Past Due Transponder Inspection

F

felixk

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Sep 6, 2012
Messages
10
Display Name
Display name:
Felix
Hi, If an airplane is past due on it's transponder inspection (everything else is fine. annual..etc.) and a flight needs to be completed inside a Mode-C veil (where a transponder is required) to the shop for the inspection. What needs to be done to make the flight legal? Ferry permit? Call the Tracon? Anyone ever had to deal with this? Thanks!
 
Welcome,

Call the Tracon, find out what they want you to do, then do it.

Not really that big of a deal, and while I don't recommend violating the FARs I can tell you that many, if not most, people would just fly over.
 
Thank you Duncan! I will call the Tracon and see what they say.
 
felixk said:
Thank you Duncan! I will call the Tracon and see what they say.
Click to expand...

Bingo.

I've flown in and out of the DTW mode C vail without a transponder - all they needed was a phone call ahead of time and a call when I was in the air. (oh, and I got the warning to stay out of class B and Canadian airspace). 'twas no big deal.
 
I'm in the same situation. The 24 month check was due in August; however, scheduling conflicts prevented the appointment. Now set for September 12, I had asked the same Ferry permit question of the the avionics firm. He laughed and said "Welcome to a common occurrence. We had one in here last week that hadn't been checked for six years. I wouldn't worry about it."

HR
 
For reference, the reg that says you may make, and ATC may grant, this request is 91.215(d)(2). Note that while a phone call before takeoff is not legally required if you're arriving from outside the veil, it might be prudent/polite.
 
Last edited:
Yes you are breaking FAA regs. If the transponder is working fine then tracon will not know the difference. Here is the real issue, If you have an accident, your insurance company will do every thing they can to keep from paying-off. So when you are flying "illegally" you are flying without insurance.
 
I definitely don't plan to make the flight without, at least, a call to the Tracon. I was even considering a ferry permit, but so far everyone I've asked say just call the Tracon.
 
Garthur said:
Here is the real issue, If you have an accident, your insurance company will do every thing they can to keep from paying-off. So when you are flying "illegally" you are flying without insurance.
Click to expand...

Can you provide any evidence to substantiate this claim, which is known to be an old wives tale? Can you name a single person who had this experience?

Jon
 
Just called the Tracon, they told me, as you guys said, call them up (by phone) an hour prior to the flight, and contact them after takeoff.

FAR 91.413 says that "No persons may use an ATC transponder that is specified in 91.215(a), 121.345(c), or §135.143(c) of this chapter unless, within the preceding 24 calendar months, the ATC transponder has been tested and inspected and found to comply with appendix F of part 43 of this chapter; and..."

So technically by alerting the Tracon that i will be flying without a transponder, and keeping the transponder OFF I satisfy the FAR 91.413.

Would you say the flight is legal at this point? Or am I missing something?

Thanks!
 
It's legal. I had to do the same thing to get our aircraft across town to the avionics shop after the transponder died.

DEN TRACON said the same thing, call X time prior to notify them of departure time, let tower(s) know that you had so they didn't scold you to "reset transponder", which KAPA did anyway. Haha.

Same procedure as getting permission to fly an airplane without a transponder inside the Mode C veil.

Also be cautious to explain it's a full failure not only a Mode C failure. There was some confusion about that on the telephone when I did it.
 
Okay. Thank you guys for all the replies!
 
4CornerFlyer said:
Can you provide any evidence to substantiate this claim, which is known to be an old wives tale? Can you name a single person who had this experience?

Jon
Click to expand...

I have read several stories from good sources about this. AOPA has reported this as a pilot advisory. I do not have names. If you want verification just read your insurance policy. Mine says that all pilots have to be current and the aircraft has to be current for your insurance to be enforce. That's all you need to know.

Insurance companies do have the discretion to wave any policy requirement, but they also have the right to demand perfect adherence to every requirements. I'm sure that this decision is based on the accident itself.

I have noticed that my insurance policy has changed over the years. There are periods that the insurance requirements will ease-up and other times when they get really tight.

Every year when I get the new policy I read every word in it. I do get the feeling that most pilots have no idea what it says.

You can keep dreaming that it's just an old wife's tale so that you can sleep well.
 
Garthur said:
I have read several stories from good sources about this. AOPA has reported this as a pilot advisory.
Click to expand...

Okay, somebody told someone about a guy somewhere who had a claim denied for a transponder inspection out of date. I get it.

You're not even stipulating that the theoretical accident has anything to do with an errant transponder.

If suggest you pose this situation to your insurance company, and unless they tell you you would be covered, you might want to look for a more reputable company.

I suspect that in practically every aircraft accident, if you look hard enough, you can find some, possibly trivial, violation of the FARs. While it is common for an aviation policy to have certain exclusions based on FARs--an annual inspection for instance--without someone coming forward and saying yeah it happened to ME for a minimal FAR deviation, I will in fact continue to sleep well.

Jon
 
No you're not breaking the regs. Keep your transponder off and comply with 91.215 d2 and you'll be fine. My insurance says nothing about keeping my aircraft "current." My aircraft is IFR equipped but I don't have the VOR check or the IFR GPS database current. I don't have to if flown VFR.
 
Garthur said:
Yes you are breaking FAA regs. If the transponder is working fine then tracon will not know the difference. Here is the real issue, If you have an accident, your insurance company will do every thing they can to keep from paying-off. So when you are flying "illegally" you are flying without insurance.
Click to expand...
Which regulation would the OP be breaking if ATC approved the flight per 91.215(d)(2) and the transponder were left either OFF or STBY?
 
Last edited:
felixk said:
Just called the Tracon, they told me, as you guys said, call them up (by phone) an hour prior to the flight, and contact them after takeoff.

FAR 91.413 says that "No persons may use an ATC transponder that is specified in 91.215(a), 121.345(c), or §135.143(c) of this chapter unless, within the preceding 24 calendar months, the ATC transponder has been tested and inspected and found to comply with appendix F of part 43 of this chapter; and..."

So technically by alerting the Tracon that i will be flying without a transponder, and keeping the transponder OFF I satisfy the FAR 91.413.

Would you say the flight is legal at this point?
Click to expand...
Absolutely.

Or am I missing something?
Click to expand...
Not a thing.

Thanks!
Click to expand...
You're welcome.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top