SSA petition to allow transponder to be turned off

Finbar wrote:

I'll get to my rant at the end.

First, a question: what happens if you turn off a transponder in
flight? Hypothetically, of course: would anybody notice?

Maybe. If you disappeared from a controllers screen, it would be
noticed. A TCAS equipped airliner might notice - I don't know if there
is an alert function for such an event.

Would S&R
be sent out to look?

No.


Second, a recollection: it's my recollection that ATC radar is
designed to filter out slow-moving targets.

That's primary radar, because of ground clutter problems. It would be a
most unusual situation to eliminate a transponder return. They certainly
don't do it out here in the Pacific Northwest - I've asked.

If that's the case,
transponders are only of any use to TCAD-equipped aircraft.
Apparently some ATC facilities are seeing the glider Xpdrs, so maybe
my recollection is wrong?

Yes, mainly because of a confusion between primary (skin reflection)
reflection processing and transponder return processing.


Third, evidently I now have a choice between a low-priced TCAD-type
device or a Xpdr. Having both is not an option: my panel is already
full, so stuff has to start coming out in order for me to put things
in.

Fourth, it is NOT illegal for me to turn off the TCAD-type device to
save my batteries, but it is illegal for me to turn of the Xpdr (my
home field is 33 nm from the primary airport). Score one for passive
rather than active collision avoidance. The passive device uses a lot
less power. Score two. The passive device is cheaper. Score three.

I've wondered about this, also. In addition to the advantages mentioned,
they are portable and easily moved from one aircraft to another. The Big
Question: is the pilot safer with something like the Proxalert than a
transponder? I know one glider pilot using one, so we'll have at least
on experienced opinion in a few months.

Fifth, it seems to me that an Xpdr should be fitted with a separate
battery, so that it doesn't threaten the much more important nav and
vario equipment by draining power from them.

Pilots choice: most pilots monitor their battery voltage, so they can
turn off the transponder if the voltage gets low.

Similarly the Xpdr
should not drain the battery required to relight self-launchers.

Again, pilots choice. Self-launchers typically have much larger
batteries than unpowered gliders (mine has 36 amp hours), so powering
the transponder AND still having enough to start isn't a problem at all.

Legally, I have no idea where you stand when you have a "working" Xpdr
on board, "turned on" but with a dead battery. But it's safer than
the alternative.

It's not required to be transmitting if your battery is dead.

Now my rant: bad enough that regulators make dumb laws, but worse when
SSA compounds the error. Here's why -

Regulations that impose requirements on safety equipment that isn't
even required in the first place are logically bad law (not that bad
law is particularly unusual) because they create a disincentive to the
use of safety equipment.

I think it's an oversight, rather than foolishness: airplanes ARE
required to have transponders, and this rule was written for them.
Gliders aren't required to have transponders, and when the rules were
written, they were extremely rare in gliders.

It reminds me of the reg about parachutes:
if my chute is past its repack date, it's perfectly legal for me to
use a seat cushion instead and leave the chute in my car. If I take
the chute anyway (as a seat cushion), it's illegal and I can get
busted. My chute's always properly packed (go ahead, check) but
that's not the point. Which of our regulators wants to explain to a
grieving family that the totally unnecessary fatality was caused, not
by the out-of-date parachute (which probably would have worked fine),
but by a regulation that REQUIRED LEAVING IT ON THE GROUND!

It won't ever get explained that way: the puzzled regulator will be
dumbfounded that a pilot was so clueless, that he owned a parachute and
didn't take it along. The family should also be dumbfounded, as I would
be. Get it packed if the rule bothers you, carry it if doesn't. Sheesh.
Give it to a passenger...then I think you should have packed properly.

Similarly, a regulation that requires the use of a transponder, if
fitted, when transponders are not required, is a regulation that
encourages people to... not fit transponders. Poor logic, bad law.

