Transponder should be in ALT on ground

[PPC1052]

No joke.

I've had knobs and switches break and fall out or the allen lug get's loose and it falls off...

That's annoying when you're flying.

My, too. Not on the transponder, but the nav/com dial knobs have cracked and broken off in flight. I use grade electrical tape (aviation grade, of course) to wrap around the knob, and it's as functional as new. Do I have to log that?

 

[Palmpilot]

Yeah, they should just say "pretty please"... LOL.

What's your point?

My point is that since it's not a rule, pilots are free to make their own decision about it, based on what they think is in the interest of safety.

If you have no reason to turn it off, it's on, in the world of "should".

Some people do have a reason to turn it off. The argument I've heard for doing so is that it causes distraction for pilots on final approach, because the type of traffic alerting equipment that is common in GA aircraft gives unnecessary alerts from ground-based transponders. The argument is further made that airports that have the equipment to make use of transponder signals from aircraft on the ground are in a small minority. Having it on at airports not equipped to make use of it serves no purpose.

 

[denverpilot]

My point is that since it's not a rule, pilots are free to make their own decision about it, based on what they think is in the interest of safety.

Good luck arguing that if anyone ever had a reason to question you on it from FAA.

"So... You 'HEARD' that you should 'make your own decisions' about it, and saw that published from us, where? And you drew that conclusion from the word 'should'? In a plain English sentence that says it 'should be on'?"

LOL. I don't think that conversation would go too well for you.

Some people do have a reason to turn it off. The argument I've heard for doing so is that it causes distraction for pilots on final approach, because the type of traffic alerting equipment that is common in GA aircraft gives unnecessary alerts from ground-based transponders. The argument is further made that airports that have the equipment to make use of transponder signals from aircraft on the ground are in a small minority. Having it on at airports not equipped to make use of it serves no purpose.

None of those things sound all that reasonable to turn it off in light of "should". The first one sounds like someone should learn how to deactivate their faulty alerts, the second definitely isn't my focus in a cockpit, nor even in the pilots' swim lane.

Avionics master on, transponder to 1200 ALT, reset to squawk issued in the IFR clearance if any, works fine for me and is way closer to a common sense reading of the AIM than "someone said it does X" or "the airport probably doesn't have the gear anyway". Unless ATC says to stop squawking, that other crap falls into "not my problem".[/QUOTE]

 

[Palmpilot]

Good luck arguing that if anyone ever had a reason to question you on it from FAA.

"So... You 'HEARD' that you should 'make your own decisions' about it, and saw that published from us, where? And you drew that conclusion from the word 'should'? In a plain English sentence that says it 'should be on'?"

LOL. I don't think that conversation would go too well for you.

My opinion that it's not a rule is not based on what I heard, it's based on what the FAA wrote. I'm not aware of your having legal credentials, so unless I hear of people getting busted for it, there's no reason for me to assume that your beliefs about what's legal and what isn't are any more accurate that mine.

None of those things sound all that reasonable to turn it off in light of "should". The first one sounds like someone should learn how to deactivate their faulty alerts, the second definitely isn't my focus in a cockpit, nor even in the pilots' swim lane.

Avionics master on, transponder to 1200 ALT, reset to squawk issued in the IFR clearance if any, works fine for me and is way closer to a common sense reading of the AIM than "someone said it does X" or "the airport probably doesn't have the gear anyway". Unless ATC says to stop squawking, that other crap falls into "not my problem".

Regarding whether there is a reason for turning it off or not, I'm hearing one thing from you, and I'm hearing the opposite from someone else. At this point, I don't really have a basis for deciding which of you is right.

 

[FastEddieB]

It is not a rule.

But the FAA has requested that Mode C be activated at all airports, essentially from before you begin taxiing until you come to rest at your destination. I never did that before, but upon hearing about it I immediately changed my checklist and procedures so as to comply. That is something I will likely cover, with source, if and when I'm called upon to do a BFR. Many pilots do not keep up with such things.

Since it is so easy to just do it as requested, those who resist doing what the FAA requests, in almost a knee-jerk manner, remind me of this "Hazardous Attitude":

• Anti-Authority: "Don't tell me!" - When people have this attitude they may resent having someone tell them what to do or they think of rules and regs as silly or unneeded.

 

[Fearless Tower]

Some people do have a reason to turn it off. The argument I've heard for doing so is that it causes distraction for pilots on final approach, because the type of traffic alerting equipment that is common in GA aircraft gives unnecessary alerts from ground-based transponders.

I've seen that argument and it doesn't make sense.

