Big Brother is Watching
Moderators: GAHorn, Karl Towle, Bruce Fenstermacher
Big Brother is Watching
After a recent trip to San Antonio with an erratic mode C encoder, I was surprised to find in todays mail not one, but TWO letters from two different FAA facilities warning me and asking me about my mode C encoder. The first letter was from Indianapolis Center and was just a notification that mode C transmissions with greater than 300 feet of error had been received. The second letter came from a Texas FSDO in the Austin sector saying the same thing, and asking for proof of repairs. Seems the Austin TRACON had some spare time on their hands and made a report to the FSDO that they had received erroneous mode C transmissions from my aircraft. Holy cow, what is going on here? I have a little mode C problem and the feds have put together an impressive paper trail and riding my case. Perhaps I should have just left the mode C function off? I purchased a new ACK-30 encoder and had it installed and the aircraft recertified for IFR operations while at Stinson Municipal in San Antonio...no problems on the return trip at all with mode C. So when did the FAA get to be such storm troopers regarding mode C transmissions?
John, 2734C in Summit Point, WV
-
russfarris
- Posts: 476
- Joined: Wed May 15, 2002 2:25 am
John, I'm a little unclear about this - I'm assuming that you were either IFR or getting VFR flight following. When they asked you your altitude, did you actually ADMIT to being 300 feet or more off?
I remember one day in the 737-200 when we busted a level off and the center asked our altitude (we were rapidly correcting back to the correct one, and never more than 400 feet off), and the darned F/O told them the truth! I wasn't too happy about that, but nothing came of it.
If your reported altitude and the Mode C vary more than 300 feet they will simply ask you to stop altitude squawk. I'm not sure how your problem occurred, can you expand a little?
Guess I've turned into a grumpy old-timer! Russ Farris
I remember one day in the 737-200 when we busted a level off and the center asked our altitude (we were rapidly correcting back to the correct one, and never more than 400 feet off), and the darned F/O told them the truth! I wasn't too happy about that, but nothing came of it.
If your reported altitude and the Mode C vary more than 300 feet they will simply ask you to stop altitude squawk. I'm not sure how your problem occurred, can you expand a little?
Guess I've turned into a grumpy old-timer! Russ Farris
All glory is fleeting...
-
zero.one.victor
- Posts: 2271
- Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 12:11 am
Another aspect of "big brother is watching"--have you all noticed the AOPA Airport Watch signs that are being posted at airports these days? Basically,they say if you see someone who looks "suspicious",call the cops on them! Whoaa!! Remember all the flap a few years ago when the CAP was supposedly tasked with searching out and reporting "suspicious-looking" aircraft ?
Our local pilots association was just sent one of those signs,and asked our airport manager,who was giving a presentation at one of our meetings,to have it posted on the field somewhere. He proceeded to tell us about seeing a suspicious-looking guy taking pictures of airplanes from the highway that's just off the end of our runway. He said he drove up and took a picture of the suspicious person,as well as his license plate number,then called the cops and the nearby Navy facility & had them run a check on the guy.
Well,I've seen the guy he was talking about,he's a harmless older fella who just happens to be a non-flying airplane buff. Nothing suspicious or dangerous about him. Now he's got a red flag by his name on some computer because he likes to watch airplanes take off & land.
It's getting where I'm almost afraid to go walking around other airports looking at planes! What if I get a check ran on me? I work in building construction and often have to get background-checked to work on militairy bases or defense plants. What happens when that red flag goes up on the computer screen?
Given today's political & militairy situation,I think maybe people tend to get a little too worked up,and signs like the ones I mentioned don't help mellow them out at all.
Big Brother,indeed.
Eric
Our local pilots association was just sent one of those signs,and asked our airport manager,who was giving a presentation at one of our meetings,to have it posted on the field somewhere. He proceeded to tell us about seeing a suspicious-looking guy taking pictures of airplanes from the highway that's just off the end of our runway. He said he drove up and took a picture of the suspicious person,as well as his license plate number,then called the cops and the nearby Navy facility & had them run a check on the guy.
Well,I've seen the guy he was talking about,he's a harmless older fella who just happens to be a non-flying airplane buff. Nothing suspicious or dangerous about him. Now he's got a red flag by his name on some computer because he likes to watch airplanes take off & land.
It's getting where I'm almost afraid to go walking around other airports looking at planes! What if I get a check ran on me? I work in building construction and often have to get background-checked to work on militairy bases or defense plants. What happens when that red flag goes up on the computer screen?
