On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 11:16:40 AM UTC-6, Dan Marotta wrote:
Thanks, Evan, but that does not answer the question, either.Â* Sure there
might be certificate action, should a pilot get caught turning on a
not-yet-tested/certified transponder, but it seems to me it would have
been better if the Hawker had gotten a RA from its TCAS box.Â* I know
it's a rhetorical question but then so are a lot of the FARs...Â* I'd
just prefer receiving a letter from the FAA over bailing out (or worse).

BTW, my transponder was checked by a certified technician within the
preceding 24 calendar months and complies with 91.413(c) and has a
proper logbook entry.

On 10/2/2017 10:26 AM, Tango Eight wrote:
On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 12:16:22 PM UTC-4, Dan Marotta wrote:
Didn't answer the question.

What harm could have come from turning on a not-yet-approved transponder?
Violation of FAR 91.413.

best,
Evan Ludeman / T8

--
Dan, 5J

More information along with the link to the report.

1.3.2 Glider Information

The glider was equipped with a panel mounted communication radio, global positioning system (GPS) unit, a Cambridge 302, and a Mode C transponder; however, the pilot did not turn on the GPS and transponder. According to the glider pilot, he did not turn on the transponder because he was only intending on remaining in the local glider area, and because he wanted to reserve his batteries for radio use. The glider was equipped with two batteries (one main and one spare), however, due to the previous glider flights, the pilot was unsure of the remaining charge in the battery.

https://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.a...A277 A&akey=1

Best. Tom #711.