If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
SSA petition to allow transponder to be turned off
Check out the SSA website for the complete info on this petition, and
consider commenting to the FAA (comments due by March 1, via web site, mail, fax, "eRulemaking portal"): SSA Transponder Petition Published By Dennis Wright Posted Thursday, February 19, 2004 The SSA petition asks that SSA members be allowed to operate transponder-equipped gliders with the transponders turned off, when the glider is being operated more than 40 nautical miles from the primary airport in Class B airspace and more than 20 nautical miles from the primary airport in Class C airspace. Currently, Federal Aviation Regulation 91.215[c] requires that all aircraft equipped with a transponder and operating in controlled airspace have the transponder on. ....more on the web site -- ----- change "netto" to "net" to email me directly Eric Greenwell Washington State USA |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
This appeared out of the blue, at least to me. If
approved as it stands, it certainly would be an encouragement to install a transponder. But what is the SSA's position if the FAA comes back at some future date and says 'Yes, but now that you have pointed out that battery-operated transponders are available, there is no reason why ALL non-electric aircraft should not be REQUIRED to have a transponder installed' ? Like the part 103 ultralights, maybe it is best not to tamper with an existing favorable exemption. Ian At 18:48 21 February 2004, Eric Greenwell wrote: Check out the SSA website for the complete info on this petition, and consider commenting to the FAA (comments due by March 1, via web site, mail, fax, 'eRulemaking portal'): SSA Transponder Petition Published By Dennis Wright Posted Thursday, February 19, 2004 The SSA petition asks that SSA members be allowed to operate transponder-equipped gliders with the transponders turned off, when the glider is being operated more than 40 nautical miles from the primary airport in Class B airspace and more than 20 nautical miles from the primary airport in Class C airspace. Currently, Federal Aviation Regulation 91.215[c] requires that all aircraft equipped with a transponder and operating in controlled airspace have the transponder on. ....more on the web site -- ----- change 'netto' to 'net' to email me directly Eric Greenwell Washington State USA |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
I agree Ian... certainly opens a can-o-worms with the.. "if we are far
enough away can we turn it off, because we are exempt any way argument"... They keep it up and we'll be restricted to lower altitudes without a transponder. BT "Ian Cant" wrote in message ... This appeared out of the blue, at least to me. If approved as it stands, it certainly would be an encouragement to install a transponder. But what is the SSA's position if the FAA comes back at some future date and says 'Yes, but now that you have pointed out that battery-operated transponders are available, there is no reason why ALL non-electric aircraft should not be REQUIRED to have a transponder installed' ? Like the part 103 ultralights, maybe it is best not to tamper with an existing favorable exemption. Ian At 18:48 21 February 2004, Eric Greenwell wrote: Check out the SSA website for the complete info on this petition, and consider commenting to the FAA (comments due by March 1, via web site, mail, fax, 'eRulemaking portal'): SSA Transponder Petition Published By Dennis Wright Posted Thursday, February 19, 2004 The SSA petition asks that SSA members be allowed to operate transponder-equipped gliders with the transponders turned off, when the glider is being operated more than 40 nautical miles from the primary airport in Class B airspace and more than 20 nautical miles from the primary airport in Class C airspace. Currently, Federal Aviation Regulation 91.215[c] requires that all aircraft equipped with a transponder and operating in controlled airspace have the transponder on. ....more on the web site -- ----- change 'netto' to 'net' to email me directly Eric Greenwell Washington State USA |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Eric Greenwell wrote in message ...
