SSA petition to allow transponder to be turned off

"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

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

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

Mark Zivley wrote:

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.

Contacting your director will likely get you the latest information on
this subject, but here's what I was told last year:

-The Reno area does use 0440, and it works for them, because there are
many gliders flying there that do have transponders, and the controllers
are familiar with how a glider operate, so knowing which blip is a
glider is useful.

-The above is not true for most of the USA.

-The specific code, 0440, is used for other things around the country -
not many, but it means other changes would have to be made.

-Some have suggested making gliders easily identifiable by a specific
code might not work in our favor because controllers and others would
know "who" to be annoyed at, justified or not.

-So, the last I heard, doing a special code was likely to be on a
cas-by-case basis.

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



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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

At the SSA convention, the discrete glider code was discussed again and
nothing's really changed from what Eric states. Unfortunately, code
assignments are exhausted in some regions and there is no likelihood of
securing a national glider code in any near term. The next time the FAA
asks Congress for billion$ to update the obsolete and failing system (FUD)
again, I suggest you write your representative WRT moving from 8-bit to
16-bit
codes for future expansion, since we're in the 21st century now. Since
there's no prospect of a single discrete code, there's no incentive for
development of a lower cost single code transponder for gliders. Squawk
09AF works for me. Can't imagine the situation getting any better in the
future.

In many cases this might seem to only require reasonable firmware and
software changes and wouldn't necessarily obsolete a lot of older
equipment. Like to hear if this is technically feasible or not.

Or maybe ask the FAA to assign the 'X' pulse to gliders exclusively. The
addition or supression of the X pulse (opposite of what it now does during a
reply) could ident the airframe as a glider to any interrogation. May open
the door for a single code with some software, firmware updates.

See http://www.airsport-corp.com/modec.htm

Frank Whiteley


"Eric Greenwell" wrote in message
...
Mark Zivley wrote:

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.

Contacting your director will likely get you the latest information on
this subject, but here's what I was told last year:

-The Reno area does use 0440, and it works for them, because there are
many gliders flying there that do have transponders, and the controllers
are familiar with how a glider operate, so knowing which blip is a
glider is useful.

-The above is not true for most of the USA.

-The specific code, 0440, is used for other things around the country -
not many, but it means other changes would have to be made.

-Some have suggested making gliders easily identifiable by a specific
code might not work in our favor because controllers and others would
know "who" to be annoyed at, justified or not.

-So, the last I heard, doing a special code was likely to be on a
cas-by-case basis.

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



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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

I'll get to my rant at the end.

First, a question: what happens if you turn off a transponder in
flight? Hypothetically, of course: would anybody notice? Would S&R
be sent out to look?

Second, a recollection: it's my recollection that ATC radar is
designed to filter out slow-moving targets. If that's the case,
transponders are only of any use to TCAD-equipped aircraft.
Apparently some ATC facilities are seeing the glider Xpdrs, so maybe
my recollection is wrong?

Third, evidently I now have a choice between a low-priced TCAD-type
device or a Xpdr. Having both is not an option: my panel is already
full, so stuff has to start coming out in order for me to put things
in.

Fourth, it is NOT illegal for me to turn off the TCAD-type device to
save my batteries, but it is illegal for me to turn of the Xpdr (my
home field is 33 nm from the primary airport). Score one for passive
rather than active collision avoidance. The passive device uses a lot
less power. Score two. The passive device is cheaper. Score three.

Fifth, it seems to me that an Xpdr should be fitted with a separate
battery, so that it doesn't threaten the much more important nav and
vario equipment by draining power from them. Similarly the Xpdr
should not drain the battery required to relight self-launchers.
Legally, I have no idea where you stand when you have a "working" Xpdr
on board, "turned on" but with a dead battery. But it's safer than
the alternative.

Now my rant: bad enough that regulators make dumb laws, but worse when
SSA compounds the error. Here's why -

Regulations that impose requirements on safety equipment that isn't
even required in the first place are logically bad law (not that bad
law is particularly unusual) because they create a disincentive to the
use of safety equipment. It reminds me of the reg about parachutes:
if my chute is past its repack date, it's perfectly legal for me to
use a seat cushion instead and leave the chute in my car. If I take
the chute anyway (as a seat cushion), it's illegal and I can get
busted. My chute's always properly packed (go ahead, check) but
that's not the point. Which of our regulators wants to explain to a
grieving family that the totally unnecessary fatality was caused, not
by the out-of-date parachute (which probably would have worked fine),
but by a regulation that REQUIRED LEAVING IT ON THE GROUND!
Similarly, a regulation that requires the use of a transponder, if
fitted, when transponders are not required, is a regulation that
encourages people to... not fit transponders. Poor logic, bad law.

