![]() |
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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
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 |