Feds Want to Equipe Gliders With Transponders and Radios

On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 16:01:31 GMT, "Vaughn Simon"
wrote in
:


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .

If this is implemented, will it affect powered aircraft without
electrical systems too?

Almost certainly


That's the way I saw it also.

Here are a few pertinent questions:

What are the full implications of installing an electrical system in a
glider?

If implemented, will the requirement for an electrical system kill
low-cost glider training operations?

Would the CAP glider training operations, which typically provide
winch launch and pattern work, be impacted?

What are the full implications of installing an electrical system in a
Champ or Cub? Isn't their performance so marginal already, that they
will become impractical due to increased empty weight and drag, and
power reduction with the addition of an alternator, battery,
communications radio, transponder, antennas, wiring, switches, etc?

Would the work have to be done by an A&P and approved by the FAA for
each aircraft/glider modified?

Will aircraft/glider useful load be affected?


How much does the gliders right-of-way over powered aircraft affect
this issue?

Not at all.


So you don't believe there is any possibility that Part 121 or 135
operator advocate organizations have been lobbying the government to
increase the conspicuity of gliders or to enable their TCAS systems to
warn operators of glider proximity?

What is the possibility of NextGen ATC accommodating non-metallic
aircraft without electrical systems? Without transponders? Without
radio communications?


Any glider pilots who depends on powered aircraft to see them
and to automatically get out of their way has a death wish.


It's difficult to deny that. But it doesn't address the issue of
liability.


Right-of-way rules have two uses:
1) Provides a framework of preplanned manuvers for aircraft to use to avoid
each other (but only if they both see each other, know the regulations, and are
inclined to follow them).


Actually, that is true if only one pilot makes visual contact too.


And now the big one: (2) It provides lawers and bureaucrats with a
methodology for assigning blame after an accident.


So Right-of-way regulations provide a basis for aggrieved parties to
seek compensation from regulation violators, and assign responsibility
too.


Is ATC going to take legal and financial responsibility for separation
if gliders are mandated to be so equipped and operated?

No more than they do now.


I would find ATC's responsibility for separating NORDO gliders that
paint no primary target to be nonexistent presently. If this proposal
is enacted, the situation will change.


Is the big-sky-theory a myth?

It always has been a myth.


At the risk of tangential drift, isn't the BST currently employed by
the FAA to separate high-speed military aircraft on VFR low-level
Military Training Routs from civil flights? In light of the mythical
status of the BST, shouldn't that flaw in the NAS be corrected also?


Vaughn


Thank you for your insightful comments.