This request for an exemption suffers from the same faulty logic. The
place where transponders are most important is... around the primary
airports of Class B and Class C airspace. This exemption request
removes the disincentive to carrying Xpdrs everywhere... except where
Xpdrs are important!

Rant over.

Finbar wrote:

I'll get to my rant at the end.

First, a question: what happens if you turn off a transponder in
flight? Hypothetically, of course: would anybody notice?

Maybe. If you disappeared from a controllers screen, it would be
noticed. A TCAS equipped airliner might notice - I don't know if there
is an alert function for such an event.

Would S&R
be sent out to look?

No.


Second, a recollection: it's my recollection that ATC radar is
designed to filter out slow-moving targets.

That's primary radar, because of ground clutter problems. It would be a
most unusual situation to eliminate a transponder return. They certainly
don't do it out here in the Pacific Northwest - I've asked.

If that's the case,
transponders are only of any use to TCAD-equipped aircraft.
Apparently some ATC facilities are seeing the glider Xpdrs, so maybe
my recollection is wrong?

Yes, mainly because of a confusion between primary (skin reflection)
reflection processing and transponder return processing.


Third, evidently I now have a choice between a low-priced TCAD-type
device or a Xpdr. Having both is not an option: my panel is already
full, so stuff has to start coming out in order for me to put things
in.

Fourth, it is NOT illegal for me to turn off the TCAD-type device to
save my batteries, but it is illegal for me to turn of the Xpdr (my
home field is 33 nm from the primary airport). Score one for passive
rather than active collision avoidance. The passive device uses a lot
less power. Score two. The passive device is cheaper. Score three.

I've wondered about this, also. In addition to the advantages mentioned,
they are portable and easily moved from one aircraft to another. The Big
Question: is the pilot safer with something like the Proxalert than a
transponder? I know one glider pilot using one, so we'll have at least
on experienced opinion in a few months.

Fifth, it seems to me that an Xpdr should be fitted with a separate
battery, so that it doesn't threaten the much more important nav and
vario equipment by draining power from them.

Pilots choice: most pilots monitor their battery voltage, so they can
turn off the transponder if the voltage gets low.

Similarly the Xpdr
should not drain the battery required to relight self-launchers.

Again, pilots choice. Self-launchers typically have much larger
batteries than unpowered gliders (mine has 36 amp hours), so powering
the transponder AND still having enough to start isn't a problem at all.

Legally, I have no idea where you stand when you have a "working" Xpdr
on board, "turned on" but with a dead battery. But it's safer than
the alternative.

It's not required to be transmitting if your battery is dead.

Now my rant: bad enough that regulators make dumb laws, but worse when
SSA compounds the error. Here's why -

Regulations that impose requirements on safety equipment that isn't
even required in the first place are logically bad law (not that bad
law is particularly unusual) because they create a disincentive to the
use of safety equipment.

I think it's an oversight, rather than foolishness: airplanes ARE
required to have transponders, and this rule was written for them.
Gliders aren't required to have transponders, and when the rules were
written, they were extremely rare in gliders.

It reminds me of the reg about parachutes:
if my chute is past its repack date, it's perfectly legal for me to
use a seat cushion instead and leave the chute in my car. If I take
the chute anyway (as a seat cushion), it's illegal and I can get
busted. My chute's always properly packed (go ahead, check) but
that's not the point. Which of our regulators wants to explain to a
grieving family that the totally unnecessary fatality was caused, not
by the out-of-date parachute (which probably would have worked fine),
but by a regulation that REQUIRED LEAVING IT ON THE GROUND!

It won't ever get explained that way: the puzzled regulator will be
dumbfounded that a pilot was so clueless, that he owned a parachute and
didn't take it along. The family should also be dumbfounded, as I would
be. Get it packed if the rule bothers you, carry it if doesn't. Sheesh.
Give it to a passenger...then I think you should have packed properly.

