New Nationwide Squawk Code

This is a classic example of why we should have a formal relationship
with AOPA, so that we can leverage their expertise in governmental
relations and other areas, where we will never have the kind of
resources that they do. In addition, having our headquarters in the
middle of nowhere can't help matters.

Mike Schumann


On 4/3/2010 3:45 PM, Greg Arnold wrote:
I think Cindy and the other unpaid volunteers are doing a great job.

However, why is the SSA relying upon unpaid volunteers for this type of
work? Can't the SSA hire a professional with contacts at the FAA to deal
with the FAA? Maybe pay AOPA to use one of their people part time?

The SSA has no problem paying employees to fulfill tee shirt orders, but
no money to pay someone to deal with the FAA?



On 4/3/2010 12:30 PM, CindyB wrote:

Dave:

It irks me a bit that you would sling rocks at SSA on this topic.

We wouldn't have this option of a nationwide, glider TXP code if it
weren't
for SSA asking for it.

If you want to fault us for not knowing when FAA finally enacted this
(eight years after the request began, and through several followup
inquiries,
and them enacting it in a publication where we didn't quite expect),
then
perhaps that makes you feel better.

And like many things legislative for gliders, all soaring pilots will
benefit from this whether or not they happen to be SSA members.
If folks find value from our efforts, maybe they will please renew
their
memberships in SSA.
I appreciate that someone(anyone) shared the information that this did
hit the street, as I don't spend every dark night trolling through
new federal publications . . . .

IMMEDIATELY - SSA provided informational guidance to members
through a news item on their web page. And the same guidance was
sent out to SSA Directors to share into the local levels.

I think it is appropriate that you use 1200 when you are 'acting' like
a powered piece of air traffic. When you transition to a soaring
activity and are more distant from downtown, you might like to
switch to a 1201 code use to enhance our 'visibility' as a
sailplane operation in the entire aviation/ATC community with your
very capable machine.

That would be an additional service to soaring.
(Now I'm headed back out to fly some wave lift.)

Sincerely,
Cindy B
Region 12 SSA Director



On Apr 2, 8:59 pm, wrote:
Hi Gang and Fred
If I am flying my motor glider say in the San Francisco Bay Area to
San Jose in the self powered mode should I use 1200 or 1201. Think
about it? My Stemme is a glider (axillary powered) by FAA rules and
according to this ruling I should squawk 1201. How would ATC
interpretate this? That I am an unpowered glider surely? No I will use
1200 so that they know I have power.
I wish we had a more active involvement in this decision making -
the SSA does not seem to me capable of doing a good job here. Gliders
are considered below the radar and not worth consideration by most of
the flying community - a pity.
Dave






--
Mike Schumann

Mike Schumann wrote:
This is a classic example of why we should have a formal relationship
with AOPA, so that we can leverage their expertise in governmental
relations and other areas, where we will never have the kind of
resources that they do. In addition, having our headquarters in the
middle of nowhere can't help matters.

Mike Schumann
Do we know that AOPA was aware of these code allocations? I'm an AOPA
member, and I'm not aware of any notification of the AOPA members. A
search of their site for " National Beacon Code Allocation Plan" finds
results only in the AIM:Chapter 4, but that section doesn't mention
1201; searching for JO 7110.66D found no result. A Google search for JO
7110.66D finds it only on the FAA site.

"having our headquarters in the middle of nowhere can't help matters"

But it WILL hurt to move it to a different location, so, as long as it
doesn't hurt, no problem. This was a matter that could be handled by
telephone, letter, email or the web, but somehow, despite sustained
contact over many years by several SSA people, the SSA people were not
notified of the eventual "allocation". And, apparently, neither have all
the ATC people been informed of the situation and how to handle it.
Oddly, the people that did know about it, and will interact with it the
most - Reno ATC - didn't bother to contact anyone either, while gliders
continued to fly around using 0440!

