of a long way from me
in my itsy-bitsy glider wearing an emergency chute I don't even
intend to use. Who'll convince me that the extra safety
of having the more frequent repack outweighs the lack of safety
when I fly twice without the chute each year (while I wait for
the packer to send it back)?

[bumper]

"Mark James Boyd" > wrote in message
news:4039aef8$1@darkstar...
>
> As far as getting a transponder OR getting a Proxalert (etc),
> I'd definitely go proxalert first...no-brainer there.
> Lots of squawking targets out there, and me squawking too
> does almost nothing to improve safety (since radar watching ATC
> will rarely be in contact with them in my most common
> scenarios). Me watching the other squawks, and then
> looking outside in that direction: now that'll help...
>

None of the new crop of reasonably priced passive detectors gives bearing to
the threat info. They do display threat altitude and range. Takes thousands
of additional dollars to get bearing info.

I flew with the ProxAlert in my glider at Minden this last week. Didn't
"see" any other gliders using transponders, just power aircraft.

--
bumper ZZ (reverse all after @)>
"Dare to be different . . . circle in sink."

[Finbar]

Hi Eric,

Indeed, the regulator would have a hard time explaining it. Since
it's possibly the dumbest reg in the entire 14 CFR, it would be hard
for anyone to explain. Given a chute that is out of date on a given
occasion, complying with the law should be considered criminal
stupidity. Here's the law:

"§ 91.307 Parachutes and parachuting.
(a) No pilot of a civil aircraft may allow a parachute that is
available for emergency use to be carried in that aircraft unless it
is an approved type and—
(1) If a chair type (canopy in back), it has been packed by a
certificated and appropriately rated parachute rigger within the
preceding 120 days; or

(2) If any other type, it has been packed by a certificated and
appropriately rated parachute rigger—

(i) Within the preceding 120 days, if its canopy, shrouds, and harness
are composed exclusively of nylon, rayon, or other similar synthetic
fiber or materials that are substantially resistant to damage from
mold, mildew, or other fungi and other rotting agents propagated in a
moist environment; or

(ii) Within the preceding 60 days, if any part of the parachute is
composed of silk, pongee, or other natural fiber, or materials not
specified in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section."

Yes folks, it's a regulation that prohibits a pilot from carrying
emergency equipment aboard an aircraft unless the equipment is not
available in case of emergency. I wouldn't even know where to begin.
I've seen a box of hammers display more intelligence. Oh well. It's
not as if the rest of 14 CFR is anywhere near as moronic, so this must
have been some sort of brain meltdown on someone's part. If it
referred to REQUIRED equipment (parachutes are required for
aerobatics, for example) it would make a lot of sense - but it
doesn't.

Surprisingly, this stroke of genius survived the recent cleanup of the
regs. And if someone gets ramp-checked before takeoff by one of those
- fortunately rare - power-altered officials one occasionally runs
into, and their chute is out of date, I'd love to hear them explain to
the nice official why they're carrying emergency equipment in direct
contravention of a law that makes it illegal to do so.

Anyway, enough about that!

The reason I asked about what happens if you turn off a transponder in
flight was that I imagine most/all the pilots who have equipped their
gliders with them are doing exactly that, i.e., turning off the
transponders when they don't feel they're necessary. It's sensible,
but it's illegal. Nobody's been busted so far, but I wonder... About
10-15 years ago we had a brief period when the FAA suddenly started a
get-strict policy and enforcing all these "petty" rules, and AOPA and
the aviation press were warning pilots not to talk to ANYONE from the
FAA without a lawyer present. Remember the days when some airline
pilots filed a NASA form after every flight, just in case? Cooler
heads prevailed, and our FAA field personnel were allowed to go back
to doing their jobs promoting safety instead of playing "gotcha" with
obscure regulations, but who knows what the future will bring, and who
knows how many of those disappearing transponders will have been
digitally recorded for the benefit of some enterprising career-minded
young investigator? The trouble with bad laws is that sooner or later
some dimwits show up and enforce them. It's not like it hasn't
happened before. And unlike flying with an out-of-date chute, when
you turn off a transponder your crime is broadcast to the world (or,
technically, your compliance with the law is no longer broadcast!).

As to whether transponders are a good idea, obviously given infinite
panel space, money and power they are. Given limited supplies of
each, I am wondering if some kind of TCAS wouldn't be better. All the
power aircraft are transmitting, but most of the ones squawking 1200
are not talking to ATC and do not have TCAS. So even if you have a
transponder, they don't know about you. If you had a budget TCAS, you
could at least see them (or, with a transponder, you could try asking
for flight following...) The big transports may be a more impressive
threat, but getting clobbered by a C-182 or one of the many low-flying
(clearly not on flight following!) GA aircraft I see out there, from
warbirds to Lears (!), could be pretty fatal too. So I'm wondering
about that one.

Cheers!

[Jack]

On 2/22/04 12:29 PM, in article
et, "d b"
> wrote:

> The trick is to decide when restrictions are really required. I contend
> that the airspace rules that were in effect in 1959 were just as safe
> as what we have now.

Personally, I'd rather not go back, even with a 1959 level of air traffic
(see below).

We have a pretty good level of safety today with a far greater amount of
traffic, precisely because of the way in which the system has developed over
the last four decades, even though gliders, piper cubs, et al are allowed to
pretend that it is still the mid-twentieth century.

I've been hearing for many years how the old ways were better and that BS is
getting pretty boring. The equipment and the system built around it has
evolved to its present point out of need, and not out of some evil plan. As
a matter of fact the one consistent theme over the decades has been the
reluctance of both the FAA and the users of the airspace to make changes in
a timely manner that were clearly needed.

Flying the aircraft is the easy part. Doing something worthwhile with it,
whether putting passengers at their destination, bombs on target, or points
on a score sheet, under whatever conditions you encounter, consistently and
safely, is another matter entirely. Improved communication and navigation,
which includes the use of transponders, have helped us to do those things.

It's the ones you don't see that will kill you. In thirty-eight years of
professional flying, I've become convinced that there are relatively few
flights during which we see every aircraft in our VMC airspace. And even
fewer in which every other aircraft sees us. Transponders help to improve
our odds overall, while TCAS II and similar collision avoidance systems give
us the capability to be aware of ALL traffic of significance, if only we
will use them across the spectrum of aviation.

I tend to judge the commitment to safety of both commercial, club, and
individual operators by the degree to which they use radios and
transponders, in addition to proven procedures clearly expressed and
consistently reinforced. I'd like to put in a few more decades of safe
aviating, after all.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

1956-- United Airlines DC-7 and a TWA Constellation crashed over the Grand
Canyon, killing 128.

1960--* Midair collision of United DC-8 and TWA Constellation over Brooklyn
NY results in the death of 127.

