Transponder problems with ATC COMS - Video

On Nov 25, 10:59*am, "Robert M. Gary" wrote:
or asking a CFI. Its not fair to require 5
to 10 hour checkouts in every 172 just because some pilots will not
otherwise learn the avionics specific to the aircraft.

-Robert, CFII

Agree. Responsibility should be on the pilot for learning AND asking
a CFI for assistance on operating the avioncis so I see what direction
you are headed. It ultimately resides on the PIC for the safe outcome
of any flight which includes insuring they know how to handle the
avionics.

While I said rental, I kinda was really thinking more along the lines
of initial training that showing how to disable mode C. It did not
come out that way in my original post, my apologies.

At least with that training in the initial stage, then at least the
pilot has a chance should he come across similar type of avionics.

I never got that kind of training. We talked about it in ground
school, but never applied that training. While it's impossible to
cover every situation, this one I would think would be a situation to
be considered in training. It doesn't add to flight time.

May seem simple and basic, but when you got a new pilot up in the air
and something like this happens, it only adds to the stress level and
with **some foundation** for course of action at least there is a hope
for "resolution of the problem.

Even for me, it was something out of the ordinary, and having to
"think quick on the feet" to come up with something was more then what
the pilot would have done as she didn't even know how to operate the
Xponder. It was always left in the on position, so I am not even sure
if she would have known how to turn it off WHILE flying the plane.
She did do what she was taught to do and that was fly the plane and
left it to me to fiddle with the buttons.

Once we got clear of KJAN approach and went on our own, she settled
down and thought things completely through and we were able to work
the problem at a pace more manageable.

Ultimately, the safe outcome of the flight speaks for itself even
though our procedure of the decision making process may have been
flawed. We just dealt with the cards we were handed the best we could.

"Robert M. Gary" wrote

Ok, so if you come in and want to rent a C-172 but have never flown
with a 430 should I require you to do a 5 hour training course?

Apples vs. oranges, to me, with that comparison.

A fancy GPS is not necessary to fly VFR in _any_ airspace, while a
transponder is. (in some airspace)

I have to agree that a 5 minute, or even 10 minutes (if it takes that long)
lesson on the transponder should be included in a checkout.
--
Jim in NC

"Morgans" wrote in message
...

"Robert M. Gary" wrote

Ok, so if you come in and want to rent a C-172 but have never flown
with a 430 should I require you to do a 5 hour training course?

Apples vs. oranges, to me, with that comparison.

A fancy GPS is not necessary to fly VFR in _any_ airspace, while a
transponder is. (in some airspace)

I have to agree that a 5 minute, or even 10 minutes (if it takes that
long) lesson on the transponder should be included in a checkout.

Sounds like about 4.5 to 9.5 minutes too long. Even a GTX 330 is not all
that complicated. Instead of a 4 position function switch, you have 4
buttons. Instead of 4 code knobs, you have 8 buttons. You have an ident
button just like any other xponder and a VFR button which resets to 1200.
All of the buttons on the right can be ignored for basic operation.

On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 23:40:08 GMT, Mike wrote:

Sounds like

SHUT THE **** UP, ASSSHOLE !
--
Bear Bottoms
Private Attorney General

On Nov 25, 2:22*pm, "Morgans" wrote:

A fancy GPS is not necessary to fly VFR in _any_ airspace, while a
transponder is. (in some airspace)

I have to agree that a 5 minute, or even 10 minutes (if it takes that long)
lesson on the transponder should be included in a checkout.

But I'm not going to bill for 10 minutes. I'll bill an hour minimum.
If a pilot is checked out to fly 172's already I'm not going to
require that he pay me an hour simply because one 172 has a different
type of transponder. Again, its up to the pilot. If he *wants* some
instruction then I don't mind giving it but I'm not going to drive
down for 1/6 of an hour. I guess I care about this because I see it as
a big issue in the future. Many have suggested requiring the (by the
FAA) pilots to have endorsements for every combination of avionics in
the airplane (including author Richard Collins, etc). Unless its the
G1000 plane, I'm going to leave it up to the pilot to decide if he's
able to work the avionics. BTW: About 70% of the pilots I fly with
with the G1000 are already familiar with it because they've studied
the manuals at home and run the simulator (or even gone to one of the
local weekend ground seminars). I assume pilots are doing similar with
othe types of avionics.

-Robert

On Nov 25, 6:04*pm, "Robert M. Gary" wrote:

But I'm not going to bill for 10 minutes. I'll bill an hour minimum.
If a pilot is checked out to fly 172's already I'm not going to
require that he pay me an hour simply because one 172 has a different
type of transponder. Again, its up to the pilot. If he *wants* some
instruction then I don't mind giving it but I'm not going to drive
down for 1/6 of an hour.

Robert,

I think the operative word is "included" in the checkout, not for you
to specifically come out and give training on the Xponder.

I don't see it being unreasonable to cross check with the pilot snf
ensure he knows how to handle the Xponder on a checkout on a C172.

Again, bottom line is it does fall on the PIC to ensure they know how
to operate the equipment and questions should come out during the
checkout, but an inexperience pilot may not think about the subtle
things that the CFI has in his tool kit.

G1000 is standardized and I am not surprised you are encountering
pilots who did their research when they know ahead what avionics is in
the plane, but there are a lot of C172's that are rented with a mish
mash of avionics.