X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 12:43:56 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from mail-lpp01m010-f52.google.com ([209.85.215.52] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4.4) with ESMTPS id 5488888 for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 11:07:31 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.215.52; envelope-from=guldi.jim@gmail.com Received: by lahi5 with SMTP id i5so5792837lah.25 for ; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 08:06:53 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.112.100.68 with SMTP id ew4mr1123881lbb.104.1334848013104; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 08:06:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.112.2.231 with HTTP; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 08:06:53 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: X-Original-Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 11:06:53 -0400 X-Original-Message-ID: Subject: Re: [LML] Re: ensure your transponder works From: Jim Guldi X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=14dae9d2f262a675f804be098571 --14dae9d2f262a675f804be098571 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 The enforcement is by people and some are A H and some are nice. A friend of mine had a problem like yours he ended up dealing with an Adm Law Judge. The FAA like other Govt types don't really like this cause they are no longer in control and the judge may side with you ,god forbid! On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 8:07 AM, genemartin wrote: > ** > Gary we may be in a new era. I had my shop inspection a couple weeks ago > and a new inspector didn't like one form for my capabilities list,all info > was there but they call the form by a different name now. Been fine for > last 12 years. Got 90 days to comply. He showed me a ltr. sent to all > inspectors and as I read it there was a sentence that read...inspectors are > not there to be a friend to repair stations but to enforce compliance and > inspectors are to give a reasonable time for compliance before enforcement > actions so as not to over burden faa with regulatory paper work. (something > like that) look out all. > > Gene Martin > LNC2/320 > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Gary Casey > *To:* lml@lancaironline.net > *Sent:* Wednesday, April 18, 2012 10:00 AM > *Subject:* [LML] Re: ensure your transponder works > > Ralf, > I'd like a little more detail. I assume you were not talking (getting > flight following services) to ATC all along, right? I don't know the > details of the Class B airspace around Newark, but I also assume you were > flying inside the Mode C 30-mile circle, but outside Class B airspace, > right? That's the only time I can imagine getting a "Mode C violation." > If you were getting flight following services I can't imagine them not > telling you they weren't receiving your Mode C return. And, of course, if > only the altitude encoding function were inop the Xponder would still be > showing reception (blinking light) and would be transmitting a reply. I > and my neighbors often fly under the Denver Class B without talking to ATC. > hmm.... So, yes, user beware - you could violate the Mode C airspace and > never know it - until later. I suppose the only defense would be to talk > to ATC whenever anywhere near the 30-mile radius. > > The other post about ATC getting in a snit because of 20 minutes of radio > silence - that's surprising as I've had just that occurrence many times > over the years, usually resulting in me looking up the nearest frequency on > the chart and recovering communication. But it was usually out in the > middle of nowhere, not in Florida (wait, is that also nowhere? :-). I'm > surprised FAA is pushing back so hard. > > Just two examples of a "kindlier and friendlier" FAA, or are we in a new > era? I think I know the answer. An anecdote: My transponder replies with > my registration number, but I didn't know that until I had flown my ES for > 3 years or so, including all over LA. Doing a Xponder cert, the technician > asked, "why don't you have the correct N-number programmed?" Huh? So I > programmed in the right number - I had been flying for years with me > telling ATC one number and my Xponder telling them another. Nobody > complained, so I assume they weren't watching. Or? > > Gary Casey > > Dear subscribers > > Last week I flew from my home airport in Ohio to the Linden Airport > (KLDJ - about 10 miles south of Newark). I flew into this airport IFR > before and I recall the controller asking me if I could finish my flight > VFR because of all the traffic in this area. This time I decided not to > bother anybody and go VFR from the start since the weather was fine. > > I had a Garmin 320 transponder and the amber light was happily flashing > all the way to New York. What I did not know was that the transponder > failed and was not sending out a signal.... > > When I landed the airport stuff came up immediately and told me to call > NY FAA. They filed then a Mode C violation and told me not to move the > plane without permission. > ..... > After explaining the FAA that the old transponder failed and I had a > replacement in place I got permission to leave Linden the next day. The > new transponder works and everybody can see me again. The FAA indicated > that since I have a work order for testing the old transponder (Tom > Madden's recommendation) they will drop my charges. > > Ralf > > -- "There are no traffic jams along the extra mile" - Roger Staubach ..jim guldi CFI --14dae9d2f262a675f804be098571 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The enforcement is by people and some are A H and some are nice. A friend o= f mine had a problem like yours he ended up dealing with an Adm Law Judge. = The FAA like other Govt types don't really like this cause they are no = longer in control and the judge may side with you ,god forbid!

