Originally Posted by BEagle
However, if the verifying unit issued a 'verification number' which the pilot then acknowledged, at least it would deter such abuse. E.g. the last 2 letters of the ICAO code plus the Julian date, then the next number in sequence plus the last 2 codes of the registration? So, for example, Brize Radar issuing a Mode C check to the 7th aircraft of the day, G-ABCD, on October 18th would issue 'verification VN291007CD'?
More work for ATC, perhaps - but probably worth it to have verified Mode C squawks generally available?
You are taking the pi$$ now aren't you ? Please tell me that you are ? If not, common-sense and reason have finally been chucked out the window.
I've got a better idea. Why not mandate that every aircraft must have at least 2 seats and that one of them must be occupied by a valid ATCO, with his own Personal Radar .. oh dear then you'd probably need an extra seat for the CAA man to verifiy the verifier .... "just in case". Flourescent jackets would of course be compulsory ....
Better still .... gie it a rest - we are generally overcontrolled as VFR pilots and if you are being serious ....
.... this rather smacks of the 'fighter controller' mindset, that requires that 'everything' is a threat until it has been identified.
It reminds me of the battle that was fought last year against the National Park in Loch lomond who were trying to ban seaplanes, for no other reason than the fact that what they don't understand they condemn.
So, the point was being made by National Park numpties (mostly Labour cooncillors BTW) (must be something about the nanny state mentality) about how dangerous it was having seaplanes landing near boats .. "they might collide" .. was the siren banshee call ... "how are you going to avoid boats"? etc..etc..
It was then pointed out to aforesaid numpties that the main A82 road , with some 35000 cars a day, travelling at speeds in excess of 60mph each way
(120mph closing) manage to miss each other by only 6 or 7 feet ...... My goodness how do they do that ??!!!
.... by LOOKING OUT THE
ING WINDOW.
Look - we don't need the aviation community adding to or going along with regulation for regulations sake ..... it's a nanny state and you either fight it or you get sucked in as a conspirator by giving these nanny state views legitimacy ... if you don't believe me have a look at the next daft proposal ...
http://news.scotsman.com/politics.cfm?id=1221422006