Similarly, a regulation that requires the use of a transponder, if
fitted, when transponders are not required, is a regulation that
encourages people to... not fit transponders. Poor logic, bad law.

I believe that pilots that WANT to carry a transponder do so, and those
that want to turn if off when far from heavy traffic, also do so. No one
has been busted for turning off his transponder, and lots of pilots do.
I also believe a lot of pilots that don't want to use a transponder, use
this rule as a convenient excuse. Basically, I think, getting this
exemption is about removing this excuse. I don't think there will be
sudden surge in transponder installations by glider pilots that can't
stand to be scofflaws. Even noticed how many pilots fly near cloudbase?

This request for an exemption suffers from the same faulty logic. The
place where transponders are most important is... around the primary
airports of Class B and Class C airspace. This exemption request
removes the disincentive to carrying Xpdrs everywhere... except where
Xpdrs are important!

I think you are saying it's a good idea. I do.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

now, I am not going to try to justify the cycle period, and in fact this can
vary from country to country, and even most manufacturers will probably say
the 120 day cycle is too frequent for our typical use, but I can
understand the FAA rule on this, and anyone who doesn't see the reasoning is
why they have the rule...
plain and simple, if it were legal to wear an out of date parachute, would
you, or anyone else bother to have it inspected or repacked?? I rather doubt
it....in fact you're already suggested you wouldn't...
Rules are never a simple matter or what's right for the masses, but made
because some one or a few people have done something that was questionable,
or wrong. If we were all perfect, and always right we'd have far fewer
rules, regulations and restrictions....
tim


It reminds me of the reg about parachutes:
if my chute is past its repack date, it's perfectly legal for me to
use a seat cushion instead and leave the chute in my car. If I take
the chute anyway (as a seat cushion), it's illegal and I can get
busted. My chute's always properly packed (go ahead, check) but
that's not the point. Which of our regulators wants to explain to a
grieving family that the totally unnecessary fatality was caused, not
by the out-of-date parachute (which probably would have worked fine),
but by a regulation that REQUIRED LEAVING IT ON THE GROUND!

It won't ever get explained that way: the puzzled regulator will be
dumbfounded that a pilot was so clueless, that he owned a parachute and
didn't take it along. The family should also be dumbfounded, as I would
be. Get it packed if the rule bothers you, carry it if doesn't. Sheesh.
Give it to a passenger...then I think you should have packed properly.

Finbar wrote:

I think it's an oversight, rather than foolishness: airplanes ARE
required to have transponders, and this rule was written for them.

Gliders aren't required to have transponders, and when the rules were
written, they were extremely rare in gliders.

Hmmm...as far as I know airplanes do not have a general requirement for
transponders. 91.215 is poorly written, but neither it nor 91.205
seem to require a transponder be installed in all airplanes. Not
sure where you may have seen this...

My reading seems to indicate that if an operable transponder is installed,
it must be inspected (91.411 and/or 91.413 as applies) and
turned on. There are various exceptions for how to operate
it if it's out of inspection or otherwise inop.

So if one IS installed, there are things to do, but I've never read any
requirement that a transponder MUST be installed in all airplanes.

Now beyond that there are some airspaces that require transponders,
with some exceptions for gliders, aircraft without engine-driven
electrics, etc. All to allow the Baby Aces and Cubs and gliders
and the like to access airports under B and C rings without requiring
a transponder. Grandfathered in, it seems... And we rode the coattails
of the ol' farts that kept it this way...

Beware, however, a much greater evil. The San Jose FSDO
required a local pilot who wanted to certify his Experimental
Speed Canard to install a transponder for certification.
Not optional, but required by the FSDO for his experimental.
I've never heard of this as a requirement for good ol'
152's and 172's when flown outside of 91.215(b)(1-5), so
I don't know why he got hit with it for his experimental
(especially since his home airport was in "G" airspace
with only "E" above).

As far as I know, the Fresno FSDO 100+ NM south didn't
require a transponder for the recent experimental certification
of an RV-3. Do FSDO's have the discretion to
require transponders of experimentals on a case by case basis?
Perhaps so. A bit odd and not too consistent it might seem...

I've personally had a mechanic pull out a transponder with
a log entry, and then flown a plane for 6 months without it
below 10,000 ft in "E" and "G" airspace. Even had an FAA DPE
do a checkride in the plane. Nobody even blinked...straight
faces all around...

