A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Soaring
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

SSA petition to allow transponder to be turned off



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #22  
Old March 10th 04, 01:22 AM
Mark James Boyd
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Finbar,

We agree vehemently on everything you have posted!
Perhaps not surprisingly, many others agree as well.
And enough folks read this that perhaps we may get some resolution
to this over some time. Judy Ruprecht, among others, is
an occasional poster. I'd guess she'll mention these ideas
at some point when she meets with the FAA on behalf of
SSA.

You did write a nice summary. Thanks!


In article ,
Finbar wrote:
Ummm...with more time and money, this problem goes away, of course.
I think what we are arguing is that the regs and the repack
requirements are marginally silly, and unneccesarily expensive.

Not extremely silly or horifically expensive, just that it
would be better if a few tweaks were introcuced. A little nudge
for the reg and for the repack dates...


No, the expense really wasn't my point. The questions of what the
repack dates should be, that's a whole different topic. I don't know
what they should be.

My point was that the regs prohibit a pilot from doing something that
is safer than the legal alternative. Given that a parachute is out of
pack date, the pilot CAN legally fly WITHOUT it, but CANNOT legally
fly WITH it. Since flying with it is either safer than flying without
it or, in the worst case, no less safe than flying without it, the law
requires behavior (leave it on the ground) that is LESS SAFE than the
illegal alternative (bring it anyway, but without the same confidence
that it will work).

Laws that require unsafe behavior as an alternative to safer behavior
are an abomination.

That was my point.

The connection to the transponder regs was that we all KNOW it's safer
to have a transponder aboard and use it only when it makes sense, but
it's illegal, and sooner or later someone will get ticketed for it.
Just ask the guys who got ramp-checked for the pack dates on
parachutes they weren't even required to have on board.

On the other hand, I have no objection whatsoever to requiring
parachute pack dates for parachutes that are REQUIRED to be aboard the
aircraft for use in an emergency. If you're doing aerobatics you must
have a parachute. It makes sense, then, that there be some legal
definition of what constitutes an acceptable parachute.



--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
VHF & Transponder antenna Steve Home Built 1 December 6th 04 05:29 PM
Operation without a transponder flyer Piloting 11 September 14th 04 09:48 AM
Transponder test after static system opened? Jack I Owning 6 March 14th 04 04:09 PM
Fixing the Transponder with Duct Tape and Aluminum Foil Ron Wanttaja Home Built 45 March 14th 04 01:18 AM
transponder codes Guy Elden Jr. Piloting 1 December 2nd 03 06:21 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:11 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.