I believe that pilots that WANT to carry a transponder do so, and those
that want to turn if off when far from heavy traffic, also do so. No one
has been busted for turning off his transponder, and lots of pilots do.
I also believe a lot of pilots that don't want to use a transponder, use
this rule as a convenient excuse. Basically, I think, getting this
exemption is about removing this excuse. I don't think there will be
sudden surge in transponder installations by glider pilots that can't
stand to be scofflaws. Even noticed how many pilots fly near cloudbase?

This request for an exemption suffers from the same faulty logic. The
place where transponders are most important is... around the primary
airports of Class B and Class C airspace. This exemption request
removes the disincentive to carrying Xpdrs everywhere... except where
Xpdrs are important!

I think you are saying it's a good idea. I do.

--
-----
change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

now, I am not going to try to justify the cycle period, and in fact this can
vary from country to country, and even most manufacturers will probably say
the 120 day cycle is too frequent for our typical use, but I can
understand the FAA rule on this, and anyone who doesn't see the reasoning is
why they have the rule...
plain and simple, if it were legal to wear an out of date parachute, would
you, or anyone else bother to have it inspected or repacked?? I rather doubt
it....in fact you're already suggested you wouldn't...
Rules are never a simple matter or what's right for the masses, but made
because some one or a few people have done something that was questionable,
or wrong. If we were all perfect, and always right we'd have far fewer
rules, regulations and restrictions....
tim


It reminds me of the reg about parachutes:
if my chute is past its repack date, it's perfectly legal for me to
use a seat cushion instead and leave the chute in my car. If I take
the chute anyway (as a seat cushion), it's illegal and I can get
busted. My chute's always properly packed (go ahead, check) but
that's not the point. Which of our regulators wants to explain to a
grieving family that the totally unnecessary fatality was caused, not
by the out-of-date parachute (which probably would have worked fine),
but by a regulation that REQUIRED LEAVING IT ON THE GROUND!

It won't ever get explained that way: the puzzled regulator will be
dumbfounded that a pilot was so clueless, that he owned a parachute and
didn't take it along. The family should also be dumbfounded, as I would
be. Get it packed if the rule bothers you, carry it if doesn't. Sheesh.
Give it to a passenger...then I think you should have packed properly.

"Tim Mara" wrote Rules are never a simple matter
or what's right for the masses, but made
because some one or a few people have done something that was
questionable,
or wrong. If we were all perfect, and always right we'd have far fewer
rules, regulations and restrictions....
tim

Not too long ago there was a double fatality at a commercial skydiving
operation with of those two-person buddy jumps where they are attached to
the same harness (don't know the correct terminology for a tandem jump
arrangement, but I'm sure someone here does...)

Well, long story short they hit the ground and both died, the main chute
failed and the reserve did not open for whatever reason. Turned out neither
chute had been packed within the recency requirement, so the operator was
violated by the FAA as well. ( I *believe* only the reserve chute is
required to be re-packed in the 120 day period? Can't remember now.). I
don't recall the reason for the dual failure, but that fatality ended up in
court and they use the story in an FAA seminars now to drive home the reason
for why the chutes must be repacked on a regular basis. Tragic story, bad
ending and I would rather fly my 1-26 3.5 lbs. over gross than leave my
chute on the ground.

Jim

In article ,
Tim Mara wrote:
now, I am not going to try to justify the cycle period, and in fact this can
vary from country to country, and even most manufacturers will probably say
the 120 day cycle is too frequent for our typical use, but I can
understand the FAA rule on this, and anyone who doesn't see the reasoning is
why they have the rule...
plain and simple, if it were legal to wear an out of date parachute, would
you, or anyone else bother to have it inspected or repacked?? I rather doubt
it....in fact you're already suggested you wouldn't...

There's no rule requiring me to change my tidy-whities every week either,
but I DO IT! :P For health reasons, you know... Same for a chute.
I wouldn't just sit on the thing for 12 years and drip jelly on it
and drag it through the dirt all day and think it would open. But
if it's my own G*****n chute in a G*****n single-seat glider,
whose business is it anyway?

