AVmail: March 27, 2003

  • E-Mail this Article
  • View Printable Article
  • Text size:

    • A
    • A
    • A

Reader mail this week about hijack transponders and President Reagan's diplomacy.


Hijack Transponder Rule Panned

No doubt these hijack transponders will find tremendous utility in the Mooney Mite and the single seat Pitts Special!

David Abrams


This article states "The agency has issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that would require the replacement of virtually all existing transponders in GA aircraft with models that have a panic button." I read the proposed rule and I can't see any justification for that statement. I understand that the rule is being proposed for Part 121 operators only.

The notice states "The FAA invites interested persons to comment on the applicability of these requirements to aircraft operated under 14 CFR parts 91, 125, 129, or 135. If the FAA determines that additional aircraft should be included, a separate proposal will be issued." It seems to me that you should suggest we write the FAA and state why we think it would be a bad idea for GA aircraft instead of misinforming us as to the scope of the proposed rule.

Larry Anderson

AVweb responds ...

Our report was based on an inaccurate AOPA release that has since been corrected on their website. We did check to see that the NPRM existed and that all the dates matched but relied on AOPA's interpretation of its scope and failed to read far enough to pick out the single line that states this NPRM is for Part 121 only. Sorry for the confusion.

Russ Niles
Newswriter


On The Fly...

On March 24, AVweb wrote,

"With echoes of ham-fisted diplomacy echoing through its structure, former U.S. President Ronald Reagan's Air Force One is being dismantled..."

Just what the heck does that mean? President Ronald Reagan's diplomacy won the Cold War and killed the Soviet Union.

Michael P. Muetzel

AVweb responds ...

We didn't intend any disrespect for President Reagan and we certainly can't argue with the results of his foreign policy. Our use of that term was to illustrate the direct and sometimes abrupt manner in which that policy was deployed. As one of our colleagues suggested, we could have used "hard-nosed" as the adjective and achieved the same goal without offending anyone.

Russ Niles
Newswriter