 |
Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
klehman(at)albedo.net
Guest
|
 Posted: Thu Jan 21, 2010 7:33 am Post subject: Avionics-List: Encoder Certification - off topic |
 |
|
Old Bob
Be assured that many of us do read your comments!
Starting to drift off topic (so I modified it) but I would encourage
everyone to operate a transponder at all times even if you never talk to
ATC or are always in remote areas.
With $450. PCAS type anti collision units available it has to be safer
to operate a transponder. Even in an airport traffic circuit I find the
pcas sometimes has me straining to locate traffic when I haven't heard
any radio calls but I know there is a transponder nearby. Anybody never
had the wrong frequency tuned or forgot to make a transmission?
If something like a pcas confirms that a transponder is reporting the
same altitude as the altimeter, it has to be safer to have a transponder
turned on. There is a risk that both encoder and altimeter are reporting
the same erroneous altitude so certification does have safety value as
well as legal value. Many of us fly enough formation or could do the
manometer test to rule out that risk though.
Much of the time and dollars spent chasing static system leaks is
irrelevant in real world operation for non pressurized aircraft. A leak
that makes the test impossible is usually insignificant in normal ops
with an unpressurized aircraft. Small leak - hook test equipment
directly to encoder and let the owner deal with the leak later.
I suspect that the overall air traffic system safety risk from operating
a transponder that is reporting accurate altitude but may fail other
certification parameters is essentially nil. Anybody know different??
Would relaxed certification requirements reduce safety or would it make
transponder ownership more affordable and actually increase safety?
It is not the cost of a transponder (or 406 ELT) that keeps some of us
from upgrading. It is the continuing cost of ownership (certification
costs) that adds little value to us or other airspace users.
Ken
bobsv35b(at)aol.com wrote:
| Quote: | Good Morning Bill,
I do not have an opinion as to whether or not a homebuilder can verify
the accuracy of his installation and I would probably get mine certified
by a properly rated shop.
However, I am amazed that everyone seems to feel that a transponder is
required for most operations. The vast majority of light plane flying is
VFR and away from areas that require a transponder. It isn't just those
few areas that are strictly class G airspace. The transponder is NOT
required unless you fly in an airspace where it IS required. Stay away
from class A, B, C, and below ten thousand feet MSL and it is easy.
Get out where you have to fly above ten to avoid hitting the ground and
stay below 2500 AG and you still don't need a transponder.
This is the third message I have sent on this subject and all of the
previous ones have been totally ignored. I guess I should take the hint
and quit participating, but I hate to see folks told they need something
which is not required by the appropriate authority.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Downers Grove, IL
Stearman N3977A
|
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
junk(at)jaredyates.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 21, 2010 7:54 am Post subject: Avionics-List: Encoder Certification - off topic |
|
|
Likewise, TCAS systems that are in many larger airplanes will not "see" an
airplane that doesn't have a transponder on.
--
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bobsv35b(at)aol.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 21, 2010 8:44 am Post subject: Avionics-List: Encoder Certification - off topic |
|
|
Good Morning Ken,
Thanks for the response.
I agree, though I do worry a bit that when we have so much on board capability as is available today, some of us may be spending more time inside the cockpit than is prudent.
I particularly like your comment about who has, or who has not, ever had the wrong frequency set in the radio.
While I think the proper and judicious use of the Common Traffic Advisory Frequency has been a positive step. It bothers me that so few pilots seem to understand that there are a lot of No Radio Aircraft in our airspace. The most common NORDO is we who do not have our radios properly configured for the job at hand. Or, there may be some old guy like me who has not yet succumbed to installing a radio in his Stearman. (I finally bit the bullet and stuck one in about three years ago, primarily for use while flying in a flight demonstration group)
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
Do Not Archive
In a message dated 1/21/2010 9:34:29 A.M. Central Standard Time, klehman(at)albedo.net writes:
| Quote: | --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net>
Old Bob
Be assured that many of us do read your comments!
Starting to drift off topic (so I modified it) but I would encourage
everyone to operate a transponder at all times even if you never talk to
ATC or are always in remote areas.
With $450. PCAS type anti collision units available it has to be safer
to operate a transponder. Even in an airport traffic circuit I find the
pcas sometimes has me straining to locate traffic when I haven't heard
any radio calls but I know there is a transponder nearby. Anybody never
had the wrong frequency tuned or forgot to make a transmission?
If something like a pcas confirms that a transponder is reporting the
same altitude as the altimeter, it has to be safer to have a transponder
turned on. There is a risk that both encoder and altimeter are reporting
the same erroneous altitude so certification does have safety value as
well as legal value. Many of us fly enough formation or could do the
manometer test to rule out that risk though.
Much of the time and dollars spent chasing static system leaks is
irrelevant in real world operation for non pressurized aircraft. A leak
that makes the test impossible is usually insignificant in normal ops
with an unpressurized aircraft. Small leak - hook test equipment
directly to encoder and let the owner deal with the leak later.
I suspect that the overall air traffic system safety risk from operating
a transponder that is reporting accurate altitude but may fail other
certification parameters is essentially nil. Anybody know different??
Would relaxed certification requirements reduce safety or would it make
transponder ownership more affordable and actually increase safety?
It is not the cost of a transponder (or 406 ELT) that keeps some of us
from upgrading. It is the continuing cost of ownership (certification
costs) that adds little value to us or other airspace users.
Ken
bobsv35b(at)aol.com wrote:
| Quote: | Good Morning Bill,
I do not have an opinion as to whether or not a homebuilder can verify
the accuracy of his installation and I would probably get mine certified
by a properly rated shop.
However, I am amazed that everyone seems to feel that a transponder is
required for most operations. The vast majority of light plane flying is
VFR and away from areas that require a transponder. It isn't just those
few areas that are strictly class G airspace. The transponder is NOT
required unless you fly in an airspace where it IS required. Stay away
from class A, B, C, and below ten thousand feet MSL and it is easy.
Get out where you have to fly above ten to avoid hitting the ground and
stay below 2500 AG and you still don't need a transponder.
This is the third message I have sent on this subject and all of the
previous ones have been totally ignored. I guess I should take the hint
and quit participating, but I hate to see folks told they need something
which is not required by the appropriate authority.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Downers Grove, IL
Stearman N3977A
========================= Use utilities Day ================================================ - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS ================================================ - List Contribution Web Site sp; ===================================================
|
|
[quote][b]
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
flyboybob1(at)gmail.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 2:27 am Post subject: Avionics-List: Encoder Certification - off topic |
|
|
--
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
Get Email Distribution Too!
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
