Feds Want to Equipe Gliders With Transponders and Radios

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

I agree. But rescinding the glider exemption from FARs requiring
transponder use won't address that issue with powered aircraft that
lack an electrical system either. It looks like the FAA's response to
this NTSB recommendation is destined to be a compromise at best.
Hopefully it won't result in all gliders and aircraft without
electrical systems being grounded until they have transponders
installed and signed off.


So just remove the exemption at and above 10,000 MSL.

In rec.aviation.soaring Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

I agree. But rescinding the glider exemption from FARs requiring
transponder use won't address that issue with powered aircraft that
lack an electrical system either. It looks like the FAA's response to
this NTSB recommendation is destined to be a compromise at best.
Hopefully it won't result in all gliders and aircraft without
electrical systems being grounded until they have transponders
installed and signed off.

So just remove the exemption at and above 10,000 MSL.

This is precisely what is being proposed. I don't understand why anything
else is even being discussed.

Note that requiring all gliders flying above 10,000MSL to be
transponder-equipped would still result in a large amount of either
expense or restrictions on flying for a large proportion of the
glider-flying population.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

On May 1, 9:41 am, Michael Ash wrote:
So just remove the exemption at and above 10,000 MSL.

This is precisely what is being proposed. I don't understand why anything
else is even being discussed.

A 3,000' tow at my club will go just a hair over 10K.

-Tom

"5Z" wrote in message
...
On May 1, 9:41 am, Michael Ash wrote:
So just remove the exemption at and above 10,000 MSL.

This is precisely what is being proposed. I don't understand why anything
else is even being discussed.

A 3,000' tow at my club will go just a hair over 10K.

-Tom

Yep, we do little soaring below 10,000' - big rocks tend to get in the way.

Bill D

Don't they also intend to require a mode C transponder inside class B "veils"?

A reading of
Remove the glider exemptions from the Federal Aviation Regulations
that pertain to transponder requirements and use.

would seem to imply that. There are a lot of people ( like me ) operating underneath class Bs


Sarah


Michael Ash wrote:
In rec.aviation.soaring Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
I agree. But rescinding the glider exemption from FARs requiring
transponder use won't address that issue with powered aircraft that
lack an electrical system either. It looks like the FAA's response to
this NTSB recommendation is destined to be a compromise at best.
Hopefully it won't result in all gliders and aircraft without
electrical systems being grounded until they have transponders
installed and signed off.
So just remove the exemption at and above 10,000 MSL.

This is precisely what is being proposed. I don't understand why anything
else is even being discussed.

Note that requiring all gliders flying above 10,000MSL to be
transponder-equipped would still result in a large amount of either
expense or restrictions on flying for a large proportion of the
glider-flying population.

In rec.aviation.soaring Sarah Anderson wrote:

Don't they also intend to require a mode C transponder inside class B "veils"?

A reading of
Remove the glider exemptions from the Federal Aviation Regulations
that pertain to transponder requirements and use.

would seem to imply that. There are a lot of people ( like me ) operating underneath class Bs

Yes, the idea would be to make the requirements the same as for powered
aircraft. This would no doubt have a large impact on a lot of people,
particularly our Western bretheren who think nothing of cracking 10,000ft,
and people such as yourself who operate close to class B. But it's not the
same as a blanket requirement as has been implied.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

In article writes:

Don't they also intend to require a mode C transponder inside class B "veils"?

A reading of
Remove the glider exemptions from the Federal Aviation Regulations
that pertain to transponder requirements and use.

would seem to imply that. There are a lot of people ( like me ) operating underneath class Bs

In a sailplane? Wow. Doesn't give much vertical space. How much room do you have from base
of class B to the surface? You must have to find lift pretty often...

Alan

The issue is the veil. The shelves are high enough (6000/7000 msl) to get in and out staying
clear of class B.


Alan wrote:
In article writes:
Don't they also intend to require a mode C transponder inside class B "veils"?

A reading of
Remove the glider exemptions from the Federal Aviation Regulations
that pertain to transponder requirements and use.
would seem to imply that. There are a lot of people ( like me ) operating underneath class Bs

In a sailplane? Wow. Doesn't give much vertical space. How much room do you have from base
of class B to the surface? You must have to find lift pretty often...

Alan