Transponder

"Peter Clark" wrote in message ...

Doesn't removing the transponder from the tray disconnect it from the
static system and thus require a re certification under 91.411(2)
before it can be used IFR in controlled airspace?

No.

In article ,
says...


Greg Farris wrote:
In article ,
says...


You put Nitrogen in your tires? Must be fancy tires.



I use a special composition, about 80% nitrogen and 20% oxygen.

Isn't that mixture also known as "air"?



You got it!!!

YES


"John R. Copeland" wrote in message
news "Peter Clark" wrote in message
...

Doesn't removing the transponder from the tray disconnect it from the
static system and thus require a re certification under 91.411(2)
before it can be used IFR in controlled airspace?

No.

"kgruber" wrote in message ...
YES


Your transponder has a barometric encoder *inside* it?
I've never had one like that.

Peter Clark wrote:
On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 08:37:43 -0700, wrote:


My take is that once a transponder acts up like that, it's time to have it
bench checked. With a light aircraft panel mount, the owner could certainly
remove the unit and take it to the avionics shop.


Doesn't removing the transponder from the tray disconnect it from the
static system and thus require a re certification under 91.411(2)
before it can be used IFR in controlled airspace?

KT-76 does not have an internal altitude encoder
and thus it does not have any connections to
the static pressure system.

IIRC, disassembling the front panel needs a couple
of small hex keys to handle the control knobs.

The OP's problem sounds like the IDENT push switch
is loose or broken - a clear case for an avionics
shop.

--

Tauno Voipio (CPL, avionics engineer)
tauno voipio (at) iki fi

John R. Copeland wrote:
"kgruber" wrote in message ...

YES



Your transponder has a barometric encoder *inside* it?
I've never had one like that.


Ackshully, it's 91.413(b). Removal from the panel (and reinstallation)
can introduce data correspondence error between the encoder and the
transponder. So it must be checked. A log entry referencing
transponder work should contain or be followed immediately by an entry
referencing 91.413.

Jose wrote:
As to a transponder, and its vitial importance to the system (and to my
TCAS when sharing the airspace with VFR aircraft) a transponder's proper
functioning has importance to everyone using the system. Your proper
tire inflation does not.


Improper tire inflation can have a significant adverse impact on the
system and on safey, especially at busy airports such as those in class
B. Improper fueling can too, but I do fuel my own aircraft on occasion
rather than pay a professional.

The issue isn't whether the item in question is of "vital importance"
but whether it is simple or tricky to fix, which relates to the
likelyhood of a non-pro causing problems. It is not unreasonable to
expect that a stuck ident button is simple to fix. It is also not
unreasonable to expect that it could be tricky to fix. Therefore the
question is perfectly reasonable, and replies should be helpful rather
than insulting.

Jose

The issue isn't whether and item is of "vital importance", or whether it
is simple to fix. The issue is whether an owner/operator holds the
privilege to perform a task. The FARs allow an owner/pilot to air up
his tires, service struts, do a little brake work, touch up paint, fix
interior items, etc. The FARs allow the owner/pilot to remove and
install a panel-mounted radio. They prohibit him from repairing it
(other than tightening a knob or touching up paint). If he makes a
repair and notes it in the aircraft records, the FAA has three years to
catch him. If he makes a repair and makes no entry, he commits fraud,
and the FAA can prosecute at any later date. Parts 1, 43, and 91, as
related to preventive maintenance, maintenance, repair, and entries;
part 13 as to violations.

Dale Scroggins wrote:
Jose wrote:

As to a transponder, and its vitial importance to the system (and to my
TCAS when sharing the airspace with VFR aircraft) a transponder's proper
functioning has importance to everyone using the system. Your proper
tire inflation does not.



Improper tire inflation can have a significant adverse impact on the
system and on safey, especially at busy airports such as those in
class B. Improper fueling can too, but I do fuel my own aircraft on
occasion rather than pay a professional.

The issue isn't whether the item in question is of "vital importance"
but whether it is simple or tricky to fix, which relates to the
likelyhood of a non-pro causing problems. It is not unreasonable to
expect that a stuck ident button is simple to fix. It is also not
unreasonable to expect that it could be tricky to fix. Therefore the
question is perfectly reasonable, and replies should be helpful rather
than insulting.

Jose


The issue isn't whether and item is of "vital importance", or whether it
is simple to fix. The issue is whether an owner/operator holds the
privilege to perform a task. The FARs allow an owner/pilot to air up
his tires, service struts, do a little brake work, touch up paint, fix
interior items, etc. The FARs allow the owner/pilot to remove and
install a panel-mounted radio. They prohibit him from repairing it
(other than tightening a knob or touching up paint). If he makes a
repair and notes it in the aircraft records, the FAA has three years to
catch him. If he makes a repair and makes no entry, he commits fraud,
and the FAA can prosecute at any later date. Parts 1, 43, and 91, as
related to preventive maintenance, maintenance, repair, and entries;
part 13 as to violations.

Should have checked Part 43, App. A before I replied. Section 31 says
he can remove panel-mounted radios EXCEPT transponders and DMEs. I'm
not sure now he can even tighten knobs or touch up paint.

The issue isn't whether and item is of "vital importance", or whether it is simple to fix. The issue is whether an owner/operator holds the privilege to perform a task.

True, and driving that issue is what I said above. The OP was merely
asking a question which should not bring the wrath of usenet upon him
(lotsaluck!) nor does it indicate any kind of disregard for the FARs.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:

The issue isn't whether and item is of "vital importance", or whether it is simple to fix. The issue is whether an owner/operator holds the privilege to perform a task.

True, and driving that issue is what I said above. The OP was merely
asking a question which should not bring the wrath of usenet upon him
(lotsaluck!) nor does it indicate any kind of disregard for the FARs.


My my perch it indicated either an igorance or predisposition to disregard the FARs. You are very kind to conclude that it simply did not indicate any kind of disregard for
the FARs.