View Full Version : Mode S Consultation
Dear all
The RIA for Mode S has just been published. Please look through the documentation and respond to the CAA. This is likely to prove expensive for low-end pilots - they quote a figure for a LAST of between £500-£1000, but the cheapest so far is over £1500
http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?categoryid=7&pagetype=90&pageid=6476
The above link has been a little edited somewhere along the line, I think. The link direct to the Mode S page seems to be:
http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?categoryid=7&pagetype=90&pageid=6476
There is an online questionaire for those so inclined to respond, but it helps if you read an inwardly digest the RIA document before attempting it.
The RIA document itself seems a little flawed and makes a number of errroneous assumptions. It's well worth a read if you are interested in the future costs of recreational aviation, even if it is a bit hard going.
VP
Maxflyer
2nd Jun 2006, 19:01
I read through the document and believe that it is pretty much decided. Mode S will be a part of our life soon enough. The suggestion seems to be that if it is not accepted fully we will lose swathes of class G to controlled airspace. The document notes how there will be detrimental effect on small FTOs and cites a business case where one operator will have to sell one aircraft in his fleet to fund the outfitting ofr his other aircraft with mode S kit. It says that the costs will be passed on by increases in student training rates and that there will be a fall off in the number of trainee PPLs taking up flying.
Apparently we (GA) are responsible for a phenomenal rate of near misses each year and this is the only way to stop it! I'm inclined to believe that it is more to do with an opportunity to tax us for our time in the air. Whilst that particular method of revenue grabbing is not alluded to in the document I just get the nagging feeling that GA is looked upon as an unwanted user of the sky above CAA land. The document notes the year on year increase of CAT and I guess the government and large operators have to be seen to be doing something about reducing emissions. Well, get rid of GA and I'm sure that would help meet our Kyoto commitments!
I realise reading my words that I sound a bit like a conspiracy theorist, but stranger things have happened.
I also know who killed Kennedy and can tell you the real truth about Roswell:uhoh:
QDMQDMQDM
2nd Jun 2006, 21:57
I suspect one of the drivers behind Mode S is so that we can share our uncontrolled airspace with UAVs. They don't say it, but I bet that is a reason.
The whole thing makes me want to vomit. I shall not switch it on most of the time. As I have said before, what are they going to do? Send the police to the rough area where my non-mode S transponding aircraft disappeared from the screen and try and arrest me?
Add in number plate reading cameras and face recognition cameras all over our motorway system (now and in process), aggregation of all medical records to a cetnral spine (in process), road charging by GPS transmitter (trials planned), guarding of all mobile phone calls and location information for 5 years (now) and, boy, do we have a surveillance state.
QDM
QDM
I do wonder what is going to be done about all those planes that don't have a proper electrical system, but IMHO you are going a little over the top when it comes to Mode S and "big brother".
This topic has been done to death here but basically there isn't enough radar coverage to usefully track planes with Mode S as they bimble around the UK countryside at 2000ft and they sure as hell aren't going to install it for tracking GA traffic.
I happen to think that if the UK had adopted, many years ago, the US-style mandatory Mode C veils around major airspaces, we would not be facing this issue now. The schools would have done their bit of moaning but by now it would be over and done with. The TCAS triggering issue would not be an issue, and that would deal with most of what I believe to be the true reason behind the current push for mandatory transponders. But no, UK GA will safeguard its human rights right up to the point where the only bit of it still left flying will be farm strip operators.
A and C
3rd Jun 2006, 09:42
At the moment the take up for mode S in the UK is very low even in the light of it becoming mandatory. This is because the fitting of mode S is of no improvment to the way we fly.
In the USA the GA community is fitting mode S but it is NOT mandatory............. why ?
It is because with the mode S you can get weather radar data link, traffic imformation and soon ADS-B (it's on the east coast now).
If the CAA want us to spend about £5000 per aircraft to help them out then we must have something in return and ADS-B would be a good start.
I do however wish them to note that some aircraft will never have the electrical systems to support any form of mode S, these aircraft are the types that only fly on good VFR days so ADS-B would not be too much of an issue.
Great - £5000 + fitting (not counting annual checks and licences) for us is our engine fund, at present.
