SSA petition to allow transponder to be turned off

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plain and simple, if it were legal to wear an out of date parachute, would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by the out-of-date parachute (which probably would have worked fine),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

Finbar wrote:

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.

Hmmm...as far as I know airplanes do not have a general requirement for
transponders. 91.215 is poorly written, but neither it nor 91.205
seem to require a transponder be installed in all airplanes. Not
sure where you may have seen this...

My reading seems to indicate that if an operable transponder is installed,
it must be inspected (91.411 and/or 91.413 as applies) and
turned on. There are various exceptions for how to operate
it if it's out of inspection or otherwise inop.

So if one IS installed, there are things to do, but I've never read any
requirement that a transponder MUST be installed in all airplanes.

Now beyond that there are some airspaces that require transponders,
with some exceptions for gliders, aircraft without engine-driven
electrics, etc. All to allow the Baby Aces and Cubs and gliders
and the like to access airports under B and C rings without requiring
a transponder. Grandfathered in, it seems... And we rode the coattails
of the ol' farts that kept it this way...

Beware, however, a much greater evil. The San Jose FSDO
required a local pilot who wanted to certify his Experimental
Speed Canard to install a transponder for certification.
Not optional, but required by the FSDO for his experimental.
I've never heard of this as a requirement for good ol'
152's and 172's when flown outside of 91.215(b)(1-5), so
I don't know why he got hit with it for his experimental
(especially since his home airport was in "G" airspace
with only "E" above).

As far as I know, the Fresno FSDO 100+ NM south didn't
require a transponder for the recent experimental certification
of an RV-3. Do FSDO's have the discretion to
require transponders of experimentals on a case by case basis?
Perhaps so. A bit odd and not too consistent it might seem...

I've personally had a mechanic pull out a transponder with
a log entry, and then flown a plane for 6 months without it
below 10,000 ft in "E" and "G" airspace. Even had an FAA DPE
do a checkride in the plane. Nobody even blinked...straight
faces all around...

But maybe I'm missing something and all airplanes with
engine driven electrics ARE required to have transponders.
Maybe someone can point me to a reference...

As far as getting a transponder OR getting a Proxalert (etc),
I'd definitely go proxalert first...no-brainer there.
Lots of squawking targets out there, and me squawking too
does almost nothing to improve safety (since radar watching ATC
will rarely be in contact with them in my most common
scenarios). Me watching the other squawks, and then
looking outside in that direction: now that'll help...

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)?

"Mark James Boyd" wrote in message
news:4039aef8$1@darkstar...

As far as getting a transponder OR getting a Proxalert (etc),
I'd definitely go proxalert first...no-brainer there.
Lots of squawking targets out there, and me squawking too
does almost nothing to improve safety (since radar watching ATC
will rarely be in contact with them in my most common
scenarios). Me watching the other squawks, and then
looking outside in that direction: now that'll help...


None of the new crop of reasonably priced passive detectors gives bearing to
the threat info. They do display threat altitude and range. Takes thousands
of additional dollars to get bearing info.

I flew with the ProxAlert in my glider at Minden this last week. Didn't
"see" any other gliders using transponders, just power aircraft.

--
bumper ZZ (reverse all after @)
"Dare to be different . . . circle in sink."

Hi Eric,

Indeed, the regulator would have a hard time explaining it. Since
it's possibly the dumbest reg in the entire 14 CFR, it would be hard
for anyone to explain. Given a chute that is out of date on a given
occasion, complying with the law should be considered criminal
stupidity. Here's the law:

"§ 91.307 Parachutes and parachuting.
(a) No pilot of a civil aircraft may allow a parachute that is
available for emergency use to be carried in that aircraft unless it
is an approved type and—
(1) If a chair type (canopy in back), it has been packed by a
certificated and appropriately rated parachute rigger within the
preceding 120 days; or

(2) If any other type, it has been packed by a certificated and
appropriately rated parachute rigger—

(i) Within the preceding 120 days, if its canopy, shrouds, and harness
are composed exclusively of nylon, rayon, or other similar synthetic
fiber or materials that are substantially resistant to damage from
mold, mildew, or other fungi and other rotting agents propagated in a
moist environment; or

(ii) Within the preceding 60 days, if any part of the parachute is
composed of silk, pongee, or other natural fiber, or materials not
specified in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section."

