NTSB prelim report out

[[email protected]]

http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief.asp?ev_id=20060906X01297&key=2

For you amateur FAR lawyers to chew on:

"The glider was equipped with a panel mounted communication radio,
global positioning system (GPS) unit, and a transponder; however, the
pilot did not turn on the GPS and transponder. The transponder's
activation is not required for glider operations (for more details see
14 CFR Part 91.215). According to the glider pilot, he did not turn on
the transponder because he was only intending on remaining in the local
glider area, and because he wanted to reserve his batteries for radio
use. The glider was equipped with two batteries (one main and one
spare), however, due to the previous glider flights, the pilot was
unsure of the remaining charge in the battery."

[Ramy]

Very lucky pilot, both in the air and on the ground, if he gets away
with it...


wrote:
> http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief.asp?ev_id=20060906X01297&key=2
>
> For you amateur FAR lawyers to chew on:
>
> "The glider was equipped with a panel mounted communication radio,
> global positioning system (GPS) unit, and a transponder; however, the
> pilot did not turn on the GPS and transponder. The transponder's
> activation is not required for glider operations (for more details see
> 14 CFR Part 91.215). According to the glider pilot, he did not turn on
> the transponder because he was only intending on remaining in the local
> glider area, and because he wanted to reserve his batteries for radio
> use. The glider was equipped with two batteries (one main and one
> spare), however, due to the previous glider flights, the pilot was
> unsure of the remaining charge in the battery."

[Greg Arnold]

An interesting statement from the report:

"The transponder's activation is not required for glider operations (for
more details see 14 CFR Part 91.215)."


Ramy wrote:
> Very lucky pilot, both in the air and on the ground, if he gets away
> with it...
>
>
> wrote:
>> http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief.asp?ev_id=20060906X01297&key=2
>>
>> For you amateur FAR lawyers to chew on:
>>
>> "The glider was equipped with a panel mounted communication radio,
>> global positioning system (GPS) unit, and a transponder; however, the
>> pilot did not turn on the GPS and transponder. The transponder's
>> activation is not required for glider operations (for more details see
>> 14 CFR Part 91.215). According to the glider pilot, he did not turn on
>> the transponder because he was only intending on remaining in the local
>> glider area, and because he wanted to reserve his batteries for radio
>> use. The glider was equipped with two batteries (one main and one
>> spare), however, due to the previous glider flights, the pilot was
>> unsure of the remaining charge in the battery."
>

[Mike the Strike]

Reminds me of an old instructor who told me that instruments that were
not working were as useful as runway behind you!

So if the glider had its transponder turned on, the TCAS on the jet
would likely have alerted the Hawker pilots in time to avoid the
collision?

Mike

> >
> > "The glider was equipped with a panel mounted communication radio,
> > global positioning system (GPS) unit, and a transponder; however, the
> > pilot did not turn on the GPS and transponder. The transponder's
> > activation is not required for glider operations (for more details see
> > 14 CFR Part 91.215). According to the glider pilot, he did not turn on
> > the transponder because he was only intending on remaining in the local
> > glider area, and because he wanted to reserve his batteries for radio
> > use. The glider was equipped with two batteries (one main and one
> > spare), however, due to the previous glider flights, the pilot was
> > unsure of the remaining charge in the battery."

[Terry[_2_]]

Mike the Strike wrote:
> Reminds me of an old instructor who told me that instruments that were
> not working were as useful as runway behind you!
>
> So if the glider had its transponder turned on, the TCAS on the jet
> would likely have alerted the Hawker pilots in time to avoid the
> collision?
>
> Mike
================================================== =========

Has it been established that the Hawker had TCAS? and if it did, what
type configuration?

I have flown airliners with a scalable display which shows all targets
up to 40 NM around the aircraft. Other airliners have a much more
modest display. Given the smaller panel space in a bizjet, the modest
display would be the best to hope for. If you know how TCAS works, then
I appologize if I offend:

TCAS II has a two level threat warning area. The first area, which is
largest forward of the airplane will generate an audible "TRAFFIC,
TRAFFIC" at this time, the display I am familiar with would should the
target as an amber where previous it was a white on black diamond with
relative altitude displayed. If the target's and the unit's flight path
are projected to enter the inner threat area, a resolution advisory
(RA) is given to the pilots. At the RA level, the vertical speed
indicator will have red arcs for rate of climb/descent to not do and
green arcs to fly towards. The announciation will say: "CLIMB, CLIMB,"
or "CLIMB NOW" for added urgency. Insert "DESCEND" for alternate
scenarios. At completion of the confict, the TCAS will announce:
"MONITOR VERTICAL SPEED" and "CLEAR OF CONFLICT."