Rules are never a simple matter or what's right for the masses, but made
because some one or a few people have done something that was questionable,
or wrong. If we were all perfect, and always right we'd have far fewer
rules, regulations and restrictions....
tim

A coupla guys weighing in heavy on an expired reserve on
a tandem skydiving jump is a hell of a long way from me
in my itsy-bitsy glider wearing an emergency chute I don't even
intend to use. Who'll convince me that the extra safety
of having the more frequent repack outweighs the lack of safety
when I fly twice without the chute each year (while I wait for
the packer to send it back)?

your answer was 100% exactly why they have made the rule......
tim


"Mark James Boyd" wrote in message
news:4039b164$1@darkstar...
In article ,
Tim Mara wrote:
now, I am not going to try to justify the cycle period, and in fact this
can
vary from country to country, and even most manufacturers will probably
say
the 120 day cycle is too frequent for our typical use, but I can
understand the FAA rule on this, and anyone who doesn't see the reasoning
is
why they have the rule...
plain and simple, if it were legal to wear an out of date parachute,
would
you, or anyone else bother to have it inspected or repacked?? I rather
doubt
it....in fact you're already suggested you wouldn't...

There's no rule requiring me to change my tidy-whities every week
either,
but I DO IT! :P For health reasons, you know... Same for a chute.
I wouldn't just sit on the thing for 12 years and drip jelly on it
and drag it through the dirt all day and think it would open. But
if it's my own G*****n chute in a G*****n single-seat glider,
whose business is it anyway?

Rules are never a simple matter or what's right for the masses, but made
because some one or a few people have done something that was
questionable,
or wrong. If we were all perfect, and always right we'd have far fewer
rules, regulations and restrictions....
tim

A coupla guys weighing in heavy on an expired reserve on
a tandem skydiving jump is a hell of a long way from me
in my itsy-bitsy glider wearing an emergency chute I don't even
intend to use. Who'll convince me that the extra safety
of having the more frequent repack outweighs the lack of safety
when I fly twice without the chute each year (while I wait for
the packer to send it back)?

Tim,

Let's get to the part about me being reckless first: you wrote

"if it were legal to wear an out of date parachute, would
you, or anyone else bother to have it inspected or repacked?? I rather
doubt
it....in fact you're already suggested you wouldn't..."

I didn't suggest any such thing, and please don't you suggest that
about me. In fact, in my post I said this wasn't the point, and I
said my chute is always properly packed.

On the other hand, you yourself just suggested that the 120-day
requirement is overkill.

Now to the part where I'm still feeling like I just stepped into the
middle of Alice Through The Looking Glass:

Tim Mara

just posted a statement

supporting

a regulation that,

under certain commonplace circumstances,

requires

a pilot in command

to substitute

a seat cushion for a parachute

when going flying.


TIM MARA supports that? As a SAFETY measure?

Boy, that just can't be. What was in that coffee I just drank?

Wow.

"Finbar" wrote in message
I didn't suggest any such thing, and please don't you suggest that
about me. In fact, in my post I said this wasn't the point, and I
said my chute is always properly packed.

let's go back.you suggested it was safer to have one out-of-date than not
have one..
what I suggested, based on your comment, (and it wasn't specifically aimed
at you or any one person), but a broader statement that if it were not a
requirement, and left up to the user that (some, no-one, he, she,
you..insert what you like here) would not bother)

On the other hand, you yourself just suggested that the 120-day
requirement is overkill.

I suggested that even many manufacturers have said this may be overkill
based on our (glider pilots) general use...but it doesn't get around the
regulation...