1967-- two crashes between private planes and transponder-equipped
commercial aircraft - March 9, 1967 collision of a TWA DC-9 with Beechcraft
B-55 over Urbana, OH killed 26 people when the TWA pilot failed to see and
avoid the Beechcraft. July 19, 1967, a Piedmont Airlines B-727 collided with
a Cessna near Hendersonville, NC, killing 79 in the B-727 and a family of
three in the Cessna.

Urbana, OH - March 9, 1967 / Hendersonville, NC - July 19, 1967
-- "...two crashes between private planes and transponder-equipped
commercial aircraft occurred, pushing public opinion towards the mandating
of transponders for all aircraft. [T]hese accidents forced a government and
public reassessment of the air traffic control system and prompted
[development of] Mode S technology."

1978-- Sept. 25, San Diego, CA, Pacific Southwest plane collided in midair
with Cessna. All 135 on airliner, 2 in Cessna, and 7 on ground killed for
total of 144.

Grand Canyon - Jun. 18, 1986, a Dehavilland carrying 20 passengers collides
with a Helitech with five.

Cerritos, CA - Aug. 31, 1986, Aeromexico DC-9 with 64 passengers collided
with a light plane. The DC-9 crashed into a neighborhood and destroyed or
damaged 18 homes, killing 15 people on the ground. This crash prompted
Congressional action, beginning with a mandate establishing deadlines for
the completion of the development and installation of TCAS II.

================================================== ==========================



Jack

[Marc Ramsey]

Finbar wrote:
> And unlike flying with an out-of-date chute, when
> you turn off a transponder your crime is broadcast to the world (or,
> technically, your compliance with the law is no longer broadcast!).

Of course, the nice thing about Mode C (as opposed to Mode S), is that
ATC doesn't know who you are, unless you explicitly identify yourself.

> The big transports may be a more impressive threat, but getting
> Clobbered by a C-182 or one of the many low-flying
> (clearly not on flight following!) GA aircraft I see out there, from
> warbirds to Lears (!), could be pretty fatal too. So I'm wondering
> about that one.

I can see and avoid GA aircraft ahead of me, and the ones behind aren't
closing on me all that fast, so there's some chance they'll see me in
time. The thing about transports is that at the altitudes I'm flying
they are moving fast relative to me, and either climbing or descending
at a fairly high rate. In my experience, the aircraft I've had near
miss experiences with have been other gliders, airliners, and military
aircraft, in roughly that order of frequency. I see GA aircraft all of
the time, but so far, always at enough distance to avoid.

If the passive proximity warning systems prove to be effective, I'd say
they are a decent alternative, except perhaps in those areas where there
no radar coverage. Since I normally have the transponder off in those
areas, it's not a huge disadvantage. But, I've yet to come across much
objective evidence that convinces me they are effective. Maybe as
Bumper and others use them for a while, I'll be convinced...

Marc

[Jack]

On 2/22/04 3:31 PM, in article
et, "d b"
> wrote:

> If the floor of "class A" was the same now as it was in 1958, would
> you need the window as much? In your examples, the areas
> were smaller or didn't exist.
>
> The FAA really got nasty when Dole was administrator.

What has become "class A" did not exist in 1958 but came into being, as laid
out in the "Design for the National Airspace Utilization System" published
in September of 1962, and went through several stages of expansion well
before the accession of Dole to the position of Secretary of Transportation
(February 7, 1983-September 30, 1987).

Do you advocate cutting our current level of air traffic back to 1958
levels?

Are you flying a 1958 vintage glider?




Jack

[Andy Durbin]

One year at Hobbs, New Mexico, every contestant's parachute was
checked for currency by an FAA inspector. The infamous "ramp check".
Don't know how many he found but he probably had a nice day away from
the office.

NSF, the organizer of contests at Hobbs, now has a rigger available
before most (all?) contests and he does a lot of business.


Andy (GY)

[Brian Case]

> > Second, a recollection: it's my recollection that ATC radar is
> > designed to filter out slow-moving targets.
>
> That's primary radar, because of ground clutter problems. It would be a
> most unusual situation to eliminate a transponder return. They certainly
> don't do it out here in the Pacific Northwest - I've asked.
>

I've asked to, not quite as northwest as you are. The answer I got is
it depends on how the controller sets up there radar. At most Class C
airports there probably is no filter turned on. At larger airports
they might turn it on to eliminate the returns from aircraft taxing on
the ground. I was also told the can select the speed at which it will
filter the return but typically they might set it up for 25kts.
Typically they have the primary radar turned off unless we tell them
there are gliders or non-transponder equipped aircraft in the area.

Brian

[Tim Mara]

your answer was 100% exactly why they have made the rule......
tim


"Mark James Boyd" > wrote in message
news:4039b164$1@darkstar...
> In article >,
> Tim Mara > wrote:
> >now, I am not going to try to justify the cycle period, and in fact this
can
> >vary from country to country, and even most manufacturers will probably
say
> >the 120 day cycle is too frequent for our typical use, but I can
> >understand the FAA rule on this, and anyone who doesn't see the reasoning
is
> >why they have the rule...
> >plain and simple, if it were legal to wear an out of date parachute,
would
> >you, or anyone else bother to have it inspected or repacked?? I rather
doubt
> >it....in fact you're already suggested you wouldn't...
>
> There's no rule requiring me to change my tidy-whities every week
either,
> but I DO IT! :P For health reasons, you know... Same for a chute.
> I wouldn't just sit on the thing for 12 years and drip jelly on it
> and drag it through the dirt all day and think it would open. But
> if it's my own G*****n chute in a G*****n single-seat glider,
> whose business is it anyway?
>
> >Rules are never a simple matter or what's right for the masses, but made
> >because some one or a few people have done something that was
questionable,
> >or wrong. If we were all perfect, and always right we'd have far fewer
> >rules, regulations and restrictions....
> >tim
>
> A coupla guys weighing in heavy on an expired reserve on
> a tandem skydiving jump is a hell of a long way from me
> in my itsy-bitsy glider wearing an emergency chute I don't even
> intend to use. Who'll convince me that the extra safety
> of having the more frequent repack outweighs the lack of safety
> when I fly twice without the chute each year (while I wait for
> the packer to send it back)?

[Don Johnstone]

In the UK the recommended repack period is 6 months.
It is only a recommendation, it is not an offence to
fly with a parachute which is out of repack.
The problem with this sort of requirement that the
rules are drawn up for the worst case scenario. A club
parachute which is worn by many people all day and
everyday, and is subject to a high degree of wear and
tear requires regular inspection, and I would be the
first to say that this is good. You do want it to work.
Compare that with my parachute, lives in its bag, not
thrown around, worn perhaps one or twice a week, does
that require the same intensive maintenance? The rules
say yes, in practice is safety compromised at all if
the period between repacks is longer. Most riggers
I have spoken to say no.
Given the choice between sitting on a cushion which
will not protect you from the impact of a crash and
sitting on a serviceable chute which just happens to
be a day over it's due repack I know what I would choose.

