How would transponders have "negative" results if mandated for everyone in
aviation? The only argument against transponders is the cost.
Having a transponder is not a panacea, in that it will not protect you from
a 172 or other VFR traffic that doesn't happen to see you, either due to a
lack of attention, or due to the inherent difficulty of seeing other
traffic. However, it should protect you from IFR traffic that is under ATC
control.
Mike Schumann
"Bruce" wrote in message
...
We have a couple of problems here TIm.
One is that we are talking to tha converted - pretty much everyone in this
forum understands that transponders do not offer a panacea, and would have
major negative results if mandated for all aviation.
Two is that the propaganda value is against us.
Consider human nature - The transponder issue - is in my opinion another
example of intellectual laziness. Generally speaking people are inherently
given to doing the smallest amount of thinking they can. Our problem here
is that is is a very easy thing to "understand" that if everything in the
sky carries a transponder then we (the general public, sitting in the nth
row)will be safe. Unfortunately this also extends to the bureaucrats
occupying the nth desk at FAA, because it is an easy decision. The FAA
types probably do understand the issues, but from their perspective less
random aviation means less risk. In fact it is easy to conclude that it is
actually better for the people who are resisting this idea, because even
if this prevents large parts of a sport from operating - they are better
off not flying, than flying without this technology. Because we have
already accepted that this technology already somehow magically ensures
there will be no mid-airs.
We know that a transponder without human attention is an expensive waste
of panel space. We know that the speed differentials make ACAS etc a nice
idea but unlikely to help in a real emergency. We know there are a few
places where a transponder will substantially improve safety, and by all
accounts most glider pilots operating in those areas have voluntarily
started fitting them.
From an intellectual effort perspective all of our arguments are much
harder work. If we want to win this argument we have to present a simpler
case.
Maybe one way is to look at the behavioural consequences of a blanket
policy of fitting transponders . The airliners can now "safely" assume
that they can fly point to point at, over any point in the country, and at
any time, because everything in the sky is now visible to ATC. Apart from
the assumption about ATC capacity to monitor and manage, I wonder how many
of the general public are thinking of the intrusion this could mean for
them. In this world the airlines start having the contest finish problem,
of aircraft are approaching from all directions, and need to be sent via a
couple of control points to straighten out the kinks.
Look at it from the positive side, at least the lives of the ALTPs will
get a whole lot more interesting.
When the predictable incident/accident ensues, it is unlikely that the
NTSB will conclude that probable cause included inappropriate behavioural
change as a result of complacency resulting from the mandatory fitting of
transponders. Too many thoughts in one sentence - pilot error is something
everyone understands.
The long report that started this looks like someone was actually trying
to understand and explain, and ended up getting edited somewhat.
Tim Mara wrote:
How many transponder equipped gliders, transponder on, have been hit by
a non-TCAS equipped general aviation aircraft? Is this really a problem?
Can it be addressed by training?
does that mean that having a transponder on board will eliminate this
risk? Does that then allow us to feel secure that it can't happen or
won't? The only way even with a transponder installed and operating to
know what traffic is around you is to be in contact with ATC....simply
sending a signal doesn't tell everyone around you that you are there.
tim
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from
http://www.teranews.com