Transponder Inspection Not Required?

On May 4, 9:52*am, Steve wrote:
This is a curious question. Presumably you went to the expense and
bother to install the transponder so that ATC and TCAS equipped aircraft
can determine your position and altitude and take appropriate action. If
your equipment isn't working properly, then when you most need it the
other aircraft won't have the correct info they need to avoid a collision.

This is safety equipment. If you're going to carry it, get it properly
maintained. Do you get your parachute repacked regularly? Same issue.

Steve

You are correct. It is safety equipment, as I noted in my original
posting: i.e., "Ignoring the safety issues of flying around
with a transponder that may not be reporting accurate info..." It is
also true that many pilots (including me) have been dissuaded from
purchasing and installing transponders not only because of cost but
because of the additional burden of initial and periodic inspection.
Your logic could also be applied to argue against glider pilots being
allowed to switch off transponders when not in crowded airspace in
order to save limited battery power, something that many within our
movement advocate. Frankly, your argument could also be used to
require universal use of transponders. There's always a way to
"mandate" additional safety, by requiring more equipment, more
training, more licensing, or simply by prohibiting flying gliders in
the first place. The question most of us want answered is how best to
balance safety with the practical considerations of the real world.
Some have argued that it would be better if more glider pilots
installed transponders even if they didn't always switch them on. My
question--while not taking sides--leads to a similar thought: might it
be better if more glider pilots installed transponders even if they
weren't all inspected within 24 months so long as we're not using them
for IFR purposes?

I'm still not sure of the regulatory question. For the record,
however, I wasn't advocating a position. This is a relatively
unfamiliar area to me. On the subject of parachute packing (not to
open this subject again; let's save it for the off season!), I have
occasionally been guilty of strapping on a chute that was out of
repack interval on the theory that this is safer than wearing no chute
at all, in particular when the only person who would be harmed if the
chute doesn't work is me.

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB"
USA

On May 5, 10:56*am, Chip Bearden wrote:
On May 4, 9:52*am, Steve wrote:

This is a curious question. Presumably you went to the expense and
bother to install the transponder so that ATC and TCAS equipped aircraft
can determine your position and altitude and take appropriate action. If
your equipment isn't working properly, then when you most need it the
other aircraft won't have the correct info they need to avoid a collision.

Steve wrote:

This is safety equipment. If you're going to carry it, get it properly
maintained. Do you get your parachute repacked regularly? Same issue.


If it is the "same issue" as the parachute repacking requirement, then
the relevant Transponder/Altimeter FAR's are probably unrealistically
restrictive.


Jack

On May 5, 10:53 am, chipsoars wrote:
On May 5, 10:56 am, Chip Bearden wrote:



On May 4, 9:52 am, Steve wrote:

This is a curious question. Presumably you went to the expense and
bother to install the transponder so that ATC and TCAS equipped aircraft
can determine your position and altitude and take appropriate action. If
your equipment isn't working properly, then when you most need it the
other aircraft won't have the correct info they need to avoid a collision.

This is safety equipment. If you're going to carry it, get it properly
maintained. Do you get your parachute repacked regularly? Same issue.

Steve

You are correct. It is safety equipment, as I noted in my original
posting: i.e., "Ignoring the safety issues of flying around
with a transponder that may not be reporting accurate info..." It is
also true that many pilots (including me) have been dissuaded from
purchasing and installing transponders not only because of cost but
because of the additional burden of initial and periodic inspection.
Your logic could also be applied to argue against glider pilots being
allowed to switch off transponders when not in crowded airspace in
order to save limited battery power, something that many within our
movement advocate. Frankly, your argument could also be used to
require universal use of transponders. There's always a way to
"mandate" additional safety, by requiring more equipment, more
training, more licensing, or simply by prohibiting flying gliders in
the first place. The question most of us want answered is how best to
balance safety with the practical considerations of the real world.
Some have argued that it would be better if more glider pilots
installed transponders even if they didn't always switch them on. My
question--while not taking sides--leads to a similar thought: might it
be better if more glider pilots installed transponders even if they
weren't all inspected within 24 months so long as we're not using them
for IFR purposes?

I'm still not sure of the regulatory question. For the record,
however, I wasn't advocating a position. This is a relatively
unfamiliar area to me. On the subject of parachute packing (not to
open this subject again; let's save it for the off season!), I have
occasionally been guilty of strapping on a chute that was out of
repack interval on the theory that this is safer than wearing no chute
at all, in particular when the only person who would be harmed if the
chute doesn't work is me.

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB"
USA

Chip,

from the perspective of the safety vs. the legal requirement, your
position makes sense. If it triggers a TCAS and I don't get run over
by an Embraer 170 (which happened near UKT a year ago and prompted our
installation - from behind and ~ 500' below), then it would be worth
the FAR violation. On the other hand, I'd much prefer to have
confidence that the equipment is providing sufficiently accurate data
to allow for the proper evasive action to be taken.

