Gary O.
N181RL
661 746-4780
-----Original Message-----
From: Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Richard Williams
Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 7:07 PM
To: Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group Re: Transponders in NORDO aircraftDan,
clicking the links for the pilot and first officer .pdf files is trying to find those files on my computer.
Can you post the actual URLs
Thanks,
R. Williams
---------- Original Message -----------
From: Dan <live2av8@usjet.net>
To: Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups. com
Sent: Thu, 01 Oct 2009 20:57:26 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group Re: Transponders in NORDO aircraft
>
>
>
> Posted by: "Peter Walker" peterwalker58@yahoo.com
>
>
> Hello
> just a little bit too much information. The only thing that you left out is "When is the working party going to be formed to make law mandating a transponder on radio controlled model aircraft and anything bigger".
> The question should have been phased as a technical specification of a minimum system for an aircraft that requires a transponder and the limits that would apply to an aircraft that is deemed NOT to so equipped
> I hope you didnt ask the cops a similar sort of question like" Where I can go drink this 6 pack" when you were 16....
> Peter
>
>
>
>
>
> Peter you may have the wrong idea as to why I even asked the FAA. I [WINDOWS-1252?]don’t proclaim to be a writer. It would be interesting to see the version you sent to the FAA, perhaps your wording is much better. Was just trying to hush the seemingly 3000 emails regarding the subject.
> During the beginning of Sport Pilot many were saying they [WINDOWS-1252?]didn’t have to put the altitude encoding and transponder equipment on their machines because they [WINDOWS-1252? ]didn’t have an alternator, just the lighting coil on their Rotax 2 and 4 stroke engines. I said no, the way I understood the rule was if your using the engine to keep the electrical system charged/sustained then you have an [WINDOWS-1252? ]“engine [WINDOWS-1252? ]driven” electrical system.
> Hence the reason for trying to resolve the question via the FAA.
>
>
> In addition, to find out if the SP/LSA rules would help prevent yet another near miss like we had here at MSP. The answer is [WINDOWS-1252?]‘not [WINDOWS-1252? ]likely’ because the two pilots involved in the near miss, along with many others around the nation still [WINDOWS-1252? ]haven’t put the transponder and altitude encoding equipment on their machines.
>
>
> Near as I can tell they thought the class B tier altitudes were AGL. Field elevation at their airport is about 900ft., add another 3,500 and your at 4,400 msl, a jet liner cleared to 4,000 msl is then about 400-500 ft. below you. Just like the trike [WINDOWS-1252?]pilot’s description.
> Waaay back in 83 as a meager UL student pilot I knew the difference between AGL and MSL in a TCA. But somehow these two, one a UFI, the other a UFIE at that time [WINDOWS-1252?]didn’t know the difference. If one knew he certainly [WINDOWS-1252? ]didn’t contact the other by radio.
>
>
> In the Files section [WINDOWS-1252?]I’ve posted the trike pilots version of the Near miss:
> Near miss_Trike pilot.pdf
> You’ll also find the version by the first officer of the Airbus A320
> Near miss_First Officer Airbus 320.pdf
>
>
> And of course my letter to the FAA regarding equipment requirements is posted there as well.
>
>
> I [WINDOWS-1252?]can’t help but put part of the blame on GPS as well, if they [WINDOWS-1252? ]didn’t have GPS receivers I [WINDOWS-1252? ]don’t think they [WINDOWS-1252? ]would’ve made the flight. Low ceiling, visibility not the greatest, neither pilot adept at x-country flight by just using an aero chart and compass, made even more difficult since they [WINDOWS-1252? ]couldn’t see the ground that well [WINDOWS-1252? ]“with no ground visible to speak of. Just an occational glimps of [WINDOWS-1252? ]green.”.
>
>
> Although the airline pilots and ALPA wanted this to be made well known, it never made the 10 [WINDOWS-1252?]o’clock news because they [WINDOWS-1252? ]didn’t want to scare passengers into thinking [WINDOWS-1252? ]it’s not safe to fly, having passengers think the near misses [WINDOWS-1252? ]couldn’t be avoided. At least [WINDOWS-1252? ]that’s the way Brit Etzold from ALPA relayed it to me.
>
>
> This topic apparently [WINDOWS-1252?]wasn’t discussed in detail enough back in March 2006 with the thread: Class B/C/D and Mode C Veil issues
> Here’s the message I posted regarding it back then:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/ group/Sport_ Aircraft/ message/6299
>
>
> On 9/25/2009 Jim Bair wrote:
>
> Mike's description of the rules is perfect. I would only add that the way for more restrictive rules to occur is for some wayward UL pilot (who doesn't need a transponder) to screw up and actually violate the Class B (unaware of exactly where they are or knowing but unaware that they shouldn't be there) and have a near miss with an airliner. That is exactly how we keep getting saddled with more and more rules that we would prefer we didn't have.
>
>
> Jim must mean have yet ANOTHER near miss, again and again, we already had the near miss, just before Sport Pilot became rule.
>
>
>
>
> Dan Mattsen
>
>
>
------- End of Original Message -------
__._,_.___
No comments:
Post a Comment