Given today's political & militairy situation,I think maybe people tend to get a little too worked up,and signs like the ones I mentioned don't help mellow them out at all.
Big Brother,indeed.
Eric
The sector near Crawford (GW's place) has become real nazis about this issue. A buddy of mine was asked his altitude and he told them the one he was assigned. They said nothing more, but a week later he got the same kind of letter, in accompaniment with a condition tag (effectively grounding his airplane, requiring a ferry permit to get it to an avionics shop where his altimeter/encoder could be collaborated.
In your case, John, ...if you had a new encoder installed at Stinson, simply send the FAA a copy of that logbook entry and the avionics shop's sign-off. That should be the end of it, if the shop did it correctly.
Meanwhile...if anyone gets one of these letters, and does nothing about it,...and if later another "event" occurs....then you'll be set up for a serious violation on the premise that you had been warned you had failed equipment and operated anyway.
It seems that the "trigger" is whether or not the pilot is thought to be lying by the controller, and/or whether the controller has a desire or need to send a letter. (Maybe he didn't notice you were off altitude in time to prevent another IFR aircraft to wander nearby. He might need to cover himself.) If you bust an altitude, and you're asked to state your current altitude,...and in the interests of "expediency" (How's that sound, Russ?) you simply reply that you're at your assigned altitude...but the controller thinks you've lied to him to save your tail...he might send in a report that results in such a letter. (The controller may feel You might have beaten the violation, but he will see to it that you'll still have to shell out some money for a test report.)
On the other hand, if you're VFR (or even IFR with a legit reason to be off altitude) and you admit it to them...then they'll either tell you to get back on altitude or they'll file on you if they think it appropriate. In this scenario, your equipment is verified by your response to be accurate.
Generally, a deviation of only 300 feet will not result in such a letter. It normally takes a deviation of more than 300 feet to justify forcing the aircraft owner to address the issue in a maintenance report. (After all, we're allowed 200 feet. What if local barometer differs from ATC's barometer by another 50-100 feet? There's a 300 foot difference that is legit and within guidelines.) (In my buddy's case, he was at 7500 and his encoder was reporting 6700. He had a real problem and had to buy a new encoder.) But, Remember, ATC equipment has failures too! I'm not sure that Just because ATC sends you a letter asking for proof of repair means you actually have to go spend money having your equipment tested. I wonder if a subsequent flight or two, with a signed statement by the pilot that ATC was asked to provide a readout, which corresponded to what was observed in the cockpit would suffice. (Repeated errors in reported altitude, especially from different sectors would be a problem tho'. I'd sure hate to have to bring a lawyer down to their offices to discuss that. A really "sharp" FAA Inspector might not be satisfied with simply getting a copy of your avionics shop's statement that your encoder required calibration, or replacement. A sharp inspector would also ask for a copy of the log entry that showed your encoder and altimeter was in compliance within the last two years.
(See FAR 91.411 (a) (1), 91.413 (a).)
In your case, John, ...if you had a new encoder installed at Stinson, simply send the FAA a copy of that logbook entry and the avionics shop's sign-off. That should be the end of it, if the shop did it correctly.
Meanwhile...if anyone gets one of these letters, and does nothing about it,...and if later another "event" occurs....then you'll be set up for a serious violation on the premise that you had been warned you had failed equipment and operated anyway.
It seems that the "trigger" is whether or not the pilot is thought to be lying by the controller, and/or whether the controller has a desire or need to send a letter. (Maybe he didn't notice you were off altitude in time to prevent another IFR aircraft to wander nearby. He might need to cover himself.) If you bust an altitude, and you're asked to state your current altitude,...and in the interests of "expediency" (How's that sound, Russ?) you simply reply that you're at your assigned altitude...but the controller thinks you've lied to him to save your tail...he might send in a report that results in such a letter. (The controller may feel You might have beaten the violation, but he will see to it that you'll still have to shell out some money for a test report.)
On the other hand, if you're VFR (or even IFR with a legit reason to be off altitude) and you admit it to them...then they'll either tell you to get back on altitude or they'll file on you if they think it appropriate. In this scenario, your equipment is verified by your response to be accurate.
