SSA petition to allow transponder to be turned off

Check out the SSA website for the complete info on this petition, and
consider commenting to the FAA (comments due by March 1, via web site,
mail, fax, "eRulemaking portal"):

SSA Transponder Petition Published
By Dennis Wright
Posted Thursday, February 19, 2004

The SSA petition asks that SSA members be allowed to operate
transponder-equipped gliders with the transponders turned off, when the
glider is being operated more than 40 nautical miles from the primary
airport in Class B airspace and more than 20 nautical miles from the
primary airport in Class C airspace. Currently, Federal Aviation
Regulation 91.215[c] requires that all aircraft equipped with a
transponder and operating in controlled airspace have the transponder on.

....more on the web site
--
-----
change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

This appeared out of the blue, at least to me. If
approved as it stands, it certainly would be an encouragement
to install a transponder. But what is the SSA's position
if the FAA comes back at some future date and says
'Yes, but now that you have pointed out that battery-operated
transponders are available, there is no reason why
ALL non-electric aircraft should not be REQUIRED to
have a transponder installed' ? Like the part 103
ultralights, maybe it is best not to tamper with an
existing favorable exemption.

Ian

At 18:48 21 February 2004, Eric Greenwell wrote:
Check out the SSA website for the complete info on
this petition, and
consider commenting to the FAA (comments due by March
1, via web site,
mail, fax, 'eRulemaking portal'):

SSA Transponder Petition Published
By Dennis Wright
Posted Thursday, February 19, 2004

The SSA petition asks that SSA members be allowed to
operate
transponder-equipped gliders with the transponders
turned off, when the
glider is being operated more than 40 nautical miles
from the primary
airport in Class B airspace and more than 20 nautical
miles from the
primary airport in Class C airspace. Currently, Federal
Aviation
Regulation 91.215[c] requires that all aircraft equipped
with a
transponder and operating in controlled airspace have
the transponder on.

....more on the web site
--
-----
change 'netto' to 'net' to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

I agree Ian... certainly opens a can-o-worms with the.. "if we are far
enough away can we turn it off, because we are exempt any way argument"...

They keep it up and we'll be restricted to lower altitudes without a
transponder.

BT

"Ian Cant" wrote in message
...
This appeared out of the blue, at least to me. If
approved as it stands, it certainly would be an encouragement
to install a transponder. But what is the SSA's position
if the FAA comes back at some future date and says
'Yes, but now that you have pointed out that battery-operated
transponders are available, there is no reason why
ALL non-electric aircraft should not be REQUIRED to
have a transponder installed' ? Like the part 103
ultralights, maybe it is best not to tamper with an
existing favorable exemption.

Ian

At 18:48 21 February 2004, Eric Greenwell wrote:
Check out the SSA website for the complete info on
this petition, and
consider commenting to the FAA (comments due by March
1, via web site,
mail, fax, 'eRulemaking portal'):

SSA Transponder Petition Published
By Dennis Wright
Posted Thursday, February 19, 2004

The SSA petition asks that SSA members be allowed to
operate
transponder-equipped gliders with the transponders
turned off, when the
glider is being operated more than 40 nautical miles
from the primary
airport in Class B airspace and more than 20 nautical
miles from the
primary airport in Class C airspace. Currently, Federal
Aviation
Regulation 91.215[c] requires that all aircraft equipped
with a
transponder and operating in controlled airspace have
the transponder on.

....more on the web site
--
-----
change 'netto' to 'net' to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

On 2/21/04 7:31 PM, in article ,
"Ian Cant" wrote:

If approved as it stands, it certainly would be an encouragement
to install a transponder. But what is the SSA's position
if the FAA comes back at some future date and says
'Yes, but now that you have pointed out that battery-operated
transponders are available, there is no reason why
ALL non-electric aircraft should not be REQUIRED to
have a transponder installed' ?

ans:

Now that battery-operated transponders are available, there is no reason why
ALL non-electric aircraft should not be REQUIRED to have a transponder
installed.

Period.