Yes folks, it's a regulation that prohibits a pilot from carrying
emergency equipment aboard an aircraft unless the equipment is not
available in case of emergency. I wouldn't even know where to begin.
I've seen a box of hammers display more intelligence. Oh well. It's
not as if the rest of 14 CFR is anywhere near as moronic, so this must
have been some sort of brain meltdown on someone's part. If it
referred to REQUIRED equipment (parachutes are required for
aerobatics, for example) it would make a lot of sense - but it
doesn't.

Surprisingly, this stroke of genius survived the recent cleanup of the
regs. And if someone gets ramp-checked before takeoff by one of those
- fortunately rare - power-altered officials one occasionally runs
into, and their chute is out of date, I'd love to hear them explain to
the nice official why they're carrying emergency equipment in direct
contravention of a law that makes it illegal to do so.

Anyway, enough about that!

The reason I asked about what happens if you turn off a transponder in
flight was that I imagine most/all the pilots who have equipped their
gliders with them are doing exactly that, i.e., turning off the
transponders when they don't feel they're necessary. It's sensible,
but it's illegal. Nobody's been busted so far, but I wonder... About
10-15 years ago we had a brief period when the FAA suddenly started a
get-strict policy and enforcing all these "petty" rules, and AOPA and
the aviation press were warning pilots not to talk to ANYONE from the
FAA without a lawyer present. Remember the days when some airline
pilots filed a NASA form after every flight, just in case? Cooler
heads prevailed, and our FAA field personnel were allowed to go back
to doing their jobs promoting safety instead of playing "gotcha" with
obscure regulations, but who knows what the future will bring, and who
knows how many of those disappearing transponders will have been
digitally recorded for the benefit of some enterprising career-minded
young investigator? The trouble with bad laws is that sooner or later
some dimwits show up and enforce them. It's not like it hasn't
happened before. And unlike flying with an out-of-date chute, when
you turn off a transponder your crime is broadcast to the world (or,
technically, your compliance with the law is no longer broadcast!).

As to whether transponders are a good idea, obviously given infinite
panel space, money and power they are. Given limited supplies of
each, I am wondering if some kind of TCAS wouldn't be better. All the
power aircraft are transmitting, but most of the ones squawking 1200
are not talking to ATC and do not have TCAS. So even if you have a
transponder, they don't know about you. If you had a budget TCAS, you
could at least see them (or, with a transponder, you could try asking
for flight following...) The big transports may be a more impressive
threat, but getting clobbered by a C-182 or one of the many low-flying
(clearly not on flight following!) GA aircraft I see out there, from
warbirds to Lears (!), could be pretty fatal too. So I'm wondering
about that one.

Cheers!

On 2/22/04 12:29 PM, in article
et, "d b"
wrote:

The trick is to decide when restrictions are really required. I contend
that the airspace rules that were in effect in 1959 were just as safe
as what we have now.

Personally, I'd rather not go back, even with a 1959 level of air traffic
(see below).

We have a pretty good level of safety today with a far greater amount of
traffic, precisely because of the way in which the system has developed over
the last four decades, even though gliders, piper cubs, et al are allowed to
pretend that it is still the mid-twentieth century.

I've been hearing for many years how the old ways were better and that BS is
getting pretty boring. The equipment and the system built around it has
evolved to its present point out of need, and not out of some evil plan. As
a matter of fact the one consistent theme over the decades has been the
reluctance of both the FAA and the users of the airspace to make changes in
a timely manner that were clearly needed.

Flying the aircraft is the easy part. Doing something worthwhile with it,
whether putting passengers at their destination, bombs on target, or points
on a score sheet, under whatever conditions you encounter, consistently and
safely, is another matter entirely. Improved communication and navigation,
which includes the use of transponders, have helped us to do those things.

