Day of Action This Weekend. Who is in??

[tobzalp]

This still happening? If not I hope the organisers are happy about the overtime staff that they are paying for. I myself am working for normal dollars that day, at this stage.

[Duff Man]

Rostered off here, but it looks like AOPA has really watered it down...

The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia is keen to show the Federal Government that General Aviation in Australia is only just out there and is needing government support. We would like to see a White Paper on the needs of General Aviation in Australia.

Saturday 27 November 2004 is the day we have set for pilots and their friends to get together and fly somewhere. It might be next door, but just get in a plane and fly somewhere. Below there are suggested destinations that mostly do not require controlled airspace. AOPA is endeavouring to organise a free barbecue sausage for those that fly into these destinations (but no guarantees - so bring your own incase!). The idea is simply to get people up in the air.

Make your own arrangements to fly to a destination to be part of this first day of recognition for general aviation. You do not need to be a member of AOPA, so tell your friends who are not members. Those more local might like to organise their own lunch for those that might fly in to a suggested destination.

Watch the weather and strictly follow all normal procedures. Even if we only get one aircraft to each suggested destination, that would still make the point that GA is out there and wants Government help.

Ron Bertram
President
AOPA

South Australia
Maitland
Renmark New South Wales
Ballina
Gunnedah
Camden
Hay
Moruya
Western Australia
Busselton
Albany
Geraldton
Kununurra Victoria
Corryong
West Sale
Warrnambool
Horsham
Echuca
Northern Territory
Tindal
Alice Springs
Darwin
Borroloola Tasmania
St Helens
Queensland
Mareeba
Charters Towers
Longreach
Mount Isa
Gladstone
Toowoomba


Conducting a Transponder Check with ATC

Request Procedure

In order to conduct a transponder check with ATC, you need to contact the appropriate radar centre frequency and request a transponder check.

You then provide the air traffic controller with your position and altitude. The coltroller will ask you to sqwark ident on your transponder and after you have done this he/she will provide you with you altitude as determined by the radar.

Remember to be polite and thank the controller for his/her assistence.

Example
Pilot: "Sydney Radar, this is Alpha Bravo Charlie, request"

ATC: "Go ahead"

Pilot: "Alpha Bravo Charlie is overhead Warragamba Dam at 4500 feet requesting a transponder check"

ATC: "Alpha Bravo Charlie, sqwark ident"

Pilot: "Sqwark indent, Alpha Bravo Charlie"

ATC: "Alpha Bravo Charlie, identified height 4500"

Pilot: "Thank you, Alpha Bravo Charlie"



Hopefully ATC won't say "identified" without an immediate "radar service terminated". But here's my advice - keep 'em radtagged as we are obliged to file incident reports for every VCA and Failure-to-comply with transponder procedures we become aware of. Example: primary track only, requests xpdr check - 1200 comes on ... FTC incident.

[Howard Hughes]

It worries me that licenced pilot's need to be told what to say on the radio!

Should'nt we all know that already?

I also expect the last thing the controller will say is "Alpha Bravo Charlie, radar service terminated"

Cheers, HH.

:ok:

[Atlas Shrugged]

http://www.gifanimations.com/Image/Animations/BodyParts/Faces/faces_021.gif___1101256059510

Err, Um, Hello, Sydney Radar, um, request a transponder check................

[turnleftnow]

"Height 4500" eh??


Isn't height measured above ground level and altitude above mean sea level??

so how does that work!

[5miles]

The coltroller will ask you to sqwark ident on your transponder and after you have done this he/she will provide you with you altitude as determined by the radar.

The radar doesn't determine atitude. It is the aircraft's transponder which transmits altitude information, when in mode C.

When ATC verifies a radar displayed mode C level, they are comparing what the aircraft's transponder is reporting to what the aircraft's pressure altimeter is telling the pilot. If both are misreading by the same error, there is no way ATC will know. The crash of Aero Peru 603 in 1996 highlights this scenario.

Rather a worry when the President of AOPA gets it wrong.

[R4+Z]

5miles


First I am nothing to do with AOPA nor do I agree with any of thier views other than when they just happen to coincide with my own. I don't for that matter know what thier views are.

That said don't you think you are being a bit picky just to get the opportunity to get a shot in?