Add to that the second consultation about rolling out EASA regs to the operations of airfields across Europe, and we're in for some 'fun'!
In some respects, it is good that we are such an aged bunch, with fewer young people coming into the sport. It means that in 10 years time, sport aviation might be only the distant memory of a few old people sitting in their nursing homes.
A and C
3rd Jun 2006, 10:20
It should be about £5000 fitted and if you have GPS ADS-B traffic avoidance.
Any how you won't get much engine for £5000 !
I note that in the RIA the CAA quote the total UK financial impact as below £20M, hence this does not require to be presented to the Prime Ministers office for approval.
Mind you, they are also quoting a transponder installed cost of £500 and have made no mention of the installation cost or annual inspection/maintenance charges.
A quick sum shows that at the present cost of £1500 per unit, the cost to recreational aviation alone will be over £10M, excluding fitting and certification costs.
VP
It means that in 10 years time, sport aviation might be only the distant memory of a few old people sitting in their nursing homes.
I am afraid that is a lot closer to the truth than many would admit, but equally the same will happen to the old farts inside the CAA :O The only difference is that they will have a much better pension than you...
I think Mode C should have been made mandatory, in many/most places, years ago. The problem with GA is that everything is made into a massive fight, often backed up by highlyemotive and false arguments (like the big brother radar surveillance stuff - never technically feasible). Every time this bogus stuff gets used, the people in power just take the p1ss.
Mode S is not the end of the world; many people operating 30 year old Cesspits spend twice the GTX330 installation cost on every Annual. If your plane has no way to carry a Mode S XP then by all means fight it but for everybody else it is now a lost battle.
It should be about £5000 fitted and if you have GPS ADS-B traffic avoidance.
Any how you won't get much engine for £5000 !
No - but it is what we have saved for the replacement over a considerable period. To burn it on a piece of kit I don't need, is a bit of a gut-wrencher. There are more necessary items I'd prefer to spend the money on
Just remember that a great many of us fly aircraft with a value of less than £5000 and do so on an annual flying budget of a few hundred pounds.
The cost of a transponder, radio, installation etc is several years maintenance costs for some of us, so we will forgo something else, probably more safety relevant, if forced to buy this useless item.
I have yet to see a single pertinent argument as to why a slow, highly visible, low flying, microlight, paramotor or powered hang glider, that only flies in the open FIR during daylight and good weather, should be forced into this expenditure.
Not only that, but there is no suitable equipment available for carriage on many of these very light aircraft and fitting one of the existing Mode S units may present an unnacceptably high radiological exposure risk on something like a paramotor.
Let's not forget that there are more than 10,000 of us that fly cheap and slow aircraft, VFR only and not in controlled airspace. There are, I believe, more than 3,000 paramotor aviators alone, plus another 4,000 microlights, a couple of thousand PFA types and probably a couple of thousand gliders, all of whom have been included in the daft bit of blanket legislation as it is currently worded.
We need to take a balanced view, based on the total number of individuals impacted by this, not just the impact on the relatively small number of GA aircraft.
VP
Well I am sure the people inside the CAA are not stupid and if there is no way to do it then they won't enforce it, for those types.
The "farm strip" flying scene in the UK is pretty safe, probably safer in the very long term than anything else. All of UK's GA airfields (everything below say the level of Southend or Cardiff) could close and probably will but farm strip flying will always carry on. It's a very basic sporting activity.
Just remember that
that only flies in the open FIR during daylight and good weather
not in controlled airspace
is in fact not true for the hundreds of these pilots that infringe CAS every year.
Last year I had an unrelated reason to phone up ATC at a major airport in the south and they said they got a dozen or two infringements the previous day or two, mostly microlights going to/from some microlight convention, with a whole swarm of them going through a bit of the Class A.
It's all very well arguing for training simplicity for these relatively simpler planes (and I have no reason to doubt that the WW2 attitudes to GPS prevalent in GA are any different there) but you've only got to fly on the wrong heading for an extra 5 minutes (because you forgot to wind up your stopwatch, or any of a dozen other reasons) and all of a sudden you find yourself above this big airport with two big runways, with a load of 747s on the ground, a load more holding above, departures stopped, and everybody in the tower tearing their hair out and many of them wishing GA was totally banned.
