I don't know what the rules or current procedures are. I suspect that
virtually 100% of pilots flying IFR, and certainly 100% of the passengers on
commercial jets, expect ATC to vector IFR traffic around, and provide
separation from, every aircraft that has an identifiable location and
altitude (i.e. Mode C transponder equipped), regardless if that aircraft is
also flying IFR or VFR.

If this is not what the current rules say, or what is current procedure is,
then that needs to be changed as a 1st step. As a second step, we should
try to get all aircraft equipped with transponders. The argument should not
be on whether that is worthwhile doing, etc., but rather how we can make it
affordable so that it is not unduly burdensome to do so.

Once we get the price down under $1K, which I firmly believe is possible in
the not too distant future with ADS-B, the price argument will no longer
fly. Can you imagine the uproar if there was an airliner collision with a
non-transponder equipped glider with thousands of dollars worth of flight
recorders and other goodies, and the justification for not having a
transponder was the lack of willingness to spend another $1K? That would
put a quick end to our sport.

A more productive track than trying to stop a transponder mandate, is to
negotiate an agreement to require transponders in all gliders in exchange
for increased ATC separation of IFR traffic from glider targets and VFR
access to higher altitudes. This is an argument we can win, that doesn't
make us all look like a bunch of whiners.

Mike Schumann

"J a c k" wrote in message
...
Mike Schumann wrote:

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.


"Should"?

ATC _may_ give traffic information involving VFR traffic if they have
time. In other circumstances "protection" would come from the fact that
the IFR traffic _may_ have TCAS.

Mandating transponders is only a partial solution. Until every aircraft
also has a collision avoidance system of some type TCAS, PCAS, etc., the
regulatory push for more, and more expensive, equipment will never stop.
And in fact it will not stop until we have positive control of all
aircraft at all times in all places. We do not want to go there.

If the traffic that worries you is likely to have a transponder, then
spend a few hundred bucks and get a PCAS unit so you know where that
traffic is. And whether you add such equipment or not, learn how to scan
visually. It isn't something that comes naturally, even though you think
you are doing a great job. When you operate with a PCAS for a short time,
you will find out how much traffic you've been missing. As always, we
don't know what we don't know.


Jack



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com