CAA scrapping VFR?

[Single Spey]

Surprised this hasn't appeared here yet.

Flight International 20-26 Feb.

UK pushes Mode S.

"NATS and the UK CAA say they are seriously concerned about near-collisions involving commercial air transport aircraft and military or GA types in areas where airliners have to transit uncontrolled airspace to approach or depart from several provincial airports. As a consequence, the CAA could close uncontrolled airspace to VFR operations.":confused:

[High Wing Drifter]

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/02/20/212128/uk-pushes-mode-s.html

[BEagle]

Blatant scare tactics to appease the lo-co airlines who use out of the way aerodromes such as Robindoncasterfinningleyhood International Chavport for Commercial Air Transport, then demand virtually Class A airspace to protect them.....

This is the better answer:

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/nw969/xpdr3.jpg

The only problem being that Mode C will not satsify Bliar's Big Brother Surveillance Society aspirations.....

[dublinpilot]

Current UK Class B and C airspace levels are unlikely to affect these classes of aircraft

Have a look over towards the Irish FIR. Some of this airspace is delegated to Dublin, and is class C, at levels that VFR traffic would like to use when flying across the Irish Sea. Admitedly not that many would use it, but I for one have.

dp

[Rod1]

Is Dublin’s radar mode s compliant? If not then mode c will be just fine…..

Rod1

[Captain Mayday]

VFR Mode C optional, Mode A not permitted

Eh ?

So what is this then ? I may have mode C but not Mode A in Class E-G if I'm VFR ? How does that work ?

Is this another CAA Wonderwhizzplan ?

[S-Works]

Better than insisting mde s. every transponder is at least mode C capable and encoder can be fitted for £135.

[bookworm]

Is this another CAA Wonderwhizzplan ?

Nah it's just BEagle inventing complexity for the sake of it. ;)

[BEagle]

No so - it is my idea to give a little rather than lose a hell of a lot to the whims of the lo-co airlines plundering Class G - and to the policing deisres of the Bliarite surveillance society.

[jabberwok]

Is Dublin’s radar mode s compliant? If not then mode c will be just fine…..

It's currently on test. I've been picking up intermittent Mode S data from Ireland since Christmas.

[potkettleblack]

Or maybe why don't they finally rip up the old charts and airspace and start again.

Give all of these so called "commercial airports" who operate with uncontrolled airspace around them a class D entry/exit corridor and proper sids and stars to facilitate the big boys through them. Then give each and every airport a VFR transit corridor right over the top. You could use a common frequency to announce your intentions and to make it even simpler lets say for arguments sake that you cross it using the semi circular or quadrantal rule not below 3,000ft and not above I dunno say 5,000. By law you would have to be tuned into the frequency when you transit but not necessarily get clearance from a controller BUT if the brown stuff hit the fan then the controller could get on frequency and be able to contact you. If the weather is naff then you could always try and negotiate a non standard transit at a lower level.

[FlyingForFun]

Potkettleblack,

A great idea, which works very well in other parts of the world (I'm thinking specifically of the US).

But I wonder how useful it would be in the UK with our weather? I can think of no more than a handful of days in the last, say, 6 months when it would have been sensible to plan a x-country VFR flight at 3000'.

FFF
-------------

[BEagle]

But when somewhere like Robindoncasterfinningleyhood Intergalactic Chavport tries to demand masses of Class D to suit its lo-cos, having decided to become the cuckoo in the local nest?

Busy GA areas are not just busy with the £100 bacon buttie brigade transiting from one place to another - there is as much need for GH areas etc for training, aerobatics and everything else the open FIR provides.

Being in RT contact with some minor airport radar controller for your flight is not going to be acceptable for many, some of whom don't have RT, let alone a transponder

'New' commercial airports should not think that, just because they want to fly a few oiks to Ibiza, or let fat cats fly in for the local races, that this gives them an immediate right to demand more airspace control.

[IO540]

But I wonder how useful it would be in the UK with our weather?

There is an enduring myth that the UK has bad weather. The USA has thunderstorms which will dismantle a 747, temperatures far more extreme than the UK, has the same warm/cold fronts, has mountains, deserts, the lot.