It's the ones you don't see that will kill you. In thirty-eight years of
professional flying, I've become convinced that there are relatively few
flights during which we see every aircraft in our VMC airspace. And even
fewer in which every other aircraft sees us. Transponders help to improve
our odds overall, while TCAS II and similar collision avoidance systems give
us the capability to be aware of ALL traffic of significance, if only we
will use them across the spectrum of aviation.

I tend to judge the commitment to safety of both commercial, club, and
individual operators by the degree to which they use radios and
transponders, in addition to proven procedures clearly expressed and
consistently reinforced. I'd like to put in a few more decades of safe
aviating, after all.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

1956-- United Airlines DC-7 and a TWA Constellation crashed over the Grand
Canyon, killing 128.

1960--* Midair collision of United DC-8 and TWA Constellation over Brooklyn
NY results in the death of 127.

1967-- two crashes between private planes and transponder-equipped
commercial aircraft - March 9, 1967 collision of a TWA DC-9 with Beechcraft
B-55 over Urbana, OH killed 26 people when the TWA pilot failed to see and
avoid the Beechcraft. July 19, 1967, a Piedmont Airlines B-727 collided with
a Cessna near Hendersonville, NC, killing 79 in the B-727 and a family of
three in the Cessna.

Urbana, OH - March 9, 1967 / Hendersonville, NC - July 19, 1967
-- "...two crashes between private planes and transponder-equipped
commercial aircraft occurred, pushing public opinion towards the mandating
of transponders for all aircraft. [T]hese accidents forced a government and
public reassessment of the air traffic control system and prompted
[development of] Mode S technology."

1978-- Sept. 25, San Diego, CA, Pacific Southwest plane collided in midair
with Cessna. All 135 on airliner, 2 in Cessna, and 7 on ground killed for
total of 144.

Grand Canyon - Jun. 18, 1986, a Dehavilland carrying 20 passengers collides
with a Helitech with five.

Cerritos, CA - Aug. 31, 1986, Aeromexico DC-9 with 64 passengers collided
with a light plane. The DC-9 crashed into a neighborhood and destroyed or
damaged 18 homes, killing 15 people on the ground. This crash prompted
Congressional action, beginning with a mandate establishing deadlines for
the completion of the development and installation of TCAS II.

================================================== ==========================



Jack

Finbar wrote:
And unlike flying with an out-of-date chute, when
you turn off a transponder your crime is broadcast to the world (or,
technically, your compliance with the law is no longer broadcast!).

Of course, the nice thing about Mode C (as opposed to Mode S), is that
ATC doesn't know who you are, unless you explicitly identify yourself.

The big transports may be a more impressive threat, but getting
Clobbered by a C-182 or one of the many low-flying
(clearly not on flight following!) GA aircraft I see out there, from
warbirds to Lears (!), could be pretty fatal too. So I'm wondering
about that one.

I can see and avoid GA aircraft ahead of me, and the ones behind aren't
closing on me all that fast, so there's some chance they'll see me in
time. The thing about transports is that at the altitudes I'm flying
they are moving fast relative to me, and either climbing or descending
at a fairly high rate. In my experience, the aircraft I've had near
miss experiences with have been other gliders, airliners, and military
aircraft, in roughly that order of frequency. I see GA aircraft all of
the time, but so far, always at enough distance to avoid.

If the passive proximity warning systems prove to be effective, I'd say
they are a decent alternative, except perhaps in those areas where there
no radar coverage. Since I normally have the transponder off in those
areas, it's not a huge disadvantage. But, I've yet to come across much
objective evidence that convinces me they are effective. Maybe as
Bumper and others use them for a while, I'll be convinced...

Marc

On 2/22/04 3:31 PM, in article
et, "d b"
wrote:

If the floor of "class A" was the same now as it was in 1958, would
you need the window as much? In your examples, the areas
were smaller or didn't exist.

The FAA really got nasty when Dole was administrator.

What has become "class A" did not exist in 1958 but came into being, as laid
out in the "Design for the National Airspace Utilization System" published
in September of 1962, and went through several stages of expansion well
before the accession of Dole to the position of Secretary of Transportation
(February 7, 1983-September 30, 1987).

Do you advocate cutting our current level of air traffic back to 1958
levels?

Are you flying a 1958 vintage glider?




Jack

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)