Generally, a deviation of only 300 feet will not result in such a letter. It normally takes a deviation of more than 300 feet to justify forcing the aircraft owner to address the issue in a maintenance report. (After all, we're allowed 200 feet. What if local barometer differs from ATC's barometer by another 50-100 feet? There's a 300 foot difference that is legit and within guidelines.) (In my buddy's case, he was at 7500 and his encoder was reporting 6700. He had a real problem and had to buy a new encoder.) But, Remember, ATC equipment has failures too! I'm not sure that Just because ATC sends you a letter asking for proof of repair means you actually have to go spend money having your equipment tested. I wonder if a subsequent flight or two, with a signed statement by the pilot that ATC was asked to provide a readout, which corresponded to what was observed in the cockpit would suffice. (Repeated errors in reported altitude, especially from different sectors would be a problem tho'. I'd sure hate to have to bring a lawyer down to their offices to discuss that. A really "sharp" FAA Inspector might not be satisfied with simply getting a copy of your avionics shop's statement that your encoder required calibration, or replacement. A sharp inspector would also ask for a copy of the log entry that showed your encoder and altimeter was in compliance within the last two years.
(See FAR 91.411 (a) (1), 91.413 (a).)By the way, Eric...
AOPA is likely the culprit on the Airport Watch signs. They have a network of volunteer members who keep watch on the local airports in order to head off any airport noise committees, etc., etc. Lately, AOPA sent out those signs and window stickers in an effort to send a reassuring message out to non-aviation locals who perceive General Aviation as a terrorist security risk. I look at it like those "neighborhood watch" signs up and down the street in affluent neighborhoods. It is another false sense of security maybe, but it looks good to the uninformed. It won't do a thing to stop terrorism, ...but it'll be just as effective as anything the Feds and the new TSA does with the billions wasted. (I can't wait until they come up with a color-code system for the airports, too. It'll make me feel so much better.)
On a side note:
About two months ago, I heard a commotion overhead my house. I live in the country, about 4.5 miles from a hydroelectric plant/dam on a large lake, which is supposedly one of Mr. Ridge's big concerns. A Notam was issued about a year ago advising us not to fly low over or repeatedly circle dams/electric plants, etc. I went outside and listened to two helicopters playing chase each other's tails in the dark, about 200 feet up, with no lights on whatsoever. It was about midnight, pitch black, and I couldn't even see them to identify the type helicopters.
So, since we were on "orange" alert, and since I live near a "security risk", I called FSS to report it. They spent about 20 minutes discussing it amongst themselves and finally admitted they have absolutely no idea who to report this to. By now the helicopters have disappeared to the west (in the direction of the hydroelectric plant), and FSS finally suggested I call the FBI, but they had no idea what the number was. When they finally gave me a number, it turned out to be a Mon-Fri 8AM-4PM office number. So much for the new TSA and all the gov't money being thrown at national security.
AOPA is likely the culprit on the Airport Watch signs. They have a network of volunteer members who keep watch on the local airports in order to head off any airport noise committees, etc., etc. Lately, AOPA sent out those signs and window stickers in an effort to send a reassuring message out to non-aviation locals who perceive General Aviation as a terrorist security risk. I look at it like those "neighborhood watch" signs up and down the street in affluent neighborhoods. It is another false sense of security maybe, but it looks good to the uninformed. It won't do a thing to stop terrorism, ...but it'll be just as effective as anything the Feds and the new TSA does with the billions wasted. (I can't wait until they come up with a color-code system for the airports, too. It'll make me feel so much better.)
On a side note:
About two months ago, I heard a commotion overhead my house. I live in the country, about 4.5 miles from a hydroelectric plant/dam on a large lake, which is supposedly one of Mr. Ridge's big concerns. A Notam was issued about a year ago advising us not to fly low over or repeatedly circle dams/electric plants, etc. I went outside and listened to two helicopters playing chase each other's tails in the dark, about 200 feet up, with no lights on whatsoever. It was about midnight, pitch black, and I couldn't even see them to identify the type helicopters.
So, since we were on "orange" alert, and since I live near a "security risk", I called FSS to report it. They spent about 20 minutes discussing it amongst themselves and finally admitted they have absolutely no idea who to report this to. By now the helicopters have disappeared to the west (in the direction of the hydroelectric plant), and FSS finally suggested I call the FBI, but they had no idea what the number was. When they finally gave me a number, it turned out to be a Mon-Fri 8AM-4PM office number. So much for the new TSA and all the gov't money being thrown at national security.