Check out the SSA website for the complete info on this petition, and consider commenting to the FAA (comments due by March 1, via web site, mail, fax, "eRulemaking portal"): SSA Transponder Petition Published By Dennis Wright Posted Thursday, February 19, 2004 ... Eric, Where is it? I went to the SSA web site and did several searches, such as "faa transponder petition", and found nothing. Thanks for pointing this out as I think the current rule may add to discouraging glider pilots from installing transponders, even though many areas, such as Minden, would really benefit from them. I'm lucky in that I have plenty of battery power, solar cells (2 amps worth) and a solid state Becker xponder that doesn't draw much, so I am able to abide by the rule. But most gliders couldn't and it's clearly much better for them to have transponders on in high traffic areas than never. Along the same lines, I'd love to see a rule that would allow gliders to install transponders without a 337. That's another rule that is way over-used. When I changed my German altimeter for an American made one, I needed a 337! Unscrewing three screws, pulling out an altimeter, putting in another, and rescrewing three screws is a major modification to airframe?? Anything we can do to get transponders in more gliders is a plus. When flying in the Minden area and listening to Reno approach on a busy day. I've heard things like: "Southwest 123, descend to one zero thousand, targets at 2 o'clock ten miles, 12 thousand feet, and a swarm of targets, altitudes unknown, from 10 o'clock to 3 o'clock. Presumed gliders." Makes me really happy I'm squawking. I realize I'm lucky to be able to afford the setup I have and rules changes like this would help increase transponder usage for a greater number of people who are on more limited budgets. Martin |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"Martin Hellman" wrote in message When I changed my German altimeter for an American made one, I needed a 337! Unscrewing three screws, pulling out an altimeter, putting in another, and rescrewing three screws is a major modification to airframe?? Nope, not in my opinion it's not a major alteration. (43 Appendix A) Sometimes some guys (including A&P's, IA's and sometimes even the FAA dudes) don't read the rule, sometimes they rely on memory, what they were told, what the guidance says, etc. I'm guilty as well and have learned to go back and read the rule - some rules are very clear, others not. Swapping an altimeter for another one, especially if it's TSO'd, does not meet the definition of a major alteration. If your glider is experimental, you need not be in 43 at all. (43.1) But you do need to comply with the operating limitations. Jim |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
On 2/21/04 7:31 PM, in article ,
"Ian Cant" wrote: If approved as it stands, it certainly would be an encouragement to install a transponder. But what is the SSA's position if the FAA comes back at some future date and says 'Yes, but now that you have pointed out that battery-operated transponders are available, there is no reason why ALL non-electric aircraft should not be REQUIRED to have a transponder installed' ? ans: Now that battery-operated transponders are available, there is no reason why ALL non-electric aircraft should not be REQUIRED to have a transponder installed. Period. ----- Jack ----- |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
The SSA has been discussing this with the FAA for years. This is the
farthest it's ever gotten. Steve Northcraft, our Regional Director and SSA Government Laison, told me a while ago that the FAA is very aware of the low-power transponders that are available. They didn't have to learn it from us. The issue is: should we be allowed to turn off our transponders when their use has little value? I'm inclined to encourage that approach. Ian Cant wrote: This appeared out of the blue, at least to me. If approved as it stands, it certainly would be an encouragement to install a transponder. But what is the SSA's position if the FAA comes back at some future date and says 'Yes, but now that you have pointed out that battery-operated transponders are available, there is no reason why ALL non-electric aircraft should not be REQUIRED to have a transponder installed' ? Like the part 103 ultralights, maybe it is best not to tamper with an existing favorable exemption. Ian At 18:48 21 February 2004, Eric Greenwell wrote: Check out the SSA website for the complete info on this petition, and consider commenting to the FAA (comments due by March 1, via web site, mail, fax, 'eRulemaking portal'): SSA Transponder Petition Published By Dennis Wright Posted Thursday, February 19, 2004 The SSA petition asks that SSA members be allowed to operate transponder-equipped gliders with the transponders turned off, when the glider is being operated more than 40 nautical miles from the primary airport in Class B airspace and more than 20 nautical miles from the primary airport in Class C airspace. Currently, Federal Aviation Regulation 91.215[c] requires that all aircraft equipped with a transponder and operating in controlled airspace have the transponder on. ....more on the web site -- ----- change 'netto' to 'net' to email me directly Eric Greenwell Washington State USA -- ----- change "netto" to "net" to email me directly Eric Greenwell Washington State USA |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
It's on the Home page (www.ssa.org), second item. Or go directly to the
