Matronics Email Lists :: View topic

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

Transpondertest

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> AeroElectric-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

glastar(at)gmx.net
Guest

Posted: Thu May 21, 2015 3:31 am Post subject: Transpondertest

Good morning folks,



I need some help in FAA regulations (being a Swiss).



FAR 43 Appendix F describes some transponder testing in order to be

compliant with FAR 91.413, which in itself redirects to 91.215a and 

121.345 as well as 135.143 and there more redirections come into play.



Can someone explain me, if for a VFR only aircraft in the US with

Transponder equipped you need to perform a regular system check to be 

compliant with the FAR's according to FAR 43 APP F?



Many thanks for your input on that.



Cheers Werner

user9253

Joined: 28 Mar 2008
Posts: 1927
Location: Riley TWP Michigan

Posted: Thu May 21, 2015 4:27 am Post subject: Re: Transpondertest

The transponder needs to be checked once every two years and an entry made in the aircraft log book.  It does not matter if the aircraft is only flown VFR or IFR, the transponder still must be checked.

_________________
Joe Gores

Kellym

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1705
Location: Sun Lakes AZ

Posted: Thu May 21, 2015 4:46 am Post subject: Transpondertest

The difference between an IFR certification and VFR is with the 

altimeter and transponder encoder checks(Mode C)..how many points they 

are checked for tolerance between each other and a reference, certified 

altimeter. The transponder and static system altimeter checks are 

normally done together with the transponder check because of the 

requirement for correspondence between the Mode C transponder output and 

the altimeter reading. The IFR check takes longer because of the need to 

check up to certified altitude, and consequently usually costs 2-3 times 

a VFR certification.

It is possible for a US aircraft to not have Mode C encoder, and thus 

only need certification of the Mode A output, but then it is restricted 

generally from using certain airspace such as Class A,B&C as well as E 

above 10,000 MSL. As Joe said, either way the transponder has to be 

checked every 24 months.



On 5/21/2015 5:27 AM, user9253 wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   



 The transponder needs to be checked once every two years and an entry made in the aircraft log book.  It does not matter if the aircraft is only flown VFR or IFR, the transponder still must be checked.



 --------

 Joe Gores





 Read this topic online here:



 http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=442398#442398

_________________
Kelly McMullen
A&P/IA, EAA Tech Counselor # 5286
KCHD

BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Thu May 21, 2015 4:58 am Post subject: Transpondertest

Good Morning Kelly. 

  

 We should remember that if we avoid Class A, B, & C and fly only  below 10,000 feet unless in a mountainous area, we don't need any stinkin'  Transponder. <G>

  

 That means that we can fly in better than ninety percent of the  USA without that particular expensive toy!

  

 Just gotta stay roughly thirty miles away from those big cities.

  

 Happy Skies,

  

 Old Bob

  

  

 [quote][b]

glastar(at)gmx.net
Guest

Posted: Thu May 21, 2015 5:00 am Post subject: Transpondertest

Ok thanks,



seems to be more stringent then under EASA where it is a recommendation 

only.



With newer electronics I see the risk for malfunctioning being very low. 

Would save some money.



Thanks



Werner



On 21.05.2015 14:44, Kelly McMullen wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   

 <kellym(at)aviating.com>



 The difference between an IFR certification and VFR is with the 

 altimeter and transponder encoder checks(Mode C)..how many points they 

 are checked for tolerance between each other and a reference, 

 certified altimeter. The transponder and static system altimeter 

 checks are normally done together with the transponder check because 

 of the requirement for correspondence between the Mode C transponder 

 output and the altimeter reading. The IFR check takes longer because 

 of the need to check up to certified altitude, and consequently 

 usually costs 2-3 times a VFR certification.

 It is possible for a US aircraft to not have Mode C encoder, and thus 

 only need certification of the Mode A output, but then it is 

 restricted generally from using certain airspace such as Class A,B&C 

 as well as E above 10,000 MSL. As Joe said, either way the transponder 

 has to be checked every 24 months.



 On 5/21/2015 5:27 AM, user9253 wrote:

> 

>

> The transponder needs to be checked once every two years and an entry 

> made in the aircraft log book.  It does not matter if the aircraft is 

> only flown VFR or IFR, the transponder still must be checked.

>

> --------

> Joe Gores

>

>

> Read this topic online here:

>

> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=442398#442398

>

>

ceengland7(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Thu May 21, 2015 5:17 am Post subject: Transpondertest

On 5/21/2015 6:29 AM, Werner Schneider wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   

 <glastar(at)gmx.net>



 Good morning folks,



 I need some help in FAA regulations (being a Swiss).



