Hi Eric,

Indeed, the regulator would have a hard time explaining it. Since
it's possibly the dumbest reg in the entire 14 CFR, it would be hard
for anyone to explain. Given a chute that is out of date on a given
occasion, complying with the law should be considered criminal
stupidity. Here's the law:

"§ 91.307 Parachutes and parachuting.
(a) No pilot of a civil aircraft may allow a parachute that is
available for emergency use to be carried in that aircraft unless it
is an approved type and—
(1) If a chair type (canopy in back), it has been packed by a
certificated and appropriately rated parachute rigger within the
preceding 120 days; or

(2) If any other type, it has been packed by a certificated and
appropriately rated parachute rigger—

(i) Within the preceding 120 days, if its canopy, shrouds, and harness
are composed exclusively of nylon, rayon, or other similar synthetic
fiber or materials that are substantially resistant to damage from
mold, mildew, or other fungi and other rotting agents propagated in a
moist environment; or

(ii) Within the preceding 60 days, if any part of the parachute is
composed of silk, pongee, or other natural fiber, or materials not
specified in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section."

Yes folks, it's a regulation that prohibits a pilot from carrying
emergency equipment aboard an aircraft unless the equipment is not
available in case of emergency. I wouldn't even know where to begin.
I've seen a box of hammers display more intelligence. Oh well. It's
not as if the rest of 14 CFR is anywhere near as moronic, so this must
have been some sort of brain meltdown on someone's part. If it
referred to REQUIRED equipment (parachutes are required for
aerobatics, for example) it would make a lot of sense - but it
doesn't.

Surprisingly, this stroke of genius survived the recent cleanup of the
regs. And if someone gets ramp-checked before takeoff by one of those
- fortunately rare - power-altered officials one occasionally runs
into, and their chute is out of date, I'd love to hear them explain to
the nice official why they're carrying emergency equipment in direct
contravention of a law that makes it illegal to do so.

Anyway, enough about that!

The reason I asked about what happens if you turn off a transponder in
flight was that I imagine most/all the pilots who have equipped their
gliders with them are doing exactly that, i.e., turning off the
transponders when they don't feel they're necessary. It's sensible,
but it's illegal. Nobody's been busted so far, but I wonder... About
10-15 years ago we had a brief period when the FAA suddenly started a
get-strict policy and enforcing all these "petty" rules, and AOPA and
the aviation press were warning pilots not to talk to ANYONE from the
FAA without a lawyer present. Remember the days when some airline
pilots filed a NASA form after every flight, just in case? Cooler
heads prevailed, and our FAA field personnel were allowed to go back
to doing their jobs promoting safety instead of playing "gotcha" with
obscure regulations, but who knows what the future will bring, and who
knows how many of those disappearing transponders will have been
digitally recorded for the benefit of some enterprising career-minded
young investigator? The trouble with bad laws is that sooner or later
some dimwits show up and enforce them. It's not like it hasn't
happened before. And unlike flying with an out-of-date chute, when
you turn off a transponder your crime is broadcast to the world (or,
technically, your compliance with the law is no longer broadcast!).

As to whether transponders are a good idea, obviously given infinite
panel space, money and power they are. Given limited supplies of
each, I am wondering if some kind of TCAS wouldn't be better. All the
power aircraft are transmitting, but most of the ones squawking 1200
are not talking to ATC and do not have TCAS. So even if you have a
transponder, they don't know about you. If you had a budget TCAS, you
could at least see them (or, with a transponder, you could try asking
for flight following...) The big transports may be a more impressive
threat, but getting clobbered by a C-182 or one of the many low-flying
(clearly not on flight following!) GA aircraft I see out there, from
warbirds to Lears (!), could be pretty fatal too. So I'm wondering
about that one.

Cheers!