On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 8:07 AM, genemartin = <genemartin@eni= d.com> wrote:
Gary we may be in a new era. I had my shop=20 inspection a couple weeks ago and a new inspector didn't like one form = for my=20 capabilities list,all info was there but they call the form by a different = name=20 now. Been fine for last 12 years. Got 90 days to comply. He showed me a ltr= .=20 sent to all inspectors and as I read it there was a sentence that=20 read...inspectors are not there to be a friend to repair stations but to en= force=20 compliance and inspectors are to give a reasonable time for compliance befo= re=20 enforcement actions so as not to over burden faa with regulatory paper work= .=20 (something like that)=A0 look out all.
=A0
Gene Martin
LNC2/320
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Gary=20 Casey
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2012 10:= 00=20 AM
Subject: [LML] Re: ensure your=20 transponder works

Ralf,
I'd like a little more detail. =A0I assume you were not talking= =20 (getting flight following services) to ATC all along, right? =A0I don'= ;t=20 know the details of the Class B airspace around Newark, but I also assume= you=20 were flying inside the Mode C 30-mile circle, but outside Class B airspac= e,=20 right? =A0That's the only time I can imagine getting a "Mode C v= iolation."=20 =A0If you were getting flight following services I can't imagine them= not=20 telling you they weren't receiving your Mode C return. =A0And, of cou= rse,=20 if only the altitude encoding function were inop the Xponder would still = be=20 showing reception (blinking light) and would be transmitting a reply. =A0= I=20 and my neighbors often fly under the Denver Class B without talking to AT= C.=20 =A0hmm.... =A0So, yes, user beware - you could violate the Mode C=20 airspace and never know it - until later. =A0I suppose the only defense= =20 would be to talk to ATC whenever anywhere near the 30-mile radius.

The other post about ATC getting in a snit because of 20 minutes of = radio=20 silence - that's surprising as I've had just that occurrence many= times over=20 the years, usually resulting in me looking up the nearest frequency on th= e=20 chart and recovering communication. =A0But it was usually out in the midd= le=20 of nowhere, not in Florida (wait, is that also nowhere? :-). =A0I'm= =20 surprised FAA is pushing back so hard.

Just two examples of a "kindlier and friendlier" FAA, or a= re we in a new=20 era? =A0I think I know the answer. =A0An anecdote: =A0My transponder=20 replies with my registration number, but I didn't know that until I h= ad flown=20 my ES for 3 years or so, including all over LA. =A0Doing a Xponder cert,= =20 the technician asked, "why don't you have the correct N-number p= rogrammed?"=20 =A0Huh? =A0So I programmed in the right number - I had been flying for=20 years with me telling ATC one number and my Xponder telling them another.= =20 =A0Nobody complained, so I assume they weren't watching. =A0Or?

Gary Casey

Dear subscribers

Last week I flew from my home= =20 airport in Ohio to the Linden Airport
(KLDJ - about 10 miles south of= =20 Newark). I flew into this airport IFR
before and I recall the controll= er=20 asking me if I could finish my flight
VFR because of all the traffic i= n=20 this area. This time I decided not to
bother anybody and go VFR from t= he=20 start since the weather was fine.

I had a Garmin 320 transponder a= nd=20 the amber light was happily flashing
all the way to New York. What I d= id=20 not know was that the transponder
failed and was not sending out a=20 signal....

When I landed the airport stuff came up immediately and= told=20 me to call
NY FAA. They filed then a Mode C violation and told me not = to=20 move the
plane without permission.=A0
.....
After explaining the= =20 FAA that the old transponder failed and I had a
replacement in place I= got=20 permission to leave Linden the next day. The
new transponder works and= =20 everybody can see me again. The FAA indicated
that since I have a work= =20 order for testing the old transponder (Tom
Madden's recommendation= ) they=20 will drop my=20 charges.

Ralf



--

"There a= re no traffic jams along the extra mile" - Roger Staubach

<= br>
..jim guldi CFI



--14dae9d2f262a675f804be098571--