The thing is, one can't pick just one single thing and try to change that on the basis that it works well elsewhere. The UK airspace system "works" because we have loads of Class G at low level. We have airports with instrument approaches where (subject to PPR) you can just turn up and ask for an ILS or whatever. We can fly in cloud in Class G non-radio. We have the IMC Rating which legalises all these practices.

We also have an IR which is set up for would-be airline pilots (mostly un/under-employed young men with plenty of time to sit exams) which is out of practical reach of most pilots who are at the stage of their life where they can afford to fly IFR in their own plane, but that doesn't matter because one can fly around in cloud in Class G...

We also have an ATS service with a water-tight separation between IFR enroute sectors, and all the "dross" below that, with the latter getting no service, unless they can get some "limited radar due to controller workload" scraps from some LARS unit.

The US model would work perfectly in Europe, but only if the other bits they have were all in place: Class A base at 18000ft, a proper ATS service for everybody, an practical "private IR", etc.

Some of the US stuff, like a decent ATS service, isn't going to happen in the UK unless the funding system is overhauled (ATC is nationalised, basically) which isn't going to happen. But the rest they could do. France manages OK for example.

[englishal]

But I wonder how useful it would be in the UK with our weather? I can think of no more than a handful of days in the last, say, 6 months when it would have been sensible to plan a x-country VFR flight at 3000'.
IO was obviously up before me ;)

PotKettle...'s idea is a brilliant idea, and would work well in the UK. The US doesn't have some magical weather phenomina, parts may have better weather like Arizona for example but even that is not always true. Try meating a thunderstorm line in the desert in the middle of summer when you are struggling to stay at altitude due to density anyway :eek: Even the LA basin has freezing levels down to 4000' regularly in the winter and lots of visible moisture, and with MEA's 6000-11000 in the area icing can be a real factor.

Anyway, I'd rip up the airspace and give Class C to all the major airports, but limit the top of the cake to 5500 AGL then have class E until the upper airspace. Less major airports (The Exeter and Plymouth types) I'd drop a Mode C vale around. The major change though would be to reclassify airwyas.....why do they need to be A?

[S-Works]

I might be missing something but in class D airspace, if I am flying a B737 and some **** in a glider or microlite gets in my way I am in just as much danger as if the offending machine was a spam can. Why should gliders and micro-****es be exempt from having altitude reporting transponders in class D?

In reality these pilots will have had less formal trainning in many cases then a JAR PPL A and are therefore more likely to cause problems!

Oooh brave and taunting words.........:p

[gpn01]

"I might be missing something but in class D airspace, if I am flying a B737 and some **** in a glider or microlite gets in my way "

..... errr...who's way ?

The Rules of the Air Regulations 1996 (Statutory Instrument 1996 No. 1393) - Section IV - 17 (2), suggests that being bigger, smellier and noisier doesn't mean that you have right of way-

"(i) flying machines shall give way to airships, gliders and balloons"

Now, I accept that in practice, if I see a big Bong hurtling towards me, I'm not going to insist that it's my right of way to the point of a loud bang.

On your training point, I'd suggest that some glider pilots may possibly have less formal training than a PPL. Some will have the same and others will have considerably more...Indeed quite a few glider pilots fly airliners as well. Whether this makes then better qualified to dial in a few digits and press a button I'm not so sure about.

A key issue with transponders is that gliders don't carry enough power to run a transponder. Some gliders don't have ANY onboard electrical equipment. Mind you, it does mean that the carbon footprint is rather small!

[Rod1]

“In reality these pilots will have had less formal training in many cases then a JAR PPL A and are therefore more likely to cause problems!”

A PPL A is likely to fly with an instructor for 1 hour every 2 years. Your average glider pilot with an xc endorsement will have flown probably 10 times with an instructor over a two year period. He is also going to fly more hours and be more current. In gilding the CFI and duty instructor has much more say in your day to day flying and falling below standard just once will get you put straight on checks. By comparison most PPL a’s are unsupervised.