IO540
>>>Well I am sure the people inside the CAA are not stupid and if there is no way to do it then they won't enforce it, for those types. <<<
I'd never call the types at the Belgrano stupid. What I would accuse them of is not defending the rights of non-commercial traffic. The Transport Select Committe has already seen that the CAA has little representation by GA.
Unfortunately between them, EASA and the CAA will do whatever is easier for them, and they are firm believers in the power of regulation. After all, there can be no accidents if 'the little guy' is regulated out of existence - but in the name of safety, of course
I'd really like to be proved wrong, but precedence goes against it.
A and C
3rd Jun 2006, 23:35
The real problem is that the CAA have not had to deal with any effective opposition to there policys in the past. At long last GA is getting it's act together with AOPA, PFA and others moving into political lobbying and putting pressure on them.
My plee is that ALL pilots in the GA sector join one of the oganisations that is working to get the results for GA that we want, the trouble is that a lot of pilots will spend £120 to fly for a cup of tea on a Sunday but won't spend £48 on a years membership of the PFA.
The most effective thing currently is probably membership of the PPL/IR group (www.pplir.org). Admittedly perhaps not for the PFA types but at least they don't go around like a bull in a china shop. GA IFR privileges are the most threatened in the long term; VFR will always carry on in some form, with by far the biggest enemy being property developers.
No - the best thing for GA is to speak with a single voice. Dividing us up into small interest groups means that we can be picked off and ignored by the authorities.
I know some of 'top-end' GA who have already had to fit Mode S don't have a lot of sympathy with low-enders 'barging around the sky invisibly. But surely we all need to take the view that all new regulations have to be reviewed properly and none should be imposed at disproportional cost.
As mentioned earlier, the £1500+ or £5000+ for Mode S has to give the owner something back worth that sort of spend - and it doesn't for microlighters, glider pilots or PFA pilots.
eyeinthesky
4th Jun 2006, 10:10
QUOTE
I have yet to see a single pertinent argument as to why a slow, highly visible, low flying, microlight, paramotor or powered hang glider, that only flies in the open FIR during daylight and good weather, should be forced into this expenditure
UNQUOTE
How about this:
2 of the most serious safety incidents to affect civil commercial aircraft so far this year have been:
1) A paramotor in controlled airspace in the middle of the climbout lane of a regional airport which was only just missed by a DH8 departing. The DH8 had no time to take avoiding action.
1) A motor glider at FL80 in controlled airspace overhead another regional airport which was just missed by a regional jet.
Both of these were in 'daylight and good weather'; they had just missed out the 'open FIR' bit. Neither of them were visible on radar or TCAS and would have been unable to manoeuvre quick enough to avoid a collision.
I'm afraid that the crass stupidity or dogmatic attitude or even "The whole thing makes me want to vomit. I shall not switch it on most of the time. As I have said before, what are they going to do? Send the police to the rough area where my non-mode S transponding aircraft disappeared from the screen and try and arrest me?" approach is doing us no favours. If EVERYONE kept in the bits they should do there would be no risk, but they don't.
You may object to spending £5k on a bit of equipment, but if that ultimately helps another aircraft see you and avoid you (using ATC radar support or TCAS), then how does that cost compare to the cost of your life or those of unsuspecting fare-paying passengers (we are all those at some time) who have a right to expect to get from A to B without the risk of being wiped out by some unseen aircraft who is where he shouldn't be?!:eek:
The simple fact is that this is massive overkill for a relatively small problem.
BTW, £5k is more than my aircraft is worth, by far, plus it's more than most paramotors cost new.
The bottom line with this legislation is that it's a sledgehammer to crack a nut, it's poorly thought through and furthermore the RIA misrepresents the true costs and risks.
I agree wholeheartedly at the need to try and reduce airprox incidents, but cannot realistically see how fitting transponders to all and sundry would achieve this.
As a further point, foot launched powered aircraft are exempted from regulation under the ANO and I understand that single seat microlights are soon to be granted the same, or a similar, exemption. This is hardly going to make enforcement straightforward. If introduced as it stands I suspect safety might be further compromised, as those outside of the regulated environment might just be further alienated by increasingly daft rules and regulations, and hence pose a greater danger to CAT etc by ignoring much of what comes out of the Belgrano.