At 14:30 23 February 2004, Tim Mara wrote:
>your answer was 100% exactly why they have made the
>rule......
>tim
>
>
>'Mark James Boyd' wrote in message
>news:4039b164$1@darkstar...
>> In article ,
>> Tim Mara wrote:
>> >now, I am not going to try to justify the cycle period,
>>>and in fact this
>can
>> >vary from country to country, and even most manufacturers
>>>will probably
>say
>> >the 120 day cycle is too frequent for our typical
>>>use, but I can
>> >understand the FAA rule on this, and anyone who doesn't
>>>see the reasoning
>is
>> >why they have the rule...
>> >plain and simple, if it were legal to wear an out
>>>of date parachute,
>would
>> >you, or anyone else bother to have it inspected or
>>>repacked?? I rather
>doubt
>> >it....in fact you're already suggested you wouldn't...
>>
>> There's no rule requiring me to change my tidy-whities
>>every week
>either,
>> but I DO IT! :P For health reasons, you know...
>> Same for a chute.
>> I wouldn't just sit on the thing for 12 years and
>>drip jelly on it
>> and drag it through the dirt all day and think it
>>would open. But
>> if it's my own G*****n chute in a G*****n single-seat
>>glider,
>> whose business is it anyway?
>>
>> >Rules are never a simple matter or what's right for
>>>the masses, but made
>> >because some one or a few people have done something
>>>that was
>questionable,
>> >or wrong. If we were all perfect, and always right
>>>we'd have far fewer
>> >rules, regulations and restrictions....
>> >tim
>>
>> A coupla guys weighing in heavy on an expired reserve
>>on
>> a tandem skydiving jump is a hell of a long way from
>>me
>> in my itsy-bitsy glider wearing an emergency chute
>>I don't even
>> intend to use. Who'll convince me that the extra
>>safety
>> of having the more frequent repack outweighs the lack
>>of safety
>> when I fly twice without the chute each year (while
>>I wait for
>> the packer to send it back)?
>
>
>
>

[Eric Greenwell]

Finbar wrote:
> The reason I asked about what happens if you turn off a transponder in
> flight was that I imagine most/all the pilots who have equipped their
> gliders with them are doing exactly that, i.e., turning off the
> transponders when they don't feel they're necessary. It's sensible,
> but it's illegal. Nobody's been busted so far, but I wonder... About
> 10-15 years ago we had a brief period when the FAA suddenly started a
> get-strict policy and enforcing all these "petty" rules, and AOPA and
> the aviation press were warning pilots not to talk to ANYONE from the
> FAA without a lawyer present. Remember the days when some airline
> pilots filed a NASA form after every flight, just in case? Cooler
> heads prevailed, and our FAA field personnel were allowed to go back
> to doing their jobs promoting safety instead of playing "gotcha" with
> obscure regulations, but who knows what the future will bring, and who
> knows how many of those disappearing transponders will have been
> digitally recorded for the benefit of some enterprising career-minded
> young investigator? The trouble with bad laws is that sooner or later
> some dimwits show up and enforce them. It's not like it hasn't
> happened before. And unlike flying with an out-of-date chute, when
> you turn off a transponder your crime is broadcast to the world (or,
> technically, your compliance with the law is no longer broadcast!).

I'm told by SSA officials and others that talk to FAA people frequently
about airspace issues that the FAA knows glider pilots turn off their
their transponders sometimes, and the FAA doesn't care about that.
Mainly, they are just really happy the pilot is willing and able to
carry one.

I'm sure ATC doesn't care, either, if a VFR transponder signal
disappears 50 miles from their Class B airspace, as long as it was
heading away from them. Signals disappear for various reasons, such loss
of radar coverage and equipment failure. They aren't going to send out a
posse to get you; mainly, they are just glad you have one when you are
close to them.

To the best of my knowledge, this exemption seems to be a good one for
glider pilots. It will legalize what some of us already do, and make
putting in a transponder slightly more interesting to those that adhere
strictly to the rules. Safety may increase ever so slightly. The biggest
benefit might be we won't have to have talk about the issue any more,
and can go back to other things.
--
-----
change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Bill Daniels]

Experts, correct me where I'm wrong.

1. An operating transponder, not being interrogated, is simply a receiver
with a low current drain.
2. When interrogated by a ground radar or TCAS, a transponder transmits a
short "squitter" at 175 or 250 watts which is a BIG current drain.
3. Flying in an area with many interrogations per minute is likely to be a
congested area where the transponder is needed and a wise pilot would keep
it on despite the current draw.
4. Flying away from a congested area toward a remote area with few
interrogations, the transponder automatically cuts back on its current draw
by operating less and less as a transmitter and more as a receiver.

So, where is the need to turn it off? Doesn't the transponder effectively
manage its own current draw to match the level of congestion? Move away
from congested areas and the current draw is minimal. I haven't read of a
case where the transponder is sucking batteries flat and if that happened,
how much additional battery capacity is needed to keep it running for the
whole flight? (I can remember pilots carrying car starting batteries to run
a vacuum tube radio. No imaginable suite of avionics would draw that much
current today.)

So, aside from the cost of a transponder installation, what is the concern?

Bill Daniels

p.s. Having suffered a couple of alternator failures at night in hard IFR
with single engine airplanes, I became very interested in the current draw
of each bit of avionics. My calculations showed is that if the aircraft
battery is in good condition and fully charged at the point where the
alternator failed, and the pilot swiftly switches off the alternator field
with the split master, the battery will run a full IFR panel longer than the
fuel will last. I tested that calculation and it proved true with good
safety margins.

[Finbar]

Tim,

Let's get to the part about me being reckless first: you wrote

"if it were legal to wear an out of date parachute, would
you, or anyone else bother to have it inspected or repacked?? I rather
doubt
it....in fact you're already suggested you wouldn't..."

I didn't suggest any such thing, and please don't you suggest that
about me. In fact, in my post I said this wasn't the point, and I
said my chute is always properly packed.

On the other hand, you yourself just suggested that the 120-day
requirement is overkill.

Now to the part where I'm still feeling like I just stepped into the
middle of Alice Through The Looking Glass:

Tim Mara

just posted a statement

supporting

a regulation that,

under certain commonplace circumstances,

requires

a pilot in command

to substitute

a seat cushion for a parachute

when going flying.


TIM MARA supports that? As a SAFETY measure?

Boy, that just can't be. What was in that coffee I just drank?

Wow.

[Eric Greenwell]

Bill Daniels wrote:
> Experts, correct me where I'm wrong.
>
> 1. An operating transponder, not being interrogated, is simply a receiver
> with a low current drain.

Not so low: my Becker (175 W version), with the ACK 30 encoder, draws
about 400 ma. In very cold weather (winter wave flying), this rises
50-100 ma because of encoder heating.

