ADSB visibility with non certified GPS

Thanks, Evan, but that does not answer the question, either.Â* Sure there
might be certificate action, should a pilot get caught turning on a
not-yet-tested/certified transponder, but it seems to me it would have
been better if the Hawker had gotten a RA from its TCAS box.Â* I know
it's a rhetorical question but then so are a lot of the FARs...Â* I'd
just prefer receiving a letter from the FAA over bailing out (or worse).

BTW, my transponder was checked by a certified technician within the
preceding 24 calendar months and complies with 91.413(c) and has a
proper logbook entry.

On 10/2/2017 10:26 AM, Tango Eight wrote:
On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 12:16:22 PM UTC-4, Dan Marotta wrote:
Didn't answer the question.

What harm could have come from turning on a not-yet-approved transponder?
Violation of FAR 91.413.

best,
Evan Ludeman / T8

--
Dan, 5J

Dan, the only risk would have been if the transponder was reporting wrong altitude. Of course in this case it would have been better to turn it on, and make a simple radio call to Reno approach for a transponder check.

Ramy

That's what I thought.Â* Had I been in the same situation (untested
transponder), I would have turned it on, asked Reno if they saw me, and
what was my reported altitude.

On 10/2/2017 11:35 AM, Ramy wrote:
Dan, the only risk would have been if the transponder was reporting wrong altitude. Of course in this case it would have been better to turn it on, and make a simple radio call to Reno approach for a transponder check.

Ramy

--
Dan, 5J

On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 10:16:40 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
Thanks, Evan, but that does not answer the question, either.Â* Sure there
might be certificate action, should a pilot get caught turning on a
not-yet-tested/certified transponder, but it seems to me it would have
been better if the Hawker had gotten a RA from its TCAS box.Â* I know
it's a rhetorical question but then so are a lot of the FARs...Â* I'd
just prefer receiving a letter from the FAA over bailing out (or worse).

BTW, my transponder was checked by a certified technician within the
preceding 24 calendar months and complies with 91.413(c) and has a
proper logbook entry.

On 10/2/2017 10:26 AM, Tango Eight wrote:
On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 12:16:22 PM UTC-4, Dan Marotta wrote:
Didn't answer the question.

What harm could have come from turning on a not-yet-approved transponder?
Violation of FAR 91.413.

best,
Evan Ludeman / T8

--
Dan, 5J

Dan

Evan is pointing out what is believed to be the pilot's concern here.

My pragmatic safety focused answer is there was little reason not to turn that transponder on, and I would have. The 14 CFR Appendix F to Part 43, ATC Transponder Tests and Inspections required by 14 CFR 91.413(c) only test RF properties of the transponder. There are unlikely to be undetected problems with modern transponders that causes errors in operation or impact other airspace users. And a call to Reno Approach for a transponder check would have been good assurance that the basic transponder operations are working, a good idea on any new install. In some ways Appendix F seems to address concerns of older generation less reliable transponder technology, and specifically to look for know faults that do could impact operation and other users, so still useful to know that stuff is working, and still a 14CFR requirement and should be done.

One thing to note is Appendix F to Part 43 does not check altitude encoder accuracy. And that transponder reported altitude is key to interoperation with TCAS. It's a good idea to check the encoder altitude displayed on your transponder against the altimeter and other sources, or check in with ATC if the transponder does not have an encoder altitude display.

On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 10:50:48 AM UTC-7, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 10:16:40 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
Thanks, Evan, but that does not answer the question, either.Â* Sure there
might be certificate action, should a pilot get caught turning on a
not-yet-tested/certified transponder, but it seems to me it would have
been better if the Hawker had gotten a RA from its TCAS box.Â* I know
it's a rhetorical question but then so are a lot of the FARs...Â* I'd
just prefer receiving a letter from the FAA over bailing out (or worse)..

BTW, my transponder was checked by a certified technician within the
preceding 24 calendar months and complies with 91.413(c) and has a
proper logbook entry.

On 10/2/2017 10:26 AM, Tango Eight wrote:
On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 12:16:22 PM UTC-4, Dan Marotta wrote:
Didn't answer the question.

What harm could have come from turning on a not-yet-approved transponder?
Violation of FAR 91.413.

best,
Evan Ludeman / T8

--
Dan, 5J

Dan

Evan is pointing out what is believed to be the pilot's concern here.

My pragmatic safety focused answer is there was little reason not to turn that transponder on, and I would have. The 14 CFR Appendix F to Part 43, ATC Transponder Tests and Inspections required by 14 CFR 91.413(c) only test RF properties of the transponder. There are unlikely to be undetected problems with modern transponders that causes errors in operation or impact other airspace users. And a call to Reno Approach for a transponder check would have been good assurance that the basic transponder operations are working, a good idea on any new install. In some ways Appendix F seems to address concerns of older generation less reliable transponder technology, and specifically to look for know faults that do could impact operation and other users, so still useful to know that stuff is working, and still a 14CFR requirement and should be done.

One thing to note is Appendix F to Part 43 does not check altitude encoder accuracy. And that transponder reported altitude is key to interoperation with TCAS. It's a good idea to check the encoder altitude displayed on your transponder against the altimeter and other sources, or check in with ATC if the transponder does not have an encoder altitude display.

Oh sorry my bad. brain fart, this was a first install so Appendix E to Part 43 applies, which *does* include an altitude encoder test.

I was rushing to try to make a point that regular biannual transponder tests that folks will have done on their glider transponders do not check the encoder accuracy.