As with most things, education works better than regulation, and that is what will stop people behaving dangerously, not a little box that costs them a fortune and tells them nothing.
VP
tmmorris
4th Jun 2006, 12:31
GA IFR privileges are the most threatened in the long term
Couldn't agree more. We are being pushed towards light sport/microlight/PFA day VFR types, NPPL (no IFR or night ratings available), and the PPL and IR become ever more geared towards commercial training. With the British weather this is foolish and dangerous.
Tim
A and C
4th Jun 2006, 16:33
Surely not hitting another aircraft in flight is a big advantage, ADS-B will atleast keep the bigger and faster aircraft away from you.
Most of you have a GPS ADS-B works by broardcasting your position (from your GPS) via the Mode S transponder. An aircraft equiped with the full system will get commands to avoid your aircraft in much the same way as with TCAS.
As the cost of the system comes down I see a larger number of aircraft fitted with the system, after all in 1980 who would have predicted that in twenty years most light aircraft would have a global area navigation system.
But we need to push Eurocontrol and the CAA in the right direction and that is why I support ( with money) the efforts of the PFA & AOPA (IO-540 I would support the PPL/IR lot but I can't because I don't have a PPL)
Surely not hitting another aircraft in flight is a big advantage, ADS-B will atleast keep the bigger and faster aircraft away from you.
I fully agree, but the cost of mandatory Mode S on ALL powered aircraft and gliders (which is what is being proposed) will ground a lot of microlights and foot launched powered aircraft.
How many people with aircraft valued at less than £5000 will accept paying thousands more just to keep flying? After the high costs of mandatory insurance, I would expect to see yet more leave the budget end of the sport.
What right does the CAA have to introduce legislation that will, at a stroke, place such an unnacceptably high cost burden on the budget end of recreational aviation?
We are not all in the comfortable position of being able to afford this much expenditure in one go, for many of us it represents several years maintenance costs.
VP
Surely not hitting another aircraft in flight is a big advantage, ADS-B will atleast keep the bigger and faster aircraft away from you.
Most of you have a GPS ADS-B works by broardcasting your position (from your GPS) via the Mode S transponder. An aircraft equiped with the full system will get commands to avoid your aircraft in much the same way as with TCAS.
I agree that keeping me away from a collision is a good thing. Of course my superior skills means that it could never happen to me ;)
..especially as the near approxes I have had have been with low-flying military stuff, and aren't they an exemption?
However, when you read the new requirement for the carriage of an ELT, the justification is the cost-benefit analysis of scrambling a Sea King to get you. Against that the £1500 cost is seen as very reasonable and hence now mandated.
Strange, isn't it, that a Mode S product that doesn't yet exist has the estimated price of £1500! Is this the CAA's view of a reasonable cost?
A and C
4th Jun 2006, 17:29
As I said in one of my first posts on this subject there will always be aircraft that CAN'T fit mode S for technical reasons. these aircraft are the ones that only fly in good VFR and so I don't see a problem with the exemption of these aircraft, this is what I shall say to the CAA.
I don't think that the this is an unreasonable position to hold but rather than jumping up and down and stamping my feet in rage about mode S I try to see the advantages of the system and use the best reasoning to get the most out of the CAA/Eurocontrol in fact ADS-B (that is in use in the USA and Sweden) is in a lot of ways a better system than TCAS and yet costs a fraction of the price.
A&C,
I agree with your view, but the RIA makes it very clear that they don't wish to consider exemptions for other than a small subset of aircraft (hang gliders, specifically).
There are now many thousands of cheap and simple microlights and foot launched powered aircraft flying in the UK (the total number of microlights and foot launched powered aircraft flying in the UK is between 6000 and 8000). There are likely to be many more when the deregulation of single seat microlights gets into the ANO in the very near future (within the next 12 months, in all probability). For these aircraft to carry a transponder of any description is going to be a very real challenge, on cost, power consumption and radiological safety grounds.
My beef is with the broad-brush mandating of Mode S to ALL powered aircraft, irrespective of cost, safety or normal airspace usage, not the wisdom of fitting it for those who have the money to spare. To be completely honest, if I had the cash and an aircraft with an electrical system I would seriously consider fitting one, but there are many more pressing things I need to buy to keep myself and my aircraft safe.
