View Single Post
  #6  
Old February 26th 04, 01:18 PM
Bob Greenblatt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

OK, I can't keep quiet on this any longer. I agree completely that adding a
transponder is likely to increase safety, that's why I did it. I think the
exemption is meaningless - we don't need one! If you are going to add a
transponder to your aircraft (and I urge you to do so) you ought to insure
that you have enough power to drive it and the rest of your electronics for
the duration of your expected flights. To do otherwise is simply
irresponsible.

A fully charged "standard" 7.5 AH battery will power one of the newer
transponders and encoders for more than 8 hours. And, that's here on the
east cost where the interrogations are almost constant. Why would anyone go
to the trouble of installing a transponder and encoder and not insure that
there is enough power to take advantage of it?

It's so simple to conform to the FARs (or CFRs or whatever they are) as they
presently exist. Attempting to achieve an exemption is misdirection of a lot
of energy better spent elsewhere.

So, put in a transponder and some extra batteries. There's always room. If
you can't find any think harder.

--
bobgreenblattATmsnDOTcom --fix this before responding