As an ex glider man who also has 16 years power experience, I am quite happy sharing the sky and see no reason to criticize my fellow aviators just because I do not understand them….

Rod1

[englishal]

A key issue with transponders is that gliders don't carry enough power to run a transponder. Some gliders don't have ANY onboard electrical equipment. Mind you, it does mean that the carbon footprint is rather small!
Fine, ban 'em from all controlled airspace, or any of my Mode-C vales ;)

Which is what may happen in reality.

"Hello Bourenmouth, Hi, yes I would like to do a bit of gliding in your controlled airspace....No, I don't have a radio, no I don't have a transponder, you see we don't have any electrical equipment onboard....why? Because we don't, and we don't feel that as gliders we should have to fit any....what do you mean bugger off?........":) ;)

[Fuji Abound]

"Hello Bourenmouth, Hi, yes I would like to do a bit of gliding in your controlled airspace....No, I don't have a radio, no I don't have a transponder, you see we don't have any electrical equipment onboard....why? Because we don't, and we don't feel that as gliders we should have to fit any....what do you mean bugger off?........"

I would like to think I am a huge supporter of peoples' rights and freedom to do etc.

I am very much against unnecessary class D airspace.

However, whilst inside CAS of any description I like to feel that I am within a known traffic enviroment and therefore since gliders who chose to operate within CAS, could if they were bothered fit a mode C transponder, I feel they should be required to do so.

[gpn01]

Now if I don't have a radio how is the nice controller at Bournemouth going to speak to me ? (with a very loud aldis lamp perhaps!).

Joking aside, I agree with other posts here - if it's controlled airspace then there's a need for sufficient equipment to operate in that environment. BUT I don't think that there should be more CAS then is absolutely necessary.

[englishal]

Now if I don't have a radio how is the nice controller at Bournemouth going to speak to me ?
When you phone them up beforehand ;)

[Fuji Abound]

When you phone them up beforehand

Unless they are too busy shepherding gliders around and in their airspace :) .

[Rod1]

Assuming the gilder is not a very new competition type, it will probably be impossible to fit a radio and a transponder (using current tec). The weight of the batteries to power such a set up for a typical soaring flight would put the thing over its max weight. It was in recognition of this that the CAA started the LAST transponder design. The same is true of some PFA and Micro types; with the very real possibility of aircraft being grounded if the original CAA mode s proposal had gone through.

Rod1

[rustle]

...if the original CAA mode s proposal had gone through.

Rod1

You keep banging that drum, Rod ;)

2008: The year of Mode S transponders (for VFR)
:}

[Lucy Lastic]

Someone has to stand up for the majority (and it is the majority) of aviators who would find the cost and difficulty of putting in £5k worth of kit into an a/c with no electrical system or where the value of the a/c is less than the cost of Mode S - esp as there is b*gg*r all benefit.

Keep it up Rod

[PW Cooper]

'Beagle'-
Could I just clear something up
- did you produce this table yourself? Or am I missing some official statement recently covering the new transponder requirements?

'Fuji Abound' - please disappear up your own ****

'Captain Flash '- 'In reality these pilots will have had less formal training in many cases then a JAR PPL A and are therefore more likely to cause problems!'
I note from your profile that you only have a PPL. Nuff sed then. MOST glider pilots have better airmanship and handling abilities than your averge PPL.

[Fuji Abound]

Nice to see constructive debate is alive and well on this forum :) .

[BEagle]

Yes, that was my proposed alternative which was submitted to the CAA Mode C consultation process.

Transponder carriage appropriate to aircraft category and airspace category - not 'universal mandatory Mode S'...

[gpn01]

The CAA's summary of responses received was that only 7% indicated that it was felt that transponders would have a positive impact on safety. It's unclear to me whether that analysis was done just on the 1,549 responses that were entered directly on their website or whether it includes the 1,083 e-mailed responses. My guess is that they'll have used whichever figure is most supportive of their safety argument, so one can reasonably assume that of the 3,100 aviators who replied, fewer than 300 supported the provision of transponders for safety reasons.

