Snips
At 18:49 22 June 2015, Darryl Ramm wrote:
I expect/hope folks in SSA management are well aware of it.
this stuff needs to be worked though by an SSA team looking at it. My
understanding is a team is being put together to do so. A public forum
just does not seem the right place to try to discuss some of these complex
and political issues.

While I would take issue with the implication that the average pilot is not
competent to openly discuss and positively contribute regarding this issue.
The fact remains that Darryl’s post seems to have effectively halted any
discussion on RAS and will likely lead to a correspondingly pathetic amount
of unfocused written replies to the FAA’s ANPRM.

Saying that the SSA has been involved but apparently is just now coming up
with a team that will need to first look at the issues before devising what
to do. Should hardly be expected to give comfort to the U.S. glider pilots
who will be financially and permanently impacted by changes to these
exemptions.

Although the transponder exemption applies to all aircraft which were not
originally certificated with an engine-driven electrical system. This
recent ANPRM specifically applies only to gliders. Airplanes being left
out can easily be attributed to the fact that AOPA has significant
influence with the FAA thru their well funded effective lobbying
capabilities.

Conversely when we asked why we were unable to get SSA support during our
own struggle with the FAA and Cal Trans with saving soaring at Cal City.
We were eventually informed by an SSA official, that was because the SSA is
a 501c3 organization and it is forbidden by law from lobbying.

My intention was to raise the Red flag on this issue so that pilots were
informed enough to decide if they wanted to get involved or stand back and
let whatever happens happen.

M Eiler