I say "Thanks to the SSA folks", and shame on someone in the FAA for
their oversight.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (netto to net to email me)

- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm http://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl

- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation Mar/2004" Much of what you need to know tinyurl.com/yfs7tnz

On 4/3/2010 7:23 PM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
Mike Schumann wrote:
This is a classic example of why we should have a formal relationship
with AOPA, so that we can leverage their expertise in governmental
relations and other areas, where we will never have the kind of
resources that they do. In addition, having our headquarters in the
middle of nowhere can't help matters.

Mike Schumann
Do we know that AOPA was aware of these code allocations?


Probably AOPA didn't even know that SSA was trying to get a glider code.

If SSA was paying someone at AOPA to interact with the FAA on this
issue, hopefully the AOPA would have known.


I'm an AOPA
member, and I'm not aware of any notification of the AOPA members. A
search of their site for " National Beacon Code Allocation Plan" finds
results only in the AIM:Chapter 4, but that section doesn't mention
1201; searching for JO 7110.66D found no result. A Google search for JO
7110.66D finds it only on the FAA site.

"having our headquarters in the middle of nowhere can't help matters"

But it WILL hurt to move it to a different location, so, as long as it
doesn't hurt, no problem. This was a matter that could be handled by
telephone, letter, email or the web, but somehow, despite sustained
contact over many years by several SSA people, the SSA people were not
notified of the eventual "allocation". And, apparently, neither have all
the ATC people been informed of the situation and how to handle it.
Oddly, the people that did know about it, and will interact with it the
most - Reno ATC - didn't bother to contact anyone either, while gliders
continued to fly around using 0440!

I say "Thanks to the SSA folks", and shame on someone in the FAA for
their oversight.

The nation-wide glider transponder code is great news. I think it will
be very helpful for controllers in allowing them identify and
anticipate behaviors unique to sailplanes such as stopping suddenly to
thermal, then gaining altitude vertically; and following predictable
weekend flight paths such as along the top of mountain ridges.
We are also very lucky to get this particular code. Apparently the
time it takes to transmit low numbers is shorter than that for higher
numbers. The battery drain with the 1201 code should be lower than
with a code closer to 7777.
With respect to AOPA: it’s a great organization (I’ve been a member
for 30 years). But with 400,000 members, don’t expect them to them to
bend over backward for 10,000 glider pilots. Furthermore, on many
issues, our best interests are not the same as theirs. The transponder
exclusion for gliders is a fine example.
Finally, with respect to the location of the SSA office, I recently
chaired a committee tasked with addressing this issue. We considered
the advantages of closer proximity to FAA headquarters in Washington
DC… or the small aircraft directorate in Kansas City which handles
certification issues an ADs relating to sailplanes… or the pilot
certification directorate in Oklahoma City. Many other aspects of
relocating the office were also considered. In the end, we recommended
against a move, at least in the near term. I think our report was
posted on the SSA web site, but I don’t see it there now. If you would
like a copy email me. My address can be found in the SSA member
locator.
Mike Koerner

In article MKoerner writes:
The nation-wide glider transponder code is great news. I think it will
be very helpful for controllers in allowing them identify and
anticipate behaviors unique to sailplanes such as stopping suddenly to
thermal, then gaining altitude vertically; and following predictable
weekend flight paths such as along the top of mountain ridges.
We are also very lucky to get this particular code. Apparently the
time it takes to transmit low numbers is shorter than that for higher
numbers. The battery drain with the 1201 code should be lower than
with a code closer to 7777.


Actually, the reply time is constant. See
http://www.radartutorial.eu/13.ssr/sr07.en.html

Having only 3 bits being 1 in the code may reduce the power if the bits
are sent non-inverted with positive modulation.

The pulses are 0.45 microseconds long, so if all 12 of the bits, twice per
second, with an 80 percent efficient transmitter putting out 175 watts is
about 2.3 or 2.4 milliwatts of power input to the transmitter. The
difference between code 7777 and code 1201 is 9 bits, or 1.77 milliwatts
power. Since most are interrogated less often than twice per second, this
power savings will be less.