[PH-UKU]

I too read the Flight article - and it really pi$$ed me off.

The article glibly stated that there would be an "incentive" to fit Mode S ..

Ooh, bet that got you excited ... well, that "incentive" .. ? You wouldn't be able to fly VFR !!:mad:

Let me make this clear from the start - I have worked as a licensed controller at many units (area and airfield, military and civil) - I do not support the mandatory introduction of Mode S.

It seems to be a pet project of some people (ex military fighter controllers I hear) that want to make a name for themselves. := These seem to be people who have no concept, understanding or sympathy toward General Aviation.:ugh: In fact in my experience Fighter Controllers have no concept, understanding or sympathy toward Air Traffic Control either ! :ouch:

Mode S may be a great success in the London TMA, and credit to those who have worked on it there, :D but as far as I see it ... if you fit transponders to ALL flying machines you will probably over clutter many of the other radar screens around the country .. for what ? If everyone that decides to get airborne then decides to call ATC for a service .. do you really think the system could cope ?

Free airspace outside CAS should remain just that. In fact you can currently operate in Class D airspace without a transponder (on standard entry/exit lanes) and it works very well.

[rustle]

but as far as I see it ... if you fit transponders to ALL flying machines you will probably over clutter many of the other radar screens around the country .. for what ? If everyone that decides to get airborne then decides to call ATC for a service .. do you really think the system could cope ?

You need to decouple transponder equipage and ATSOCAS in your mind: They're not linked, never were linked, and are unlikely to ever be linked.

The benefit of Mode C or S OCAS is not just from an ATC perspective, but from a TCAS perspective as well.

The benefit of Mode S over C is selective interrogation, more data, less clutter.

Old people on here like to bleat on about class G airspace grabbing, "chav air" lo-co class G 'abuse' etc., etc., but people from my generation and younger realise that air traffic density has increased since 1945 so the technology to maintain separation needs to keep up with that growth and not be stymied by 1940's see-and-avoid advocates.

CAT in class G is here to stay*, higher traffic density is here to stay, VLJs will be here next.

* Not quite true, as by 2010 it'll be "U" and not "G" ;)

[Lucy Lastic]

Rustle

>>>>The benefit of Mode C or S OCAS is not just from an ATC perspective, but from a TCAS perspective as well.<<<

For aircraft so equipped. It gives no benefit to gliders, microlights of simply-equipped aircraft, unless there is TCAS is carried or a radio is fitted.


>>>>Old people on here like to bleat on about class G airspace grabbing, "chav air" lo-co class G 'abuse' etc., etc., but people from my generation and younger realise that air traffic density has increased since 1945 so the technology to maintain separation needs to keep up with that growth and not be stymied by 1940's see-and-avoid advocates.<<<<

Some not so old people also bleat on about this as well. We are also aware that there is a growth in traffic, but the density of air traffic in Class G hasn't grown that much over recent years. There are the notorious 'honeypots' and Mig-Alleys where VFR is getting more risky - but this is due to a snatching of airspace, increasing separation of CAT but squeezing GA into narrow areas.

I have no real issue with ensuring airspace becomes known, and there are arguments for creating 'veils' near regional airports. What is unacceptable is the grabbing of huge areas of airspace, such as proposed for Coventry, which is a far greater area than exists for Gatwick, for many fewer movements.

As the Blessed David Gunston said, the odds of two aircraft being in the same bit of airspace is so remote as to be irrelevant. So we create airways (and other bits of airspace) to force aircraft into close proximity, thus creating the need for air traffic controllers to keep them apart ;)

[rustle]

For aircraft so equipped. It gives no benefit to gliders, microlights of simply-equipped aircraft, unless there is TCAS is carried or a radio is fitted.
Them [aircraft with TCAS] not hitting you saves at least as much pain as you not hitting them ;)

[Lucy Lastic]

Oh, you mean like these

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/north_east/6404387.stm

[rustle]

Oh, you mean like these

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/north_east/6404387.stm

I think you need to re-read the article, as neither of those aircraft had TCAS fitted. :p

CAT has TCAS, CAT shares the airspace with other GAT. (i.e. non-Mil)

You bleat on about transponders at our peril, IMO.