Pilots are free to deviate from ATC clearance when an RA is received.
Had the transponder been operating on the glider with correct mode C
indications and the bizjet had TCAS II installed and operating, the
bizjet pilot would have heard the "TRAFFIC, TRAFFIC" and likely
"MONITOR VERTICAL SPEED" with some change required in their descent
rate.

Would the transponder have prevented this? Yes, if the glider had a
correctly functioning mode C transponder and the bizjet had a TCAS
system selected on and the bizjet pilots promptly followed any RA. A
lot of ifs there.

I don't beleive that transponders are the magic sheild that some do.
There are far too many airplanes that do not have this installed.

[Mike Schumann]

Transponders won't protect you from most VFR traffic, but they will protect
you from IFR traffic, thanks to not only TCAS, but also the ability of ATC
to see you and keep the traffic away from you.

Mike Schumann

"Terry" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Mike the Strike wrote:
>> Reminds me of an old instructor who told me that instruments that were
>> not working were as useful as runway behind you!
>>
>> So if the glider had its transponder turned on, the TCAS on the jet
>> would likely have alerted the Hawker pilots in time to avoid the
>> collision?
>>
>> Mike
> ================================================== =========
>
> Has it been established that the Hawker had TCAS? and if it did, what
> type configuration?
>
> I have flown airliners with a scalable display which shows all targets
> up to 40 NM around the aircraft. Other airliners have a much more
> modest display. Given the smaller panel space in a bizjet, the modest
> display would be the best to hope for. If you know how TCAS works, then
> I appologize if I offend:
>
> TCAS II has a two level threat warning area. The first area, which is
> largest forward of the airplane will generate an audible "TRAFFIC,
> TRAFFIC" at this time, the display I am familiar with would should the
> target as an amber where previous it was a white on black diamond with
> relative altitude displayed. If the target's and the unit's flight path
> are projected to enter the inner threat area, a resolution advisory
> (RA) is given to the pilots. At the RA level, the vertical speed
> indicator will have red arcs for rate of climb/descent to not do and
> green arcs to fly towards. The announciation will say: "CLIMB, CLIMB,"
> or "CLIMB NOW" for added urgency. Insert "DESCEND" for alternate
> scenarios. At completion of the confict, the TCAS will announce:
> "MONITOR VERTICAL SPEED" and "CLEAR OF CONFLICT."
>
> Pilots are free to deviate from ATC clearance when an RA is received.
> Had the transponder been operating on the glider with correct mode C
> indications and the bizjet had TCAS II installed and operating, the
> bizjet pilot would have heard the "TRAFFIC, TRAFFIC" and likely
> "MONITOR VERTICAL SPEED" with some change required in their descent
> rate.
>
> Would the transponder have prevented this? Yes, if the glider had a
> correctly functioning mode C transponder and the bizjet had a TCAS
> system selected on and the bizjet pilots promptly followed any RA. A
> lot of ifs there.
>
> I don't beleive that transponders are the magic sheild that some do.
> There are far too many airplanes that do not have this installed.
>

[BTIZ]

> Would the transponder have prevented this? Yes, if the glider had a
> correctly functioning mode C transponder and the bizjet had a TCAS
> system selected on and the bizjet pilots promptly followed any RA. A
> lot of ifs there.

With a BizJet, Turboprop or Airliner with TCAS? Maybe.. or at least given
the pilots a heads up they were not alone and put the eyes into a quadrant
of airspace or a blind reaction to RA warnings.

If it had been a smaller, non jet with no TCAS capability?.. NO.. No chance
at all for a warning.
If the non TCAS equiped airplane was talking to ATC, where ATC "might" have
been able to issue a traffic warning? Maybe

Is TIS service from Reno Approach available in that area? A transponder
"might" have made a difference in a TIS service area IF the airplane had a
TIS display capability.

>
> I don't beleive that transponders are the magic sheild that some do.
> There are far too many airplanes that do not have this installed.