-----
Jack
-----

you know..I sell transponders and have sold a lot of them to glider
owners....I have however been afraid from the start that once the FAA starts
to recognize larger numbers of gliders with transponders it could come back
to haunt us all...If we lose the exemption requiring transponders in
gliders, and we might now that the FAA sees that they can indeed be operated
from our battery power it could be just the straw that breaks the camels
back...Soaring as a sport isn't growing even now in the US, adding more cost
to owning and operating gliders surely will not help...to many clubs and
many owners adding $2000+ to each and every glider plus the added expense to
keep them certified and working will certainly take more club type and older
gliders off line. Large number of these gliders still today do not even have
radios installed. A large number of club gliders are still tied outside,
still have no battery installed many don't even have audio variometers let
alone radios, (I really do think all gliders should have at least a decent
radio and audio variometer for basic safety reasons even at small
out-of-the-way airports).
I hear a lot of grumbling about near misses while flying in and around
approaches to busy metro airports, while flying near military bases and so
on.....the simple truth is, if this is happening and I'm sure it is, the
answer is not in adding one more piece of electronics, the answer is in not
flying in these busy corridors....doing so will eventually cause this
airspace to be closed to all non-commercial aircraft and the eventual loss
of this and other airspace where traffic is not a problem and before we all
know it an end to soaring as we know it today in this country...Public
opinion will outnumber the small number of pilots wishing to fly for fun.
Let the evening news, 60 minutes or 20/20 run some special on the dangers
glider pilots pose to airliners and every politician will support the public
opinion polls and side with them to get votes.....the more we depend on
electronics the more we are keeping our heads down in the cockpits...with
GPS and pocket nav's to guide us, flight computers to calculate for us and
transponders to shield (?) us we are also forgetting what we started doing
this for to begin with....look outside, there is real beauty to be seen
through the clear mecaplex that surrounds us....fly safe, but always fly for
fun
BTW, I also sell canopy cleaner, but sales of this are on a steady decline..
tim


Now that battery-operated transponders are available, there is no reason
why
ALL non-electric aircraft should not be REQUIRED to have a transponder
installed.

Period.



-----
Jack
-----

Tim Mara wrote:
you know..I sell transponders and have sold a lot of them to glider
owners....I have however been afraid from the start that once the FAA starts
to recognize larger numbers of gliders with transponders it could come back
to haunt us all...If we lose the exemption requiring transponders in
gliders, and we might now that the FAA sees that they can indeed be operated
from our battery power it could be just the straw that breaks the camels
back

First, this cat jumped out of the bag a couple of years ago: the FAA
knows about the Becker, and Microair, and they'll know about the Filser
and the others, as they become available.

....Soaring as a sport isn't growing even now in the US, adding more cost
to owning and operating gliders surely will not help...to many clubs and
many owners adding $2000+ to each and every glider plus the added expense to
keep them certified and working will certainly take more club type and older
gliders off line.

Second, I've been told by my director that the FAA is not keen to burden
the sport with another requirement; that they understand our situation.

snip

I hear a lot of grumbling about near misses while flying in and around
approaches to busy metro airports, while flying near military bases and so
on.....the simple truth is, if this is happening and I'm sure it is, the
answer is not in adding one more piece of electronics, the answer is in not
flying in these busy corridors.
...doing so will eventually cause this
airspace to be closed to all non-commercial aircraft and the eventual loss
of this and other airspace where traffic is not a problem

These corridors also have general aviation airplanes flying in them, so
we'd have a lot of allies if such restrictions were ever attempted. I
think losing the use airspace just because transponder equipped gliders
are flying in it is most unlikely. The idea that this could somehow lead
to losing airspace for general avaiation in areas that AREN'T busy is
incredible to me.

and before we all
know it an end to soaring as we know it today in this country...Public
opinion will outnumber the small number of pilots wishing to fly for fun.
Let the evening news, 60 minutes or 20/20 run some special on the dangers
glider pilots pose to airliners and every politician will support the public
opinion polls and side with them to get votes.

These doomsday scenarios are so hard to predict, I don't think we should
even try. Keep in mind that a there are a lot more general avaition
airplanes than there are gliders, and they fly into these busy areas a
lot more than we do, yet no one is suggesting they rip out their
transponders and just fly in the rural areas.

....the more we depend on
electronics the more we are keeping our heads down in the cockpits.

