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