If it were true, you'd have constant problems at the Class B airports where transponders are actually required to on.

 

[Everskyward]

Good luck arguing that if anyone ever had a reason to question you on it from FAA.

But you aren't going to get in trouble if you "forget" to turn it on at an airport where they want it on. They'll simply ask you to turn it on, just like they do when people take off with it off or in standby.

I think they put it in the AIM so pilots aren't guessing about the airports that are equipped with the capability to see transponder returns on the ground.

 

[denverpilot]

But you aren't going to get in trouble if you "forget" to turn it on at an airport where they want it on. They'll simply ask you to turn it on, just like they do when people take off with it off or in standby.

I think they put it in the AIM so pilots aren't guessing about the airports that are equipped with the capability to see transponder returns on the ground.

Depends on what happened to have them talking to you in the first place. Granted it'd likely have to be more than that, but Hoover missed his parking spot by a couple of feet...

Point still is, why worry about it... Just turn it on. The only thing stopping anyone so far, is stories of others with badly designed avionics, and inertia from training given long before the change in what is desired.

 

[denverpilot]

My opinion that it's not a rule is not based on what I heard, it's based on what the FAA wrote. I'm not aware of your having legal credentials, so unless I hear of people getting busted for it, there's no reason for me to assume that your beliefs about what's legal and what isn't are any more accurate that mine.

Regarding whether there is a reason for turning it off or not, I'm hearing one thing from you, and I'm hearing the opposite from someone else. At this point, I don't really have a basis for deciding which of you is right.

Last I heard, the AIM is not a "belief". You do have a way to tell. Ask the other person what publication they're basing their "belief" upon. Haha.

 

[Everskyward]

Depends on what happened to have them talking to you in the first place. Granted it'd likely have to be more than that, but Hoover missed his parking spot by a couple of feet...

Point still is, why worry about it... Just turn it on. The only thing stopping anyone so far, is stories of others with badly designed avionics, and inertia from training given long before the change in what is desired.

I agree about just turning it on, which we do now. I was only disagreeing about the part that there was something to worry about if you were caught with it off.

 

[denverpilot]

I agree about just turning it on, which we do now. I was only disagreeing about the part that there was something to worry about if you were caught with it off.

Depends on what other charges are brought. Ha. It's all about having a pile of things to make you look bad before the ALJ or worse a jury, if you ran into someone's jet, these days.

A nice long list of stuff makes you look worse to the uninformed who'll be judging you.

 

[Everskyward]

Depends on what other charges are brought. Ha. It's all about having a pile of things to make you look bad before the ALJ or worse a jury, if you ran into someone's jet, these days.

A nice long list of stuff makes you look worse to the uninformed who'll be judging you.

You could worry about all kinds of stuff if you wanted to; enough stuff to make you never want to pilot an airplane.

 

[denverpilot]

You could worry about all kinds of stuff if you wanted to; enough stuff to make you never want to pilot an airplane.

Who said I was worried? Just makes no sense to hand someone more rope to hang you with when that's their MO in certain circumstances.

Kinda like telling Sully he could have made the runway, since the kids in the sim did.

The pitchforks and torches come out after any incident. It's not so much worry about it as it is, knowing it as a fact of our nannyist safety society driven by lawsuits and lawyers.

Doesn't worry me in the slightest. But there's ways to not hand them more fodder for their scatter gun paper pile that they always spray and pray with.

Plus it's a lot easier under stress to state factually what you did when the procedure is always the same and has no variation. "The transponder was in ALT." Because it always is ... unless someone told me to turn it off.

If it weren't necessary for troubleshooting electrical shorts, you could hard wire the thing on, for all I care.

 

[Everskyward]

Who said I was worried? Just makes no sense to hand someone more rope to hang you with when that's their MO in certain circumstances.

Kinda like telling Sully he could have made the runway, since the kids in the sim did.

The pitchforks and torches come out after any incident. It's not so much worry about it as it is, knowing it as a fact of our nannyist safety society driven by lawsuits and lawyers.

Doesn't worry me in the slightest. But there's ways to not hand them more fodder for their scatter gun paper pile that they always spray and pray with.

Plus it's a lot easier under stress to state factually what you did when the procedure is always the same and has no variation. "The transponder was in ALT." Because it always is ... unless someone told me to turn it off.

If it weren't necessary for troubleshooting electrical shorts, you could hard wire the thing on, for all I care.

You may not be worried yourself but the tone of your whole post seems to be about getting others to worry.

Turn your transponder on on the ground or not. I do, now, but this is way down on my list of what I might try to convince others to do other than pointing out what is says in the AIM in case they haven't seen it..