Transponder use doesn't do this: turn it on when you turn on the radio,
turn it off when you land. You don't look at it, you don't tune it, you
don't listen to it. It's just there.

...with
GPS and pocket nav's to guide us, flight computers to calculate for us and
transponders to shield (?) us we are also forgetting what we started doing
this for to begin with....look outside, there is real beauty to be seen
through the clear mecaplex that surrounds us....fly safe, but always fly for
fun

These are worthy issues, but separate from transponders.

--
-----
change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

"Eric Greenwell" wrote in message
...

SNIP-----
....the more we depend on
electronics the more we are keeping our heads down in the cockpits.

SNIP------

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA


Eric, I think you've been flying gliders as long as I have, but I must
strongly disagree with the statement above. I remember flying cross country
without a single electronic device - not even a radio. (A good retrieve
crew had to know how to set the dwell and adjust the carburetor on a Chevy
as well as how to outsmart the phone company with person-to-person, collect
calls.)

You can't argue that folding maps, scribbling notes on pads and working a
"prayer wheel" trying to make navigation by pilotage work when spending half
the time flying in tight circles is less distracting. Often you could add
trying to get it a pellet vario unstuck at the same time. That was a
serious "heads down" situation.(I still carry a well marked sectional and
little notebook with all the important facts and numbers.)

By comparison, grabbing a quick glance at a computer screen that tells me
everything and them returning my gaze outside is vastly safer and easier.
The only time "heads down" becomes a problem is when a pilot doesn't know
how to work the electronics. The present problem is pilots trying to learn
to use avionics in the air instead of on the ground. (A good season prep:
go sit in your glider for a couple of hours reading manuals and pushing
buttons.)

Like it or not, ubiquitous computing is a part of everyday life - including
gliding - and the "good 'ole days" weren't all that great.

Bill Daniels

I'd have to disagree about the predictability of airspace loss. It
was predictable when the FAA came into existance. So far, the
predictions have been met or exceeded.

The predicton is simple. If it is possible to use a rule to restrict
those who now use the airspace, it will be used to restrict those
who use the airspace. The second corollary is that all rules are
restrictions in one form or another.

I'm trying to think of an example where the opposite has happened.
I can think of no airspace that was unavailable in the past and is
now available.

The trick is to decide when restrictions are really required. I contend
that the airspace rules that were in effect in 1959 were just as safe
as what we have now.


In article , Eric Greenwell
wrote:
Tim Mara wrote:
you know..I sell transponders and have sold a lot of them to glider
owners....I have however been afraid from the start that once the FAA starts
to recognize larger numbers of gliders with transponders it could come back
to haunt us all...If we lose the exemption requiring transponders in
gliders, and we might now that the FAA sees that they can indeed be operated
from our battery power it could be just the straw that breaks the camels
back

First, this cat jumped out of the bag a couple of years ago: the FAA
knows about the Becker, and Microair, and they'll know about the Filser
and the others, as they become available.

....Soaring as a sport isn't growing even now in the US, adding more cost
to owning and operating gliders surely will not help...to many clubs and
many owners adding $2000+ to each and every glider plus the added expense to
keep them certified and working will certainly take more club type and older
gliders off line.

Second, I've been told by my director that the FAA is not keen to burden
the sport with another requirement; that they understand our situation.

snip

I hear a lot of grumbling about near misses while flying in and around
approaches to busy metro airports, while flying near military bases and so
on.....the simple truth is, if this is happening and I'm sure it is, the
answer is not in adding one more piece of electronics, the answer is in not
flying in these busy corridors.
...doing so will eventually cause this
airspace to be closed to all non-commercial aircraft and the eventual loss
of this and other airspace where traffic is not a problem

These corridors also have general aviation airplanes flying in them, so
we'd have a lot of allies if such restrictions were ever attempted. I
think losing the use airspace just because transponder equipped gliders
are flying in it is most unlikely. The idea that this could somehow lead
to losing airspace for general avaiation in areas that AREN'T busy is
incredible to me.

and before we all
know it an end to soaring as we know it today in this country...Public
opinion will outnumber the small number of pilots wishing to fly for fun.
Let the evening news, 60 minutes or 20/20 run some special on the dangers
glider pilots pose to airliners and every politician will support the public
opinion polls and side with them to get votes.