What needs to be fought against, in my view, is the mandatory fitment to all powered aircraft and gliders, not the very existence of the system.
VP
robin
the best thing for GA is to speak with a single voice. Dividing us up into small interest groups means that we can be picked off and ignored by the authorities.
Very true, but UK GA has never had a single voice and this isn't about to happen. There are too many different kinds of groups around scraping out the bottoms of too many different barrels.
I know some of 'top-end' GA who have already had to fit Mode S don't have a lot of sympathy with low-enders 'barging around the sky invisibly.
If you mean me, I would agree but you perhaps still fail to see what I don't like about it. I don't like getting a RIS with many of the reported contacts being something like "traffic at 12 o'clock, reciprocal track, altitude unknown". Totally f*****g useless. Especially when I know that a lot of the time (having caught a glimpse of him afterwards) he either does have a transponder and has deliberately turned it off, or the sort of plane it is (a new one) cannot possibly not have one.
As mentioned earlier, the £1500+ or £5000+ for Mode S has to give the owner something back worth that sort of spend - and it doesn't for microlighters, glider pilots or PFA pilots.
That's right, the benefit is "only" to all the other people in the sky. This illustrates why UK GA has no single voice ;)
Actually I don't think it will be forced onto unpowered microlighters and gliders, anyway.
A&C
I would support the PPL/IR lot but I can't because I don't have a PPL
Perhaps you mean you don't have an IR? The group is open to IMCR pilots too, and anybody else can support it anyway. A lot of the members don't have an IR.
down&out
4th Jun 2006, 18:58
Seems to me they keep quoting benefits as "access to airspace". Well if they are hell bent on mandating transponders, why are they not considering the option of mandating mode C the minimum outside, class A (or D at worst), then its up to individuals whether they see the benefit of airspace access as worth the upgrade to mode S. TCAS on the airlines and fast jets (assuming the RAF put them on) will still prevent those collisions with Mode C.
Also they say:
"The introduction of SSR Mode S technology to replace existing SSR Mode 3A/C transponders would be an essential step in improving the efficiency of the SSR 1090 MHz ‘Reply’ frequency, and hence safety. Implementation of SSR Mode S would be the only way to permit the UK to increase the carriage of SSR transponders on aeroplanes and helicopters above current levels and meet the ICAO Annex 6 pressure-altitude reporting requirements. The withdrawal of SSR Mode 3A/C technology would also ensure that the full benefits of the recent investment made by operators in collision avoidance systems, SSR Mode S radars and the future ATC ground environment can be realised."
But don't back this up with any evidence. What is the evidence behind this, especially the bold bits?
I think they have built the case for this like a stack of cards, but with key cards missing.
IO540,
I hope you are right about this cost not being forced onto microlights, powered hang gliders, paramotors etc, but suspect that unless the views of this large group of recreational aviators are aired to the powers-that-be we WILL be lumbered with such an imposition.
Let's not forget that conventional light aircraft GA is heading towards becoming a minority in the recreational aviation market in the UK. If conventional light aircraft aren't already outnumbered by microlights, powered hang gliders and paramotors, I suspect that they will be before too long.
I may be wrong, as I don't have the statistics to hand, but a quick scan though the new registrations page in any of the magazines shows where the market growth is. It's also worth remembering that unregistered paramotors and powered hang gliders now outnumber microlights. They don't show in any published statistics, yet make up a sizeable proportion of the recreational aircraft sector and are impacted by this proposed legislation.
We must not let conventional GA thinking, by a few well-heeled souls who couldn't care less about spending another few thousand on their hobby, spoil the pitch for those of us not in such a privileged position.
VP
WorkingHard
4th Jun 2006, 19:55
Can anyone please tell me why military aircraft should be exempt? I can see the reasons in time of conflict etc but what about normal operations? They should be mandated to use at the very least current mode c.
A and C
5th Jun 2006, 06:46
I have the IR just no PPL.
Maybe this should be done with PMs A&C :) but it looks like you have a CPL or ATPL then.