> 2. When interrogated by a ground radar or TCAS, a transponder transmits a
> short "squitter" at 175 or 250 watts which is a BIG current drain.

True, though internal to the instrument; the battery and wiring won't
see a spike.

> 3. Flying in an area with many interrogations per minute is likely to be a
> congested area where the transponder is needed and a wise pilot would keep
> it on despite the current draw.

I agree, but the increase is only 130 ma at 1200 interogations/sec! The
increases I've seen in Southern California are more like 30 ma, and just
a few milliamps when there are only 3 or 4 radars hitting it.

> 4. Flying away from a congested area toward a remote area with few
> interrogations, the transponder automatically cuts back on its current draw
> by operating less and less as a transmitter and more as a receiver.
>
> So, where is the need to turn it off? Doesn't the transponder effectively
> manage its own current draw to match the level of congestion? Move away
> from congested areas and the current draw is minimal.

It's still 400 ma with the encoder, a significant but not overwhelming
amount for the typical 7 amphour battery. 400 ma may be what all the
other instruments are pulling, so it cuts the battery life in half.
Still, a 7 AH battery should easily last 7+ hours.

> I haven't read of a
> case where the transponder is sucking batteries flat and if that happened,
> how much additional battery capacity is needed to keep it running for the
> whole flight? (I can remember pilots carrying car starting batteries to run
> a vacuum tube radio. No imaginable suite of avionics would draw that much
> current today.)
>
> So, aside from the cost of a transponder installation, what is the concern?

Having a transponder on for the entire flight likely means the pilot has
to charge it (or put in a different one) everyday, rather than every
other day. The battery may need replacing more often, say every 3 years
instead of 4 or 5. Gliders with batteries smaller than 7 AH probably
could get by with, say, a 4 AH battery by using the transponder for only
a couple of hours instead of full time.

I don't think these concerns are important if you think you need a
transponder, and I suspect it's the ~$2000 cost that stops most people,
plus the $50-$70 every two years to have it tested.

--
-----
change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Marc Ramsey]

Bill Daniels wrote:

> Experts, correct me where I'm wrong.

I'm not an expert, but I'll answer anyway, this is RAS, after all.

> 1. An operating transponder, not being interrogated, is simply a receiver
> with a low current drain.
> 2. When interrogated by a ground radar or TCAS, a transponder transmits a
> short "squitter" at 175 or 250 watts which is a BIG current drain.
> 3. Flying in an area with many interrogations per minute is likely to be a
> congested area where the transponder is needed and a wise pilot would keep
> it on despite the current draw.
> 4. Flying away from a congested area toward a remote area with few
> interrogations, the transponder automatically cuts back on its current draw
> by operating less and less as a transmitter and more as a receiver.
>
> So, where is the need to turn it off? Doesn't the transponder effectively
> manage its own current draw to match the level of congestion? Move away
> from congested areas and the current draw is minimal.

You are assuming that areas of low traffic are also areas with few
interrogations, which is not necessarily true. In my case, the primary
concern is the area within 30 miles or so of Reno, where there is high
likelihood of encountering airliners in the 10 to 18K foot range.
Outside of the immediate area of Reno, my transponder still gets
interrogated, due to enroute and military radar.

> I haven't read of a case where the transponder is sucking batteries flat
> and if that happened, how much additional battery capacity is needed to
> keep it running for the whole flight?

Our Duo came standard with dual 7ah batteries. A combination of an
LNAV, GPS-NAV, radio, and transponder sucks a single 7ah battery dry in
a little more than 4 hours. We were replacing the batteries roughly
once per year, since some of the partners (not me, of course) would
forget to either switch batteries or turn off the transponder before
draining the first battery completely. We switched to using dual 12ah
batteries, and the problem appears to have gone away.

Marc

[Mark James Boyd]

Now this is a little silly, but are there any manufacturers that
make modern Mode "A" transponders (no altitude encoding)?
I've seen a portable one (battery operated) that looked pretty
old.

I think this is TSO-C74b, ref 91.215(a). I just wonder how much
of the extra price and inspection is just the mode "C" part of modern
transponders.

I wonder how many more owners would install a mode "A" if it only
drew 50mA max, was the size of a cell phone, required no recurring
inspection, and cost "about $100" (quote from Rain Man).

Better than nothing. And allows you into A,B,C by deviation
request. And gives at least lateral avoidance to airliners.

Maybe a market here to compete with the over-capability of the
mode "C". Better is the enemy of good, especially when talking
about optional equipment.

[Mark James Boyd]

In article >,
Andy Durbin > wrote:
>One year at Hobbs, New Mexico, every contestant's parachute was
>checked for currency by an FAA inspector. The infamous "ramp check".
>Don't know how many he found but he probably had a nice day away from
>the office.
>
>NSF, the organizer of contests at Hobbs, now has a rigger available
>before most (all?) contests and he does a lot of business.
>
>
>Andy (GY)

Hmmm...no doubt chutes were required for the contest, and formation
flight was definitely going to happen. Another benefit of
the inspection was it made the rigger available the following
year for a bunch of pilots who were "on the fence."

This is a situation where I might go the other way. Just
like seat belts or helmets being inspected and required
during a sanctioned car race, there is a group of organizers
who have a vested interest in each pilot having safety
equipment.

I'm willing to bet the FAA "ramp checker"
didn't do this AFTER the flight, with a subsequent violation,
but before the flight as a prevention measure and no violation.
The inspectors I've met have been hired for their wisdom,
experience, and judgement, and not for their ability to
meet a quota...

This brings up one other marginal disadvantage to increasing
repack cycle: fewer qualified and paid riggers available.
A double-edged sword.

I'm still going to say the 6 month cycle is better (improving
technology has its advantages), and chute wearers in
single seaters shouldn't generally have
a repack requirement or violation by the FAA.
But I'd certainly support
contest organizers requiring "current" chutes if it
reduced their liability (just like sanctioned car races
require certified helmets and dated, refilled
fire extinguishers).

I'll add that in Calif., fire extinguisher refill
cycles have gone from 1 to 5 years (maybe 6?). Again,
improving technology eventually should be recognised and
the benefit passed on to the user/consumer...

[Tim Mara]

"Finbar" > wrote in message
> I didn't suggest any such thing, and please don't you suggest that
> about me. In fact, in my post I said this wasn't the point, and I
> said my chute is always properly packed.

let's go back.you suggested it was safer to have one out-of-date than not
have one..
what I suggested, based on your comment, (and it wasn't specifically aimed
at you or any one person), but a broader statement that if it were not a
requirement, and left up to the user that (some, no-one, he, she,
you..insert what you like here) would not bother)
>
> On the other hand, you yourself just suggested that the 120-day
> requirement is overkill.

I suggested that even many manufacturers have said this may be overkill
based on our (glider pilots) general use...but it doesn't get around the
regulation...