On Monday, 2 October 2017 11:50:48 UTC-6, Darryl Ramm wrote:
The 14 CFR Appendix F to Part 43, ATC Transponder Tests and Inspections required by 14 CFR 91.413(c) only test RF properties of the transponder. There are unlikely to be undetected problems with modern transponders that causes errors in operation or impact other airspace users. And a call to Reno Approach for a transponder check would have been good assurance that the basic transponder operations are working, a good idea on any new install. In some ways Appendix F seems to address concerns of older generation less reliable transponder technology, and specifically to look for know faults that do could impact operation and other users, so still useful to know that stuff is working, and still a 14CFR requirement and should be done.


My story - I bought a Ventus 2CX that is registered experimental with a installed transponder and appropriate log book entries and bi-annual checks. I checked the antenna and it was a L2 antenna, http://wingsandwheels.com/l2-aae.html, that was mounted behind the pilot seat on the floor of the fuselage. Seemed a bit odd to me as the fuselage is carbon but with all the signoffs, and I know the A&P that installed it, I assumed I was uninformed. I flew for a couple of months, including a number of wave flights around the Salt Lake Class B and over, through multiple arrival and departure lanes, and then put it away for the winter.

Next spring before flying I did the transponder bi-annual check, different company than one used previously, and the guy went about his business. Measured output inside the cockpit, measured output at the wingtip and measured output 100 yards away. He then asked for the log book, went through it and then placed his sticker in the book and signed it.

He called me over to the cockpit and asked me to show him the antenna setup which I did and he just shook his head and smiled. He then gave me the logbook and asked 'Do your testicles tingle or glow after a long flight?'

He went to explain that he measured 250 watts in the cockpit, ~125 watts at the wingtip and 50 watts at 100 yards. Basically I was just bombarding my body.

He *did* signoff on the bi-annual test as the transponder was operating correctly!

Yes I quickly got a external shark fin antenna installed and verified it was operating correctly with SLC ATC during the next flight.

Yes we all must understand how our equipment works and use common sense when needed.

Ron Gleason

Thanks Darryl.Â* I do compare my TT22's reported altitude with my
altimeter allowing for the local altimeter setting.

On 10/2/2017 11:50 AM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 10:16:40 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
Thanks, Evan, but that does not answer the question, either.Â* Sure there
might be certificate action, should a pilot get caught turning on a
not-yet-tested/certified transponder, but it seems to me it would have
been better if the Hawker had gotten a RA from its TCAS box.Â* I know
it's a rhetorical question but then so are a lot of the FARs...Â* I'd
just prefer receiving a letter from the FAA over bailing out (or worse).

BTW, my transponder was checked by a certified technician within the
preceding 24 calendar months and complies with 91.413(c) and has a
proper logbook entry.

On 10/2/2017 10:26 AM, Tango Eight wrote:
On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 12:16:22 PM UTC-4, Dan Marotta wrote:
Didn't answer the question.

What harm could have come from turning on a not-yet-approved transponder?
Violation of FAR 91.413.

best,
Evan Ludeman / T8
--
Dan, 5J
Dan

Evan is pointing out what is believed to be the pilot's concern here.

My pragmatic safety focused answer is there was little reason not to turn that transponder on, and I would have. The 14 CFR Appendix F to Part 43, ATC Transponder Tests and Inspections required by 14 CFR 91.413(c) only test RF properties of the transponder. There are unlikely to be undetected problems with modern transponders that causes errors in operation or impact other airspace users. And a call to Reno Approach for a transponder check would have been good assurance that the basic transponder operations are working, a good idea on any new install. In some ways Appendix F seems to address concerns of older generation less reliable transponder technology, and specifically to look for know faults that do could impact operation and other users, so still useful to know that stuff is working, and still a 14CFR requirement and should be done.

One thing to note is Appendix F to Part 43 does not check altitude encoder accuracy. And that transponder reported altitude is key to interoperation with TCAS. It's a good idea to check the encoder altitude displayed on your transponder against the altimeter and other sources, or check in with ATC if the transponder does not have an encoder altitude display.

--
Dan, 5J

On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 11:16:40 AM UTC-6, Dan Marotta wrote:
Thanks, Evan, but that does not answer the question, either.Â* Sure there
might be certificate action, should a pilot get caught turning on a
not-yet-tested/certified transponder, but it seems to me it would have
been better if the Hawker had gotten a RA from its TCAS box.Â* I know
it's a rhetorical question but then so are a lot of the FARs...Â* I'd
just prefer receiving a letter from the FAA over bailing out (or worse).

BTW, my transponder was checked by a certified technician within the
preceding 24 calendar months and complies with 91.413(c) and has a
proper logbook entry.

On 10/2/2017 10:26 AM, Tango Eight wrote:
On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 12:16:22 PM UTC-4, Dan Marotta wrote:
Didn't answer the question.

What harm could have come from turning on a not-yet-approved transponder?
Violation of FAR 91.413.

best,
Evan Ludeman / T8

--
Dan, 5J

More information along with the link to the report.

1.3.2 Glider Information

The glider was equipped with a panel mounted communication radio, global positioning system (GPS) unit, a Cambridge 302, and a Mode C transponder; however, the pilot did not turn on the GPS and transponder. According to the glider pilot, he did not turn on the transponder because he was only intending on remaining in the local glider area, and because he wanted to reserve his batteries for radio use. The glider was equipped with two batteries (one main and one spare), however, due to the previous glider flights, the pilot was unsure of the remaining charge in the battery.

https://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.a...A277 A&akey=1

Best. Tom #711.