A lot of FAA IR private pilots do in fact have a CPL and not a PPL. This is because the FAA CPL is, like the FAA IR, much more practically based than the Euro version. I am doing mine too, have done the written already.
Also, a big chunk of the now ageing CAA IR crowd are in fact ex commercial pilots who have ATPLs, and not all of them have PPLs.
A and C
5th Jun 2006, 07:50
I am slowly getting together my responce to this mode S thing and the most apparent error in the CAA document is the cost to industry.
Having just skimmed table 5.3.1.1 I see that the CAA thinks that a "lightwieght aviation SSR transponder" (LAST) costs £500-£1000.
A quick look at page 6 of popular flying shows the first of these units on sale for £1500 so clearly I will have to go and look more deeply into the costs as it would seem that section 5.3 of the document is somewhat wide of the mark !
Once I have digested the costs part of the document I will let you know the results but if the cost estimate for all the sections of 5.2 are as far adrift as the LAST estimate then it will be time to write to the minister of transport to let him know that the CAA document is misleading.
They did the same with the "N-reg kicking out" consultation document, giving the economic cost a couple of orders of magnitude too low.
A and C
5th Jun 2006, 09:32
The quotes that i am getting for a panel mounted Mode S are between £2800 (Garmin) and £3100 (King)+ £170 for the Alt encoder + VAT, I suspect that you could dirve the price down by about £200 with one other type of transponder but that is all that is on the market for panel mounted units.
This is a far cry from the CAA estimate of £1700 - £1800 for a panel mounted LAST unit but this is all that is on the market at the moment.
For you interest take a look at
www.casa.gov.au/pilots/download/ADS-B.pdf
This is what we should be getting if we have to go down the mode S road.
I am finding the document a fascinating read, full with hopes and expectations, just like all government IT briefs.
It is clear the CAA are concerned that the 'cheap-skates' will find it hard to afford this additional cost and looking for the magical piece of kit that can be brought down in price by generous manufacturers
I love the bit (6.2), where they give an example of a flying school with 8 aircraft required to find £24k to equip their fleet, probably resulting in the sale of one aircraft. They then state that they expect businesses to get a 15% discount (built into the figures) when bulk-purchasing the kit, but in 5.2.4, this is an anticipated discount for purchases of 10 units - not a lot of good for the 8 aircraft club, then.
This doesn't even get close to the situation of the user groups with one or two aircraft that need to be re-equipped. They can't even set the cost off against tax - as mentioned in 4.3 and 4.4, where it is acknowledged that the main burden will be picked up by private aircraft operators - not business.
Add to that the massive hike in the numbers of annual checks (up to 13,200) new aircraft requiring licencing and annual checks), and we start to see the scale of the issue.
£2500-£2800 plus VAT is about right for a Garmin GTX330. The unit lists at about £2000, and the cheapest installation (assuming a readily available prewired bay in which a transponder used to live) is about £300.
This is for either a G-reg or an N-reg but on a N-reg it costs more because an IA has to sign it off; alternatively you can go to a firm which has an in-house IA but they will charge you more to start with :) If you need a DER signoff that's another £500 at least.
Fuji Abound
5th Jun 2006, 12:06
"The real problem is that the CAA have not had to deal with any effective opposition to there policys in the past. At long last GA is getting it's act together with AOPA, PFA and others moving into political lobbying and putting pressure on them."
Really :confused:
I see no evidence of this being the case.
GA has no united representation in Europe. For this reason the lobbying that does take place is ineffective.
I fitted mode S when it was first mooted it would be mandatory for controlled air space operations - cost about £4,500. There does not seem to have been any significant fall in the price of Garmin units since.
Care should be taken about underestimating the cost of installation. Often it is not a simple replacement of the existing unit.
Whilst I believe it is not mandatory - try and find someone who can test the mode S aspect. In theory it should be possible to do so on the ground - but how many work shops have the equipment? You will have even less luck in the air.
Any regulatory authority has a moral if not legal responsibility to conduct a regulatory impact assessment AND to ensure in this case the suppliers can meet demand, supply the units at the cited cost and the workshops can fit and test the equipment. I am not sure those assurances can be given on any of these counts at the moment.