I agree, a Transponder is not a force field to keep threats away, and a lot
of people cruise just below Class A airspace so they don't need ATC
assistance or have to deal with IFR clearances.

BT

[[email protected]]

I believe the glider pilot was from Japan. May be time for a hasty
retreat back to the homeland.

[Bill Daniels]

"BTIZ" > wrote in message
news:vDpMg.3357$8J2.3041@fed1read11...

> I agree, a Transponder is not a force field to keep threats away, and a
> lot of people cruise just below Class A airspace so they don't need ATC
> assistance or have to deal with IFR clearances.
>
> BT
Funny, I used to fly IFR just so I didn't have to deal with all that VFR
crap.

Bill Daniels

[Cats]

Terry wrote:
<snip>
>
> Would the transponder have prevented this? Yes, if the glider had a
> correctly functioning mode C transponder and the bizjet had a TCAS
> system selected on and the bizjet pilots promptly followed any RA. A
> lot of ifs there.

>From the report:

"The Hawker 800XP was equipped with a TCAS warning system."

It says the glider had a transponder but not if it was mode C. So, we
know that the Bizjet had the equipment - if I was the glider pilot and
lost my plane due to not turning on some kit I have, I would be sick,
sick sick.


>
> I don't beleive that transponders are the magic sheild that some do.
> There are far too many airplanes that do not have this installed.

*nothing* is a magic shield, but when one has the kit not using will
look like madness to many observers. Radar doesn't prevent all
collisions at sea, not all vessels are equipped with it, and there are
problems spotting small sailing vessels - but no-one suggests it should
be turned off.

[Terry[_2_]]

Cats wrote:

>
> >From the report:
>
> "The Hawker 800XP was equipped with a TCAS warning system."
>
================================================== =======

I had not seen that yet, thanks.

The tools were in the box and were not used. Bad all around. Thank God
no one died.

[Cats]

Terry wrote:
> Cats wrote:
>
> >
> > >From the report:
> >
> > "The Hawker 800XP was equipped with a TCAS warning system."
> >
> ================================================== =======
>
> I had not seen that yet, thanks.
>
> The tools were in the box and were not used. Bad all around. Thank God
> no one died.

I expect the TCAS in the Hawker was turned on & operational - but of
course you need both halves of the equation for it to work.

[Quebec Tango]

This is a very interesting statement to see from an FAA investigator
who should know the rules (or at least be able to read). 14 CFR Part
91.215 is very clear that if you are a pure glider above 10K you do not
need to have a transponder installed. It is also about as clear as any
FAR can be that if you have one, it must be on.

The intrepretation that "If I am not required to have one, then I can
act as if I don't even if I do" just isn't how the rule reads.

[[email protected]]

wrote:
> I believe the glider pilot was from Japan. May be time for a hasty
> retreat back to the homeland.

Do I detect some subtle or not so subtle prejudice here ?

Cheers anyway, Charles V.

[[email protected]]

Quebec Tango wrote:
> This is a very interesting statement to see from an FAA investigator
> who should know the rules (or at least be able to read).

Fact is, the NTSB does the accident investigation; and writes that
report you are reading. Even when the NTSB elects not to perform the
accident investigation (in numerous instances) the FAA inspector
conducting the investigation is doing so *on behalf of* the NTSB. The
FAA may elect to perform a seperate (from the NTSB) enforcement
investigation.

If you can read, read these FAA Orders 8300.10, 8400.10 and 8020.11.

If you can find a copy of the Order 2150.3a, read it. It's all about
enforcement. Google it.

You should read all of those documents, but especially the sections
regarding accident and enforcement investigations.

Jim

[Ramy]

Quebec Tango wrote:
> This is a very interesting statement to see from an FAA investigator
> who should know the rules (or at least be able to read). 14 CFR Part
> 91.215 is very clear that if you are a pure glider above 10K you do not
> need to have a transponder installed. It is also about as clear as any
> FAR can be that if you have one, it must be on.
>
> The intrepretation that "If I am not required to have one, then I can
> act as if I don't even if I do" just isn't how the rule reads.