Now to the part where I'm still feeling like I just stepped into the
middle of Alice Through The Looking Glass:


just posted a statement supporting a regulation that, under certain
commonplace circumstances, requires a pilot in command to substitute a seat
cushion for a parachute when going flying. TIM MARA supports that? As a
SAFETY measure? Boy, that just can't be. What was in that coffee I just
drank? Wow.

you're trying to re-write everything to sway what I have said....and what I
have said is that this is a regulation....ands without this regulation there
would be (some.fill it in again) who would/could/might never have their
parachutes inspected by someone who can find difficulties, problems...
Speak with any good rigger or manufacturer, you will find that all of them
have found chutes that have had problems, could fail.....if you are
suggesting leaving this up to individuals "judgment" then I guess it would
also be OK for pilots to do their own annual inspections and the like
also...
tim
BTW; I have had to use a parachute from a glider...maybe if you had this
same experience you might not be so willing to strike up this argument.

Tim Mara wrote:

what I suggested, based on your comment, (and it wasn't specifically aimed
at you or any one person), but a broader statement that if it were not a
requirement, and left up to the user that (some, no-one, he, she,
you..insert what you like here) would not bother)

....and some people who never own a chute or use one would instead start
wearing and owning them because the continuing cost is less.

.....if you are
suggesting leaving this up to individuals "judgment" then I guess it would
also be OK for pilots to do their own annual inspections and the like
also...
tim

....absolutely. Single seat aircraft solely owned and operated by the owner
and weighing very little (say under 155 pounds) don't present
enough of a threat to others to require an annual inspection from
a mechanic. I'd completely agree with this. Annual inspections
done by the owner for single seat ultralights: a great idea.

By the same parallel, any pilot weighing 600+ pounds maybe
ought to be required to wear a repacked, weight certified chute
so as not to injure those on the ground if the chute fails to
open when bailing out.

BTW; I have had to use a parachute from a glider...maybe if you had this
same experience you might not be so willing to strike up this argument.

I personally would like more pilots to wear parachutes. The
easiest way to do this is to decrease expense. Requiring
perfect chutes which are expensive is better, but as I said before,
better is the enemy of good...

One year at Hobbs, New Mexico, every contestant's parachute was
checked for currency by an FAA inspector. The infamous "ramp check".
Don't know how many he found but he probably had a nice day away from
the office.

NSF, the organizer of contests at Hobbs, now has a rigger available
before most (all?) contests and he does a lot of business.


Andy (GY)

In article ,
Andy Durbin wrote:
One year at Hobbs, New Mexico, every contestant's parachute was
checked for currency by an FAA inspector. The infamous "ramp check".
Don't know how many he found but he probably had a nice day away from
the office.

NSF, the organizer of contests at Hobbs, now has a rigger available
before most (all?) contests and he does a lot of business.


Andy (GY)

Hmmm...no doubt chutes were required for the contest, and formation
flight was definitely going to happen. Another benefit of
the inspection was it made the rigger available the following
year for a bunch of pilots who were "on the fence."

This is a situation where I might go the other way. Just
like seat belts or helmets being inspected and required
during a sanctioned car race, there is a group of organizers
who have a vested interest in each pilot having safety
equipment.

I'm willing to bet the FAA "ramp checker"
didn't do this AFTER the flight, with a subsequent violation,
but before the flight as a prevention measure and no violation.
The inspectors I've met have been hired for their wisdom,
experience, and judgement, and not for their ability to
meet a quota...

This brings up one other marginal disadvantage to increasing
repack cycle: fewer qualified and paid riggers available.
A double-edged sword.

I'm still going to say the 6 month cycle is better (improving
technology has its advantages), and chute wearers in
single seaters shouldn't generally have
a repack requirement or violation by the FAA.
But I'd certainly support
contest organizers requiring "current" chutes if it
reduced their liability (just like sanctioned car races
require certified helmets and dated, refilled
fire extinguishers).

I'll add that in Calif., fire extinguisher refill
cycles have gone from 1 to 5 years (maybe 6?). Again,
improving technology eventually should be recognised and
the benefit passed on to the user/consumer...