Grant writers on the reservation never used the term money. It was always "monies" they were looking for. Monies, budget, number of employees, position, and power. When I taught at Tohatchi, Gallup McKinley County Schools had one of the highest administrator to teacher ratios in the country. My average class size was 36.

So on the bottom end you have ex military teachers using students as assistant teachers. At the top end, you can't get through Central Office without tripping over administrators of you wouldn't believe what.

Long story short:. Don't worry about it. There will always be a controller shortage.

GravityKnight wrote:

CamTom12 wrote:I think the confusion there is that if you have it installed it has to be ON in class A through E airspace. I'm pretty sure you can turn it off in G, though.

I originally though it was only required to be used in Class C and B... which makes sense. I can play along with that. Nice in congested areas.

Now I was told if you have it, it has to be ON, all the time, period! This is total BS in my opinion. Is this not the case? Even if you can shut it off in G, I still don't like it one bit. (the you are required to have it on part, even in E). What is the reasoning behind that exactly? Where is the data to suggest it's necessary to have in class E?

A buddy of mine suggested that before long, whether it was the intent all along, or just something that will develop from this - we will at some point all be charged for using the airspace. This would be the way to do it.

I'm not going to lose too much sleep just yet on that thought... but that notion seems more likely as time goes on.

No, I misspoke here. If you have a transponder installed it has to be on and working in all except Class G.

If you have ADS-B installed it has to be working in all classes of airspace.

GravityKnight wrote:

CamTom12 wrote:I think the confusion there is that if you have it installed it has to be ON in class A through E airspace. I'm pretty sure you can turn it off in G, though.

I originally though it was only required to be used in Class C and B... which makes sense. I can play along with that. Nice in congested areas.

Now I was told if you have it, it has to be ON, all the time, period! This is total BS in my opinion. Is this not the case? Even if you can shut it off in G, I still don't like it one bit. (the you are required to have it on part, even in E). What is the reasoning behind that exactly? Where is the data to suggest it's necessary to have in class E?

A buddy of mine suggested that before long, whether it was the intent all along, or just something that will develop from this - we will at some point all be charged for using the airspace. This would be the way to do it.

I'm not going to lose too much sleep just yet on that thought... but that notion seems more likely as time goes on.

Like I used to tell clients, I don't make the laws, but you and I have to follow them. At this point, it doesn't matter what the justification (reasoning or data) is for requiring ASB-Out to be on all the time in all airspaces, because the regulation requires it to be on, if you have it installed. Period. Whether it's BS is in the eyes of the beholder, but that doesn't change the regulation.

Your buddy obviously isn't keeping up with all of the politics of ATC privatization. The best way to avoid any eventuality of being charged for using airspace and ATC is to fight privatization. If you or your buddy hasn't contacted your congressmen to voice objection to privatization, then do so today. Congress reacts to its constituents. Belly-aching about it on Facebook, Instagram, or BCP doesn't get the message to them, but direct contacts: phone calls, emails, letters--those do.

Cary

Cary wrote:Your buddy obviously isn't keeping up with all of the politics of ATC privatization. The best way to avoid any eventuality of being charged for using airspace and ATC is to fight privatization. If you or your buddy hasn't contacted your congressmen to voice objection to privatization, then do so today. Congress reacts to its constituents. Belly-aching about it on Facebook, Instagram, or BCP doesn't get the message to them, but direct contacts: phone calls, emails, letters--those do.

Cary

My friend is an airline captain, so it's safe to say he is obviously involved in what is happening with ATC.

You have more faith in congress reacting to the will of the people than I do, but you are right, it's better to try than do nothing at all. I voiced my opinion with private pilot / 3rd class medical changes (and then watched the FAA do whatever they wanted with those changes), and I've already voiced it on privatization changes - thanks for assuming otherwise...

GravityKnight wrote:

Cary wrote:Your buddy obviously isn't keeping up with all of the politics of ATC privatization. The best way to avoid any eventuality of being charged for using airspace and ATC is to fight privatization. If you or your buddy hasn't contacted your congressmen to voice objection to privatization, then do so today. Congress reacts to its constituents. Belly-aching about it on Facebook, Instagram, or BCP doesn't get the message to them, but direct contacts: phone calls, emails, letters--those do.

Cary

My friend is an airline captain, so it's safe to say he is obviously involved in what is happening with ATC.

You have more faith in congress reacting to the will of the people than I do, but you are right, it's better to try than do nothing at all. I voiced my opinion with private pilot / 3rd class medical changes (and then watched the FAA do whatever they wanted with those changes), and I've already voiced it on privatization changes - thanks for assuming otherwise...

Actually, I think the airline folk are pretty much in favor of privatization, other than Delta. But maybe he's different.