 

[denverpilot]

You may not be worried yourself but the tone of your whole post seems to be getting others to worry.

Turn your transponder on on the ground or not. I do, now, but this is way down on my list of what I might try to convince others to do.

What emotional state they choose to place themselves in after reading the AIM and deciding like big adults as to where to place their switches, after talking to "someone who said something", is their choice and problem. Not mine. Ha.

I'm more sharing the thought that there's the AIM, and then there's OWTs from unknown idiots teaching them things who can't back their teaching up with docs.

I don't care what they actually do in their airplanes. It's their ticket and they're big kids. I do care a bit about instructors teaching garbage that has no basis in reality anymore, like the "camera" in "Lights, Camera, Action".

Garmin created the "automatically on" transponder a long time ago. Then they came out with the "always on" firmware to fix it after the AIM changed. Any manual procedure dumber than the Garmin probably deserves a little bashing at this point.

It's been plenty enough years to beat the whole "turn it on entering the runway" procedure out of anyone's head who's been paying even the least bit of attention in the last decade or more.

But it's still up there ^^^ in the thread... And still being taught... And a whole lot of Garmins don't have the firmware update yet, too. Ha.

 

[Sundancer]

Uhhhh. . .so killing the avionics outside the Mode C veil makes me a bad person?

 

[Palmpilot]

Last I heard, the AIM is not a "belief".

The idea that the AIM passage in question is a rule is a belief.

You do have a way to tell. Ask the other person what publication they're basing their "belief" upon. Haha.

He is not the source of my belief that the AIM passage in question is not a rule. What the FAA wrote is.

 

[Fearless Tower]

Kinda like telling Sully he could have made the runway, since the kids in the sim did.

Minor point of clarification, but only 8 out of 15 made the runway.

 

[Palmpilot]

Uhhhh. . .so killing the avionics outside the Mode C veil makes me a bad person?

I don't know, but that one actually does violate a rule, 91.215(c) to be specific.

 

[Ravioli]

He is not the source of my belief that the AIM passage in question is not a rule. What the FAA wrote is.

Those pesky FAA writings:

AIM
The Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM) is the FAA's official guide to basic flight information and Air traffic control (ATC) procedures. [Get the AIM PDF here.]

The AIM contains the basic aeronautical knowledge information required to fly in the United States National Airspace System.

It also contains items of interest to pilots concerning health and medical facts, factors affecting flight safety, a pilot/controller glossary of terms used in the ATC System, and information on safety, accident, and hazard reporting.

Copy of the AIM here: AIM-2014 (4-03-2014)

 

[Timbeck2]

In my experience at a military tower within Class C and an FAA run tracon, if anyone squawks their code prior to take off, we can see them on radar taxiing out the runway via their data tag on the scope. With other aircraft in the pattern this causes a problem with data tag overlap and it also causes problems with departure tag up because they squawked early. I can only say what goes on at MY air patch, yours obviously varies.

So when I fly out of Tucson International which uses the same tracon, I use the "lights, camera, action" method. I've had two incidents of turning my transponder on after I receive my squawk and before taxi (otherwise, I did what people are advocating here to leave it in ALT all the time) that when I actually took off they had problems getting my data tag to show up on radar.

So as a result, I don't switch to ALT until just before I pull out on the runway.

 

[Palmpilot]

I'm more sharing the thought that there's the AIM, and then there's OWTs...

Is the AIM never wrong?

...from unknown idiots teaching them things who can't back their teaching up with docs.

That's an awfully extreme position to take about an instructor whom you've never met and haven't had a chance to talk to directly.

I don't care what they actually do in their airplanes. It's their ticket and they're big kids. I do care a bit about instructors teaching garbage that has no basis in reality anymore, like the "camera" in "Lights, Camera, Action"

My understanding is that his basis in reality is that he sees and hears the false traffic alerts while teaching. So who's he going to believe, SGOTI, or his own lying eyes and ears?

...And a whole lot of Garmins don't have the firmware update yet, too. Ha.

Now you're talking reality. It's a good thing the FAA didn't make this a rule, because the majority of GA pilots are renters, who have no control over what firmware is installed in the transponder, and may or may not be able to configure traffic alerting systems to suppress ground traffic.

When you claim that someone who doesn't agree with you about something is risking his ticket, you sound like Ron Levy.

 

[SoCal RV Flyer]

When you claim that someone who doesn't agree with you about something is risking his ticket, you sound like Ron Levy.

I doubt we'll see an NTSB report that says, "A flight plan was not filed, and transponder was found to be in STBY mode on taxiway prior to departure." Well, maybe the first part.

