 |
37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
IFR MU2 with failed transponder was refused ATC service by ZNY at FL220; the pilot questioning ATC services.
| Attributes | |
| ACN | 1003588 |
| Time | |
| Date | 201204 |
| Local Time Of Day | 0601-1200 |
| Place | |
| Locale Reference | MDT.Airport |
| State Reference | PA |
| Environment | |
| Light | Daylight |
| Aircraft 1 | |
| Make Model Name | MU-2B 60 Marquise |
| Operating Under FAR Part | Part 91 |
| Flight Phase | Climb |
| Route In Use | Direct |
| Flight Plan | IFR |
| Component | |
| Aircraft Component | Transponder |
| Person 1 | |
| Function | Single Pilot Pilot Flying |
| Qualification | Flight Crew Private Flight Crew Instrument Flight Crew Multiengine |
| Experience | Flight Crew Last 90 Days 45 Flight Crew Total 3950 Flight Crew Type 300 |
| Events | |
| Anomaly | ATC Issue All Types Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe |
Narrative:
Transponder went off line after entering the IFR flight/system. Lost transponder 100% and was told to descend to 8;000 ft for a 'tower to tower' clearance. Clearance for us was FL220 and I queried why we could not go on at altitude. Harrisburg controller said new york center would not accept and required us thereafter to descend to 8;000 ft (from 9;000 ft) for remainder of the trip. I felt this would impede the trip and cancelled IFR at that point. Transponder remained intermittent for the remainder of the flight. We preceded VFR; with intermittent transponder on 1200 for remainder of trip. We remained clear of airspace B; C; and D (including overflight); as well as special use airspace for remainder of trip with our intermittent transponder. Note that we have it now at an avionics shop for repair. I feel that; with an intermittent transponder and our being available as a primary target on an IFR flight plan; we should have been allowed to proceed on our IFR flight at altitude; with reporting of altitudes and distances as required by ATC for the route. Requiring turbine flights to go low because ATC does not want the extra workload could be a possible safety concern with fuel; speed of aircraft in low airspace; etc.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: IFR MU2 with failed transponder was refused ATC service by ZNY at FL220; the pilot questioning ATC services.
Narrative: Transponder went off line after entering the IFR flight/system. Lost transponder 100% and was told to descend to 8;000 FT for a 'Tower to Tower' clearance. Clearance for us was FL220 and I queried why we could not go on at altitude. Harrisburg Controller said New York Center would not accept and required us thereafter to descend to 8;000 FT (from 9;000 FT) for remainder of the trip. I felt this would impede the trip and cancelled IFR at that point. Transponder remained intermittent for the remainder of the flight. We preceded VFR; with intermittent transponder on 1200 for remainder of trip. We remained clear of Airspace B; C; and D (including overflight); as well as special use airspace for remainder of trip with our intermittent transponder. Note that we have it now at an avionics shop for repair. I feel that; with an intermittent transponder and our being available as a primary target on an IFR flight plan; we should have been allowed to proceed on our IFR flight at altitude; with reporting of altitudes and distances as required by ATC for the route. Requiring turbine flights to go low because ATC does not want the extra workload could be a possible safety concern with fuel; speed of aircraft in low airspace; etc.
Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2013 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.