Incidentally, if he post his flight to OLC it will be accepted
according to the OLC-SSA rules ;-)

[Quebec Tango]

Jim,

I'm not sure whether you are chiding my for my hoof in mouth disease
(FAA vs NTSB) or calling me to task for my arrogant tone (both are
appropriate). The documents you reference are large and to a large
extent not concerned with accident investigation. So I will humbly ask
you to state your point(s) explicity.

wrote:
> Quebec Tango wrote:
> > This is a very interesting statement to see from an FAA investigator
> > who should know the rules (or at least be able to read).
>
> Fact is, the NTSB does the accident investigation; and writes that
> report you are reading. Even when the NTSB elects not to perform the
> accident investigation (in numerous instances) the FAA inspector
> conducting the investigation is doing so *on behalf of* the NTSB. The
> FAA may elect to perform a seperate (from the NTSB) enforcement
> investigation.
>
> If you can read, read these FAA Orders 8300.10, 8400.10 and 8020.11.
>
> If you can find a copy of the Order 2150.3a, read it. It's all about
> enforcement. Google it.
>
> You should read all of those documents, but especially the sections
> regarding accident and enforcement investigations.
>
> Jim

[Doug Haluza]

Quebec Tango wrote:
> This is a very interesting statement to see from an FAA investigator
> who should know the rules (or at least be able to read). 14 CFR Part
> 91.215 is very clear that if you are a pure glider above 10K you do not
> need to have a transponder installed. It is also about as clear as any
> FAR can be that if you have one, it must be on.
>
> The intrepretation that "If I am not required to have one, then I can
> act as if I don't even if I do" just isn't how the rule reads.

No, but the rules do require that the transponder must have been tested
every 24 months, and cannot be operated unless it has. So if it is
installed but not tested then it must be off.

Now, if you did not know the current status of the test, you would be
in a tough spot. I would suggest that from a regulatory standpoint the
most prudent thing to do would be to leave it off, but from a safety
standpoint, it would probably be better if it was on. A good lawyer
could probably argue either position.

[[email protected]]

Quebec Tango wrote:
> Jim,
>
So I will humbly ask
> you to state your point(s) explicity.
>

QT,

My point is: <<the NTSB does the accident investigation; and writes
that report you are reading.>> Not the FAA investigator. The two
organizations are not the same and they are not always there for the
same reason.

The NTSB made that <<very interesting statement>> not the FAA. The NTSB
does not investigate for enforcement of rules (OK, except maybe for the
NTSB 800 series rules, maybe not).

The FAA investigates accidents to promote safety and also for
enforcement and compliance (2150.3a) and if there is an enforcement
against anyone in the accident, you will not be able to read it until
1) it is final and completely adjudicated and 2) you FOIA it and the
report is released to you.

So, my explicit point is that no one outside the FAA can know what the
FAA investigator knows about this specific accident unless he or she
tells them. Anyone can read an NTSB report that finds *cause* of the
accident, but very few will know what the enforcement investigation, if
any, will say.

The orders are indeed large, so as you can see it is important the FAA
investigator to be able to read in the course of his or her duties. The
8020.11 is all about accident investigation. The 8300.10 is also large;
chapters 210, 211, 212 and 213 are the chapters describing the FAA
procedures and policies on accident, incident and enforcement
investigations.

I hope this helps.

Jim

[Quebec Tango]

Jim,

Would you agree or disagree that it is unusual for a preliminary
accident report to contain such a direct statement about the
interpretation of the FARs (or anything else)? This seems to me to be
pretty far out of the mainstream of the SOP for investigations.

The statement seems uninformed at best, and tempts me question the
overall qualithy of this investigation process.

wrote:
> Quebec Tango wrote:
> > Jim,
> >
> So I will humbly ask
> > you to state your point(s) explicity.
> >
>
> QT,
>
> My point is: <<the NTSB does the accident investigation; and writes
> that report you are reading.>> Not the FAA investigator. The two
> organizations are not the same and they are not always there for the
> same reason.
>
> The NTSB made that <<very interesting statement>> not the FAA. The NTSB
> does not investigate for enforcement of rules (OK, except maybe for the
> NTSB 800 series rules, maybe not).
>
> The FAA investigates accidents to promote safety and also for
> enforcement and compliance (2150.3a) and if there is an enforcement
> against anyone in the accident, you will not be able to read it until
> 1) it is final and completely adjudicated and 2) you FOIA it and the
> report is released to you.
>
> So, my explicit point is that no one outside the FAA can know what the
> FAA investigator knows about this specific accident unless he or she
> tells them. Anyone can read an NTSB report that finds *cause* of the
> accident, but very few will know what the enforcement investigation, if
> any, will say.
>
> The orders are indeed large, so as you can see it is important the FAA
> investigator to be able to read in the course of his or her duties. The
> 8020.11 is all about accident investigation. The 8300.10 is also large;
> chapters 210, 211, 212 and 213 are the chapters describing the FAA
> procedures and policies on accident, incident and enforcement
> investigations.
>
> I hope this helps.
>
> Jim

[Paul Buchanan]

I have a question which the report doesn't clarify.