 

[Palmpilot]

Those pesky FAA writings:

AIM
The Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM) is the FAA's official guide to basic flight information and Air traffic control (ATC) procedures. [Get the AIM PDF here.]

Yep. Notice that it doesn't say "rules."

The AIM contains the basic aeronautical knowledge information required to fly in the United States National Airspace System.

Still no mention of "rules."

It also contains items of interest to pilots concerning health and medical facts, factors affecting flight safety, a pilot/controller glossary of terms used in the ATC System, and information on safety, accident, and hazard reporting.

No mention of "rules" there either.

But it does say this:

"This publication, while not regulatory, provides information which reflects examples of operating techniques and procedures which may be requirements in other federal publications or regulations. It is made available solely to assist pilots in executing their responsibilities required by other publications."​

And this:

"3. Transponder and ADS-B operations on the ground. Civil and military aircraft should operate with the transponder in the altitude reporting mode (consult the aircraft’s flight manual to determine the specific transponder position to enable altitude reporting) and ADS-B Out transmissions enabled (if equipped) at all airports, any time the aircraft is positioned on any portion of an airport movement area. This includes all defined taxiways and runways. Pilots must pay particular attention to ATIS and airport diagram notations, General Notes (included on airport charts), and comply with directions pertaining to transponder and ADS-B usage."
​

Notice that they wrote "should" in regard to all airports, but they wrote "must" in regard to directions from airport-specific sources. Why do you suppose they did that? Were they just being careless in their choice of words? I doubt it. I think they did it because they know what has a basis in the regulations and what doesn't.

Copy of the AIM here: AIM-2014 (4-03-2014)

This may or may not affect the issue we're discussing, but you might want to update your links. The ones you posted are two years out of date.

 

[Fearless Tower]

In my experience at a military tower within Class C and an FAA run tracon, if anyone squawks their code prior to take off, we can see them on radar taxiing out the runway via their data tag on the scope. With other aircraft in the pattern this causes a problem with data tag overlap and it also causes problems with departure tag up because they squawked early. I can only say what goes on at MY air patch, yours obviously varies.

So when I fly out of Tucson International which uses the same tracon, I use the "lights, camera, action" method. I've had two incidents of turning my transponder on after I receive my squawk and before taxi (otherwise, I did what people are advocating here to leave it in ALT all the time) that when I actually took off they had problems getting my data tag to show up on radar.

So as a result, I don't switch to ALT until just before I pull out on the runway.

So what is different about the ASDE-X (where it is required to be on) airports that prevents what you describe from being a problem?

 

[Palmpilot]

By the way, the FAA has provided a list of the 35 airports that have ASDE-X capability:

https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/technology/asde-x/

 

[denverpilot]

Is the AIM never wrong?

Never claimed that, chief.

That's an awfully extreme position to take about an instructor whom you've never met and haven't had a chance to talk to directly.

My statement was a plural generality vs your singular assumption. Little help needed in the context and reading comprehension here. LOL

My understanding is that his basis in reality is that he sees and hears the false traffic alerts while teaching. So who's he going to believe, SGOTI, or his own lying eyes and ears?

Maybe your airplane is different but most of us don't see other people's bad avionics implementations. You have a cool like periscope thingy or something?

Now you're talking reality. It's a good thing the FAA didn't make this a rule, because the majority of GA pilots are renters, who have no control over what firmware is installed in the transponder, and may or may not be able to configure traffic alerting systems to suppress ground traffic.

Yawn. Manufacturers provide buttons to change the mode any time one wants to forget about the bad automation and be PIC.

When you claim that someone who doesn't agree with you about something is risking his ticket, you sound like Ron Levy.

We all risk our tickets every time we fly. That's how law works. Especially administrative law.

But again, not what I said, chief. Feel free to re-read a little more carefully.

If folks are going to parse the word "should" in the AIM, they can certainly read exactly what I wrote, consider the context of the conversation whilst doing so, and not make up crap about it from their emotional response they chose to have from it.

 

[Sundancer]

I don't know, but that one actually does violate a rule, 91.215(c) to be specific.

Huh. . .I could be wrong - But I THOUGHT I could go dark outside the veil and Class A, B, & C . . .

 

[Ravioli]

Someone said they relied on what the FAA writes as their guidance. I was only pointing out to that person that the AIM is written by the FAA.

Here's an odd thought. If the AIM is so worthless in determining what is required of pilots, why are we required to have current copies of it at the ready? Could there be some useful information in there?

 

[Palmpilot]

Never claimed that, chief

I never said you did.

