Narrative:

Our recently acquired aircraft had on a single occasion a transponder failure for a portion of a flight. Unit was inspected and returned to service. For professional reasons a second unit was purchased and installed. This was the first day back in service with a passenger drop at bos, with a prearranged pick-up several hours later. Transponder operated normally into and out of bos; however, upon receipt of my IFR clearance from pease approach to bos on the second inbound, neither transponder would work. With replay indicator flashing, I was also surprised to find that it wasn't a local problem, as a check with manchester confirmed no VFR WX conditions. I cancelled my IFR with intentions of making my passenger pick-up at reasonably convenient bedford, ma. In retrospect, a comment from pease approach relayed from bos approach relative to a possible delay in even a VFR departure from bedford west/O a transponder should have reminded me of the recently established far 91.24 re: the encoder requirement within 30 mi of a primary TCA airport. I typically file IFR regardless of WX conditions, especially to and from a TCA airport. Being forced to cancel my IFR in order to continue flight progress put me in an uncommon situation. In an effort to accommodate my company executes I picked up a heading directly to bedford which cleared the bos TCA due to altitude. Continuous attempts to reselect and recycle the xponders were fruitless. I again contacted manchester approach. He confirmed no transponder and directed me to stay clear of the bos TCA, and after a turn for identify, declared radar contact south of lawrence. This triggered my recollection of far 91.24, of which I was now in violation. A northbound heading was established and arrival mode at manchester. I was operating single pilot in a high performance twin near the 30 mi arc when I had cancelled my IFR flight plan. Many factors required consideration such as new destination ATIS, passenger contacts, transponder recycling, TCA avoidance, plus of course the flying of the aircraft. I should have had immediate recall of 91.24. I accept that! If in fact any of the controllers were trying to job my memory of this regulation, it didn't work before the violation. A simply stated 'remember the 30 mi rule relative to encoders' would have worked. These folks, being local to bos, have worked with regulation every day for 6 months. My initial intentions were clearly stated to each facility. Incidentally, after passenger were directed to use commercial airlines for their return, a VFR departure was made for home airport. The transponder was 'loud and clear' for the 1 hour trip.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CORPORATE SMT EXPERIENCES TRANSPONDER PROBLEMS, VIOLATES 30 MILE TCA VEIL.

Narrative: OUR RECENTLY ACQUIRED ACFT HAD ON A SINGLE OCCASION A XPONDER FAILURE FOR A PORTION OF A FLT. UNIT WAS INSPECTED AND RETURNED TO SVC. FOR PROFESSIONAL REASONS A SECOND UNIT WAS PURCHASED AND INSTALLED. THIS WAS THE FIRST DAY BACK IN SVC WITH A PAX DROP AT BOS, WITH A PREARRANGED PICK-UP SEVERAL HRS LATER. XPONDER OPERATED NORMALLY INTO AND OUT OF BOS; HOWEVER, UPON RECEIPT OF MY IFR CLRNC FROM PEASE APCH TO BOS ON THE SECOND INBND, NEITHER XPONDER WOULD WORK. WITH REPLAY INDICATOR FLASHING, I WAS ALSO SURPRISED TO FIND THAT IT WASN'T A LCL PROB, AS A CHK WITH MANCHESTER CONFIRMED NO VFR WX CONDITIONS. I CANCELLED MY IFR WITH INTENTIONS OF MAKING MY PAX PICK-UP AT REASONABLY CONVENIENT BEDFORD, MA. IN RETROSPECT, A COMMENT FROM PEASE APCH RELAYED FROM BOS APCH RELATIVE TO A POSSIBLE DELAY IN EVEN A VFR DEP FROM BEDFORD W/O A XPONDER SHOULD HAVE REMINDED ME OF THE RECENTLY ESTABLISHED FAR 91.24 RE: THE ENCODER REQUIREMENT WITHIN 30 MI OF A PRIMARY TCA ARPT. I TYPICALLY FILE IFR REGARDLESS OF WX CONDITIONS, ESPECIALLY TO AND FROM A TCA ARPT. BEING FORCED TO CANCEL MY IFR IN ORDER TO CONTINUE FLT PROGRESS PUT ME IN AN UNCOMMON SITUATION. IN AN EFFORT TO ACCOMMODATE MY COMPANY EXECUTES I PICKED UP A HDG DIRECTLY TO BEDFORD WHICH CLRED THE BOS TCA DUE TO ALT. CONTINUOUS ATTEMPTS TO RESELECT AND RECYCLE THE XPONDERS WERE FRUITLESS. I AGAIN CONTACTED MANCHESTER APCH. HE CONFIRMED NO XPONDER AND DIRECTED ME TO STAY CLR OF THE BOS TCA, AND AFTER A TURN FOR IDENT, DECLARED RADAR CONTACT S OF LAWRENCE. THIS TRIGGERED MY RECOLLECTION OF FAR 91.24, OF WHICH I WAS NOW IN VIOLATION. A NBOUND HDG WAS ESTABLISHED AND ARR MODE AT MANCHESTER. I WAS OPERATING SINGLE PLT IN A HIGH PERFORMANCE TWIN NEAR THE 30 MI ARC WHEN I HAD CANCELLED MY IFR FLT PLAN. MANY FACTORS REQUIRED CONSIDERATION SUCH AS NEW DEST ATIS, PAX CONTACTS, XPONDER RECYCLING, TCA AVOIDANCE, PLUS OF COURSE THE FLYING OF THE ACFT. I SHOULD HAVE HAD IMMEDIATE RECALL OF 91.24. I ACCEPT THAT! IF IN FACT ANY OF THE CTLRS WERE TRYING TO JOB MY MEMORY OF THIS REG, IT DIDN'T WORK BEFORE THE VIOLATION. A SIMPLY STATED 'REMEMBER THE 30 MI RULE RELATIVE TO ENCODERS' WOULD HAVE WORKED. THESE FOLKS, BEING LCL TO BOS, HAVE WORKED WITH REG EVERY DAY FOR 6 MONTHS. MY INITIAL INTENTIONS WERE CLEARLY STATED TO EACH FAC. INCIDENTALLY, AFTER PAX WERE DIRECTED TO USE COMMERCIAL AIRLINES FOR THEIR RETURN, A VFR DEP WAS MADE FOR HOME ARPT. THE XPONDER WAS 'LOUD AND CLEAR' FOR THE 1 HR TRIP.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 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.