The transponder
exclusion for gliders is a fine example.

Now that gliders have their own code, how long do you think this exclusion
will last?

Alan

On Apr 4, 12:18*am, (Alan) wrote:
In article MKoerner writes:

The nation-wide glider transponder code is great news. I think it will
be very helpful for controllers in allowing them identify and
anticipate behaviors unique to sailplanes such as stopping suddenly to
thermal, then gaining altitude vertically; and following predictable
weekend flight paths such as along the top of mountain ridges.
We are also very lucky to get this particular code. Apparently the
time it takes to transmit low numbers is shorter than that for higher
numbers. The battery drain with the 1201 code should be lower than
with a code closer to 7777.

* Actually, the reply time is constant. *See
* * * *http://www.radartutorial.eu/13.ssr/sr07.en.html

* Having only 3 bits being 1 in the code may reduce the power if the bits
are sent non-inverted with positive modulation.

* The pulses are 0.45 microseconds long, so if all 12 of the bits, twice per
second, with an 80 percent efficient transmitter putting out 175 watts is
about 2.3 or 2.4 milliwatts of power input to the transmitter. *The
difference between code 7777 and code 1201 is 9 bits, or 1.77 milliwatts
power. *Since most are interrogated less often than twice per second, this
power savings will be less.

The transponder
exclusion for gliders is a fine example.

* Now that gliders have their own code, how long do you think this exclusion
will last?

* * * * Alan

A few random comments.

While a code like this may help reduce power consumption very slightly
doing that calculation requires a bit more work and it's likely to be
a very small overall benefit.

Power savings only apply to Mode A (squawk code) interrogations not
Mode C (altitude - where you can't control the pulse pattern returned)
interrogations. Different SSR systems can make Mode A and C
interrogations at different ratios/interlace patterns, it's not always
1:1.

Mode S transponders use a more advanced encoding than the traditional
Mode A/C pulse train and will have no power saving from this (when
interrogated as a Mode S transponder).

Many transponder interrogations come from TCAS and all those are Mode
C or Mode S only and there are no power savings for either of those
types of interrogations regardless or what the Mode A squawk code is.

Assumptions of a few interrogations per second will be way too low in
busy airspace. If you want to see the absolute worse case number
assume a interrogation rate of ~1 kHz, that's near the limit on most
transponders and can set a worst case upper bound on the power draw
numbers.

Modern transponders like the Mode S Trig TT-21 have very low power
consumption and power usage with modern transponders like these is
often a non-issue nowadays (but still run the numbers for your gliders
total power usage and battery capacity).

Darryl

Hi Gang and Cindy
To me this is a classic example of lack of communications and follow
up. Who's to blame? Both the gliding community (SAA and Pasco) and the
FAA! Could there have been better communications? Absolutely. But
maybe there is little motivation to communicate.
A story. A couple of years ago I thoroughly researched what I should
do with the SparrowHawk. Should I register it experimental, ELSA or
just fly it under Part 103 with no registration. To make sure I got my
facts straight I contacted the local FSDO and had an FAA agent come
and inspect my SparrowHawk to determine if I would be legal under Part
103 and whether I was doing anything that might constitute a danger or
a liability. Nothing negative was found. At the same time I researched
who were the personnel at the FAA in Oklahoma who composed the rules
and regs around the then new LSA class of aircraft. I located the
authors and posed the question of why for a LSA glider was there a VNE
limitation of 120knots whereas for all other LSAs including balloons
there was not this limit? There was no answer and, of course, there is
no rational answer to that question. I then asked the question in
putting together the LSA rules for gliders had they worked with any
glider group such as the SSA or Pasco. No was the answer. So Cindy we
are now in 2010 and things have not changed. There is still no
meaningful dialog between the SSA and the FAA in the generation of
regs and rules. I stand by my original criticism of the SSA. The SSA
has shown itself to be a poor representative of the gliding community
over the years. As agreed by you there is a contradiction in what code
to use for a motor glider - 1200 or 1201. A little thought and better
communications might have avoided this contradiction and also the LSA
glider VNE spec.
Dave

