SSA petition to allow transponder to be turned off

Ah yes,

The FAA Order 8700.10. For even more exciting reading, try the 8400.10 for
Flight Ops issues, or maybe even the 2150.3 for Enforcement and Compliance
guidelines.

They are all twice as effective as two bagger of Sleepytime Extra!

Jim

"Ivan Kahn" wrote in message
news:22w%b.65463$Xp.310457@attbi_s54...
For what it is worth, this is from the GA Inspector's Handbook, Chapter
50.
Here is the link to the whole document for those who want something to
read
at bed time:

http://www.faa.gov/avr/afs/faa/8700/

A. Surveillance Policy. Airshows, fly-ins, and

other gatherings of general aviation aircraft and airmen

are opportunities for the Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA) to present a positive image to the aviation

community with whom we work and the general

public. Many of the aircraft operators attending these

aviation events are regular users of our air traffic and

flight service facilities, but their contact with Flight

Standards personnel may have been rare. Most of the

people who fly their airplanes to fly-in events and

airshows are aviation enthusiasts and hobbyists and are

not employed in the aviation industry as pilots.

(1) The FAA would like this important segment

of airspace users to have a very positive image of

inspectors and the safety activities inspectors perform.

Therefore, the FAA encourages inspectors to establish

early contact with sponsors and organizers of aviation

events so that informational and Aviation Safety

Program activities can be planned to serve attendees.

(2) Under no circumstances should these gatherings

be targeted for a blanket sweep inspection of

spectator airmen and aircraft.



"Andy Durbin" wrote in message
om...
One year at Hobbs, New Mexico, every contestant's parachute was
checked for currency by an FAA inspector. The infamous "ramp check".
Don't know how many he found but he probably had a nice day away from
the office.

NSF, the organizer of contests at Hobbs, now has a rigger available
before most (all?) contests and he does a lot of business.


Andy (GY)

Ivan Kahn wrote:

(2) Under no circumstances should these gatherings
be targeted for a blanket sweep inspection of
spectator airmen and aircraft.

I agree with this. It would kinda tick off the organizers, after all...

"Andy Durbin" wrote in message
. com...
One year at Hobbs, New Mexico, every contestant's parachute was
checked for currency by an FAA inspector. The infamous "ramp check".
Don't know how many he found but he probably had a nice day away from
the office.

Notice these were contestants, not spectators. If I were
an organizer, I'd be pleased that this was going on (covering
my butt, and making it safer for the other participants, in
some cases.) I'd guess the Reno Air Races get a lot of
internal scrutiny and FAA scrutiny.

Dear "Soarin",
I appreciate your thoughts and perspective on the transponder issue. I do
however, disagree with several of your comments, and though not generally
inclined to argue complex issues on RAS, I think it would be a disservice to
the soaring community to leave those comments on public record without
response.
First, as mentioned in a previous post under a separate thread, it's much
more difficult than "an extra $50 battery" to power a transponder
(especially earlier generation and encoding transponders) for extended
flights.
Second, I'm not expecting a "big surge in glider pilots installing
transponders" as a result of this petition. I think however, there would be
a significant increase in safety if the few sailplane pilots who operate
near congested airspace were enticed to install transponders and use them
when in these areas. Unfortunately, some pilots place legality over safety.
They will not install transponders so long as turning them off in remote
areas is illegal and leaving them on limits the capability of their
sailplanes.
Third, though not a lawyer, I don't see the "hold harmless" clause as a
conspiracy. I think it's standard practice. It looks like the SSA is taking
prudent steps to maintain the viability of the organization, as every member
would hope and expect.
Fourth, and most emphatically, transponders can not be easily installed in
sailplanes. Many sailplanes have no electrical systems at all. Many don't
have the panel space. None with earlier generation transponders have the
battery power for extended or consecutive flights. No commercial operation
I've seen has the money to pay for transponders for their trainers and
rental ships. Frankly, without the current exception to the transponder
rule, I don't think there would be any commercial operators or tows left in
the U.S. We'd be stuck with motorgliders (which I personally don't find to
be sporting at all).
The FAA was aware of the difficulty of installing and operating transponders
in sailplanes when they wrote the current FARs. They realized the
implications transponder requirements would have on soaring. They knew that
most sailplane operations were conducted in remote areas, off airways, and
at altitudes with little or no other air traffic.
I'm confident they are still aware of these issues today. And I'm confident
that if they've forgotten the SSA will, as before (thanks Judy!), remind
them.
Mike Koerner

I'm sorry. I'm not quite comfortable with my previous post.
Though no one familiar with the SSA's response to NPRM 88-2 would fault my
thanking Judy Lincoln for her considerable efforts on behalf of the soaring
community in the U.S., it would be negligent to do so without also thanking
Mr. Sanderson. His consummate and singular political skills insured our
message was heard.
Thank you Larry!
Mike Koerner

(Finbar) wrote in message . com...
...

The law doesn't say "pack your damn chute, you idiot." It says "no
pilot of a civil aircraft shall allow a parachute that is available
for emergency use to be carried aboard unless..." That's a shocking
statement. You're right to be shocked.

