Feds Want to Equipe Gliders With Transponders and Radios

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

At any rate, even a high aspect ratio glider with minimal frontal area
presents a rather significant silhouette when wing-up in a bank if it
is seen against contrasting background (unless it is head-on). Perhaps
gliders should be fitted with rotating beacon lights in addition to
transponders. :-)


If seen against a contrasting background, that is key.

"Big John" wrote in message
...

Does ATC use skin paint any more????


If you mean does ATC still have primary radar, the answer is yes, in most
areas. Using it and having it are not quite the same, however.

"Peter Dohm" wrote in message
.. .

Yes. The story I heard was that they were about to do away with it--but
some sort of incident occured in the third quarter of '01 and they changed
their minds...


As I recall, primary radar was going to be eliminated at enroute facilities
but not terminal facilities. The more recent ARSR installations didn't have
primary radar at all.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

Right. ADS-B shifts the responsibility for tracking the position of
aircraft from ATC to the aircraft, unless I've overlooked something.
That seems like a fundamental flaw; only the outlaws are invisible.


That's not a problem to ATC, the users of ATC services want to make their
positions known.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

So if you see a glider in you path while piloting a powered aircraft,
but its pilot doesn't see you, you don't give it the right of way?


So if you see a powered aircraft in you path while piloting a glider, but
its pilot doesn't see you, do you expect it to yield the right-of-way?

On Thu, 1 May 2008 09:39:35 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
:


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .

Right. ADS-B shifts the responsibility for tracking the position of
aircraft from ATC to the aircraft, unless I've overlooked something.
That seems like a fundamental flaw; only the outlaws are invisible.


That's not a problem to ATC, the users of ATC services want to make their
positions known.


That's not the way the TSA sees it. Read some of the comments on the
docket web site, and you see that they see ADS-B as primarily a means
of surveillance.

What sort of gum-shoe relies solely upon the survailee to continually
announce his location? Not a realistic one who wants to locate those
who prefer their position remain cloaked.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

That's not a problem to ATC, the users of ATC services want to make their
positions known.


That's not the way the TSA sees it.


How TSA sees things is also not a problem to ATC.

In rec.aviation.soaring Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

I agree. But rescinding the glider exemption from FARs requiring
transponder use won't address that issue with powered aircraft that
lack an electrical system either. It looks like the FAA's response to
this NTSB recommendation is destined to be a compromise at best.
Hopefully it won't result in all gliders and aircraft without
electrical systems being grounded until they have transponders
installed and signed off.

So just remove the exemption at and above 10,000 MSL.

This is precisely what is being proposed. I don't understand why anything
else is even being discussed.

Note that requiring all gliders flying above 10,000MSL to be
transponder-equipped would still result in a large amount of either
expense or restrictions on flying for a large proportion of the
glider-flying population.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
That's not a problem to ATC, the users of ATC services want to make their
positions known.

That's not the way the TSA sees it.


How TSA sees things is also not a problem to ATC.



It is if the TSA has more stroke than the FAA and the TSA does.

"Gig 601Xl Builder" wrote in message
m...

How TSA sees things is also not a problem to ATC.

It is if the TSA has more stroke than the FAA and the TSA does.


How so?