Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Transponder/Static System Check IFR vs. VFR

wigglyamp wrote:

It’s no different in reality to the FAA FAR91 bi-annual requirements for transponders.

Actually, I think it is. The FAA requires the transponder check ONLY for “flight in Controlled Airspace” . If you stear clear of Controlled Airspace, under FAA regs, you don’t need the bi-annual FAR 91.413 check.

A lot of imbeciles are flying around Europe VFR, in FAA reg’d aircraft, thinking that they don’t NEED to do 91.413 – wrong !

Last Edited by Michael at 17 Feb 12:15
FAA A&P/IA
LFPN

Jesse wrote:

In my opinion no. I think annual or bi-annual makes more sense.

…which is a problem with using the EASA MIP.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

Airborne_Again wrote:

which is a problem with using the EASA MIP.

I don’t understand, do you care to explain. When using an MIP you still must follow national regulations as well, like the German full testing, or the Dutch full testing. Full being all avionics + pitot and static.

JP-Avionics
EHMZ

This basically comes to a 230 – 315 Euro including 21% VAT for most aircraft.

@Jesse
Is it for full testing ? (All Avionics plus pitot static ?)

In this case, at (620 + 220) 840€ + VAT for both tests (C182 G1000), the fee applied to me is three times the one you suggest !!!!!
This is were you start scratching your head, and wondering if there is something you miss about the work actually done, or if you’re just being ripped off…

PetitCessnaVoyageur wrote:

Is it for full testing ? (All Avionics plus pitot static ?)

Yes. The most time is spend on paperwork, setup all equipment, and removing all equipment again. The testing itself doesn’t cost that much time. That is also the reason, why I can not understand, why people make such an issue over testing an aircraft.
Doing the FAR 91.411 / 413 it actually takes a bit less time for testing, but more for applying placards on all tested instruments. So in general they take about the same time.

I also don’t understand that people would like to fly IFR and some even IFR in IMC without knowing their equipment functions ok.

JP-Avionics
EHMZ

Silvaire wrote:

To the best of my knowledge, no aircraft I have ever flown as PIC has ever had a pitot static system check. Transponder checks (for IFR and VFR) aren’t a huge deal, $95 or something in my hangar every two years, but they actually add very little for me personally because I could ask ATC my Mode C altitude any time I like.

Transponder checks are covered in 91.413 and are a requirement for any use of the transponder and IFR/VFR is not relevant.

KUZA, United States

Michael wrote:

Actually, I think it is. The FAA requires the transponder check ONLY for “flight in Controlled Airspace” . If you stear clear of Controlled Airspace, under FAA regs, you don’t need the bi-annual FAR 91.413 check.

You don’t need to turn your transponder on in Class G airspace, but if you do, it must comply with 91.413 which is a “use” requirement and it applies to all airspace and either VFR or IFR.

Sec. 91.413

ATC transponder tests and inspections.

(a) No persons may use an ATC transponder that is specified in 91.215(a), 121.345(c), or Sec. 135.143(c) of this chapter unless, within the preceding 24 calendar months, the ATC transponder has been tested and inspected and found to comply with appendix F of part 43 of this chapter;
KUZA, United States
Silvaire wrote:
To the best of my knowledge, no aircraft I have ever flown as PIC has ever had a pitot static system check. Transponder checks (for IFR and VFR) aren’t a huge deal, $95 or something in my hangar every two years, but they actually add very little for me personally because I could ask ATC my Mode C altitude any time I like.
NCYankee wrote:
Transponder checks are covered in 91.413 and are a requirement for any use of the transponder and IFR/VFR is not relevant.

Obviously IFR/VFR is not relevant with respect to FAA transponder checks, which is why I wrote “Transponder checks (for IFR and VFR)”. If I had meant to differentiate between IFR and VFR, I’d have used the word “or” instead. That’s how English works

Last Edited by Silvaire at 17 Feb 18:41

Silvaire wrote:

Obviously IFR/VFR is not relevant with respect to FAA transponder checks, which is why I wrote “Transponder checks (for IFR and VFR)”. If I had meant to differentiate between IFR and VFR, I’d have used the word “or” instead. That’s how English works

It also works if you avoid mentioning superfluous information that is not obvious. Mentioning IFR and VFR when they are not part of the regulation is what I responded to.

KUZA, United States

In saying “for VFR and IFR” in relation to FAA transponder tests I was making it clear that there is no difference in the transponder test protocol for VFR and IFR, in contrast to pitot static system testing, where there is a difference. That remains the (not superfluous) point. Apparently you didn’t get it but to coin a phrase “that’s your problem”. Thank you.

Last Edited by Silvaire at 17 Feb 19:26
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top