But maybe I'm missing something and all airplanes with
engine driven electrics ARE required to have transponders.
Maybe someone can point me to a reference...

As far as getting a transponder OR getting a Proxalert (etc),
I'd definitely go proxalert first...no-brainer there.
Lots of squawking targets out there, and me squawking too
does almost nothing to improve safety (since radar watching ATC
will rarely be in contact with them in my most common
scenarios). Me watching the other squawks, and then
looking outside in that direction: now that'll help...

Hi Eric,

Indeed, the regulator would have a hard time explaining it. Since
it's possibly the dumbest reg in the entire 14 CFR, it would be hard
for anyone to explain. Given a chute that is out of date on a given
occasion, complying with the law should be considered criminal
stupidity. Here's the law:

"§ 91.307 Parachutes and parachuting.
(a) No pilot of a civil aircraft may allow a parachute that is
available for emergency use to be carried in that aircraft unless it
is an approved type and—
(1) If a chair type (canopy in back), it has been packed by a
certificated and appropriately rated parachute rigger within the
preceding 120 days; or

(2) If any other type, it has been packed by a certificated and
appropriately rated parachute rigger—

(i) Within the preceding 120 days, if its canopy, shrouds, and harness
are composed exclusively of nylon, rayon, or other similar synthetic
fiber or materials that are substantially resistant to damage from
mold, mildew, or other fungi and other rotting agents propagated in a
moist environment; or

(ii) Within the preceding 60 days, if any part of the parachute is
composed of silk, pongee, or other natural fiber, or materials not
specified in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section."

Yes folks, it's a regulation that prohibits a pilot from carrying
emergency equipment aboard an aircraft unless the equipment is not
available in case of emergency. I wouldn't even know where to begin.
I've seen a box of hammers display more intelligence. Oh well. It's
not as if the rest of 14 CFR is anywhere near as moronic, so this must
have been some sort of brain meltdown on someone's part. If it
referred to REQUIRED equipment (parachutes are required for
aerobatics, for example) it would make a lot of sense - but it
doesn't.

Surprisingly, this stroke of genius survived the recent cleanup of the
regs. And if someone gets ramp-checked before takeoff by one of those
- fortunately rare - power-altered officials one occasionally runs
into, and their chute is out of date, I'd love to hear them explain to
the nice official why they're carrying emergency equipment in direct
contravention of a law that makes it illegal to do so.

Anyway, enough about that!

The reason I asked about what happens if you turn off a transponder in
flight was that I imagine most/all the pilots who have equipped their
gliders with them are doing exactly that, i.e., turning off the
transponders when they don't feel they're necessary. It's sensible,
but it's illegal. Nobody's been busted so far, but I wonder... About
10-15 years ago we had a brief period when the FAA suddenly started a
get-strict policy and enforcing all these "petty" rules, and AOPA and
the aviation press were warning pilots not to talk to ANYONE from the
FAA without a lawyer present. Remember the days when some airline
pilots filed a NASA form after every flight, just in case? Cooler
heads prevailed, and our FAA field personnel were allowed to go back
to doing their jobs promoting safety instead of playing "gotcha" with
obscure regulations, but who knows what the future will bring, and who
knows how many of those disappearing transponders will have been
digitally recorded for the benefit of some enterprising career-minded
young investigator? The trouble with bad laws is that sooner or later
some dimwits show up and enforce them. It's not like it hasn't
happened before. And unlike flying with an out-of-date chute, when
you turn off a transponder your crime is broadcast to the world (or,
technically, your compliance with the law is no longer broadcast!).

As to whether transponders are a good idea, obviously given infinite
panel space, money and power they are. Given limited supplies of
each, I am wondering if some kind of TCAS wouldn't be better. All the
power aircraft are transmitting, but most of the ones squawking 1200
are not talking to ATC and do not have TCAS. So even if you have a
transponder, they don't know about you. If you had a budget TCAS, you
could at least see them (or, with a transponder, you could try asking
for flight following...) The big transports may be a more impressive
threat, but getting clobbered by a C-182 or one of the many low-flying
(clearly not on flight following!) GA aircraft I see out there, from
warbirds to Lears (!), could be pretty fatal too. So I'm wondering
about that one.

Cheers!