kd6veb wrote:
The
current example shows clearly what is wrong - don't just ask the FAA
for a special transponder code. Figure out how it will be used, what
its limitations are, how it will be communicated to all concerned and
so on. It can't be a hands off request. It requires thought and
people's inputs. COMMUNICATE - COMMUNICATE - COMMUNICATE Am I hitting
my head against a brick wall or could things be changed?
Dave

I think you are overreacting. A national transponder code WAS NOT an
important issue, as most glider pilots don't have a transponder, the
majority of those that do, don't fly in high traffic areas, and those
that did, could have local agreements. The fact the "allocation notice"
was missed is annoying but did not cause any problems whatsoever. Take a
deep breath, it's a glitch by the FAA, not an SSA failing.

The most important thing is to have a transponder in busy areas, and
having it set on 1200 will accomplish 99.9% of what's needed, excepting
those areas that have a local agreement. The code will supplant those
local agreements, eventually. It does not improve safety now, though it
might help some in the future.

Based on my conversations with the directors and others working with the
FAA on this issue over the years, I think this code was pursued with the
proper amount of diligence. I hope you have the chance to talk to some
of these people, so you can see it was far from a single request to the
FAA that got us to this code. They resisted it for quite while, so the
"requesting" had to be persistent over many years. It was simply a very
small issue to the FAA.

--
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