>
> Now to the part where I'm still feeling like I just stepped into the
> middle of Alice Through The Looking Glass:
>

> just posted a statement supporting a regulation that, under certain
commonplace circumstances, requires a pilot in command to substitute a seat
cushion for a parachute when going flying. TIM MARA supports that? As a
SAFETY measure? Boy, that just can't be. What was in that coffee I just
drank? Wow.

you're trying to re-write everything to sway what I have said....and what I
have said is that this is a regulation....ands without this regulation there
would be (some.fill it in again) who would/could/might never have their
parachutes inspected by someone who can find difficulties, problems...
Speak with any good rigger or manufacturer, you will find that all of them
have found chutes that have had problems, could fail.....if you are
suggesting leaving this up to individuals "judgment" then I guess it would
also be OK for pilots to do their own annual inspections and the like
also...
tim
BTW; I have had to use a parachute from a glider...maybe if you had this
same experience you might not be so willing to strike up this argument.

[Finbar]

If you take a look at Tim Mara's comments and Andy Durbin's note in
the new thread "parachute repack requirement, was SSA transponders"
you'll see the sort of thing I worry about with this regulation.

By analogy to Tim's logic, and by analogy to the logic of that
inspector who ran ramp checks for parachute pack dates (parachutes not
legally required, inspector couldn't have ticketed someone who flew
with no chute at all, and the requirement for a chute in the contest
is not a legal matter the inspector could enforce), someone is going
to get cited for turning off a transponder on board their glider -
someone who would NOT have been cited if there had been no transponder
on board at all. It's going to happen. Once someone decides to do
it, figuring out who the pilot was won't be as hard as people might
like to think - remember the fallacy of the anonymous internet? With
one reservation, I find it hard to find words to express the profound
idiocy of this, but it will happen, and it will be justified using
something like Tim's logic. I've heard this logic before from
regulatory types: as an engineer it's a kind of thinking alien to me,
but the reality is that this IS how regulators think, and Tim is
evidently accustomed to it (presumably from long exposure).

The reservation is that I don't understand the radar system well
enough to be sure that turning off a transponder in flight doesn't
cause all sorts of chaos at ATC, which might be so severe as to
justify a preference for no transponder, rather than have you turn it
on and off in flight. I doubt it, but in my ignorance I'd have to be
open to that possibility.

So it may seem stupid to not carry a transponder because it might be
illegal to do so, but the regulators don't think it's stupid at all.
It's the law, just like the law that forbids the carrying of
parachutes that might not work, and requires the substitution of a
seat cushion that definitely, categorically will not work. And, just
like the law forbidding the carriage of non-required chutes that are
outside their 120-day pack date, it WILL be enforced.

You'd think law enforcement would support safety, but that's not
always its first priority. Sometimes the law gets enforced, and the
law always trumps common sense.

Pity.

[Eric Greenwell]

Dear Finbar,

1) Please support the request for the exemption by making comments to
the Docket. See the SSA website for info on doing this. If we get the
exemption, all your concerns about the foolishness of the _present_
rule, and your fears about being busted for turning off your transponder
are over.

2) It doesn't cause ATC a problem when a VFR (code 1200) transponder
signal disappears from their screen. They don't control VFR traffic, and
signals vanish all the time for a variety of reasons. If it caused a
problem, this request for an exemption would never have gotten on the
Docket in the first place.

3) FAA people have repeatedly told SSA people that they'd rather see
more gliders with transponders than less. They've told me the same thing
when I've talked to ATC folks about our wave windows.

Finbar wrote:
> If you take a look at Tim Mara's comments and Andy Durbin's note in
> the new thread "parachute repack requirement, was SSA transponders"
> you'll see the sort of thing I worry about with this regulation.
>
> By analogy to Tim's logic, and by analogy to the logic of that
> inspector who ran ramp checks for parachute pack dates (parachutes not
> legally required, inspector couldn't have ticketed someone who flew
> with no chute at all, and the requirement for a chute in the contest
> is not a legal matter the inspector could enforce), someone is going
> to get cited for turning off a transponder on board their glider -
> someone who would NOT have been cited if there had been no transponder
> on board at all. It's going to happen. Once someone decides to do
> it, figuring out who the pilot was won't be as hard as people might
> like to think - remember the fallacy of the anonymous internet? With
> one reservation, I find it hard to find words to express the profound
> idiocy of this, but it will happen, and it will be justified using
> something like Tim's logic. I've heard this logic before from
> regulatory types: as an engineer it's a kind of thinking alien to me,
> but the reality is that this IS how regulators think, and Tim is
> evidently accustomed to it (presumably from long exposure).
>
> The reservation is that I don't understand the radar system well
> enough to be sure that turning off a transponder in flight doesn't
> cause all sorts of chaos at ATC, which might be so severe as to
> justify a preference for no transponder, rather than have you turn it
> on and off in flight. I doubt it, but in my ignorance I'd have to be
> open to that possibility.
>
> So it may seem stupid to not carry a transponder because it might be
> illegal to do so, but the regulators don't think it's stupid at all.
> It's the law, just like the law that forbids the carrying of
> parachutes that might not work, and requires the substitution of a
> seat cushion that definitely, categorically will not work. And, just
> like the law forbidding the carriage of non-required chutes that are
> outside their 120-day pack date, it WILL be enforced.
>
> You'd think law enforcement would support safety, but that's not
> always its first priority. Sometimes the law gets enforced, and the
> law always trumps common sense.
>
> Pity.

--
-----
change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Mark James Boyd]

Tim Mara > wrote:
>
>what I suggested, based on your comment, (and it wasn't specifically aimed
>at you or any one person), but a broader statement that if it were not a
>requirement, and left up to the user that (some, no-one, he, she,
>you..insert what you like here) would not bother)

....and some people who never own a chute or use one would instead start
wearing and owning them because the continuing cost is less.

>.....if you are
>suggesting leaving this up to individuals "judgment" then I guess it would
>also be OK for pilots to do their own annual inspections and the like
>also...
>tim

....absolutely. Single seat aircraft solely owned and operated by the owner
and weighing very little (say under 155 pounds) don't present
enough of a threat to others to require an annual inspection from
a mechanic. I'd completely agree with this. Annual inspections
done by the owner for single seat ultralights: a great idea.

By the same parallel, any pilot weighing 600+ pounds maybe
ought to be required to wear a repacked, weight certified chute
so as not to injure those on the ground if the chute fails to
open when bailing out.

>BTW; I have had to use a parachute from a glider...maybe if you had this
>same experience you might not be so willing to strike up this argument.

I personally would like more pilots to wear parachutes. The
easiest way to do this is to decrease expense. Requiring
perfect chutes which are expensive is better, but as I said before,
better is the enemy of good...

