ATPL(H) Air Law question that is boggling my mind.

[darrenphughes]

Hey guys, I'm only a few weeks away from doing some of the exams for the ATPL(H) and have been doing some revision. I came across this question a while back and it raised my eyebrows slightly. Back then I just committed the answer to memory, but now I'm curious.

Q: The radar controller suspects that you are experiencing unlawful interference. What should he do to confirm this with an auto decoder unit? (with no mode A interpretation?)

A: Switch from 7500 to 7700.

So how on earth can a controller decide that we have been hijacked by switching codes on his unit without us indicating it first on our unit? And if we squawk 7500 shouldn't little flashing thingys appear on his screen along with little alarm bells without him having to switch codes on a decoder unit?

Any insight would be greatly appreciated. Even if that insight is that I'm a total retard for not getting this totally simple concept!!:\

[hostile]

Was that only stupid or confused question you found?

[darrenphughes]

No, the database is packed full of questions that are in no way relevant to being a pilot, but that's beside the point!! This one stood out a little more as I haven't found any reference to it in my course materials.

Now CAPT, if you've just read the last statement and you're scratching your head, I looked everywhere. I promise!:uhoh::O

[parabellum]

You might be better off putting this question in the ATC forum to see what controllers say?

[darrenphughes]

Good thinking, just did exactly that. Cheers.

[paco]

The only info I have at the moment (in your notes) is:

When unlawful interference is suspected, and where automatic distinct display of 7500 and 7700 is not provided, the controller can verify his suspicions by setting the SSR decoder to 7500 then 7700.

It is a system whereby you can squawk 7700 and the controller can check if you really mean hijacking, using the system as described.

ICAO Annex 11 16.3 refers.

Phil

[Squeaks]

How much of this should we discuss on a public forum? Are some of these checks best kept in the classroom, not a forum that is open to anyone to read?

Just a thought :hmm:

[paco]

A good point, squeaks, but the information is available anyway with very little effort.

Phil

[Squeaks]

the information is available anyway with very little effort

darrenphughes doesn't seem to think so ;)

[ShyTorque]

With ATPLH exams, or any other CAA ones, one should always work on the principle of: "Which of these answers is least wrong?" :\

[darrenphughes]

Could you, not answer the question, yet still claim the mark as it is clearly sexist!

Good thinking, maybe I could claim the whole exam!!

"Now listen here Mister CAA man, you forgot to put He/She in that question, now you owe me a whole exam!":8

[[email protected]]

And why is a question about what a radar controller should and shouldn't do in a pilots exam anyway?

[Staticdroop]

That could be said about a lot of exam questions...:\

[darrenphughes]

And why is a question about what a radar controller should and shouldn't do in a pilots exam anyway?

Crab, don't get me started on this subject dude. I may not stop ranting until the CAA deny me the right to take these ridicules tests!!

[Matthew Parsons]

And why is a question about what a radar controller should and shouldn't do in a pilots exam anyway?

Crab, in the post about the harpist wanting to fly EMS in the UK we were told that the JAA ATPL(H) is a better licence due to the diverse knowledge required.

(sarcastic tone indended)

:)

Matthew.

[212man]

Actually, to be a pedant, there is no such animal as a JAA ATPL(H), only a licence issued by a national authority i.a.w. JAR-FCL (or a validated ICAO licence.)

It is a common misconception that the JAA is an Authority, when in fact the last 'A' stands for Authorities, and it is the JAA member state national authorities themselves which apply the JAR (Requirements, not Regulations) as applicable.