SSA petition to allow transponder to be turned off

"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let's go back.you suggested it was safer to have one out-of-date than not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.

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.

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

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...

Tim,

You wrote:

"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."


Honestly, I'm not trying to change what you said, I played back what
you said in an effort to get you to think about it. From your
reaction, I think you're shocked by the replay.

The law doesn't say "pack your damn chute, you idiot." It says "no
pilot of a civil aircraft shall allow a parachute that is available
for emergency use to be carried aboard unless..." That's a shocking
statement. You're right to be shocked.

I hear what you're saying: of course recently-packed parachutes are
safer (although at least one rigger has told me that in her opinion
all the re-packing is the biggest source of parachute wear and tear!).
But I imagine a parachute that was packed 2 years ago is at least 90%
likely to work, and I know a seat cushion is 0% likely to work. Why
cite someone for taking the safer, albeit imperfect option of bringing
the out-of-date parachute? I understand people SHOULD re-pack their
chutes, but GIVEN that they notice their chute is now out-of-date,
what choice, from a public policy point of view, do you want them to
make about whether or not to bring it in the aircraft? Is that even a
real question?

No, it's not like annual inspections, because they are REQUIRED and a
parachute isn't. If we REQUIRE parachutes then you're absolutely
right: there has to be a definition of what an acceptable parachute
is. Perhaps that's what you're suggesting, and maybe it's not a bad
idea. But we don't require them, so we certainly shouldn't prohibit
someone carrying a less-than-perfect one when we allow them to carry
none at all. It's like having a radio and using it: it's optional,
and we should encourage people to do it, not cite them for
technicalities when they're trying to do the sensible thing and doing
no harm in the process.

Your belief is that this law causes more people to keep their
parachutes safe. I may be wrong, but I doubt it. My belief is that
anal types like myself, who worry about whether or not they're legal,
are anal about their parachutes too, and people who aren't... aren't.
The problem is that, being anal, I HAVE wondered whether I should fly
with an out-of-date chute and risk getting fined on landing - or just
leave it in the car and avoid risking the hassle with the FAA. That
shouldn't even BE a question! I like to hope that, if the situation
ever arises, I'll bring the chute rather than obey the law. But
that's a ridiculous statement to have to make.

You've had to use a parachute to exit a glider. I'm very glad it
worked. I'm very glad you had it. And I oppose any regulation that
would have made it illegal for you to have had one, under any
circumstances whatsoever - not even if it hadn't been repacked in a
decade! I assume your chute had been repacked within the preceding
120 days, but if it had been out of date, it might have worked anyway.
If it had been in your car, it wouldn't have.

I'm told by SSA officials and others that talk to FAA people frequently
about airspace issues that the FAA knows glider pilots turn off their
their transponders sometimes, and the FAA doesn't care about that.
Mainly, they are just really happy the pilot is willing and able to
carry one.

If the FAA didn't care if glider pilots turn off their transponders
then there would be no logical reason for needing an exemption.
Transponders not only provide ATC with potentially critical flight
safety information, but they also provide collision avoidance data
for thousands of airliner and corporate aircraft that are equipped
with TCAS for collision avoidance.

This exemption is not in the interest of safety and there will be
no big surge in glider pilots installing transponders. Most of the
glider pilots that have installed transponders have done so
predominately for their own convenience. Having a transponder
installed allows them access to airspace that they would otherwise
be required to avoid. Those pilots willing to spend the dollars
for installing and maintaining transponders, can surely spend an
extra $50 for a battery they could deadicate to the transponder.

The real goal of this petition is to prevent pilots from continuing
to be exposed to certificate actions for turning off their
transponders, while at the same time hopefully shifting all
liability to the FAA for having given pilots the authority to trun
them off nthe first place. For those who doubt this, maybe you
should ask yourself why the SSA has included a hold harmless portion
to the exemption you will sign. This is designed to protect the SSA
and everyone associated with the SSA in the event of a catastrophe.

Rather than granting the petition, we have the potential to see the FAA
not only realize that transponders can easily be installed in gliders.
But this could also lead them to decide that maybe it was time to
review the justification for continuing the exemptions soaring has
enjoyed to date.