 FAR 43 Appendix F describes some transponder testing in order to be

 compliant with FAR 91.413, which in itself redirects to 91.215a and 

 121.345 as well as 135.143 and there more redirections come into play.



 Can someone explain me, if for a VFR only aircraft in the US with

 Transponder equipped you need to perform a regular system check to be 

 compliant with the FAR's according to FAR 43 APP F?



 Many thanks for your input on that.



 Cheers Werner

The transponder must be checked every 2 years to remain in compliance. 
	


Be sure to tell the shop that you just need a VFR certification; IFR is 

a bit more involved.

ARGOLDMAN(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Thu May 21, 2015 5:43 am Post subject: Transpondertest

Probably has something to do with the fact that although you personally  only fly VFR, you are flying, or may fly, in an environment in which IFR, flight  flolowing and other services depend on accurate altitude  reports (via  transponder ) from all of the aircraft in the system .

  

 Of course we all know that electronics never fail, that they are never  installed correctly that they never vary in their response.

  

 Maybe instead of thinking why should I do it, you should think of if my  setup is inaccurate and ATC or whoever is looking doesn't have a proper idea of  my altitude perhaps that unseen shadow coming from my rear is made of aluminum  or glass with everybody thinking that the different altitude reports are  correct.  As imperfect as the system is, it just may save your bacon.

  

 Hell, if you are really against the testing, you really don't need a  transponder at all in uncontrolled airspace and if you want to go into some  controlled airspace and are not required to have a transponder (certain  incidences) you can arrange that.---- Is it worth the trouble for $1-200.00 per  year?

  

 Rich

  

  In a message dated 5/21/2015 6:32:18 A.M. Central Daylight Time,  glastar(at)gmx.net writes:

  	  Quote: 	
		  -->    AeroElectric-List message posted by: Werner Schneider    <glastar(at)gmx.net>



Good morning folks,



I need some help in    FAA regulations (being a Swiss).



FAR 43 Appendix F describes some    transponder testing in order to be

compliant with FAR 91.413, which in    itself redirects to 91.215a and 

121.345 as well as 135.143 and there more    redirections come into play.

Can someone explain me, if for a VFR    only aircraft in the US with

Transponder equipped you need to perform a    regular system check to be 

compliant with the FAR's according to FAR 43    APP F?



Many thanks for your input on that.



Cheers  ========================= Use   utilities  Day  ================================================               - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS  ================================================             - List Contribution Web Site  sp;                             ===================================================



	


 [quote][b]

Kellym

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1705
Location: Sun Lakes AZ

Posted: Thu May 21, 2015 5:44 am Post subject: Transpondertest

Good morning Old Bob,

Yes, I guess that is what I was trying to say.   I don't know how 

tolerant ATC in the lower 48 would be to flying IFR without a 

transponder. I did that for about 5 yrs in Alaska, before I added the 

transponder, because about 1/3 of the IFR flights I did went through 

non-radar areas anyway. I didn't add an encoder until I moved to the 

lower 48 and knew I would be basing underneath a Mode C veil. Getting 

above 10,000 IFR in the C170B I had was pretty marginal anyway as it 

would only do about 13,500 with the cruise prop it had.

These days, if I needed to make cross country trips of any distance, it 

would involve more evasion of Mode C areas, especially through the 

Rockies where the major roads and valleys seem to have either Class B or 

C areas. I'm not fond of the $250 it costs me for IFR certification of 

the static system and transponder, but over a couple years I would 

probably save that much gas by having all options available. Not mention 

the equipment was in the Mooney when I bought it. Narco AT-50 still 

going strong with an old TransCal bellows blind encoder.

Kelly



On 5/21/2015 5:56 AM, BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   Good Morning Kelly.

 We should remember that if we avoid Class A, B, & C and fly only below 

 10,000 feet unless in a mountainous area, we don't need any stinkin' 

 Transponder. <G>

 That means that we can fly in better than ninety percent of the USA 

 without that particular expensive toy!

 Just gotta stay roughly thirty miles away from those big cities.

 Happy Skies,

 Old Bob

 *

 *

_________________
Kelly McMullen
A&P/IA, EAA Tech Counselor # 5286
KCHD

glastar(at)gmx.net
Guest

Posted: Thu May 21, 2015 6:17 am Post subject: Transpondertest

Rich,



I'm not against testing in general, but I have a transponder with 

altitude readout, 3 different independent altimeters, I can compare that 

against (plus GPS) and I fly regularly in ATC controlled space with 

active radar coverage so I see general a pretty good testing of my 

output and will get immediate attention of ATC if something goes wrong.