These doomsday scenarios are so hard to predict, I don't think we should
even try. Keep in mind that a there are a lot more general avaition
airplanes than there are gliders, and they fly into these busy areas a
lot more than we do, yet no one is suggesting they rip out their
transponders and just fly in the rural areas.

....the more we depend on
electronics the more we are keeping our heads down in the cockpits.

Transponder use doesn't do this: turn it on when you turn on the radio,
turn it off when you land. You don't look at it, you don't tune it, you
don't listen to it. It's just there.

...with
GPS and pocket nav's to guide us, flight computers to calculate for us and
transponders to shield (?) us we are also forgetting what we started doing
this for to begin with....look outside, there is real beauty to be seen
through the clear mecaplex that surrounds us....fly safe, but always fly for
fun

These are worthy issues, but separate from transponders.

The SSA has been discussing this with the FAA for years. This is the
farthest it's ever gotten. Steve Northcraft, our Regional Director and
SSA Government Laison, told me a while ago that the FAA is very aware of
the low-power transponders that are available. They didn't have to learn
it from us.

The issue is: should we be allowed to turn off our transponders when
their use has little value? I'm inclined to encourage that approach.

Ian Cant wrote:
This appeared out of the blue, at least to me. If
approved as it stands, it certainly would be an encouragement
to install a transponder. But what is the SSA's position
if the FAA comes back at some future date and says
'Yes, but now that you have pointed out that battery-operated
transponders are available, there is no reason why
ALL non-electric aircraft should not be REQUIRED to
have a transponder installed' ? Like the part 103
ultralights, maybe it is best not to tamper with an
existing favorable exemption.

Ian

At 18:48 21 February 2004, Eric Greenwell wrote:

Check out the SSA website for the complete info on
this petition, and
consider commenting to the FAA (comments due by March
1, via web site,
mail, fax, 'eRulemaking portal'):

SSA Transponder Petition Published
By Dennis Wright
Posted Thursday, February 19, 2004

The SSA petition asks that SSA members be allowed to
operate
transponder-equipped gliders with the transponders
turned off, when the
glider is being operated more than 40 nautical miles

from the primary

airport in Class B airspace and more than 20 nautical
miles from the
primary airport in Class C airspace. Currently, Federal
Aviation
Regulation 91.215[c] requires that all aircraft equipped
with a
transponder and operating in controlled airspace have
the transponder on.

....more on the web site
--
-----
change 'netto' to 'net' to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA







--
-----
change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

Eric Greenwell wrote in message ...
Check out the SSA website for the complete info on this petition, and
consider commenting to the FAA (comments due by March 1, via web site,
mail, fax, "eRulemaking portal"):

SSA Transponder Petition Published
By Dennis Wright
Posted Thursday, February 19, 2004 ...

Eric,

Where is it? I went to the SSA web site and did several searches, such
as "faa transponder petition", and found nothing. Thanks for pointing
this out as I think the current rule may add to discouraging glider
pilots from installing transponders, even though many areas, such as
Minden, would really benefit from them. I'm lucky in that I have
plenty of battery power, solar cells (2 amps worth) and a solid state
Becker xponder that doesn't draw much, so I am able to abide by the
rule. But most gliders couldn't and it's clearly much better for them
to have transponders on in high traffic areas than never. Along the
same lines, I'd love to see a rule that would allow gliders to install
transponders without a 337. That's another rule that is way over-used.
When I changed my German altimeter for an American made one, I needed
a 337! Unscrewing three screws, pulling out an altimeter, putting in
another, and rescrewing three screws is a major modification to
airframe??

Anything we can do to get transponders in more gliders is a plus. When
flying in the Minden area and listening to Reno approach on a busy
day. I've heard things like:

"Southwest 123, descend to one zero thousand, targets at 2 o'clock ten
miles, 12 thousand feet, and a swarm of targets, altitudes unknown,
from 10 o'clock to 3 o'clock. Presumed gliders."

Makes me really happy I'm squawking. I realize I'm lucky to be able to
afford the setup I have and rules changes like this would help
increase transponder usage for a greater number of people who are on
more limited budgets.

Martin