Glider transponder on?

[Sam Spade]

On August 28th, Hawker biz jet and a glider collided south of Reno,
Nevada at 16,000 feet. Fortunately, everyone survived. The Hawker was
IFR and flying a STAR into KRNO. Following is an excerpt from the
NTSB's preliminary report (LAX06FA277A):

"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."

I'd be interested in opinions about the legal conclusion the NTSB makes
in their preliminary report as to whether the glider pilot did, or did
not, have to have his transponder turned on:
"The transponder's activation is not required for glider operations (for
more details see 14 CFR Part 91.215)."

My take on 91.215 is that the NTSB is wrong. It was elective to install
a transponder in the glider, but because it was installed it had to be
on unless it was broken

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
...
>
> On August 28th, Hawker biz jet and a glider collided south of Reno,
> Nevada at 16,000 feet. Fortunately, everyone survived. The Hawker was
> IFR and flying a STAR into KRNO. Following is an excerpt from the NTSB's
> preliminary report (LAX06FA277A):
>
> "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."
>
> I'd be interested in opinions about the legal conclusion the NTSB makes in
> their preliminary report as to whether the glider pilot did, or did not,
> have to have his transponder turned on:
> "The transponder's activation is not required for glider operations (for
> more details see 14 CFR Part 91.215)."
>
> My take on 91.215 is that the NTSB is wrong. It was elective to install a
> transponder in the glider, but because it was installed it had to be on
> unless it was broken
>

I believe a report on this accident indicated the transponder was not
"certified". I don't know what was meant by that, but if it means the
transponder wasn't maintained in accordance with FAR 91.413 then the pilot
would be in violation if he had turned it on.

[Jim Macklin]

I think you are correct.



"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
...
| On August 28th, Hawker biz jet and a glider collided
south of Reno,
| Nevada at 16,000 feet. Fortunately, everyone survived.
The Hawker was
| IFR and flying a STAR into KRNO. Following is an excerpt
from the
| NTSB's preliminary report (LAX06FA277A):
|
| "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."
|
| I'd be interested in opinions about the legal conclusion
the NTSB makes
| in their preliminary report as to whether the glider pilot
did, or did
| not, have to have his transponder turned on:
| "The transponder's activation is not required for glider
operations (for
| more details see 14 CFR Part 91.215)."
|
| My take on 91.215 is that the NTSB is wrong. It was
elective to install
| a transponder in the glider, but because it was installed
it had to be
| on unless it was broken

[Bill[_4_]]

According to a person in the area who knows about this...
most of the flights far out last the battery capacity.

So they are off for a good portion of the flight.

Bill H.


Jim Macklin wrote:
> I think you are correct.
>
>
>
> "Sam Spade" > wrote in message
> ...
> | On August 28th, Hawker biz jet and a glider collided
> south of Reno,
> | Nevada at 16,000 feet. Fortunately, everyone survived.
> The Hawker was
> | IFR and flying a STAR into KRNO. Following is an excerpt
> from the
> | NTSB's preliminary report (LAX06FA277A):
> |
> | "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."
> |
> | I'd be interested in opinions about the legal conclusion
> the NTSB makes
> | in their preliminary report as to whether the glider pilot
> did, or did
> | not, have to have his transponder turned on:
> | "The transponder's activation is not required for glider
> operations (for
> | more details see 14 CFR Part 91.215)."
> |
> | My take on 91.215 is that the NTSB is wrong. It was
> elective to install
> | a transponder in the glider, but because it was installed
> it had to be
> | on unless it was broken

[John Godwin]

Probably because the glider was not originally certificated with an
engine-driven electrical system.

--

[Sam Spade]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> "Sam Spade" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>On August 28th, Hawker biz jet and a glider collided south of Reno,
>>Nevada at 16,000 feet. Fortunately, everyone survived. The Hawker was
>>IFR and flying a STAR into KRNO. Following is an excerpt from the NTSB's
>>preliminary report (LAX06FA277A):
>>
>>"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."
>>
>>I'd be interested in opinions about the legal conclusion the NTSB makes in
>>their preliminary report as to whether the glider pilot did, or did not,
>>have to have his transponder turned on:
>>"The transponder's activation is not required for glider operations (for
>>more details see 14 CFR Part 91.215)."
>>
>>My take on 91.215 is that the NTSB is wrong. It was elective to install a
>>transponder in the glider, but because it was installed it had to be on
>>unless it was broken
>>
>
>
> I believe a report on this accident indicated the transponder was not
> "certified". I don't know what was meant by that, but if it means the
> transponder wasn't maintained in accordance with FAR 91.413 then the pilot
> would be in violation if he had turned it on.
>
>
If that were the case, then the transponder would have had to been
placarded as inoperative. That is inconsistent with the excerpt from
the NTSB preliminary I posted.