[PH-UKU]

Rustle - I ain't an old codger :p , but I DO know how TCAS and SSR works. (cheeky young scamp) ;) PS Glass cockpits are not ALL good news BTW too many people don't look out as it is !!

The CAAs premise is built on a false prospectus. They say it will improve the 'interoperability' between aircraft. They then quote very selective statistics to try and show the number of GA aircraft involved in Airproxes, while ignoring the greater military v civil risk. It is this duplicitous stance that really gets my goat.

1 - Unless you are fitted with TCAS (which all CAT is) you will not be warned of traffic. AT the moment there are some 25,000 flying machines registered in the UK .. I believe about 7000 have transponders. The CAA wallahs that have these grand plans live in offices - they do not work in a radar room, and certainly do not seem to understand that the rules for the congested airspace round London TMA are not necessarily suitable for the Celtic Fringes.

2- The only way therefore to be warned on traffic if you don't have TCAS fitted is to call for a radar service, (unless we went for a TIS type service as found on the USA eastcoast). To call for a radar service you must have a radio (not compulsory). I think that is a reasonable demand (to ask for a radar service) given that it is the CAA that is demanding the fitment. Now just imagine .... all 86 aircraft that visited Strathallan last July's fly-in .... all calling for a service with their shiny new Mode S transponders .... do you know how cluttered 3 or 4 responses look like overlapping at the same airfield ? ... do you know that on some sectors (the big 200 mile sectors) because of the screen size the smallest size SSR label can take up almost 15 miles of airspace ? Do you how tricky it is to hook and rotate even one of these ? Explain how we filter them out ? By height (is it correct)? By destination (how do we know) ? Or do we jsut drop them entirely ... how do we then avoid them if we can't see them ... I really want to know.

3- There is no requirement to have your Mode C verified on every VFR flight - how do I as a radar controller, or the Easyjets TCAS know that that 7000 squawks Mode C is actually correct ? Duff Mode C does happen, and TCAS only calculates avoidance based on Mode C info and climb/descent instrcutions. It does not provide turn or vector info.

4- the highest risk to CAT and GA in class F+G is actually with military maneouvring and ignoring Advisory routes - if you don't believe me, come for a visit to Scottish Centre on a busy mil day and see for yourself.

5- There is no plan to make TCAS or CWS (collision warning system) compulsory in military jets. I would fit Mode S in an instant if there was - my modus operandi is low level in and out of lochs ... (well below radar cover by the way) .. what benefit is mode S to me ?

6- This is all about appeasing the airline lobby (again) and facilitatiing low-cost 737s and A320s flying outside CAS and "opening up new routes" - so what happens when the planned for growth doesn't happen - or shock horror we reach the traffic peak and start a gentle readjustment .. ?

Imagine the principle of insisting that because more trucks wanted to use the road .. YOU, little man in your little car would have to fit an electronic device so that er.... someone else could watch you .. and err... maybe charge you for the privilege ... and er .... try not to hit you .... .. no silly idea our over-controlling Orwellian government would never think of that one .... :suspect:

7- if there is an established risk of a mid-air with an easyjet or ryanair flying into Inverness (for example) ... some bean counter will have worked this out ... there must then be an equal cost benefit to someone from the lack of a mid-air ... £150 million plus ? .. so if that risk is perceived by the airlines and their bean-counters, I think the airlines and the insurers should be prepared to pay for overall installation. Say £5000 per fitting times 18,000 aircraft = ... about £90 million.

Fantastic !! At a stroke I've just saved £60 million - saved the airlines a lot of bad publicity - saved 100 children from being orphans - saved insurance companies a huge loss (and obviously reduced the risk which will obviously be passed on to all aircraft insurance premiums)- and I've made 17000 aircraft owners safer and happier ....

If someone benefits from this imposition, then it seems reasonable that rather than pass the cost of this onto everyone else, THEY should stump up for it. :E

[Fuji Abound]

Stangely quite - usually provokes even more debate this one!