What type of airspace was the glider and bizjet flying
in at the time?

Controlled or VFR?

Paul Buchanan

http://www.glidingstuff.co.nz

[[email protected]]

Quebec Tango wrote:
> Jim,
>
> Would you agree or disagree that it is unusual for a preliminary
> accident report to contain such a direct statement about the
> interpretation of the FARs (or anything else)? This seems to me to be
> pretty far out of the mainstream of the SOP for investigations.
>
> The statement seems uninformed at best, and tempts me question the
> overall qualithy of this investigation process.


I agree, that's farther than I would ever go, but I'm not NTSB.

One correction to my earlier statement regarding enforcements, if an
FAA enforcement case goes all of the way to an NTSB law judge (a small
number of them make it that far) it becomes public record that you can
read at ntsb.gov.

Jim

[Quebec Tango]

My motivation for all this is that this investigation is likely to
produce just slightly less upset than if it were a 121 carrier involved
and will spawn lots of debate of all qualities about who should be able
to fly where and when and with what equipment. I would like to think
that the investigation of such a sensitive event would be handled by
highly qualified personnel operating impartially. The way this prelim
report is written does not give me confidence that the investigator is
up to par and/or that other invisible forces are not at work.

I have a transponder installed, it has been verified to put out a
strong signal, and like Doug Haluza carry enough batteries to sustain
Manhatten during a blackout. Almost exactly one year ago at a contest,
while thermalling on the edge of a Class C airspace, the glider on the
other side of the thermal (we were the two at the top) was passed by a
commuter descending through the cloud bases way too close for comfort
(I could hear the turboprop loudly). My guess is 50 feet from the
other glider and 200 feet from me. We had been circling for more than
a few minutes and my transponder was going R R R R Reply continuously.
We were well below cloud base when it happened.

Was their TCAS inop? Did the ATC have slow moving 1200s filtered out?
Did they just igonore the TCAS and/or ATC? I was never able to find
out. After the other discussions relating to reasons why conflicts
occur with IFR traffic even with operating transponders in use is very
worrysome. And the specter of some half-baked solution coming out of
the Minden incident is not conforting.

I think as a community we need to make it clear we expect the best on
all sides from this investigation early on.

wrote:
> Quebec Tango wrote:
> > Jim,
> >
> > Would you agree or disagree that it is unusual for a preliminary
> > accident report to contain such a direct statement about the
> > interpretation of the FARs (or anything else)? This seems to me to be
> > pretty far out of the mainstream of the SOP for investigations.
> >
> > The statement seems uninformed at best, and tempts me question the
> > overall qualithy of this investigation process.
>
>
> I agree, that's farther than I would ever go, but I'm not NTSB.
>
> One correction to my earlier statement regarding enforcements, if an
> FAA enforcement case goes all of the way to an NTSB law judge (a small
> number of them make it that far) it becomes public record that you can
> read at ntsb.gov.
>
> Jim

[Paul Buchanan]

I have a question which the report doesn't clarify.

What type of airspace was the glider and bizjet flying
in at the time?

Controlled or VFR?

Paul Buchanan

http://www.glidingstuff.co.nz

[588]

wrote:
> wrote:
>> I believe the glider pilot was from Japan. May be time for a hasty
>> retreat back to the homeland.
>
> Do I detect some subtle or not so subtle prejudice here ?

Only in your response, Charles.


Jack

[Doug Haluza]

Paul Buchanan wrote:
> I have a question which the report doesn't clarify.
>
> What type of airspace was the glider and bizjet flying
> in at the time?
>
> Controlled or VFR?
>
> Paul Buchanan
>
> http://www.glidingstuff.co.nz

Should have been class G. Glider was VFR, Jet was IFR in VMC.

[Paul Buchanan]

I have a question which the report doesn't clarify.