I don't have enough experience to how much the calibration between the
encoder and altimeter might drift have in any length of time or what
could cause that to happen. Somewhere, perhaps AOPA's website, when I
was researching this, (and I don't recall the specific event), 30% of
the units tested on a volunteer basis were outside of calibration and
within the 24 month unit. The article was not specific on whether it
was IFR or VFR certification, age or manufacturer etc. I haven't been
able to find the article again.

The certification for VFR cost $63.60 with PA sales tax plus time and
gas to run to Pocono. While soaring costs are escalating, my opinion
is the $30/year for some piece of mind is worth the expenditure.

Chip F.

Chip, your rates of $63.50 are way too optimistic. We just had the
club and private ships here in the Chicago area recertified and the
transponder check was a flat $175 with a number of installations
failing. My 3 year old Microair, Kollsman altimeter and ACK encoder
combination was OK but the encoder needed a very slight adjustment.
All transponders need a 24 month check, regardless of VFR or IFR
flight conditions.
BTW, the price for the check was $150 only 2 years ago.
Herb K.

On May 8, 1:44*pm, Herb wrote:
On May 5, 10:53 am, chipsoars wrote:





On May 5, 10:56 am, Chip Bearden wrote:

On May 4, 9:52 am, Steve wrote:

This is a curious question. Presumably you went to the expense and
bother to install the transponder so that ATC and TCAS equipped aircraft
can determine your position and altitude and take appropriate action.. If
your equipment isn't working properly, then when you most need it the
other aircraft won't have the correct info they need to avoid a collision.

This is safety equipment. If you're going to carry it, get it properly
maintained. Do you get your parachute repacked regularly? Same issue..

Steve

You are correct. It is safety equipment, as I noted in my original
posting: i.e., "Ignoring the safety issues of flying around
with a transponder that may not be reporting accurate info..." It is
also true that many pilots (including me) have been dissuaded from
purchasing and installing transponders not only because of cost but
because of the additional burden of initial and periodic inspection.
Your logic could also be applied to argue against glider pilots being
allowed to switch off transponders when not in crowded airspace in
order to save limited battery power, something that many within our
movement advocate. Frankly, your argument could also be used to
require universal use of transponders. There's always a way to
"mandate" additional safety, by requiring more equipment, more
training, more licensing, or simply by prohibiting flying gliders in
the first place. The question most of us want answered is how best to
balance safety with the practical considerations of the real world.
Some have argued that it would be better if more glider pilots
installed transponders even if they didn't always switch them on. My
question--while not taking sides--leads to a similar thought: might it
be better if more glider pilots installed transponders even if they
weren't all inspected within 24 months so long as we're not using them
for IFR purposes?

I'm still not sure of the regulatory question. For the record,
however, I wasn't advocating a position. This is a relatively
unfamiliar area to me. On the subject of parachute packing (not to
open this subject again; let's save it for the off season!), I have
occasionally been guilty of strapping on a chute that was out of
repack interval on the theory that this is safer than wearing no chute
at all, in particular when the only person who would be harmed if the
chute doesn't work is me.

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB"
USA

Chip,

from the perspective of the safety vs. the legal requirement, your
position makes sense. *If it triggers a TCAS and I don't get run over
by an Embraer 170 (which happened near UKT a year ago and prompted our
installation - from behind and ~ 500' below), then it would be worth
the FAR violation. On the other hand, I'd much prefer to have
confidence that the equipment is providing sufficiently accurate data
to allow for the proper evasive action to be taken.

I don't have enough experience to how much the calibration between the
encoder and altimeter might drift have in any length of time or what
could cause that to happen. Somewhere, perhaps AOPA's website, when I
was researching this, (and I don't recall the specific event), 30% of
the units tested on a volunteer basis were outside of calibration and
within the 24 month unit. *The article was not specific on whether it
was IFR or VFR certification, age or manufacturer etc. *I haven't been
able to find the article again.

The certification for VFR cost $63.60 with PA sales tax plus time and
gas to run to Pocono. *While soaring costs are escalating, my opinion
is the $30/year for some piece of mind is worth the expenditure.

Chip F.

Chip, your rates of $63.50 are way too optimistic. *We just had the
club and private ships here in the Chicago area recertified and the
transponder check was a flat $175 with a number of installations
failing. *My 3 year old Microair, Kollsman altimeter and ACK encoder
combination was OK but the encoder needed a very slight adjustment.
All transponders need a 24 month check, regardless of VFR or IFR
flight conditions.
BTW, the price for the check was $150 only 2 years ago.
Herb K.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Herb,

that is what I paid and wrote the check about a month ago - so no
optimism at all. Things must be cheaper in NE Pennsyltucky ;-) And
they didn't even charge me for coffee.

Chip