[Finbar]

Tim,

You wrote:

"you're trying to re-write everything to sway what I have said....and
what I
have said is that this is a regulation....ands without this regulation
there
would be (some.fill it in again) who would/could/might never have
their
parachutes inspected by someone who can find difficulties, problems...
Speak with any good rigger or manufacturer, you will find that all of
them
have found chutes that have had problems, could fail.....if you are
suggesting leaving this up to individuals "judgment" then I guess it
would
also be OK for pilots to do their own annual inspections and the like
also...
tim
BTW; I have had to use a parachute from a glider...maybe if you had
this
same experience you might not be so willing to strike up this
argument."


Honestly, I'm not trying to change what you said, I played back what
you said in an effort to get you to think about it. From your
reaction, I think you're shocked by the replay.

The law doesn't say "pack your damn chute, you idiot." It says "no
pilot of a civil aircraft shall allow a parachute that is available
for emergency use to be carried aboard unless..." That's a shocking
statement. You're right to be shocked.

I hear what you're saying: of course recently-packed parachutes are
safer (although at least one rigger has told me that in her opinion
all the re-packing is the biggest source of parachute wear and tear!).
But I imagine a parachute that was packed 2 years ago is at least 90%
likely to work, and I know a seat cushion is 0% likely to work. Why
cite someone for taking the safer, albeit imperfect option of bringing
the out-of-date parachute? I understand people SHOULD re-pack their
chutes, but GIVEN that they notice their chute is now out-of-date,
what choice, from a public policy point of view, do you want them to
make about whether or not to bring it in the aircraft? Is that even a
real question?

No, it's not like annual inspections, because they are REQUIRED and a
parachute isn't. If we REQUIRE parachutes then you're absolutely
right: there has to be a definition of what an acceptable parachute
is. Perhaps that's what you're suggesting, and maybe it's not a bad
idea. But we don't require them, so we certainly shouldn't prohibit
someone carrying a less-than-perfect one when we allow them to carry
none at all. It's like having a radio and using it: it's optional,
and we should encourage people to do it, not cite them for
technicalities when they're trying to do the sensible thing and doing
no harm in the process.

Your belief is that this law causes more people to keep their
parachutes safe. I may be wrong, but I doubt it. My belief is that
anal types like myself, who worry about whether or not they're legal,
are anal about their parachutes too, and people who aren't... aren't.
The problem is that, being anal, I HAVE wondered whether I should fly
with an out-of-date chute and risk getting fined on landing - or just
leave it in the car and avoid risking the hassle with the FAA. That
shouldn't even BE a question! I like to hope that, if the situation
ever arises, I'll bring the chute rather than obey the law. But
that's a ridiculous statement to have to make.

You've had to use a parachute to exit a glider. I'm very glad it
worked. I'm very glad you had it. And I oppose any regulation that
would have made it illegal for you to have had one, under any
circumstances whatsoever - not even if it hadn't been repacked in a
decade! I assume your chute had been repacked within the preceding
120 days, but if it had been out of date, it might have worked anyway.
If it had been in your car, it wouldn't have.

[Soarin]

> I'm told by SSA officials and others that talk to FAA people frequently
> about airspace issues that the FAA knows glider pilots turn off their
> their transponders sometimes, and the FAA doesn't care about that.
> Mainly, they are just really happy the pilot is willing and able to
> carry one.

If the FAA didn't care if glider pilots turn off their transponders
then there would be no logical reason for needing an exemption.
Transponders not only provide ATC with potentially critical flight
safety information, but they also provide collision avoidance data
for thousands of airliner and corporate aircraft that are equipped
with TCAS for collision avoidance.

This exemption is not in the interest of safety and there will be
no big surge in glider pilots installing transponders. Most of the
glider pilots that have installed transponders have done so
predominately for their own convenience. Having a transponder
installed allows them access to airspace that they would otherwise
be required to avoid. Those pilots willing to spend the dollars
for installing and maintaining transponders, can surely spend an
extra $50 for a battery they could deadicate to the transponder.

The real goal of this petition is to prevent pilots from continuing
to be exposed to certificate actions for turning off their
transponders, while at the same time hopefully shifting all
liability to the FAA for having given pilots the authority to trun
them off nthe first place. For those who doubt this, maybe you
should ask yourself why the SSA has included a hold harmless portion
to the exemption you will sign. This is designed to protect the SSA
and everyone associated with the SSA in the event of a catastrophe.

Rather than granting the petition, we have the potential to see the FAA
not only realize that transponders can easily be installed in gliders.
But this could also lead them to decide that maybe it was time to
review the justification for continuing the exemptions soaring has
enjoyed to date.

[Bruce Greeff]

I know of one incident where a chute saved a life after not being packed in
seven years.

Any legislation that makes it less likely that someone will have a chute
available, even if it is no longer current is immoral in my view.

Pity about the Ventus...

Finbar wrote:

> Tim,
>
> You wrote:
>
> "you're trying to re-write everything to sway what I have said....and
> what I
> have said is that this is a regulation....ands without this regulation
> there
> would be (some.fill it in again) who would/could/might never have
> their
> parachutes inspected by someone who can find difficulties, problems...
> Speak with any good rigger or manufacturer, you will find that all of
> them
> have found chutes that have had problems, could fail.....if you are
> suggesting leaving this up to individuals "judgment" then I guess it
> would
> also be OK for pilots to do their own annual inspections and the like
> also...
> tim
> BTW; I have had to use a parachute from a glider...maybe if you had
> this
> same experience you might not be so willing to strike up this
> argument."
>
>
> Honestly, I'm not trying to change what you said, I played back what
> you said in an effort to get you to think about it. From your
> reaction, I think you're shocked by the replay.
>
> The law doesn't say "pack your damn chute, you idiot." It says "no
> pilot of a civil aircraft shall allow a parachute that is available
> for emergency use to be carried aboard unless..." That's a shocking
> statement. You're right to be shocked.
>
> I hear what you're saying: of course recently-packed parachutes are
> safer (although at least one rigger has told me that in her opinion
> all the re-packing is the biggest source of parachute wear and tear!).
> But I imagine a parachute that was packed 2 years ago is at least 90%
> likely to work, and I know a seat cushion is 0% likely to work. Why
> cite someone for taking the safer, albeit imperfect option of bringing
> the out-of-date parachute? I understand people SHOULD re-pack their
> chutes, but GIVEN that they notice their chute is now out-of-date,
> what choice, from a public policy point of view, do you want them to
> make about whether or not to bring it in the aircraft? Is that even a
> real question?
>
> No, it's not like annual inspections, because they are REQUIRED and a
> parachute isn't. If we REQUIRE parachutes then you're absolutely
> right: there has to be a definition of what an acceptable parachute
> is. Perhaps that's what you're suggesting, and maybe it's not a bad
> idea. But we don't require them, so we certainly shouldn't prohibit
> someone carrying a less-than-perfect one when we allow them to carry
> none at all. It's like having a radio and using it: it's optional,
> and we should encourage people to do it, not cite them for
> technicalities when they're trying to do the sensible thing and doing
> no harm in the process.
>
> Your belief is that this law causes more people to keep their
> parachutes safe. I may be wrong, but I doubt it. My belief is that
> anal types like myself, who worry about whether or not they're legal,
> are anal about their parachutes too, and people who aren't... aren't.
> The problem is that, being anal, I HAVE wondered whether I should fly
> with an out-of-date chute and risk getting fined on landing - or just
> leave it in the car and avoid risking the hassle with the FAA. That
> shouldn't even BE a question! I like to hope that, if the situation
> ever arises, I'll bring the chute rather than obey the law. But
> that's a ridiculous statement to have to make.
>
> You've had to use a parachute to exit a glider. I'm very glad it
> worked. I'm very glad you had it. And I oppose any regulation that
> would have made it illegal for you to have had one, under any
> circumstances whatsoever - not even if it hadn't been repacked in a
> decade! I assume your chute had been repacked within the preceding
> 120 days, but if it had been out of date, it might have worked anyway.
> If it had been in your car, it wouldn't have.

