ANPRM to remove Transponder Exemption for inadequate power source

brcase

En-Route
Joined
Jun 11, 2008
Messages
2,812
Location
Boise, Idaho
Display Name

Display name:
Brian
https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/06/16/2015-14818/transponder-requirement-for-gliders

Comment Period Ends August 17th.

1st of all there is not currently an exemption for gliders, it is currently for all aircraft with inadaquate power sources.

2nd gliders are probably the hardest to add a transponder to due to the limited space and long flight times and limited locations to mount an antenna.

3rd they are looking for comments on TABS devices, I could only find information on one that looked like it was simply a WAAS GPS source, aka Mode S transponder also required. Are there any specific combinations of hardware that would provide ADS-B out currently available? What kind of price? For non-glider people think of what would you put in a J-3 Cub?

Brian
 
No one saw this crap coming. The overlords must know where all aircraft are all the time, resistance is futile.
 
Maybe, but there are a lot of folks flying Champs that fall under the same boat and they are not rich.
And there are lots of us flying powered aircraft that have adequate electrical systems that are not rich. We are stuck having to put this crap in also.
No one saw this crap coming. The overlords must know where all aircraft are all the time, resistance is futile.
What he said.
 
No one saw this crap coming. The overlords must know where all aircraft are all the time, resistance is futile.

Yup. The glider guys seem surprised, I'm surprised it went this long
 
Over the last 20 years, how many accidents involving gliders would have likely been prevented if the glider had a transponder? I think the answer is 1 (in the U.S.)- which suggests that the safety improvement due to a new requirement would be nil.
 
Last edited:
Over the last 20 years, how many accidents involving gliders would have likely been prevented if the glider had a transponder? I think the answer is 1 (in the U.S.)- which suggests that the safety improvement due to a new requirement would be nil.

I believe at least two. I know there was one in the last 10 years out west involving a midair between a glider and corporate jet and I seem to recall at least one other midair involving a glider where a xpdr may have helped. Still, generally low.

But I suspect this proposal is bigger than just gliders and related to the ADS-B mandate.
 
But the children!!!

...Of the rich flying around in private jets. In that bizjet/glider crash of a few years ago the glider had a transponder installed it wasn't turned on as the certification paperwork wasn't done.
 
...Of the rich flying around in private jets. In that bizjet/glider crash of a few years ago the glider had a transponder installed it wasn't turned on as the certification paperwork wasn't done.

Privatized ATC has been proposed...
 
On March 13, 2012, The Honorable Harry Reid, United States Senate, wrote to the FAA expressing concerns about the safety of both gliders and other aircraft utilizing the same airspace around RNO. Senator Reid requested the FAA “invoke its emergency rulemaking procedure to remove the glider exemption” from § 91.215. Additionally, on April 27, 2012, the Honorable Mark E. Amodei, United States House of Representatives, wrote to the FAA to voice similar concerns about the impact of gliders on the safety of air traffic operations into and out of RNO. Congressman Amodei also encouraged the FAA to expedite the process to remove the glider exception from § 91.215.

On March 31, 2008, the NTSB provided safety recommendations [4] to the FAA resulting from an investigation following an August 28, 2006, Reno midair collision between a Hawker 800XP airplane, N879QS, and a Schleicher ASW27-18 glider, N7729. The collision occurred in flight about 42 NM south-southeast of the Reno/Tahoe International Airport (RNO), at an altitude of about 16,000 feet (ft.) mean sea level (MSL)—an area excepted from transponder equipment and use requirements for gliders. Although the glider was equipped with a transponder, the glider pilot had turned off the equipment to conserve power. The findings of this accident investigation address the limitations of the see-and-avoid concept in preventing midair collisions, and specifically, the benefits of transponders in gliders for collision avoidance.Show citation box
The NTSB recommended that the FAA remove the glider exceptions pertaining to the transponder equipment and use requirements, finding that “transponders are critical to alerting pilots and controllers to the presence of nearby traffic so that collisions can be avoided.” The FAA agrees with the NTSB on the benefits of transponders in collision avoidance.

https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/06/16/2015-14818/transponder-requirement-for-gliders
 
Over the last 20 years, how many accidents involving gliders would have likely been prevented if the glider had a transponder? I think the answer is 1 (in the U.S.)- which suggests that the safety improvement due to a new requirement would be nil.
According to the NPRM, 1 and 45 near misses. It doesn't seem to be a big problem.
 
According to the NPRM, 1 and 45 near misses. It doesn't seem to be a big problem.

Take the near miss number with a grain of salt. I was one of those near miss numbers. I saw an airliner 6 miles away descending toward me at my altitude, actually thought it was another glider at 1st . At about 4 miles I determined it was an airliner and started to move away. The airliner spotted me at about 2 miles and made about a 20 degree turn to avoid. we had over a mile separation. Later I learned that it is the airlines policy that if they see a glider they are to report a near miss, presumably to help inflate the near miss numbers. Mine was simply see and avoid working like it is supposed to.

I never verified if ATC poined me out to the airliner or not.

I am not surprised that they want us all to have transponder like equipment. But the technology and regulations currently make it difficult to do. I suspect the Drone market may make this more feasible in the near future.


Brian
 
Back
Top