Should we all fit mode S? My original inclination was we should not be compelled to do so. However, I am a great supporter of GPS. In my opinion GPS used properly has made navigation far more reliable and the risk of CAS infringements less. The cost of the units has fallen, in part doubtless due to increased demand. There is a danger with any new technology that we are resistant because it is "new". My own opinion is that IF the units can be produced as cheaply as the CAA say, and the workshops can fit and test the equipment, and the advantages others have outlined are part and parcel of the deal, there will be benefits for many users. Those who see no benefit for themselves should also recognise that unless fitment is universal, the benefits of traffic avoidance are negated for all.
In particular I agree with the carriage of mode S for IMC (not IFR) operations regardless of the airspace. The reality is that for IMC operators the cost of the kit whilst never inconsequential is part of the high cost of maintaining an aircraft fit for this purpose. In spite of the big sky theory I like a RIS or RAS inside and outside controlled airspace in IMC but the reality is in open FIR it is seldom available.
Finally cases of “near misses” in controlled airspace have been cited as part of the rational. It occurs to me however that if a pilot is going to infringe CAS there is also a good chance he is not talking to anyone on the radio anyway so mode S will only help if he cannot be identified on primary radar. Of course if he has “forgotten” to turn on the radio presumably he might well have “forgotten” to turn on mode S and mode S Alt.
Maybe AT should be able to discretely activate an rev limiter in these circumstances - that would of course get the pilots attention!!
S-Works
5th Jun 2006, 12:13
I just had a Mode S fitted to my Hawk XP. Cost me £1800 plus VAT all in. Linked to the GNS 430 so it goes in and out of flight mode automatically and has been enabled to recieve traffic data should it ever appear in Europe. I llok forward to taking it to the USA next spring and seeing the traffic stuff actualy work for real!
FullyFlapped
5th Jun 2006, 12:21
Bose-X,
Do you mind saying what make & model it is, and where you had it plumbed in ? At that price I suspect they could get busy !
Cheers,
FF :ok:
A and C
5th Jun 2006, 14:26
Bose-X
I to would like to know who fitted mode S for that price, I have three aircraft for them to do !
There are a number of mode S transponders about from “unknown” manufacturers, which are plug compatible with BK KT76A’s. This means almost no fitting costs (3 min with a 3.5mm drive). Starting prices seem to be £1700 ish.
Rod1
I had a Garmin 330X fitted two years ago. I was "lucky" in that I was having a lot more avionics fitted at the time so it "only" cost me £2300 + VAT.
I was told that if it had been an individual installation it would have been £2600 + VAT (£300 fitting charge).
One of the benefits of having accepted the inevitable writing on the wall two years ago is that I can now avoid the hand-wringing and general discomfort that a lot of you are now going to have to go through!
There are a number of mode S transponders about from “unknown” manufacturers, which are plug compatible with BK KT76A’s. This means almost no fitting costs (3 min with a 3.5mm drive). Starting prices seem to be £1700 ish.
Rod1
Does this mean that you need a certain base level of kit to benefit?
S-Works
5th Jun 2006, 19:41
I bought the transponder from Harry M and Airspeed Aviation at Derby did the fit. They have done my avionics for years and always do a first class job. They are also rare in the fact that they will supply your own avionics.
Does this mean that you need a certain base level of kit to benefit?
I do not think mode s has any benefit to VFR pilots. The Bendix King KT76A is the most common installed transponder in the GA fleet. By developing a unit, which is plug compatable you can just unlock the KT76A, slide it out and slide the new unit into the KT’s mounting tray. No wiring, no new tray and no mods to the electrical system. This is by a very cheap solution if, like me, you have an existing KT. If you are on a permit to fly you can do it yourself and get it signed off by your inspector.
Rod1
NorthSouth
6th Jun 2006, 18:08
Starting prices seem to be £1700 ishI'd love to be a fly on the wall when those pricing decisions are made.
Supplier 1: "nobody else in the market so let's call it 5 times the development and production costs divided by an assumed market of 1% of the aircraft which will be forced to comply"
Supplier 2: "only one other potential supplier in the market so let's make it 5% less than they're quoting"
etc
Supplier Z: "oh bugger it there's 50% fewer aircraft on the UK register now. Let's make light fittings for IKEA instead"
NS