[Pat Russell]

Why is the petition on behalf of "SSA members" and not "glider
pilots?"

-Pat

[303pilot]

The SSA has no standing to speak for all glider pilots.

"Pat Russell" > wrote in message
...
> Why is the petition on behalf of "SSA members" and not "glider
> pilots?"
>
> -Pat

[Ivan Kahn]

For what it is worth, this is from the GA Inspector's Handbook, Chapter 50.
Here is the link to the whole document for those who want something to read
at bed time:

http://www.faa.gov/avr/afs/faa/8700/

A. Surveillance Policy. Airshows, fly-ins, and

other gatherings of general aviation aircraft and airmen

are opportunities for the Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA) to present a positive image to the aviation

community with whom we work and the general

public. Many of the aircraft operators attending these

aviation events are regular users of our air traffic and

flight service facilities, but their contact with Flight

Standards personnel may have been rare. Most of the

people who fly their airplanes to fly-in events and

airshows are aviation enthusiasts and hobbyists and are

not employed in the aviation industry as pilots.

(1) The FAA would like this important segment

of airspace users to have a very positive image of

inspectors and the safety activities inspectors perform.

Therefore, the FAA encourages inspectors to establish

early contact with sponsors and organizers of aviation

events so that informational and Aviation Safety

Program activities can be planned to serve attendees.

(2) Under no circumstances should these gatherings

be targeted for a blanket sweep inspection of

spectator airmen and aircraft.



"Andy Durbin" > wrote in message
om...
> One year at Hobbs, New Mexico, every contestant's parachute was
> checked for currency by an FAA inspector. The infamous "ramp check".
> Don't know how many he found but he probably had a nice day away from
> the office.
>
> NSF, the organizer of contests at Hobbs, now has a rigger available
> before most (all?) contests and he does a lot of business.
>
>
> Andy (GY)

[Jim Phoenix]

Ah yes,

The FAA Order 8700.10. For even more exciting reading, try the 8400.10 for
Flight Ops issues, or maybe even the 2150.3 for Enforcement and Compliance
guidelines.

They are all twice as effective as two bagger of Sleepytime Extra!

Jim

"Ivan Kahn" > wrote in message
news:22w%b.65463$Xp.310457@attbi_s54...
> For what it is worth, this is from the GA Inspector's Handbook, Chapter
50.
> Here is the link to the whole document for those who want something to
read
> at bed time:
>
> http://www.faa.gov/avr/afs/faa/8700/
>
> A. Surveillance Policy. Airshows, fly-ins, and
>
> other gatherings of general aviation aircraft and airmen
>
> are opportunities for the Federal Aviation Administration
>
> (FAA) to present a positive image to the aviation
>
> community with whom we work and the general
>
> public. Many of the aircraft operators attending these
>
> aviation events are regular users of our air traffic and
>
> flight service facilities, but their contact with Flight
>
> Standards personnel may have been rare. Most of the
>
> people who fly their airplanes to fly-in events and
>
> airshows are aviation enthusiasts and hobbyists and are
>
> not employed in the aviation industry as pilots.
>
> (1) The FAA would like this important segment
>
> of airspace users to have a very positive image of
>
> inspectors and the safety activities inspectors perform.
>
> Therefore, the FAA encourages inspectors to establish
>
> early contact with sponsors and organizers of aviation
>
> events so that informational and Aviation Safety
>
> Program activities can be planned to serve attendees.
>
> (2) Under no circumstances should these gatherings
>
> be targeted for a blanket sweep inspection of
>
> spectator airmen and aircraft.
>
>
>
> "Andy Durbin" > wrote in message
> om...
> > One year at Hobbs, New Mexico, every contestant's parachute was
> > checked for currency by an FAA inspector. The infamous "ramp check".
> > Don't know how many he found but he probably had a nice day away from
> > the office.
> >
> > NSF, the organizer of contests at Hobbs, now has a rigger available
> > before most (all?) contests and he does a lot of business.
> >
> >
> > Andy (GY)
>
>

[Mark James Boyd]

Ivan Kahn > wrote:
>
>(2) Under no circumstances should these gatherings
>be targeted for a blanket sweep inspection of
>spectator airmen and aircraft.

I agree with this. It would kinda tick off the organizers, after all...

>"Andy Durbin" > wrote in message
om...
>> One year at Hobbs, New Mexico, every contestant's parachute was
>> checked for currency by an FAA inspector. The infamous "ramp check".
>> Don't know how many he found but he probably had a nice day away from
>> the office.

Notice these were contestants, not spectators. If I were
an organizer, I'd be pleased that this was going on (covering
my butt, and making it safer for the other participants, in
some cases.) I'd guess the Reno Air Races get a lot of
internal scrutiny and FAA scrutiny.

[Mike Koerner]

Dear "Soarin",
I appreciate your thoughts and perspective on the transponder issue. I do
however, disagree with several of your comments, and though not generally
inclined to argue complex issues on RAS, I think it would be a disservice to
the soaring community to leave those comments on public record without
response.
First, as mentioned in a previous post under a separate thread, it's much
more difficult than "an extra $50 battery" to power a transponder
(especially earlier generation and encoding transponders) for extended
flights.
Second, I'm not expecting a "big surge in glider pilots installing
transponders" as a result of this petition. I think however, there would be
a significant increase in safety if the few sailplane pilots who operate
near congested airspace were enticed to install transponders and use them
when in these areas. Unfortunately, some pilots place legality over safety.
They will not install transponders so long as turning them off in remote
areas is illegal and leaving them on limits the capability of their
sailplanes.
Third, though not a lawyer, I don't see the "hold harmless" clause as a
conspiracy. I think it's standard practice. It looks like the SSA is taking
prudent steps to maintain the viability of the organization, as every member
would hope and expect.
Fourth, and most emphatically, transponders can not be easily installed in
sailplanes. Many sailplanes have no electrical systems at all. Many don't
have the panel space. None with earlier generation transponders have the
battery power for extended or consecutive flights. No commercial operation
I've seen has the money to pay for transponders for their trainers and
rental ships. Frankly, without the current exception to the transponder
rule, I don't think there would be any commercial operators or tows left in
the U.S. We'd be stuck with motorgliders (which I personally don't find to
be sporting at all).
The FAA was aware of the difficulty of installing and operating transponders
in sailplanes when they wrote the current FARs. They realized the
implications transponder requirements would have on soaring. They knew that
most sailplane operations were conducted in remote areas, off airways, and
at altitudes with little or no other air traffic.
I'm confident they are still aware of these issues today. And I'm confident
that if they've forgotten the SSA will, as before (thanks Judy!), remind
them.
Mike Koerner