The first letter came from Indy ARTCC and concerned a deviation of 500 feet while flying VFR with flight following. I verifed at 6500, but my old ACK-30 that had just been adjusted six months ago was reporting 6000. I was asked to stop mode C and that appeared the end of it. The second letter resulted from an IFR flight from Hooks in Houston to Stinson Municipal in San Antonio. Again, I was at proper altitude, but the encoder was indicating 500 feet low. Again I was asked to stop mode C and did. Controller with Austin TRACON did not seem bothered. I would have installed a new ACK-30 in Memphis, but the shop there was out of them. I was told the older units are full of problems. Every shop concurred and said I would spend much more money keeping my old encoder in limits as opposed to just installing a new unit. I installed the new ACK-30 and got the full FAR 91.411 and 413 check while at Stinson.
The only reason I can see for the feds to be such stickers for the mode C is that it could generate a false resolution advisory in nearby TCAS equipped aircraft. With the tables turned, I'd hate for some GA guy with an old ACK-30 to cause a false RA in my cockpit, causing me to drop my USA Today, spill my coffee and knock the autopilot off for an avoidance maneuver
The only reason I can see for the feds to be such stickers for the mode C is that it could generate a false resolution advisory in nearby TCAS equipped aircraft. With the tables turned, I'd hate for some GA guy with an old ACK-30 to cause a false RA in my cockpit, causing me to drop my USA Today, spill my coffee and knock the autopilot off for an avoidance maneuver
John, 2734C in Summit Point, WV
Has anyone else had a problem with the ACK-30 (A-30) mode C encoders? After getting a new one installed at Stinson Field in San Antonio back in April, my mode C problems were over...for a few months. In May while on a trip down into South Carolina, Columbia approach asked me to stop mode C as it was wildly inaccurate. Ditto with Charlotte NC TRACON. When I finally got up to Washington ARTCC airspace, I asked to try it again, and it was working fine. While getting some avionics work done in Hagerstown MD, I asked that the ACK-30 be pulled and checked. It was reading 30,000 until the tech rapped on the case with a screwdriver, and then it started working 
Two bad ACK encoders in a row. I told the shop to yank it out and install a Sandia, which costs twice as much, but keeps my mailbox free from FAA letters of inquiry for inaccurate mode C transmissions. Several of the radio shops I have voiced a dim view of ACK encoder reliability and accuracy. How can ACK get by with selling a defective product that gets us in trouble and causes who knows how many false TCAS resolution advisories for commercial operators?
Two bad ACK encoders in a row. I told the shop to yank it out and install a Sandia, which costs twice as much, but keeps my mailbox free from FAA letters of inquiry for inaccurate mode C transmissions. Several of the radio shops I have voiced a dim view of ACK encoder reliability and accuracy. How can ACK get by with selling a defective product that gets us in trouble and causes who knows how many false TCAS resolution advisories for commercial operators?John, 2734C in Summit Point, WV
You get what you pay for. ACK is one of the lowest-priced units in the industry. I had an ACK 20 in my 206 that worked perfectly for 10 years. I had one in my Baron that lasted 6 months. I replaced it with an AmeriKing which is still working fine 7 years later. Narco deserves a pat on the back on their units, which enjoy good reliability.
Well, we will see if I get what I pay for with the new Sandia. Twice the price, but if it will stay in limits for two years to the next transponder and mode C check, I will be happy. The two A-30 units only lasted an average of six months each. Wonder if it could be mounting location also playing a part in this mess. My encoder is mounted on the underside of the glove box. Metal is thin and I am sure there is quite a bit of vibration there...which the ACK products don't seem to like.
Speaking of you get what you pay for...I found out why the PMA7000MS audio panel that I picked up for $650 did not work. Turns out it was a DEMO box never meant to be installed in an airplane...not functional except for basic two station intercom and front panel lights. How this unit got off the showroom demo floor and into the supply line I'll never know. Glad to know it was not my wiring at fault. Refund is coming and I have a line on another NIB PMA7000MS....one that actually works and has a serial number on it
Speaking of you get what you pay for...I found out why the PMA7000MS audio panel that I picked up for $650 did not work. Turns out it was a DEMO box never meant to be installed in an airplane...not functional except for basic two station intercom and front panel lights. How this unit got off the showroom demo floor and into the supply line I'll never know. Glad to know it was not my wiring at fault. Refund is coming and I have a line on another NIB PMA7000MS....one that actually works and has a serial number on it
John, 2734C in Summit Point, WV