SSA petition to allow transponder to be turned off

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.


I've asked to, not quite as northwest as you are. The answer I got is
it depends on how the controller sets up there radar. At most Class C
airports there probably is no filter turned on. At larger airports
they might turn it on to eliminate the returns from aircraft taxing on
the ground. I was also told the can select the speed at which it will
filter the return but typically they might set it up for 25kts.
Typically they have the primary radar turned off unless we tell them
there are gliders or non-transponder equipped aircraft in the area.

Brian

In the UK the recommended repack period is 6 months.
It is only a recommendation, it is not an offence to
fly with a parachute which is out of repack.
The problem with this sort of requirement that the
rules are drawn up for the worst case scenario. A club
parachute which is worn by many people all day and
everyday, and is subject to a high degree of wear and
tear requires regular inspection, and I would be the
first to say that this is good. You do want it to work.
Compare that with my parachute, lives in its bag, not
thrown around, worn perhaps one or twice a week, does
that require the same intensive maintenance? The rules
say yes, in practice is safety compromised at all if
the period between repacks is longer. Most riggers
I have spoken to say no.
Given the choice between sitting on a cushion which
will not protect you from the impact of a crash and
sitting on a serviceable chute which just happens to
be a day over it's due repack I know what I would choose.

At 14:30 23 February 2004, Tim Mara wrote:
your answer was 100% exactly why they have made the
rule......
tim


'Mark James Boyd' wrote in message
news:4039b164$1@darkstar...
In article ,
Tim Mara wrote:
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plain and simple, if it were legal to wear an out
of date parachute,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...

There's no rule requiring me to change my tidy-whities
every week
either,
but I DO IT! :P For health reasons, you know...
Same for a chute.
I wouldn't just sit on the thing for 12 years and
drip jelly on it
and drag it through the dirt all day and think it
would open. But
if it's my own G*****n chute in a G*****n single-seat
glider,
whose business is it anyway?

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

A coupla guys weighing in heavy on an expired reserve
on
a tandem skydiving jump is a hell of a long way from
me
in my itsy-bitsy glider wearing an emergency chute
I don't even
intend to use. Who'll convince me that the extra
safety
of having the more frequent repack outweighs the lack
of safety
when I fly twice without the chute each year (while
I wait for
the packer to send it back)?

Tim,

You wrote:

"you're trying to re-write everything to sway what I have said....and
what I
have said is that this is a regulation....ands without this regulation
there
would be (some.fill it in again) who would/could/might never have
their
parachutes inspected by someone who can find difficulties, problems...
Speak with any good rigger or manufacturer, you will find that all of
them
have found chutes that have had problems, could fail.....if you are
suggesting leaving this up to individuals "judgment" then I guess it
would
also be OK for pilots to do their own annual inspections and the like
also...
tim
BTW; I have had to use a parachute from a glider...maybe if you had
this
same experience you might not be so willing to strike up this
argument."


Honestly, I'm not trying to change what you said, I played back what
you said in an effort to get you to think about it. From your
reaction, I think you're shocked by the replay.

The law doesn't say "pack your damn chute, you idiot." It says "no
pilot of a civil aircraft shall allow a parachute that is available
for emergency use to be carried aboard unless..." That's a shocking
statement. You're right to be shocked.

I hear what you're saying: of course recently-packed parachutes are
safer (although at least one rigger has told me that in her opinion
all the re-packing is the biggest source of parachute wear and tear!).
But I imagine a parachute that was packed 2 years ago is at least 90%
likely to work, and I know a seat cushion is 0% likely to work. Why
cite someone for taking the safer, albeit imperfect option of bringing
the out-of-date parachute? I understand people SHOULD re-pack their
chutes, but GIVEN that they notice their chute is now out-of-date,
what choice, from a public policy point of view, do you want them to
make about whether or not to bring it in the aircraft? Is that even a
real question?

No, it's not like annual inspections, because they are REQUIRED and a
parachute isn't. If we REQUIRE parachutes then you're absolutely
right: there has to be a definition of what an acceptable parachute
is. Perhaps that's what you're suggesting, and maybe it's not a bad
idea. But we don't require them, so we certainly shouldn't prohibit
someone carrying a less-than-perfect one when we allow them to carry
none at all. It's like having a radio and using it: it's optional,
and we should encourage people to do it, not cite them for
technicalities when they're trying to do the sensible thing and doing
no harm in the process.

Your belief is that this law causes more people to keep their
parachutes safe. I may be wrong, but I doubt it. My belief is that
anal types like myself, who worry about whether or not they're legal,
are anal about their parachutes too, and people who aren't... aren't.
The problem is that, being anal, I HAVE wondered whether I should fly
with an out-of-date chute and risk getting fined on landing - or just
leave it in the car and avoid risking the hassle with the FAA. That
shouldn't even BE a question! I like to hope that, if the situation
ever arises, I'll bring the chute rather than obey the law. But
that's a ridiculous statement to have to make.

You've had to use a parachute to exit a glider. I'm very glad it
worked. I'm very glad you had it. And I oppose any regulation that
would have made it illegal for you to have had one, under any
circumstances whatsoever - not even if it hadn't been repacked in a
decade! I assume your chute had been repacked within the preceding
120 days, but if it had been out of date, it might have worked anyway.
If it had been in your car, it wouldn't have.