What type of airspace was the glider and bizjet flying
in at the time?

Controlled or VFR?

Paul Buchanan

http://www.glidingstuff.co.nz

[[email protected]]

Here I go again...

Had the pilot been an American, would the original comment have been
"May be time for a hasty retreat back to (name the State of your choice
here) ? Or perhaps was the initial post a mild joke, suggesting that a
hasty retreat would put the unfortunate pilot beyond the grasp of the
FAA, NTSB, etc...?

Cheers anyhow, Charles

[Nyal Williams]

Are you sure this is a possible reading? I would have
guessed that the aircraft could not be flown other
than with a ferrying permit to an inspection site.

At 20:48 09 September 2006, Doug Haluza wrote:

>No, but the rules do require that the transponder must
>have been tested
>every 24 months, and cannot be operated unless it has.
>So if it is
>installed but not tested then it must be off.
>
>Now, if you did not know the current status of the
>test, you would be
>in a tough spot. I would suggest that from a regulatory
>standpoint the
>most prudent thing to do would be to leave it off,
>but from a safety
>standpoint, it would probably be better if it was on.
>A good lawyer
>could probably argue either position.
>
>

[BTIZ]

Paul, in the US, it can be "IFR controlled" and "VFR", where VFR aircraft
such as the glider can roam freely in VFR (Visual Flight Rules) or VMC
(Visual Meteorological Conditions) in the same airspace that IFR ATC
controlled traffic can be, the altitudes reported have been 13,500 to 16,500
MSL when they hit.

Positive Control (Class A) starts at 18,000MSL and up, and they were well
clear of any Class C or Class D airspace around Reno NV, so they were in
Class E airspace in VFR or VMC conditions.

I would have to check the local chart for Class G in that area. But Class E
exists over the Continental US from 14,500MSL to 17,999 and from FL600 and
up.

BT

"Paul Buchanan" > wrote in message
...
>I have a question which the report doesn't clarify.
>
> What type of airspace was the glider and bizjet flying
> in at the time?
>
> Controlled or VFR?
>
> Paul Buchanan
>
> http://www.glidingstuff.co.nz
>
>

[BTIZ]

"Doug Haluza" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Paul Buchanan wrote:
>> I have a question which the report doesn't clarify.
>>
>> What type of airspace was the glider and bizjet flying
>> in at the time?
>>
>> Controlled or VFR?
>>
>> Paul Buchanan
>>
>> http://www.glidingstuff.co.nz
>
> Should have been class G. Glider was VFR, Jet was IFR in VMC.

Doug.. wouldn't it be Class E above 14,500MSL?

BT

[Ron Natalie]

Paul Buchanan wrote:
> I have a question which the report doesn't clarify.
>
> What type of airspace was the glider and bizjet flying
> in at the time?
>
> Controlled or VFR?
>
>
Almost certainly IFR as they were descending from positive
control altitudes. It's rare (but not unheard) for bizjets
to not be operating IFR.

[Ron Natalie]

BTIZ wrote:
> Paul, in the US, it can be "IFR controlled" and "VFR", where VFR aircraft
> such as the glider can roam freely in VFR (Visual Flight Rules) or VMC
> (Visual Meteorological Conditions) in the same airspace that IFR ATC
> controlled traffic can be, the altitudes reported have been 13,500 to 16,500
> MSL when they hit.
>
Actually there is a third category: IFR in uncontrolled airspace.
ATC can not provide control in class G airspace. However, there
is precious little of that in the at any altitude above a few
thousand feet AGL.

[BTIZ]

>> I have a question which the report doesn't clarify.
>>
>> What type of airspace was the glider and bizjet flying
>> in at the time?
>>
>> Controlled or VFR?
>>
> Almost certainly IFR as they were descending from positive
> control altitudes. It's rare (but not unheard) for bizjets
> to not be operating IFR.

I'm sure you speak only of the BizJet.. the glider was VFR and not under ATC
control and not required to be under ATC control.

BT

[[email protected]]

Greg,
Very interesting indeed. If you have a transponder in your aircraft,
it needs to be ON. FAR91.215.c.(unless I am reading it wrong).. Much
different that not having a transponder, definitely NOT required in
that airspace.
Lucky that no one was killed. I feel sorry for the glider owner
that cared enough about safety to equip his sailplane with a
transponder yet it wasn't used during the flight.

Dean