(USA) NTSB issues recommendations to the FAA and the SSA regarding transponder use in gliders

Voluntary compliance is great. However, there are always people who don't
get it and create situations that give the rest of us a black eye or worse.

I don't think that it is unreasonable to require that all aircraft (gliders,
balloons, etc.) who fly above 10K or near major airports are transponder
equipped. I would hope that rather than forcing everyone to install Mode C
(an antiquated technology), that we could get the FAA to accelerate the
deployment of ADS-B ground stations in strategic areas, and let gliders and
balloons meet the transponder requirements with low cost ADS-B transceivers,
which will hopefully be available within the next year or so. A side
benefit of this, is that the power draw for ADS-B UAT transceivers should be
a lot lower than Mode C.

Mike Schumann

"VARR" wrote in message
...
the problem isn't gliders without transponders....the problem has always
been flying where you shouldn't be .... I never went skin diving where
they
were chumming for sharks.... it's the same thing

Well, it certainly is not quite the same thing, but I can appreciate
Tim's point, from a certain perspective, if what he fully intends to
convey is that those who *do* chose to fly "there" (i.e., wherever a
transponder really would be a "good idea") should indeed be allowed to
do so, but then they really "should" chose to equip themselves
appropriately for their own benefit as well as the benefit of others.

Extending his analogy, those who do chose to stay in the water when
others are chumming for sharks nearby should be allowed to do so, but
then they really "should" take the opportunity, whenever feasible, to
chose to equip themselves appropriately (e.g., place themselves inside
a shark cage, etc.) when participating in such activity in order to
mitigate the risk to themselves as well as the risk to others (where
"others" is obviously more of a concern in the case of transponders in
gliders).

Perhaps the FAA will choose to only issue "stronger guidelines"
recommending transponder use under certain operating conditions and in
certain environments. Or, if they chose to make regulatory changes,
perhaps they might issue less of a blanket regulation, as recommended
by the NTSB, and something more conditional and specific to certain
operating environments. It seems reasonable that such conditions
could be defined which would mitigate the majority of the risk without
negatively impacting the majority of glider operations. Even better,
if the SSA were to perform well at issuing such guidelines and making
such recommendations to the community, then perhaps the powers that be
will consider the risk appropriately managed and not take burdensome
and inappropriate action (at least for now, at least not until, if
ever, low-cost and effective risk mitigating solutions are actually
available).

Taking into account (a) the recent widespread adoption of PCAS, and
(b) local operating agreements that do exist and continue to be
created nationwide between local soaring operations and local ATC,
there seems to be hope for a non-regulatory solution -- perhaps these
efforts just need to be more cohesive, better standardized, and better
"marketed?"

Here is hoping that rationality prevails at the FAA and that the sport/
industry/etc. (the SSA?) takes strong leadership action on the issue
and demonstrates to the FAA and others that the sport/industry/etc.
can indeed appropriately self-regulate.


On Apr 1, 4:08 pm, Bob wrote:

So Tim,
You are saying that the Hawker shouldn't have been there right?

Bob

On Apr 1, 2:57 pm, "Tim Mara" wrote:

the problem isn't gliders without transponders....the problem has
always
been flying where you shouldn't be .... I never went skin diving where
they
were chumming for sharks.... it's the same thing

tim
Please visit the Wings & Wheels website at www.wingsandwheels.com




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