I know of one incident where a chute saved a life after not being packed in
seven years.

Any legislation that makes it less likely that someone will have a chute
available, even if it is no longer current is immoral in my view.

Pity about the Ventus...

Finbar wrote:

Tim,

You wrote:

"you're trying to re-write everything to sway what I have said....and
what I
have said is that this is a regulation....ands without this regulation
there
would be (some.fill it in again) who would/could/might never have
their
parachutes inspected by someone who can find difficulties, problems...
Speak with any good rigger or manufacturer, you will find that all of
them
have found chutes that have had problems, could fail.....if you are
suggesting leaving this up to individuals "judgment" then I guess it
would
also be OK for pilots to do their own annual inspections and the like
also...
tim
BTW; I have had to use a parachute from a glider...maybe if you had
this
same experience you might not be so willing to strike up this
argument."


Honestly, I'm not trying to change what you said, I played back what
you said in an effort to get you to think about it. From your
reaction, I think you're shocked by the replay.

The law doesn't say "pack your damn chute, you idiot." It says "no
pilot of a civil aircraft shall allow a parachute that is available
for emergency use to be carried aboard unless..." That's a shocking
statement. You're right to be shocked.

I hear what you're saying: of course recently-packed parachutes are
safer (although at least one rigger has told me that in her opinion
all the re-packing is the biggest source of parachute wear and tear!).
But I imagine a parachute that was packed 2 years ago is at least 90%
likely to work, and I know a seat cushion is 0% likely to work. Why
cite someone for taking the safer, albeit imperfect option of bringing
the out-of-date parachute? I understand people SHOULD re-pack their
chutes, but GIVEN that they notice their chute is now out-of-date,
what choice, from a public policy point of view, do you want them to
make about whether or not to bring it in the aircraft? Is that even a
real question?

No, it's not like annual inspections, because they are REQUIRED and a
parachute isn't. If we REQUIRE parachutes then you're absolutely
right: there has to be a definition of what an acceptable parachute
is. Perhaps that's what you're suggesting, and maybe it's not a bad
idea. But we don't require them, so we certainly shouldn't prohibit
someone carrying a less-than-perfect one when we allow them to carry
none at all. It's like having a radio and using it: it's optional,
and we should encourage people to do it, not cite them for
technicalities when they're trying to do the sensible thing and doing
no harm in the process.

Your belief is that this law causes more people to keep their
parachutes safe. I may be wrong, but I doubt it. My belief is that
anal types like myself, who worry about whether or not they're legal,
are anal about their parachutes too, and people who aren't... aren't.
The problem is that, being anal, I HAVE wondered whether I should fly
with an out-of-date chute and risk getting fined on landing - or just
leave it in the car and avoid risking the hassle with the FAA. That
shouldn't even BE a question! I like to hope that, if the situation
ever arises, I'll bring the chute rather than obey the law. But
that's a ridiculous statement to have to make.

You've had to use a parachute to exit a glider. I'm very glad it
worked. I'm very glad you had it. And I oppose any regulation that
would have made it illegal for you to have had one, under any
circumstances whatsoever - not even if it hadn't been repacked in a
decade! I assume your chute had been repacked within the preceding
120 days, but if it had been out of date, it might have worked anyway.
If it had been in your car, it wouldn't have.

(Finbar) wrote in message . com...
...

The law doesn't say "pack your damn chute, you idiot." It says "no
pilot of a civil aircraft shall allow a parachute that is available
for emergency use to be carried aboard unless..." That's a shocking
statement. You're right to be shocked.

...

No, it's not like annual inspections, because they are REQUIRED and a
parachute isn't. If we REQUIRE parachutes then you're absolutely
right: there has to be a definition of what an acceptable parachute
is. Perhaps that's what you're suggesting, and maybe it's not a bad
idea. But we don't require them, so we certainly shouldn't prohibit
someone carrying a less-than-perfect one when we allow them to carry
none at all. ...

The problem is that, being anal, I HAVE wondered whether I should fly
with an out-of-date chute and risk getting fined on landing - or just
leave it in the car and avoid risking the hassle with the FAA. That
shouldn't even BE a question! I like to hope that, if the situation
ever arises, I'll bring the chute rather than obey the law. But
that's a ridiculous statement to have to make.
...

Not to disagree with you on anything you wrote but here are some
alternatives:

Buy two chutes. Stagger the repack dates so one is always current.
Or go together with some buddies and buy one common 'loaner' that
is kept current.

Get yourself certified as a rigger--make a little extra cash on the
side.

Does this make sense?

--

FF

In article ,
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
(Finbar) wrote in message . com...
...

Not to disagree with you on anything you wrote but here are some
alternatives:

Buy two chutes. Stagger the repack dates so one is always current.
Or go together with some buddies and buy one common 'loaner' that
is kept current.

Get yourself certified as a rigger--make a little extra cash on the
side.

Does this make sense?

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...
--

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

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.

Why is the petition on behalf of "SSA members" and not "glider
pilots?"

-Pat

The SSA has no standing to speak for all glider pilots.

"Pat Russell" wrote in message
...
Why is the petition on behalf of "SSA members" and not "glider
pilots?"

-Pat