I know of one incident where a chute saved a life after not being packed in
seven years.

Any legislation that makes it less likely that someone will have a chute
available, even if it is no longer current is immoral in my view.

Pity about the Ventus...

Finbar wrote:

Tim,

You wrote:

"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."


Honestly, I'm not trying to change what you said, I played back what
you said in an effort to get you to think about it. From your
reaction, I think you're shocked by the replay.

The law doesn't say "pack your damn chute, you idiot." It says "no
pilot of a civil aircraft shall allow a parachute that is available
for emergency use to be carried aboard unless..." That's a shocking
statement. You're right to be shocked.

I hear what you're saying: of course recently-packed parachutes are
safer (although at least one rigger has told me that in her opinion
all the re-packing is the biggest source of parachute wear and tear!).
But I imagine a parachute that was packed 2 years ago is at least 90%
likely to work, and I know a seat cushion is 0% likely to work. Why
cite someone for taking the safer, albeit imperfect option of bringing
the out-of-date parachute? I understand people SHOULD re-pack their
chutes, but GIVEN that they notice their chute is now out-of-date,
what choice, from a public policy point of view, do you want them to
make about whether or not to bring it in the aircraft? Is that even a
real question?

No, it's not like annual inspections, because they are REQUIRED and a
parachute isn't. If we REQUIRE parachutes then you're absolutely
right: there has to be a definition of what an acceptable parachute
is. Perhaps that's what you're suggesting, and maybe it's not a bad
idea. But we don't require them, so we certainly shouldn't prohibit
someone carrying a less-than-perfect one when we allow them to carry
none at all. It's like having a radio and using it: it's optional,
and we should encourage people to do it, not cite them for
technicalities when they're trying to do the sensible thing and doing
no harm in the process.

Your belief is that this law causes more people to keep their
parachutes safe. I may be wrong, but I doubt it. My belief is that
anal types like myself, who worry about whether or not they're legal,
are anal about their parachutes too, and people who aren't... aren't.
The problem is that, being anal, I HAVE wondered whether I should fly
with an out-of-date chute and risk getting fined on landing - or just
leave it in the car and avoid risking the hassle with the FAA. That
shouldn't even BE a question! I like to hope that, if the situation
ever arises, I'll bring the chute rather than obey the law. But
that's a ridiculous statement to have to make.

You've had to use a parachute to exit a glider. I'm very glad it
worked. I'm very glad you had it. And I oppose any regulation that
would have made it illegal for you to have had one, under any
circumstances whatsoever - not even if it hadn't been repacked in a
decade! I assume your chute had been repacked within the preceding
120 days, but if it had been out of date, it might have worked anyway.
If it had been in your car, it wouldn't have.

Why is the petition on behalf of "SSA members" and not "glider
pilots?"

-Pat

The SSA has no standing to speak for all glider pilots.

"Pat Russell" wrote in message
...
Why is the petition on behalf of "SSA members" and not "glider
pilots?"

-Pat

For what it is worth, this is from the GA Inspector's Handbook, Chapter 50.
Here is the link to the whole document for those who want something to read
at bed time:

http://www.faa.gov/avr/afs/faa/8700/

A. Surveillance Policy. Airshows, fly-ins, and

other gatherings of general aviation aircraft and airmen

are opportunities for the Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA) to present a positive image to the aviation

community with whom we work and the general

public. Many of the aircraft operators attending these

aviation events are regular users of our air traffic and

flight service facilities, but their contact with Flight

Standards personnel may have been rare. Most of the

people who fly their airplanes to fly-in events and

airshows are aviation enthusiasts and hobbyists and are

not employed in the aviation industry as pilots.

(1) The FAA would like this important segment

of airspace users to have a very positive image of

inspectors and the safety activities inspectors perform.

Therefore, the FAA encourages inspectors to establish

early contact with sponsors and organizers of aviation

events so that informational and Aviation Safety

Program activities can be planned to serve attendees.

(2) Under no circumstances should these gatherings

be targeted for a blanket sweep inspection of

spectator airmen and aircraft.



"Andy Durbin" wrote in message
om...
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)