And I'm very interested in everybody having a transponder output as it 

does enhance safety. If you remember the Gillham Encoders had a partial 

fail rate and a seperate AD for testing which made sense.



Werner

 	  Quote: 	
		   Hell, if you are really against the testing, you really don't need a 

 transponder at all in uncontrolled airspace and if you want to go into 

 some controlled airspace and are not required to have a transponder 

 (certain incidences) you can arrange that.---- Is it worth the trouble 

 for $1-200.00 per year?

 Rich

Kellym

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1705
Location: Sun Lakes AZ

Posted: Thu May 21, 2015 7:12 am Post subject: Transpondertest

From what I have seen, the old transponders with cavity tubes needed 

testing and every 6-10  years would need to be tuned up with the aging 

of the cavity tube. When mine was off, some ATC radars would see it, 

others not, or with 1200 instead of assigned code. After tuning, has 

been perfect.

I don't have enough experience with solid state transponders, but my 

guess is they don't need testing, and probably hard fail or continue 

working. Probably will take FAA 30 yrs to realize that and another 10 

years to amend the rules.



On 5/21/2015 7:15 AM, Werner Schneider wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   

 <glastar(at)gmx.net>



 Rich,



 I'm not against testing in general, but I have a transponder with 

 altitude readout, 3 different independent altimeters, I can compare 

 that against (plus GPS) and I fly regularly in ATC controlled space 

 with active radar coverage so I see general a pretty good testing of 

 my output and will get immediate attention of ATC if something goes 

 wrong.



 And I'm very interested in everybody having a transponder output as it 

 does enhance safety. If you remember the Gillham Encoders had a 

 partial fail rate and a seperate AD for testing which made sense.



 Werner

> Hell, if you are really against the testing, you really don't need a 

> transponder at all in uncontrolled airspace and if you want to go 

> into some controlled airspace and are not required to have a 

> transponder (certain incidences) you can arrange that.---- Is it 

> worth the trouble for $1-200.00 per year?

> Rich

>

_________________
Kelly McMullen
A&P/IA, EAA Tech Counselor # 5286
KCHD

ARGOLDMAN(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Thu May 21, 2015 7:31 am Post subject: Transpondertest

All of which may be true.

  

 And, please, Werner, don't consider this as a personal note toward you  and your setup... such is not intended.

  

 Lesee-- 3 different independent altimeters?? I assume that these are all  connected to their own static system and there is no commonality in plumbing or  location of static port(s). I also assume that they each have  separately  been checked for accuracy. I will also have to assume that your GPS is WAAS. If  they all agree then your indications are  probably accurate--------------

  

 However the ATC does not depend on  your indication which  is, of course determined by however you set your Kollsman window either  correctly or incorrectly, and static system error (including undetected leaks).  

  

 What they see on their scopes may be quite different than your indication  in that they look at more absolute numbers not depending on what your indication  are and not depending on the local baro setting. If memory serves me correctly,  part of the examination includes making a table of inaccuracies to determine if  the entire system is within limits.

  

 That is why there is not barometric setting on an encoder.(available to the  pilot)

  

 All of the aircraft may be off of their indicated altitude but they will  all be off by the same amount and thus their relative altitude indication is  taken away from the possible error of the pilot and/or many other  sources.

  

 Rich

  

  In a message dated 5/21/2015 9:19:50 A.M. Central Daylight Time,  glastar(at)gmx.net writes:

  	  Quote: 	
		  -->    AeroElectric-List message posted by: Werner Schneider    <glastar(at)gmx.net>



Rich,



I'm not against testing in    general, but I have a transponder with 

altitude readout, 3 different    independent altimeters, I can compare that 

against (plus GPS) and I fly    regularly in ATC controlled space with 

active radar coverage so I see    general a pretty good testing of my 

output and will get immediate    attention of ATC if something goes wrong.



And I'm very interested in    everybody having a transponder output as it 

does enhance safety. If you    remember the Gillham Encoders had a partial 

fail rate and a seperate AD    for testing which made sense.



Werner

 	  Quote: 	
		   Hell, if you are really    against the testing, you really don't need a 

 transponder at all in    uncontrolled airspace and if you want to go into 

 some controlled    airspace and are not required to have a transponder 

 (certain    incidences) you can arrange that.---- Is it worth the trouble 

 for    $1-200.00 per year?