[Lucy Lastic]

>>Inability to be safe is no an excuse to be unsafe!:= <<

Yes, but No, but... Nice soundbite:ok:

Is there actually any real evidence that flying non-TX is inherently unsafe, or is this just an assumption?

Given that there are still incidents of lack of separation by fully-equipped aircraft, it isn't necessarily a fix to "the problem".

[gpn01]

If I have a radio and I speak to the nice Air Traffic CONTROLLER to request a routing which crosses Class-D and there's no other traffic around, how does a transponder make the situation safer ? It doesn't. If it's busy and I'm refused entry then that's no problem as I appreciate that airspace can get busy.

[IO540]

If there is no traffic around then it doesn't help, but often there is traffic around, and he needs a positive ID on you and not just an unmarked blip which could be anybody who suddenly climbed up into the radar coverage from down below.

[UAV689]

how do i fit a transponder in my aircraft, its a TMG with not a single volt in the airframe and no where to fit an alternator ir transponder!!

[mm_flynn]

Is there actually any real evidence that flying non-TX is inherently unsafe, or is this just an assumption?

Given that there are still incidents of lack of separation by fully-equipped aircraft, it isn't necessarily a fix to "the problem".

Serious losses of separation as a result of infringement occur much more often with Mode A/non-Transponder aircraft than with Mode C/S.

Within controlled airspace there are serious loss of separation instances associated with misunderstood clearances and busted altitudes. Almost everyone is Mode C/S equipped and this coupled with TCAS helps save the day. NATS hopes that downlinking autopilot data will help catch these problems earlier (a benefit of Mode S enhanced)

In the open FIR airproxs between equipped aircraft rarely would count as a serious loss of separation (mostly CAT stressing that IFR separation wasn't maintained - but that is a long way from a real risk of collision). Which implies (but I have not looked at the data for this particular case) that the high collision risk incidents outside controlled airspace are higher for Mode A/non-transponder aircraft than for Mode C/S. All of this paragraph is in the context of one aircraft being TCAS equipped or receiving a radar service. Obviously transponders do nothing to help reduce collisions between aircraft without TCAS or a radar service.

[gpn01]

"Within controlled airspace there are serious loss of separation instances associated with misunderstood clearances and busted altitudes"

.....Wow sounds like a dangerous environment to fly in. Just as well it's restricted to "professional" aviators. Think I'll stick to uncontrolled airspace and keep a good lookout ;-)

.......Only kidding folks (takes cover and hides!).

[Lucy Lastic]

"Which implies (but I have not looked at the data for this particular case) that the high collision risk incidents outside controlled airspace are higher for Mode A/non-transponder aircraft than for Mode C/S.W

My understanding, and forgive me if I am wrong on this, is that there is little actual evidence of the level of risk outside CAS.

Given that many aircraft are non-radio/non-tx/non-TCAS in Class G, certainly in my neck of the woods, where do the reports come from?

[Rod1]

The PFA did research into all the mid air collisions over recent years. The results ;

a) there were very few

b) Mode S would have made no difference. Interestingly, most of the aircraft involved had mode c.

Rod1

[rustle]

The PFA did research into all the mid air collisions over recent years. The results ;

a) there were very few

b) Mode S would have made no difference. Interestingly, most of the aircraft involved had mode c.

Rod1

Should we wait for a Cerritos in the UK (http://www.aopa.org/asf/asfarticles/2001/sp0101.html) before we do anything?

Clubs like the PFA and AOPA should be pushing technological frontiers, not holding everybody back to the lowest common denominator.

[mm_flynn]

The PFA did research into all the mid air collisions over recent years. The results ;
a) there were very few
b) Mode S would have made no difference. Interestingly, most of the aircraft involved had mode c.
Rod1
Could you post a link. While I would agree mid airs are very infrequent, and given that fast jets, gliders and GA (the main players in mid airs) don't normally have ACAS - I can see that transponders wouldn't make a difference in these situations. However, I am surprised by the Mode C comment in that a number of the cases I remember involved gliders, microlights, and other aircraft that had a high probably of not having/not using mode C.

