On Apr 27, 2:02 pm, Larry Dighera wrote:
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?


I think the FAR can be justifiably modified to only exempt airplanes
originally manufactured with no electrical system, but all airplanes
manufactured since 2008 (or whenever) operating in airspace where a
transponder is required should be equipped with one.