PS If anyone is interested in my full writeup on the SparrowHawk and
the questions and answers whether to register it or not please email
me. If sufficient of you think it would be of interest I could post it
here on RAS.

kd6veb wrote:
Hi Gang and Cindy
To me this is a classic example of lack of communications and follow
up. Who's to blame? Both the gliding community (SAA and Pasco) and the
FAA! Could there have been better communications? Absolutely. But
maybe there is little motivation to communicate.
A story. A couple of years ago I thoroughly researched what I should
do with the SparrowHawk. Should I register it experimental, ELSA or
just fly it under Part 103 with no registration. To make sure I got my
facts straight I contacted the local FSDO and had an FAA agent come
and inspect my SparrowHawk to determine if I would be legal under Part
103 and whether I was doing anything that might constitute a danger or
a liability. Nothing negative was found. At the same time I researched
who were the personnel at the FAA in Oklahoma who composed the rules
and regs around the then new LSA class of aircraft. I located the
authors and posed the question of why for a LSA glider was there a VNE
limitation of 120knots whereas for all other LSAs including balloons
there was not this limit? There was no answer and, of course, there is
no rational answer to that question. I then asked the question in
putting together the LSA rules for gliders had they worked with any
glider group such as the SSA or Pasco. No was the answer. So Cindy we
are now in 2010 and things have not changed. There is still no
meaningful dialog between the SSA and the FAA in the generation of
regs and rules. I stand by my original criticism of the SSA. The SSA
has shown itself to be a poor representative of the gliding community
over the years. As agreed by you there is a contradiction in what code
to use for a motor glider - 1200 or 1201. A little thought and better
communications might have avoided this contradiction and also the LSA
glider VNE spec.
Dave

PS If anyone is interested in my full writeup on the SparrowHawk and
the questions and answers whether to register it or not please email
me. If sufficient of you think it would be of interest I could post it
here on RAS.



Maybe this will help explain the 120 Knot limit. Read through the whole
page and you will see it applies to gliders as well as powered aircraft.
http://www.sportpilot.org/learn/fina..._synopsis.html

On 4/4/2010 11:21 AM, Scott wrote:


Maybe this will help explain the 120 Knot limit. Read through the whole
page and you will see it applies to gliders as well as powered aircraft.
http://www.sportpilot.org/learn/fina..._synopsis.html


"Maximum speed in level flight with maximum continuous power (Vh)—138
mph (120 knots) CAS"

A glider can't maintain 120 knots in level flight, so does this restrict
a glider VNE to 120 knots?

"Greg Arnold" wrote in message ...

"Maximum speed in level flight with maximum continuous power (Vh)—138
mph (120 knots) CAS"

A glider can't maintain 120 knots in level flight, so does this restrict
a glider VNE to 120 knots?

What you say is true. It is obvious that FAA didn't know how to establish an appropriate speed limitation for gliders. It seemed to them that the obvious solution was to simply use the same number for both airplanes and gliders. There also seemed to be an underlying assumption that gliders are fragile; therefore the speed number should be assigned at Vne instead of Vh. It is all spelled out on page 44801 (and elsewhere) of the following document.
http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/regulatory/sport_rule.pdf

For us living here in the Western US, limiting altitude to Light Sports Pilots to 10,000 MSL instead of some height about the ground show an additional lack of understanding glider safety. I often fly out of an airport located in a valley that is 6,000 MLS. The mountain range next to the valley varies from 10,000 MSL to 12,600 MLS. Under the current regulations I would not be able to fly out of the valley.

Wayne
http://www.soaridaho.com/