Also, as the price of TPAS and ACAS systems comes down this will be less and less true.

The most valid argument for transponders in my mind is the worry that one of the dozen or so very near misses a year between CAT and infringing GA traffic (generally not Mode C/S) becomes a hit.

[shortstripper]

You're a bit of a lone voice on this Rustle. You mock Rod1 (not Rob :p ) of banging his drum on the subject ... but what do you do?

You obviously think you're right and damn the rest of us! I'm not saying you're wrong (or right), but you just seem to brush off any anti aurguments with accusations of Ludditism. I'm not old, (what is your generation?) but I'm set enough in my ways to want to take responsibility for my own safety, not to fly under the illusion that someone or something will take that responsibility on and be my saviour in a risk free, if rather dull life.

SS

[rustle]

You're a bit of a lone voice on this Rustle.

...

...but I'm set enough in my ways to want to take responsibility for my own safety, not to fly under the illusion that someone or something will take that responsibility on and be my saviour in a risk free, if rather dull life.

SS

If you lot don't hurry up and comply I'll be even lonelier on April 1st 2008 ;)

I, too, want to take responsibility for my safety in the air and people bimbling about not talking or squawking are far more of a risk to me than people who are.

BTW1 I know Rod from years ago when we were on the same team :}

BTW2 I don't start these stupid threads, but I do try and put forward an alternative view to "en route charging / Big Brother / Chav Air / LoCo Class G abuse / blah blah bloody blah" which is the only other offering.

[Rod1]

rustle

The fact is I admire you. You come on the BBS all guns blazing, outnumbered by 99 to 1 (according to the CAA), that takes real courage.

Just to set the record straight for any “misinformation” you may accidentally have posted, the PFA argument does not include;

“en route charging / Big Brother / Chav Air / LoCo Class G abuse”

But it is comprehensive, well researched, well thought out, and it is making a difference. If you want more real info go to;


http://www.pfa.org.uk/Copy%20of%20modeS.asp

(Want to meet up some time for a beer)

Rod1

[shortstripper]

Rustle, you should be a politician ... you answer without answering! Come on, how old are you? What is your generation? Yes we could all comply with every cock and bull scheme that this government (or any other) comes up with ... but why the hell should we? Can we not challenge anymore? Maybe you will be a lonely (very safe) pilot in a very empty sky ... good for you :hmm: I for one value my ability to walk, drive, fly about unchallenged and free (within sensible limits) to go about my business. ID cards, GPS road charging, Mode S all infringe on this right. I'm not into conspiracy theories, but I do see my freedoms being ever so gradually eroded away.

SS

[Lucy Lastic]

CaptainFlash

"The fact you cannot fit or run a transponder should not give you a green card to exercise the rights of those that do . . ie transit class D airspace.

In my opinion if you don't have a transponder . . .you should not be in Class D. This irrespective of whether you can or can't have it fitted!"

Let's just look at this for a minute. There are a number of small airfields within Class D - some within Class A (almost) and they have functioned perfectly safely for some years with non-radio/non-tx aircraft.

All have approved exit/entry routes and arrangements with the local ATC service. None of the local ATCOs, as far as I am aware, have any concerns about this.

The same thing goes for transiting such airspace. If an aircraft, such as the D9 I used to fly, is radio-equipped (actually, an Icom), but has no transponder, I would call the local service and tell the ATCO where I was and where I was going. This would be relayed to other aircraft and I would expect these pilots to watch out, just as I would be looking out for them.

It happens in Class G all the time, so what is the issue with Class D?

