Talk:List of transponder codes

"The use of 1200 in the Washington D.C. SFRA is strictly prohibited"

I propose this not be included under 1200 for the following reasons. First the ref cited does not support the statement. It actually says "SFRA procedures are in effect at all times (NEVER SQUAWK 1200 AT ANY TIME)." That isn't the same as "strictly prohibited". Second the ref cited is not authoritative, just a small airport's website, not a regulatory website. Third, even if correctly sourced, we aren't going to list local squawk code assignments and restrictions in this Wikipedia article. The article goes down to the national level, but each country has local squawks they use or don't use, for a variety of reasons, including just regional and FIR squawk deconfliction. Getting down to one small area's use or non-use of any squawk is too fine grained for an encyclopedia article that is global in scope and coverage. It just doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. This isn't the FAA AIM. For more on this see WP:NOTMANUAL. - Ahunt (talk) 00:04, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Ahunt Did you see that I included a referenced link from the Federal Aviation Administration so I have to respectful disagree, I feel that it is pertinent to the article and information about that particular transponder code since that is coming from an official United States Government agency i.e. the FAA.gov website. YborCityJohn (talk) 01:04, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Okay I see that ref now, but it says in whole: "To fly IFR to, from, within, or through the SFRA, the aircraft must have an operable two-way radio capable of communicating with ATC on appropriate radio frequencies and an operating automatic altitude reporting transponder. Normal IFR procedures are the same; however, file and activate the IFR flight plan before entering the SFRA, and transmit the assigned discrete beacon code while flying in the SFRA. Never use 1200." It supports what I was saying that is is not "strictly prohibited", just that it is not procedurally used, as other squawks are assigned instead. Squawking 1200 would just show that you didn't have a clearance to enter the airspace. With the FAA ref, the local airport ref is not needed. The FAA ref addresses my argument #2, but not my #1 or #3, so my arguments against including this remain, and, in fact, the FAA ref proves that the text wording you added is incorrect, is is not "prohibited". Regardless, this is a local squawk code assignment procedure, one of many thousands worldwide and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. Let's see if any other editors support keeping it the article. - Ahunt (talk) 02:27, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

I cant really see why it is relevant to a general list of codes. MilborneOne (talk) 09:18, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Okay a week has gone by with no further discussion of this issue. My main objections to including this have not been addressed and it seems clear from the FAA ref that the included text is incorrect, that this is not "strictly prohibited", just a local squawk assignment issue, one of thousands worldwide. As noted above, the consensus is to not include this, so I will remove it. - Ahunt (talk) 15:26, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

3 listings for 0000

There are 3 listings for 0000 in the US. Should they be combined?

Probably a good idea, if it can be done with losing any information or refs. - Ahunt (talk) 13:37, 29 July 2020 (UTC)