  ========================bsp;  = Use   utilities  Day  ================================================               - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS  ================================================             - List Contribution Web Site  sp;                             ===================================================


	


	


 [quote][b]

ARGOLDMAN(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Thu May 21, 2015 7:38 am Post subject: Transpondertest

Again, the testing is not specifically for the transponder, or the encoder  but is a total system check including the static system.

 Interestingly enough, if the transponder is removed from it's mounting, at  any time after an inspection, I believe that the testing has to be  redone.

 Rich

  In a message dated 5/21/2015 10:13:25 A.M. Central Daylight Time,  kellym(at)aviating.com writes:

  	  Quote: 	
		  -->    AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen    <kellym(at)aviating.com>

From what I have seen, the old transponders    with cavity tubes needed 

testing and every 6-10  years would need to    be tuned up with the aging 

of the cavity tube. When mine was off, some ATC    radars would see it, 

others not, or with 1200 instead of assigned code.    After tuning, has 

been perfect.

I don't have enough experience with    solid state transponders, but my 

guess is they don't need testing, and    probably hard fail or continue 

working. Probably will take FAA 30 yrs to    realize that and another 10 

years to amend the rules.

On 5/21/2015    7:15 AM, Werner Schneider wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   --> AeroElectric-List message    posted by: Werner Schneider 

 <glastar(at)gmx.net>

    Rich,

 I'm not against testing in general, but I have a    transponder with 

 altitude readout, 3 different independent    altimeters, I can compare 

 that against (plus GPS) and I fly regularly    in ATC controlled space 

 with active radar coverage so I see general a    pretty good testing of 

 my output and will get immediate attention of    ATC if something goes 

 wrong.

 And I'm very interested    in everybody having a transponder output as it 

 does enhance safety.    If you remember the Gillham Encoders had a 

 partial fail rate and a    seperate AD for testing which made sense.

 Werner

>    Hell, if you are really against the testing, you really don't need a    

> transponder at all in uncontrolled airspace and if you want to go    

> into some controlled airspace and are not required to have a    

> transponder (certain incidences) you can arrange that.---- Is it    

> worth the trouble for $1-200.00 per year?

>  ================================================= Use   utilities  Day  ================================================               - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS  ================================================             - List Contribution Web Site  sp;                             ===================================================

 [quote][b]

art(at)zemon.name
Guest

Posted: Fri May 22, 2015 3:55 am Post subject: Transpondertest

Folks, 

  

Sometimes the transponder test finds failures in the pneumatic tubing or in the antenna. It's not a bad safety investment, since we all share the sky, IMHO. 

  

    -- Art Z. 

   

--http://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/"If I am not for myself, who is for me? And if I am only for myself, what am I? And if not now, when?" Hillel  

   [quote][b]

Kellym

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1705
Location: Sun Lakes AZ

Posted: Fri May 22, 2015 6:52 am Post subject: Transpondertest

Just to be clear....what is tested depends on what the aircraft has 

installed, and its desired use.

There are aircraft that have transponders without an altitude 

encoder...only the transponder signal output is tested. There are VFR 

only aircraft with transponder and encoder, where the transponder with 

Mode C output is looked at to match altimeter at field elevation and 

maybe one more altitude. There are IFR aircraft with transponder and 

encoder that need certification of the altimeter, encoder and static 

system at 500 ft intervals up to max certified altitude.

To show that they are related but separate...if a transponder is removed 

for repair/alignment or to just clean the contacts, only a ramp check of 

the transponder output is needed.

If an IFR aircraft needs the static system opened, to replace something, 

repair a line, etc. the A&P doing the work can do a simple leak 

check...no repeat of full static system is required.

Two most common failures I have seen are static system plumbing leaks 

(including instrument housing leaks), and coax to the antenna failure. 

Antennas rarely fail for anything other than physical damage.



On 5/22/2015 4:53 AM, Art Zemon wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  

 Folks,



 Sometimes the transponder test finds failures in the pneumatic tubing 

 or in the antenna. It's not a bad safety investment, since we all 

 share the sky, IMHO.



     -- Art Z.



 --

 http://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/



 /"If I am not for myself, who is for me? And if I am only for myself, 

 what am I? And if not now, when?" Hillel/



 *

 *

_________________
Kelly McMullen
A&P/IA, EAA Tech Counselor # 5286
KCHD

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> AeroElectric-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

Jump to:

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