Transponder Press

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23908450/

The Hawker 800XP airplane he collided with was
significantly damaged but was able to land safely
at Reno-Tahoe International Airport.

Epic fail for this reporter: They landed at Carson City (CXP), not
RNO.

On Apr 2, 8:23 am, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
The Hawker 800XP airplane he collided with was
significantly damaged but was able to land safely
at Reno-Tahoe International Airport.

Epic fail for this reporter: They landed at Carson City (CXP), not
RNO.

Fails, earlier than that as well, the title is "... glider-jet
collision*s*". For those 80% or people who scan the title vs. the 20%
who read the article. That sloppiness is depressing.

Joe and Mary Public are going to have a hard time with glider pilots
complaining about a few $k cost to install transponders in gliders
given the context of this story. Give up now, there is no way to win
any public battle based on cost or inconvenience to pilots. If you
don't like the idea of transponders not responding to media questions
would likely be more productive.

Even the technical arguments about power are undercut in this story
since that's the claim as to why the tranponder was turned off in the
ASG-29. "gee glider pilots want the FAA to let them keep doing what
the glider that hit those innocent people in the Jet was doing?" Now
that has been "established" by the media and if that part of the story
lives on any public discussions about power issues with transponders
is going to also look terrible.


Darryl

The MSN article is truncated... a longer article from the same AP story was
printed and published in the local paper.

http://www.lvrj.com/news/17216297.html

BT


"M POE" wrote in message
...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23908450/

On Apr 2, 9:06*am, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Apr 2, 8:23 am, Bob Kuykendall wrote:

The Hawker 800XP airplane he collided with was
significantly damaged but was able to land safely
at Reno-Tahoe International Airport.

Epic fail for this reporter: They landed at Carson City (CXP), not
RNO.

Fails, earlier than that as well, the title is "... glider-jet
collision*s*". For those 80% or people who scan the title vs. the 20%
who read the article. That sloppiness is depressing.

Joe and Mary Public are going to have a hard time with glider pilots
complaining about a few $k cost to install transponders in gliders
given the context of this story. Give up now, there is no way to win
any public battle based on cost or inconvenience to pilots. If you
don't like the idea of transponders not responding to media questions
would likely be more productive.

Even the technical arguments about power are undercut in this story
since that's the claim as to why the tranponder was turned off in the
ASG-29. "gee glider pilots want the FAA to let them keep doing what
the glider that hit those innocent people in the Jet was doing?" Now
that has been "established" by the media and if that part of the story
lives on any public discussions about power issues with transponders
is going to also look terrible.

Darryl

I don't think battery power is an issue with transponders, I've run my
becker for 6+ hours on one 10 amp hour battery. Also running an 302
with an ipaq and dittel radio (try not to talk too much on the radio)
the whole flight. With a two battery system and or solar panels there
should be no problem for even longer flights.

One of the seminars at the convention suggested charging the ipaq at
home as it draws 2 amps when charging.

Jim D

On Apr 2, 9:54 am, M POE wrote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23908450/

Does anyone know what the SSA plans to do, if anything, within the "90
days" before the FAA responds to the NTSB? I assume that the SSA
represents the "glider community's" position on transponders. Is the
SSA's position on transponders unchanged?