...

No, it's not like annual inspections, because they are REQUIRED and a
parachute isn't. If we REQUIRE parachutes then you're absolutely
right: there has to be a definition of what an acceptable parachute
is. Perhaps that's what you're suggesting, and maybe it's not a bad
idea. But we don't require them, so we certainly shouldn't prohibit
someone carrying a less-than-perfect one when we allow them to carry
none at all. ...

The problem is that, being anal, I HAVE wondered whether I should fly
with an out-of-date chute and risk getting fined on landing - or just
leave it in the car and avoid risking the hassle with the FAA. That
shouldn't even BE a question! I like to hope that, if the situation
ever arises, I'll bring the chute rather than obey the law. But
that's a ridiculous statement to have to make.
...

Not to disagree with you on anything you wrote but here are some
alternatives:

Buy two chutes. Stagger the repack dates so one is always current.
Or go together with some buddies and buy one common 'loaner' that
is kept current.

Get yourself certified as a rigger--make a little extra cash on the
side.

Does this make sense?

--

FF

In article ,
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
(Finbar) wrote in message . com...
...

Not to disagree with you on anything you wrote but here are some
alternatives:

Buy two chutes. Stagger the repack dates so one is always current.
Or go together with some buddies and buy one common 'loaner' that
is kept current.

Get yourself certified as a rigger--make a little extra cash on the
side.

Does this make sense?

Ummm...with more time and money, this problem goes away, of course.
I think what we are arguing is that the regs and the repack
requirements are marginally silly, and unneccesarily expensive.

Not extremely silly or horifically expensive, just that it
would be better if a few tweaks were introcuced. A little nudge
for the reg and for the repack dates...
--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

Ummm...with more time and money, this problem goes away, of course.
I think what we are arguing is that the regs and the repack
requirements are marginally silly, and unneccesarily expensive.

Not extremely silly or horifically expensive, just that it
would be better if a few tweaks were introcuced. A little nudge
for the reg and for the repack dates...

No, the expense really wasn't my point. The questions of what the
repack dates should be, that's a whole different topic. I don't know
what they should be.

My point was that the regs prohibit a pilot from doing something that
is safer than the legal alternative. Given that a parachute is out of
pack date, the pilot CAN legally fly WITHOUT it, but CANNOT legally
fly WITH it. Since flying with it is either safer than flying without
it or, in the worst case, no less safe than flying without it, the law
requires behavior (leave it on the ground) that is LESS SAFE than the
illegal alternative (bring it anyway, but without the same confidence
that it will work).

Laws that require unsafe behavior as an alternative to safer behavior
are an abomination.

That was my point.

The connection to the transponder regs was that we all KNOW it's safer
to have a transponder aboard and use it only when it makes sense, but
it's illegal, and sooner or later someone will get ticketed for it.
Just ask the guys who got ramp-checked for the pack dates on
parachutes they weren't even required to have on board.

On the other hand, I have no objection whatsoever to requiring
parachute pack dates for parachutes that are REQUIRED to be aboard the
aircraft for use in an emergency. If you're doing aerobatics you must
have a parachute. It makes sense, then, that there be some legal
definition of what constitutes an acceptable parachute.

Finbar,

We agree vehemently on everything you have posted!
Perhaps not surprisingly, many others agree as well.
And enough folks read this that perhaps we may get some resolution
to this over some time. Judy Ruprecht, among others, is
an occasional poster. I'd guess she'll mention these ideas
at some point when she meets with the FAA on behalf of
SSA.

You did write a nice summary. Thanks!


In article ,
Finbar wrote:
Ummm...with more time and money, this problem goes away, of course.
I think what we are arguing is that the regs and the repack
requirements are marginally silly, and unneccesarily expensive.

Not extremely silly or horifically expensive, just that it
would be better if a few tweaks were introcuced. A little nudge
for the reg and for the repack dates...

No, the expense really wasn't my point. The questions of what the
repack dates should be, that's a whole different topic. I don't know
what they should be.

My point was that the regs prohibit a pilot from doing something that
is safer than the legal alternative. Given that a parachute is out of
pack date, the pilot CAN legally fly WITHOUT it, but CANNOT legally
fly WITH it. Since flying with it is either safer than flying without
it or, in the worst case, no less safe than flying without it, the law
requires behavior (leave it on the ground) that is LESS SAFE than the
illegal alternative (bring it anyway, but without the same confidence
that it will work).

Laws that require unsafe behavior as an alternative to safer behavior
are an abomination.

That was my point.

The connection to the transponder regs was that we all KNOW it's safer
to have a transponder aboard and use it only when it makes sense, but
it's illegal, and sooner or later someone will get ticketed for it.
Just ask the guys who got ramp-checked for the pack dates on
parachutes they weren't even required to have on board.

On the other hand, I have no objection whatsoever to requiring
parachute pack dates for parachutes that are REQUIRED to be aboard the
aircraft for use in an emergency. If you're doing aerobatics you must
have a parachute. It makes sense, then, that there be some legal
definition of what constitutes an acceptable parachute.


--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA