A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Soaring
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

SSA petition to allow transponder to be turned off



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old February 23rd 04, 02:21 PM
Brian Case
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.


I've asked to, not quite as northwest as you are. The answer I got is
it depends on how the controller sets up there radar. At most Class C
airports there probably is no filter turned on. At larger airports
they might turn it on to eliminate the returns from aircraft taxing on
the ground. I was also told the can select the speed at which it will
filter the return but typically they might set it up for 25kts.
Typically they have the primary radar turned off unless we tell them
there are gliders or non-transponder equipped aircraft in the area.

Brian
  #2  
Old February 23rd 04, 07:53 PM
Finbar
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

If you take a look at Tim Mara's comments and Andy Durbin's note in
the new thread "parachute repack requirement, was SSA transponders"
you'll see the sort of thing I worry about with this regulation.

By analogy to Tim's logic, and by analogy to the logic of that
inspector who ran ramp checks for parachute pack dates (parachutes not
legally required, inspector couldn't have ticketed someone who flew
with no chute at all, and the requirement for a chute in the contest
is not a legal matter the inspector could enforce), someone is going
to get cited for turning off a transponder on board their glider -
someone who would NOT have been cited if there had been no transponder
on board at all. It's going to happen. Once someone decides to do
it, figuring out who the pilot was won't be as hard as people might
like to think - remember the fallacy of the anonymous internet? With
one reservation, I find it hard to find words to express the profound
idiocy of this, but it will happen, and it will be justified using
something like Tim's logic. I've heard this logic before from
regulatory types: as an engineer it's a kind of thinking alien to me,
but the reality is that this IS how regulators think, and Tim is
evidently accustomed to it (presumably from long exposure).

The reservation is that I don't understand the radar system well
enough to be sure that turning off a transponder in flight doesn't
cause all sorts of chaos at ATC, which might be so severe as to
justify a preference for no transponder, rather than have you turn it
on and off in flight. I doubt it, but in my ignorance I'd have to be
open to that possibility.

So it may seem stupid to not carry a transponder because it might be
illegal to do so, but the regulators don't think it's stupid at all.
It's the law, just like the law that forbids the carrying of
parachutes that might not work, and requires the substitution of a
seat cushion that definitely, categorically will not work. And, just
like the law forbidding the carriage of non-required chutes that are
outside their 120-day pack date, it WILL be enforced.

You'd think law enforcement would support safety, but that's not
always its first priority. Sometimes the law gets enforced, and the
law always trumps common sense.

Pity.
  #3  
Old February 23rd 04, 09:35 PM
Eric Greenwell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Dear Finbar,

1) Please support the request for the exemption by making comments to
the Docket. See the SSA website for info on doing this. If we get the
exemption, all your concerns about the foolishness of the _present_
rule, and your fears about being busted for turning off your transponder
are over.

2) It doesn't cause ATC a problem when a VFR (code 1200) transponder
signal disappears from their screen. They don't control VFR traffic, and
signals vanish all the time for a variety of reasons. If it caused a
problem, this request for an exemption would never have gotten on the
Docket in the first place.

3) FAA people have repeatedly told SSA people that they'd rather see
more gliders with transponders than less. They've told me the same thing
when I've talked to ATC folks about our wave windows.

Finbar wrote:
If you take a look at Tim Mara's comments and Andy Durbin's note in
the new thread "parachute repack requirement, was SSA transponders"
you'll see the sort of thing I worry about with this regulation.

By analogy to Tim's logic, and by analogy to the logic of that
inspector who ran ramp checks for parachute pack dates (parachutes not
legally required, inspector couldn't have ticketed someone who flew
with no chute at all, and the requirement for a chute in the contest
is not a legal matter the inspector could enforce), someone is going
to get cited for turning off a transponder on board their glider -
someone who would NOT have been cited if there had been no transponder
on board at all. It's going to happen. Once someone decides to do
it, figuring out who the pilot was won't be as hard as people might
like to think - remember the fallacy of the anonymous internet? With
one reservation, I find it hard to find words to express the profound
idiocy of this, but it will happen, and it will be justified using
something like Tim's logic. I've heard this logic before from
regulatory types: as an engineer it's a kind of thinking alien to me,
but the reality is that this IS how regulators think, and Tim is
evidently accustomed to it (presumably from long exposure).

The reservation is that I don't understand the radar system well
enough to be sure that turning off a transponder in flight doesn't
cause all sorts of chaos at ATC, which might be so severe as to
justify a preference for no transponder, rather than have you turn it
on and off in flight. I doubt it, but in my ignorance I'd have to be
open to that possibility.

So it may seem stupid to not carry a transponder because it might be
illegal to do so, but the regulators don't think it's stupid at all.
It's the law, just like the law that forbids the carrying of
parachutes that might not work, and requires the substitution of a
seat cushion that definitely, categorically will not work. And, just
like the law forbidding the carriage of non-required chutes that are
outside their 120-day pack date, it WILL be enforced.

You'd think law enforcement would support safety, but that's not
always its first priority. Sometimes the law gets enforced, and the
law always trumps common sense.

Pity.


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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
VHF & Transponder antenna Steve Home Built 1 December 6th 04 04:29 PM
Operation without a transponder flyer Piloting 11 September 14th 04 08:48 AM
Transponder test after static system opened? Jack I Owning 6 March 14th 04 03:09 PM
Fixing the Transponder with Duct Tape and Aluminum Foil Ron Wanttaja Home Built 45 March 14th 04 12:18 AM
transponder codes Guy Elden Jr. Piloting 1 December 2nd 03 05:21 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:04 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.