link at: http://www.ssa.org/ListNewsArticleDtl.asp?id=389 I also feel a lot safer with the transponder on, even over our little airport, because the airliners are sometimes vectored right over it, and they've been surprised a few times to discover a glider there. In Minden and southern California, I'm very pleased to have one. The power drain is low enough for almost any glider now, but the ~$2000 is still a problem for a lot of people. Martin Hellman wrote: Eric Greenwell wrote in message ... Check out the SSA website for the complete info on this petition, and consider commenting to the FAA (comments due by March 1, via web site, mail, fax, "eRulemaking portal"): SSA Transponder Petition Published By Dennis Wright Posted Thursday, February 19, 2004 ... Eric, Where is it? I went to the SSA web site and did several searches, such as "faa transponder petition", and found nothing. Thanks for pointing this out as I think the current rule may add to discouraging glider pilots from installing transponders, even though many areas, such as Minden, would really benefit from them. I'm lucky in that I have plenty of battery power, solar cells (2 amps worth) and a solid state Becker xponder that doesn't draw much, so I am able to abide by the rule. But most gliders couldn't and it's clearly much better for them to have transponders on in high traffic areas than never. Along the same lines, I'd love to see a rule that would allow gliders to install transponders without a 337. That's another rule that is way over-used. When I changed my German altimeter for an American made one, I needed a 337! Unscrewing three screws, pulling out an altimeter, putting in another, and rescrewing three screws is a major modification to airframe?? Anything we can do to get transponders in more gliders is a plus. When flying in the Minden area and listening to Reno approach on a busy day. I've heard things like: "Southwest 123, descend to one zero thousand, targets at 2 o'clock ten miles, 12 thousand feet, and a swarm of targets, altitudes unknown, from 10 o'clock to 3 o'clock. Presumed gliders." Makes me really happy I'm squawking. I realize I'm lucky to be able to afford the setup I have and rules changes like this would help increase transponder usage for a greater number of people who are on more limited budgets. Martin -- ----- change "netto" to "net" to email me directly Eric Greenwell Washington State USA |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
you know..I sell transponders and have sold a lot of them to glider
owners....I have however been afraid from the start that once the FAA starts to recognize larger numbers of gliders with transponders it could come back to haunt us all...If we lose the exemption requiring transponders in gliders, and we might now that the FAA sees that they can indeed be operated from our battery power it could be just the straw that breaks the camels back...Soaring as a sport isn't growing even now in the US, adding more cost to owning and operating gliders surely will not help...to many clubs and many owners adding $2000+ to each and every glider plus the added expense to keep them certified and working will certainly take more club type and older gliders off line. Large number of these gliders still today do not even have radios installed. A large number of club gliders are still tied outside, still have no battery installed many don't even have audio variometers let alone radios, (I really do think all gliders should have at least a decent radio and audio variometer for basic safety reasons even at small out-of-the-way airports). I hear a lot of grumbling about near misses while flying in and around approaches to busy metro airports, while flying near military bases and so on.....the simple truth is, if this is happening and I'm sure it is, the answer is not in adding one more piece of electronics, the answer is in not flying in these busy corridors....doing so will eventually cause this airspace to be closed to all non-commercial aircraft and the eventual loss of this and other airspace where traffic is not a problem and before we all know it an end to soaring as we know it today in this country...Public opinion will outnumber the small number of pilots wishing to fly for fun. Let the evening news, 60 minutes or 20/20 run some special on the dangers glider pilots pose to airliners and every politician will support the public opinion polls and side with them to get votes.....the more we depend on electronics the more we are keeping our heads down in the cockpits...with GPS and pocket nav's to guide us, flight computers to calculate for us and transponders to shield (?) us we are also forgetting what we started doing this for to begin with....look outside, there is real beauty to be seen through the clear mecaplex that surrounds us....fly safe, but always fly for fun BTW, I also sell canopy cleaner, but sales of this are on a steady decline.. tim Now that battery-operated transponders are available, there is no reason why ALL non-electric aircraft should not be REQUIRED to have a transponder installed. Period. ----- Jack ----- |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
I'm definitely in favor of gliders w/ transponders and see this as
another step towards conserving battery power for when you need it. i.e. when you are near a high traffic airspace where the chances of crossing paths with someone with either TCAS or ATC coverage is increased. What about a discrete transponder code specifically for gliders?????? I understand that there is at least one area which has an agreement to use (seems like it's 0440 or something similar) a code specifically for gliders. Why not also work on getting this code agreed to for all of the U.S. at the same time that they are working on the below mentioned waiver. Keep up the good work! Mark Eric Greenwell wrote: Check out the SSA website for the complete info on this petition, and consider commenting to the FAA (comments due by March 1, via web site, mail, fax, "eRulemaking portal"): SSA Transponder Petition Published By Dennis Wright Posted Thursday, February 19, 2004 The SSA petition asks that SSA members be allowed to operate transponder-equipped gliders with the transponders turned off, when the glider is being operated more than 40 nautical miles from the primary airport in Class B airspace and more than 20 nautical miles from the primary airport in Class C airspace. Currently, Federal Aviation Regulation 91.215[c] requires that all aircraft equipped with a transponder and operating in controlled airspace have the transponder on. ...more on the web site |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
VHF & Transponder antenna | Steve | Home Built | 1 | December 6th 04 04:29 PM |
Operation without a transponder | flyer | Piloting | 11 | September 14th 04 08:48 AM |
Transponder test after static system opened? | Jack I | Owning | 6 | March 14th 04 03:09 PM |
Fixing the Transponder with Duct Tape and Aluminum Foil | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 45 | March 14th 04 12:18 AM |
transponder codes | Guy Elden Jr. | Piloting | 1 | December 2nd 03 05:21 PM |