As for assuming you didn't contact your Congress folks, I apologize--but the vast majority of people who don't like something Congress is considering, don't do anything about it other than complain to their friends or on social media. Although all of the GA alphabet groups have unanimously fought privatization in Congress, there's still strength in numbers if many individuals will contact them as well. I'm glad that you're among them--so am I.

BTW, I don't have a lot of faith in Congress, either. But that doesn't stop me. In fact, I'm about to send off another email to Congressman Polis who represents my district, who dodged my last email entirely, something I don't appreciate at all, and one way or another, I'm going to let him know it.

Cary

Cary wrote:

GravityKnight wrote:

Cary wrote:Your buddy obviously isn't keeping up with all of the politics of ATC privatization. The best way to avoid any eventuality of being charged for using airspace and ATC is to fight privatization. If you or your buddy hasn't contacted your congressmen to voice objection to privatization, then do so today. Congress reacts to its constituents. Belly-aching about it on Facebook, Instagram, or BCP doesn't get the message to them, but direct contacts: phone calls, emails, letters--those do.

Cary

My friend is an airline captain, so it's safe to say he is obviously involved in what is happening with ATC.

You have more faith in congress reacting to the will of the people than I do, but you are right, it's better to try than do nothing at all. I voiced my opinion with private pilot / 3rd class medical changes (and then watched the FAA do whatever they wanted with those changes), and I've already voiced it on privatization changes - thanks for assuming otherwise...

Actually, I think the airline folk are pretty much in favor of privatization, other than Delta. But maybe he's different.

As for assuming you didn't contact your Congress folks, I apologize--but the vast majority of people who don't like something Congress is considering, don't do anything about it other than complain to their friends or on social media. Although all of the GA alphabet groups have unanimously fought privatization in Congress, there's still strength in numbers if many individuals will contact them as well. I'm glad that you're among them--so am I.

BTW, I don't have a lot of faith in Congress, either. But that doesn't stop me. In fact, I'm about to send off another email to Congressman Polis who represents my district, who dodged my last email entirely, something I don't appreciate at all, and one way or another, I'm going to let him know it.

Cary

I do hope you get a response! If I'm not mistaken, I think it was you who put up a link making it much easier for us to voice our opinion? ...if so, thanks for that, not holding my breathe, but thanks!

Cary wrote:...Actually, I think the airline folk are pretty much in favor of privatization, other than Delta. But maybe he's different.....

I disagree.
I think airline managements are taking a pro-privatization stance.
But that doesn't mean the rank-and-file airline pilots are in favor of it.

hotrod180 wrote:

Cary wrote:...Actually, I think the airline folk are pretty much in favor of privatization, other than Delta. But maybe he's different.....

I disagree.
I think airline managements are taking a pro-privatization stance.
But that doesn't mean the rank-and-file airline pilots are in favor of it.

True--it would be interesting to see which side the majority of the rank-and-file airline pilots would favor.

Cary

To those of you saying buy now the tech is as good as it will get, look at this.

https://www.uavionix.com/products/skybeacon/

This is just a first of evolutionary products that will come out, at a reasonable cost, in the near future.

Don't waste your money on today's tech that will quickly be eclipsed.

Av8r3400 wrote:To those of you saying buy now the tech is as good as it will get, look at this.

https://www.uavionix.com/products/skybeacon/

This is just a first of evolutionary products that will come out, at a reasonable cost, in the near future.

Don't waste your money on today's tech that will quickly be eclipsed.

I saw this a month or so ago.

I may even go for it.

I was also wondering if it can be transfered between two planes, or is the program specific for an N number?

Looks very innovative, but I'd just as soon see a stand-alone unit that isn't built into a strobe light.
Maybe they'll come out with another version?

Never heard of this uavionix outfit, but then again I never heard of Navworx before they introduced the ADS-B unit either.
Unfortunately, it looks like things aren't working out too well for them, or for those who bought their gear.

Think I'll keep on waiting before I buy my ADS-B,
and when I do buy it I'll probably want to buy from a more well established outfit.

Pinecone wrote:If everyone adopted, there'd be so much clutter that we all be lost in it. You really think they have time to monitor all this data?

I only fly in to the US occasionally any more, but would like to equip because it's just such capable technology. I equipped the T210 I sold last year. It was fantastic for friends and family to know I'd made it safely to my destination, or what time I'd arrive for supper! If I went missing, forget the 406 ELT, Spot, or inReach if I was within receiver range. Seeing other airplane's around me was very cool.

This technology will work best when everyone adopts. I think Canada should have lead. Our radar coverage is so poor and sparse that we should mandate this now.

Speaking just culture, and trying to stay clear of politics, individual rights are paramount, but it shouldn't preempt other's safety. I'll be looking for you, but would also appreciate advance warning of your presence. If you want to be anonymous, stay on the ground.