[Mike Koerner]

I'm sorry. I'm not quite comfortable with my previous post.
Though no one familiar with the SSA's response to NPRM 88-2 would fault my
thanking Judy Lincoln for her considerable efforts on behalf of the soaring
community in the U.S., it would be negligent to do so without also thanking
Mr. Sanderson. His consummate and singular political skills insured our
message was heard.
Thank you Larry!
Mike Koerner

[Fred the Red Shirt]

(Finbar) wrote in message >...
> ...
>
> The law doesn't say "pack your damn chute, you idiot." It says "no
> pilot of a civil aircraft shall allow a parachute that is available
> for emergency use to be carried aboard unless..." That's a shocking
> statement. You're right to be shocked.
>
> ...
>
> No, it's not like annual inspections, because they are REQUIRED and a
> parachute isn't. If we REQUIRE parachutes then you're absolutely
> right: there has to be a definition of what an acceptable parachute
> is. Perhaps that's what you're suggesting, and maybe it's not a bad
> idea. But we don't require them, so we certainly shouldn't prohibit
> someone carrying a less-than-perfect one when we allow them to carry
> none at all. ...
>
> The problem is that, being anal, I HAVE wondered whether I should fly
> with an out-of-date chute and risk getting fined on landing - or just
> leave it in the car and avoid risking the hassle with the FAA. That
> shouldn't even BE a question! I like to hope that, if the situation
> ever arises, I'll bring the chute rather than obey the law. But
> that's a ridiculous statement to have to make.
> ...

Not to disagree with you on anything you wrote but here are some
alternatives:

Buy two chutes. Stagger the repack dates so one is always current.
Or go together with some buddies and buy one common 'loaner' that
is kept current.

Get yourself certified as a rigger--make a little extra cash on the
side.

Does this make sense?

--

FF

[Mark James Boyd]

In article >,
Fred the Red Shirt > wrote:
(Finbar) wrote in message >...
>> ...
>
>Not to disagree with you on anything you wrote but here are some
>alternatives:
>
>Buy two chutes. Stagger the repack dates so one is always current.
>Or go together with some buddies and buy one common 'loaner' that
>is kept current.
>
>Get yourself certified as a rigger--make a little extra cash on the
>side.
>
>Does this make sense?

Ummm...with more time and money, this problem goes away, of course.
I think what we are arguing is that the regs and the repack
requirements are marginally silly, and unneccesarily expensive.

Not extremely silly or horifically expensive, just that it
would be better if a few tweaks were introcuced. A little nudge
for the reg and for the repack dates...
--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

[Finbar]

> Ummm...with more time and money, this problem goes away, of course.
> I think what we are arguing is that the regs and the repack
> requirements are marginally silly, and unneccesarily expensive.
>
> Not extremely silly or horifically expensive, just that it
> would be better if a few tweaks were introcuced. A little nudge
> for the reg and for the repack dates...

No, the expense really wasn't my point. The questions of what the
repack dates should be, that's a whole different topic. I don't know
what they should be.

My point was that the regs prohibit a pilot from doing something that
is safer than the legal alternative. Given that a parachute is out of
pack date, the pilot CAN legally fly WITHOUT it, but CANNOT legally
fly WITH it. Since flying with it is either safer than flying without
it or, in the worst case, no less safe than flying without it, the law
requires behavior (leave it on the ground) that is LESS SAFE than the
illegal alternative (bring it anyway, but without the same confidence
that it will work).

Laws that require unsafe behavior as an alternative to safer behavior
are an abomination.

That was my point.

The connection to the transponder regs was that we all KNOW it's safer
to have a transponder aboard and use it only when it makes sense, but
it's illegal, and sooner or later someone will get ticketed for it.
Just ask the guys who got ramp-checked for the pack dates on
parachutes they weren't even required to have on board.

On the other hand, I have no objection whatsoever to requiring
parachute pack dates for parachutes that are REQUIRED to be aboard the
aircraft for use in an emergency. If you're doing aerobatics you must
have a parachute. It makes sense, then, that there be some legal
definition of what constitutes an acceptable parachute.

[Mark James Boyd]

Finbar,

We agree vehemently on everything you have posted!
Perhaps not surprisingly, many others agree as well.
And enough folks read this that perhaps we may get some resolution
to this over some time. Judy Ruprecht, among others, is
an occasional poster. I'd guess she'll mention these ideas
at some point when she meets with the FAA on behalf of
SSA.

You did write a nice summary. Thanks!


In article >,
Finbar > wrote:
>> Ummm...with more time and money, this problem goes away, of course.
>> I think what we are arguing is that the regs and the repack
>> requirements are marginally silly, and unneccesarily expensive.
>>
>> Not extremely silly or horifically expensive, just that it
>> would be better if a few tweaks were introcuced. A little nudge
>> for the reg and for the repack dates...
>
>No, the expense really wasn't my point. The questions of what the
>repack dates should be, that's a whole different topic. I don't know
>what they should be.
>
>My point was that the regs prohibit a pilot from doing something that
>is safer than the legal alternative. Given that a parachute is out of
>pack date, the pilot CAN legally fly WITHOUT it, but CANNOT legally
>fly WITH it. Since flying with it is either safer than flying without
>it or, in the worst case, no less safe than flying without it, the law
>requires behavior (leave it on the ground) that is LESS SAFE than the
>illegal alternative (bring it anyway, but without the same confidence
>that it will work).
>
>Laws that require unsafe behavior as an alternative to safer behavior
>are an abomination.
>
>That was my point.
>
>The connection to the transponder regs was that we all KNOW it's safer
>to have a transponder aboard and use it only when it makes sense, but
>it's illegal, and sooner or later someone will get ticketed for it.
>Just ask the guys who got ramp-checked for the pack dates on
>parachutes they weren't even required to have on board.
>
>On the other hand, I have no objection whatsoever to requiring
>parachute pack dates for parachutes that are REQUIRED to be aboard the
>aircraft for use in an emergency. If you're doing aerobatics you must
>have a parachute. It makes sense, then, that there be some legal
>definition of what constitutes an acceptable parachute.


--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA