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

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

"Martin Hellman" wrote in message

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??

Nope, not in my opinion it's not a major alteration. (43 Appendix A)

Sometimes some guys (including A&P's, IA's and sometimes even the FAA dudes)
don't read the rule, sometimes they rely on memory, what they were told,
what the guidance says, etc. I'm guilty as well and have learned to go back
and read the rule - some rules are very clear, others not.

Swapping an altimeter for another one, especially if it's TSO'd, does not
meet the definition of a major alteration. If your glider is experimental,
you need not be in 43 at all. (43.1) But you do need to comply with the
operating limitations.

Jim

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
-----

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

It's on the Home page (www.ssa.org), second item. Or go directly to the
link at:

http://www.ssa.org/ListNewsArticleDtl.asp?id=389

I also feel a lot safer with the transponder on, even over our little
airport, because the airliners are sometimes vectored right over it, and
they've been surprised a few times to discover a glider there. In Minden
and southern California, I'm very pleased to have one. The power drain
is low enough for almost any glider now, but the ~$2000 is still a
problem for a lot of people.

Martin Hellman wrote:

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

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

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
-----

I'm definitely in favor of gliders w/ transponders and see this as
another step towards conserving battery power for when you need it.
i.e. when you are near a high traffic airspace where the chances of
crossing paths with someone with either TCAS or ATC coverage is increased.

What about a discrete transponder code specifically for gliders??????

I understand that there is at least one area which has an agreement to
use (seems like it's 0440 or something similar) a code specifically for
gliders. Why not also work on getting this code agreed to for all of
the U.S. at the same time that they are working on the below mentioned
waiver.

Keep up the good work!

Mark

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