Maybe your airplane is different but most of us don't see other people's bad avionics implementations. You have a cool like periscope thingy or something?

I'm not the one who has seen this.The instructor who said he has teaches full time, in a lot of different airplanes, and I have no reason to doubt his word about what he has seen.

What was that you were saying about reading comprehension?

Yawn. Manufacturers provide buttons to change the mode any time one wants to forget about the bad automation and be PIC

If that's universally true, or even mostly true, that's good, but I don't have control over how other pilots set up panels. The only panel I have control over is the one I'm flying behind on any given day. I can't justify ignoring a safety issue just because you don't approve of the fact that other pilots either don't, or don't know how, to set up rental plane panels the way you think they should.

We all risk our tickets every time we fly. That's how law works. Especially administrative law

But again, not what I said, chief. Feel free to re-read a little more carefully

How does one read the following without concluding that you were warning about a potential enforcement action?

Good luck arguing that if anyone ever had a reason to question you on it from FAA.

"So... You 'HEARD' that you should 'make your own decisions' about it, and saw that published from us, where? And you drew that conclusion from the word 'should'? In a plain English sentence that says it 'should be on'?"

LOL. I don't think that conversation would go too well for you.
​

https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/com...be-in-alt-on-ground.82764/page-4#post-2130467

 

[Palmpilot]

Someone said they relied on what the FAA writes as their guidance. I was only pointing out to that person that the AIM is written by the FAA.

Here's an odd thought. If the AIM is so worthless in determining what is required of pilots, why are we required to have current copies of it at the ready? Could there be some useful information in there?

Almost all of it is good advice. The fact that there are occasional exceptions does not make it worthless.

 

[Palmpilot]

Huh. . .I could be wrong - But I THOUGHT I could go dark outside the veil and Class A, B, & C . . .

Sorry, I assumed you had access to a copy of the regulation I cited:

"(c) Transponder-on operation. While in the airspace as specified in paragraph (b) of this section or in all controlled airspace, each person operating an aircraft equipped with an operable ATC transponder maintained in accordance with §91.413 of this part shall operate the transponder, including Mode C equipment if installed, and shall reply on the appropriate code or as assigned by ATC."
​

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-id...986e2e70&mc=true&node=se14.2.91_1215&rgn=div8

 

[Ravioli]

The fact that there are occasional exceptions does not make it worthless.

And now it will become comical while you help us all understand how YOU determine the "good advice" from from the "exceptions." Hopefully this comedy will only be online, because if you're talking to someone from the FAA about an actual incident/accident they will probably treat the FAR/AIM as gospel.

Be pretty sad to someday see the anonymous post "I SHOULD have followed the AIM, but some guy on PoA convinced me they ain't rulez"

 

[Sundancer]

Sorry, I assumed you had access to a copy of the regulation I cited:

"(c) Transponder-on operation. While in the airspace as specified in paragraph (b) of this section or in all controlled airspace, each person operating an aircraft equipped with an operable ATC transponder maintained in accordance with §91.413 of this part shall operate the transponder, including Mode C equipment if installed, and shall reply on the appropriate code or as assigned by ATC."
​

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-id...986e2e70&mc=true&node=se14.2.91_1215&rgn=div8

Roger roger - can be dark outside controlled airspace, but must shine within. . .or not have an electrical system or transponder.

 

[FastEddieB]

And a good time to review and consider exactly what "controlled airspace" is, and what a large percentage of your flight time is probable spent there.

For the most part, unless you're pretty low, you're in it.

 

[denverpilot]

And a good time to review and consider exactly what "controlled airspace" is, and what a large percentage of your flight time is probable spent there.

For the most part, unless you're pretty low, you're in it.

Shhh. People will find out!

 

[James331]

... If the AIM is so worthless in determining what is required of pilots, why are we required to have current copies of it at the ready? Could there be some useful information in there?

We are not required to have a copy of the AIM.

I use my transponder IAW the FARs only.

With where and how I fly my plane, not much conflicting traffic.

 

[Ravioli]

We are not required to have a copy of the AIM.

Educate me. Current FAR and AIM is required only on checkrides?

 

[KSCessnaDriver]

Educate me. Current FAR and AIM is required only on checkrides?

Show me the regulation that says a FAR/AIM is required for a checkride...

 

[James331]

Educate me. Current FAR and AIM is required only on checkrides?

Not even "required" on check rides.

My education costs $50 hr cash or trade

I have a FAR on my iPhone and iPad, but I don't have a AIM anywhere and I take check rides every 6 months. Even as a gold seal CFI, not one of my students has brought a AIM to a ride.