On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 10:09:57 -0700 (PDT), Andrew Sarangan
wrote in
:

On Apr 27, 12:01 pm, "Vaughn Simon"
wrote:
"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...


Is the big-sky-theory a myth?

It always has been a myth.


No it is not a myth. If you evenly spread the number of GA aircraft
below 12,000 ft across the U.S all traveling at random directions, the
probability of collision will be extremely low enough to be considered
zero. The problem is that the big sky theory does not apply near
terminal airspace where the airplanes are not traveling in random
directions and altitudes.


It also doesn't apply within 150 miles of Los Angeles, and I'd
venture, to other areas of large population concentrations, nor near
navaids, nor airports (controlled or not), nor islands, ... In fact,
in today's aerial environment, the Big-Sky-Theory is not only a myth,
but a recipe for disaster, IMO.


The spirit of the original transponder exemption was to allow for
older airplanes that were manufactured before the days electrical
avionics became commonplace. So I can see the justification for this
proposal.

What is it that you see? Is it the necessity to outlaw all aircraft
that were certified without electrical systems from operation within
the NAS?

However, a full blown mode C transponder may not be necessary.
A radar reflector like they use on weather balloon ought be
sufficient. It is just a piece of foil with a large cross section.


That's a constructive suggestion.

How large must such a radar reflector be?

Will it activate TCAS?

Does ATC normally enable the display of primary targets?