Anonymous mode is not invisible mode. Your display will still show my target with all my pertinent data like altitude, heading,, position groundspeed etc. The only thing different is my target on your traffic display is labeled "VFR" instead of my registration number. So why do you want me to stay on the ground? Just because you can't look up my private information?

Jim

We are truly moving into an era where we will not be responsible to see and avoid either on the ground or in the air. My son can't wait. I will ride with him because I know he understands the AI equipment as well as any. I will not use it solo because I will always feel responsible to see and avoid.

According to my son, it will not be the FAA or the police that make it happen. It will be the insurance industry.

contactflying wrote:According to my son, it will not be the FAA or the police that make it happen. It will be the insurance industry.

I think we have a tendency to underestimate how much regulation is imposed by the insurance industry.

I have asked this question before, but I have never received an answer I am comfortable with. My plane is nonelectric, my comm is powered by an on board battery and I have a transponder installed that I can turn on if in C or B airspace. I understand the reg that says to leave it on, but battery longevity would be an issue. If I installed ADSB to enter airspace where required and followed the reg that says to leave it on, my cross country's would be short lived because of battery capacity. Even now on long trips I turn off the comm to save battery. So the question is, because I am non electric, if the equipment is installed am I exempt from having it operating at all times?

The regs do not require ADS-B out installation in an aircraft that has never been certified with an engine-driven electrical system.
But my take is that if you have ADS-B installed, no matter where the electricity to run it comes from, you are required to have it on at all times. Best to read the entire reg for yourself:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/91.225

"91.225 (f): Each person operating an aircraft equipped with ADS-B Out must operate this equipment in the transmit mode at all times."

"91.225(e):(e) The requirements of paragraph (b) of this section do not apply to any aircraft that was not originally certificated with an electrical system, or that has not subsequently been certified with such a system installed, including balloons and gliders. These aircraft may conduct operations without ADS-B Out in the airspace specified in paragraphs (d)(2) and (d)(4) of this section. Operations authorized by this section must be conducted -
(1) Outside any Class B or Class C airspace area; and
(2) Below the altitude of the ceiling of a Class B or Class C airspace area designated for an airport, or 10,000 feet MSL, whichever is lower."

FWIW here's the similar transponder exemption for non-electrical aircraft:
91.215(b)(3) Notwithstanding paragraph (b)(2) of this section, any aircraft which was not originally certificated with an engine-driven electrical system or which has not subsequently been certified with such a system installed, balloon or glider may conduct operations in the airspace within 30 nautical miles of an airport listed in appendix D, section 1 of this part provided such operations are conducted -
(i) Outside any Class A, Class B, or Class C airspace area; and
(ii) Below the altitude of the ceiling of a Class B or Class C airspace area designated for an airport or 10,000 feet MSL, whichever is lower"

robertc wrote:I have asked this question before, but I have never received an answer I am comfortable with. My plane is nonelectric, my comm is powered by an on board battery and I have a transponder installed that I can turn on if in C or B airspace. I understand the reg that says to leave it on, but battery longevity would be an issue. If I installed ADSB to enter airspace where required and followed the reg that says to leave it on, my cross country's would be short lived because of battery capacity. Even now on long trips I turn off the comm to save battery. So the question is, because I am non electric, if the equipment is installed am I exempt from having it operating at all times?

My take on the regs (see Hotrod180's post) is that if you install the ADS-B Out, it has to be on at all times. Since you installed the transponder, it has to be on at all times that you're in controlled airspace. There's no "my battery can't last long enough" exceptions to either.

I gather that you're running a typical lead acid battery to power your radio and transponder. You might consider a better battery, rather than limiting the length of your flights to once around the patch.

Cary

Very simple:

Don't post/do/video/say/admit to doing stupid shit, on the internet

One possible (ab)use of ads-b flight data could be enforcement of altitude restrictions to a degree heretofore unknown. 1,000 feet over populated areas, 2,000' over marine preserves etc. Restrictions such as these are impractical and even unsafe in some areas and conditions where I fly, but that won't matter to some folks. The FAA has had radar data for years, but seems to have exercised common sense and discretion in enforcement against low flying, at least in my experience. Give precise ads-b altitude data to the public, and that could change. So, be careful crossing that ridge with the houses on it on your way into town.

CAVU

Cary,

As for your question about airline pilots opinion about ATC privatization, I think the majority don't particularly care one way or the other.

I'm in the extreme minority at my employer, as a GA flyer.
"Oh you have have a plane... that's awesome!! I wish I did but...insert excuse here..."

Further, I'd say most legislative action (email campaign)is driven from our unions Govt Affairs committee (which I'm on). We have a pre written email that will send an email to our rep's. It's slick, but I'm not sure how many use it.

As far as ADS-B, I have to comply. Which I'm okay with. For privacy, people are quite ignorant of investigation / surveillance capabilities of law enforcement. That's another soapbox topic, I'll save for later.