[PH-UKU]

IO540If there is no traffic around then it doesn't help, but often there is traffic around, and he needs a positive ID on you and not just an unmarked blip which could be anybody who suddenly climbed up into the radar coverage from down below.
No I don't. ;) I do not need to identify VFR traffic in Class D. I do not separate IFR from VFR in Class D - I only need to pass traffic information. (Have a read of the Class D airspace rules). A position report from a VFR aircraft, say at a known VRP usually suffices. Quite sensibly the VRPs and inbound/outbound VFR routes are kept away from the IFR final approach and climbout (have a look at the AIP for Glasgow and you will see it operates perfectly well). There are times when it can be handy to put on a squawk I agree (eg. traffic patrol or low-level police helicopter operating near the final approach), but the last thing I really would want to do is over control VFR aircraft...
Now I can't speak for the ex-RAF non-ATCO control freaks in the CAA who don't even appreciate the civil ATC task, who don't fly, who have not passed any licence, or have never studied or applied the ANO or Rules of the Air.... yet feel qualified to tell us all what we should be doing ....
CaptainflashIn my opinion if you don't have a transponder . . .you should not be in Class D.
Why?
RustleShould we wait for a Cerritos in the UK before we do anything?

Scaremongering sensationalism.
There have been several mid-airs Rustle. The majority have been collisions between military/military, military/GA and glider/glider. None, to my knowledge, have been in a radar environment where one aircraft was under radar control, RAS or RIS from ATC. (Do you know what these terms are by the way?) Unless you mandate the fitting of TCAS or CWS (Collision Warning System), these previous mid-airs would still have happened.
The issue of mid-airs is actually a red herring - the REAL thing that would improve safety would be fitting CWS to military, and perhaps THEN, I concede, some form of transpomnder would be a REAL benefit. But that is not being proposed.
mm_flynn - Within controlled airspace there are serious loss of separation instances associated with misunderstood clearances and busted altitudes. Almost everyone is Mode C/S equipped and this coupled with TCAS helps save the day. NATS hopes that downlinking autopilot data will help catch these problems earlier (a benefit of Mode S enhanced)

Which is a good reason to install it/mandate it in commercial aircraft in TMA environments. But the Mode S which will be installed in gliders, microlights etc..etc.. will not be coupled to an autopilot, so ATC will be the none the wiser about what levels you are going to. Just a small point, that Mode S is not the be all end all.
TCAS does also cause problems. I have lost count of the number of TCAS resolution advisories caused by rapid climb/descent rates in a TMA environment .... :mad: =paperwork=30 minutes less for my dinner ...
Do a Google search for "Dallas Bump" and see what comes up :eek:

[BEagle]

It must also be remembered that the CAS airspace grab proposals by CoventryThomasCook and Robindncasterfinningleyhood would deny the use of airspace for those who currently use it for more than just 'transiting' under a RIS or RAS......

The main advantages of Mode S over Mode C are reduced susceptibility to 'FRUIT' and 'co-ordinated' RAs for TCAS equipped aircraft. But TCAS will give RAs against Mode C, of course - but only TAs against Mode A which are a definite hazard as they could be masking a real RA requirement or generating a TA when neither TA nor RA are genuine....

The 'selective' nature and unique identification features confer no benefits to TCAS-equipped aircraft. Nor do they constitute any valid reason for mandatory replacement of serviceable Mode C equipment.

So yes, when the regulations change, let's make the transponder proposals appropriate to the aircraft and airspace categories, require all transponders to include altitude information and require any new trasnponder installations to be Mode S - leading to a gradual phasing in as older Mode C units reach their end of life point.

And Lo-Co Chavair drivers should remember that IFR separation from VFR traffic is not required to be provided in Class D airspace in VMC. All you are entitled to is traffic information on request.

Also, 250KIAS below FL100 is mandatory outside Class A airspace := !!

[IO540]

PH-UKU

You appear to be an ATCO for a Class D airport. Let's say you allow a transit to some VFR traffic, and you have a dozen 737s inbound. Aren't you interested in positively knowing where this VFR traffic is?

There is also possible confusion with other traffic in the area, which happens to be lost. Let's say this is Gatwick. You could have non-XP traffic heading straight for your runways which, for the initial bit, is below Class D (below 1500ft QNH) and so you must assume it is OCAS. You might get worried about it, but you must still assume it is OCAS. A 100kt it will take that traffic about 1 minute to be overhead your runway.

If you do clear somebody for an overhead transit it helps to know their Mode C altitude together with their squawk.

I don't know how ATC handles this but I am sure they would rather know who is who.