ATC subtle hints

randall g wrote:

On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 19:32:20 -0500, "Jim Macklin"
wrote:


Sometimes drug smugglers sell their airplanes [if they
didn't just steal one for the trip]. If the DEA gets a
chance they will hardwire their own transponder in the
airplane so it is always on so they can track them. The new
owner finds out that their regular panel mounted transponder
isn't working and then they find the DEA's mounted somewhere
in the belly.



?? How would the DEA get a chance to do that? Do they get a warrant to
break into a suspect aircraft and install additional avionics?

Yes.

Newps wrote:


Emily wrote:
Jim Macklin wrote:

Sometimes drug smugglers sell their airplanes [if they didn't just
steal one for the trip]. If the DEA gets a chance they will hardwire
their own transponder in the airplane so it is always on so they can
track them. The new owner finds out that their regular panel mounted
transponder isn't working and then they find the DEA's mounted
somewhere in the belly.

Is that legal? Adding a transponder kind of affects w&b and is
supposed to be written in a logbook somewhere. I know they're the
government, but somehow I don't think the FAA would overlook it.


The FAA is in on it.

But do they violate unsuspecting people who buy a plane that was
previously used for drug smuggling? That's what I was getting at.

Tower: Cessna 12345, you can turn final now.
Me: I lost the field, Cessna 12345.
Tower: Cessna 345, turn to a heading of one eight zero degrees.
Me: turning to a heading 180 degrees.
About 30 seconds later.
Tower: Cessna 345, that's south.
..
..
..
Tower: Cessna 345, do you have the field in sight?
Me: Cessna 345 has the field in sight.
Tower: Bonanza N#, you are second to land. Following a Cessna Skyhawk on six
mile final.

To add insult to injury. I was landing at my home base and the airport had a VOR
on the field.

GeorgeC

GeorgeC wrote:
snip
To add insult to injury. I was landing at my home base and the airport had a VOR
on the field.

Because I am masochist, I decided it would be fun to fly a partial panel
single engine NDB approach at my home airport one day. Keep in mind I'd
done the approach at least 30 times, but for some reason was really
struggling on this particular day. Still, I figured I was at least
pointed somewhat towards the runway until tower called me.

Tower: Aztec 12345, is that you breaking off the approach?
Me to safety pilot: What the $#@! is he talking about?
Me to tower: Ah, negative, Aztec 12345 will break off the approach over
the numbers.
Tower: Aztec 12345: Which numbers?
Safety pilot: Um, maybe you need to look up now.

I hear one the other day that I don't know the translation. I was practicing
maneuvers with flight following. When approach control ask "N#, how long do you
plan on being in that area?" I told her I was heading back to the airport. She
said OK and gave me a frequency change (approach control).

GeorgeC

GeorgeC wrote:
I hear one the other day that I don't know the translation. I was practicing
maneuvers with flight following. When approach control ask "N#, how long do you
plan on being in that area?" I told her I was heading back to the airport. She
said OK and gave me a frequency change (approach control).

GeorgeC
Were you in a inactive MOA or the like? Maybe she just wanted to know
how long she needed to alert others to your presence..

I've seen it a couple of times. The Feds do what they want,
a two pound ATCRBS doesn't cause any W&B issues. Besides,
it is the PIC responsibility.


--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Emily" wrote in message
. ..
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| Sometimes drug smugglers sell their airplanes [if they
| didn't just steal one for the trip]. If the DEA gets a
| chance they will hardwire their own transponder in the
| airplane so it is always on so they can track them. The
new
| owner finds out that their regular panel mounted
transponder
| isn't working and then they find the DEA's mounted
somewhere
| in the belly.
|
| Is that legal? Adding a transponder kind of affects w&b
and is supposed
| to be written in a logbook somewhere. I know they're the
government, but
| somehow I don't think the FAA would overlook it.

I don't doubt that, they don't use A&P or avionics guys,
just a handy DEA agent with a pair of pliers.



"Paul Tomblin" wrote in message
...
| In a previous article, Emily
said:
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| didn't just steal one for the trip]. If the DEA gets a
| chance they will hardwire their own transponder in the
| airplane so it is always on so they can track them.
The new
| Is that legal? Adding a transponder kind of affects w&b
and is supposed
| to be written in a logbook somewhere. I know they're the
government, but
| somehow I don't think the FAA would overlook it.
|
| According to some sources, at least one of these illegal
DEA wiring jobs
| was discovered because it caused an in-flight electrical
fire!
|
| --
| Paul Tomblin http://blog.xcski.com/
| "Dad, I left my heart up there."
| -- Francis Gary Powers after his first flight (age 14)

No and they don't notify them either. In one case our shop
fixed the panel mount legal transponder and when they rolled
the airplane out for a test the tower called and told them
to shutdown. The tower did know the code was DEA.



"Emily" wrote in message
. ..
| Newps wrote:
|
|
| Emily wrote:
| Jim Macklin wrote:
|
| Sometimes drug smugglers sell their airplanes [if they
didn't just
| steal one for the trip]. If the DEA gets a chance
they will hardwire
| their own transponder in the airplane so it is always
on so they can
| track them. The new owner finds out that their
regular panel mounted
| transponder isn't working and then they find the DEA's
mounted
| somewhere in the belly.
|
| Is that legal? Adding a transponder kind of affects
w&b and is
| supposed to be written in a logbook somewhere. I know
they're the
| government, but somehow I don't think the FAA would
overlook it.
|
|
| The FAA is in on it.
|
| But do they violate unsuspecting people who buy a plane
that was
| previously used for drug smuggling? That's what I was
getting at.

Jim Macklin wrote:
I've seen it a couple of times. The Feds do what they want,
a two pound ATCRBS doesn't cause any W&B issues. Besides,
it is the PIC responsibility.


Of course it's not going to knock the aircraft off CG, but it's still a
requirement to calculate the change.