The radar will "determine" the height , admittedly from information supplied by the transponder. If the radar wasn't equipped to understand the transponder information it couldn't "determine" the height. Many would not seek to make this distinction as it just isn't necessary for the purpose at hand, as you say you are just verifying that your transponder agrees with your altimeter. You seem to be assuming the definition of "determined"

How would you have had him word it???????


:confused: :confused: :confused:

[NAMPS]

To answer the question that was posed...

I will be keeping my feet firmly on the ground on that day... I'm not the greatest pilot in the world (never will be) and I'm not immune to mistakes but I'm not sure that I want to be sharing the sky with more than the usual amount of pilots who require a tutorial or refresher in RTP.

[Kanga767]

Well R4, there could well be PPLs that just don't realise where the transponder/radar information comes from. They may think the info is independant of aircraft systems and thus confirms an erroneous altimeter.

K

[5miles]

R4+Z

If you think my post was being a bit picky, then that's your perogative.

Are you saying I am wrong though?? If so, then please feel free to point out my error.

I consider the distinction I made worth making. I'm sure the 68 people who died on board Aero Peru Flight 603 wished their 2 pilots (deceased also, RIP) and the controller understood the distinction too.

[R4+Z]

Kanga767

Totally agree. The point is however he wasn't trying to educate those who didn't know, he was just advocating a routine check. So why attack him? Or for that matter why assume he doesn't know?

I think this day of action is pretty pointless but for those who don't we should at least repect thier choice and as long as it hurts no one leave them to it without nitpicking the wording of thier communiqués.

Edited to add
...........................................................

5miles

I also agree with you on the point of knowing the difference but I think what I said above answers that too.

[tobzalp]

The lack of knowledege shown firms my belief that certain types should keep their noses out of Aviation as a whole.

[cogwheel]

There is nothing wrong with providing advice on the phrases to use in such circumstances. Some pilots need all the help they can get. Even airline pilots get that wrong from time to time. Sure a PPL or better should know what to say and how a transponder works.

However having said that you would be surprised how many don't even know when to use it, or even turn it on! Try not to talk about 'mode C' as you will get a blank look from many recently trained PPLs.

This only reflects poorly on the flying training industry and CASA for not monitoring standards.

And we wonder why GA has problems in this country :confused:

[Biggles_in_Oz]

Now I'm confused..

I know that a transponder reports to ATC what its' altimeter is currently reading, but doesn't a 'transponder check' check (within operational errors) what ATC thinks their primary paint says is the
aircrafts' height against what the transponder reply says it is ?

Can ATC radar determine altitude from a primary paint ? :confused:

[5miles]

Biggles

Primary radar gives bearing and distance only, no altitude..


:ok:

[Biggles_in_Oz]

Ahhh... Now I understand.
ATC want to know if the new spot on their screen is really me and that I'm where they are expecting me to be.

(sometimes a bit of explanation makes it more understandable why
things are done the way they are.
AIP writers please note.)

[djpil]

I'll be flying as normal on the 27th which means I'll probably be in an airplane without a transponder.
A few weeks ago a colleague was out in his airplane and Melb radar pointed out that his transponder was showing minus 600 ft! He checked out the window and confirmed that he was above sea level: 1500 ft on QNH per his mechanical altimeter, not a lot different than pressure altitude on that day. Its not just finger trouble or mechanical parts of the system that can fail without the pilot's knowledge; I've often wondered why the transponder doesn't display its opinion of the altitude for the pilot.
Like R4+Z, I don't necessarily agree with AOPA's views but I've been following the dramas over recent years and just decided to rejoin after many years. I actually have more respect for the current board of AOPA in their ability to represent my interests overall than another organisation of which I'm a member.

[Obiwan]

Was planning to but the work's Xmas party is on the same day - so I'll be sitting on a boat on the Harbour with a beer in hand and feet up :ok:

[karrank]

I've often wondered why the transponder doesn't display its opinion of the altitude for the pilot... Microair transponder does, I intend to bolt one to my homebuilt (one day) for that and patriotic reasons...

It reminds me of a difference between the way US and our ATC treat unverified transponder levels... Nah barggerit, I'll start another THREAD (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=153608) :8

[tobzalp]

Well that was just YawnFest2004. Way to show the strength of GA and stick it to the man. Any snags left over?