Mode S meeting with CAA

[Rod1]

The PFA have organized a mode S seminar at Saturday 17th November at Turweston, start time 10 a.m, open to PFA, BGA and BMAA members. CAA will be sending John Banks and Andy Greenwood and the session will finish quite late. I will be driving over from the Derby area, so if any PFA, BMAA or BGA members want to come along I can provide a lift.

If anybody has any questions thay would like put I can also try to get them asked. I hope to debunk the theory that it will be impossible to tour without mode S post March 08, but I may be disappointed:{.

Rod1

[robin]

Thanks Rod

I hope to be there myself on Saturday. If nothing else, I just love to see the looks of discomfort on the faces of the CAA team when they try to defend the indefensible.

[Whiskey Kilo Wanderer]

I'm hoping to get there by road. Hopefully there will be a decent turn out to convince the CAA we care about the issue.

Safe Flying,
Richard W.

[Rod1]

Thanks for the PM’s The meeting is now fully booked, but I can still ask questions if anyone has anything new to ask.

I will post a summary ASAP after the meeting.

Rod1

[RatherBeFlying]

Question 1: Transport Canada and the FAA have gone on record that transponders will be phased out in favor of ADSB and have already installed ADSB systems. Why is Europe going over to Mode S when ADSB will eventually take over?

Question 2: How long will be Mode S transponders be in use in Europe before they are phased out in favor of ADSB?

[Rod1]

Mode S Summary of meeting with CAA 17th Nov 07

Originally the CAA intended to force all flying machines to install Mode S. This approach has been abandoned by the CAA, and the following is the future:

Phase 1
The present rules on the carriage of transponders will continue to apply only to;
Public transport flights
Flights at and above FL100
IFR flights in CAS below FL100
Flights in airspace notified in the UK AIP (London only at this time)

The above group were required to carry Mode A/C and now need Mode S Elementary Surveillance from 31st March 08. A 4 year transition period applies, taking the date to March 2012.

This summarizes the situation today and is a done deal.

Phase 2

This phase is about to enter consultation and is not a done deal. NONE of the following will come in before March 2012, if at all.

Mode S will be required for;

Aircraft making VFR flights within controlled airspace below FL100
Powered aircraft making international flights
Flights within any new “Transponder Mandatory Zones” TMZs, which may be created.

If we take each point in turn;

VFR flights within controlled airspace;

This was clarified as not mandatory. Each ATC unit will be able to clear non Mode S aircraft through subject to workload and aircraft based at strips will be able to negotiate a written exception.

Powered aircraft making international flights;

This is an Annex 6 ICAO convention requirement. The CAA part of this will not become mandatory, if at all, until March 2012. The CAA is also prepared to file exemptions in collaboration with other states. If, as seems likely, the French except large swathes of GA, then we will be able to go there and they will be able to visit us without Mode S. There is a meeting in December on this and the PFA will get an update, which I will post on this thread.

Flights within any new “Transponder Mandatory Zones” TMZs, which may be created;

This will be laid out in the consultation, but again you will not have to comply until March 2012. Applying for a TMZ will follow the existing airspace change procedure.

To sum up the CAA position -

It will certainly be possible to do serious touring (VFR) post March 08 without Mode S:ok:. Post March 2012, it depends on the outcome of the meeting in December and the Consultation process on Phase 2

Phase 3 (you are not going to like this):mad:

ADS-B may well form part of a future phase 3. No timeframe, and remember, if you get a Mode S unit with “extended Squatter” (no idea of spelling) you may be OK. You will need an approved GPS to be wired in to your Transponder.

Hope this is useful,

Rod1

PS: almost all the UK radars are capable of displaying Mode S data, but are not configured to do so at this time.

[Single Spey]

almost all the UK radars are capable of displaying Mode S data, but are not configured to do so at this time.


Not really true. A proportion of NATS en-route radars have been modified to be Mode S interrogators. The majority of military, and NATS and non-NATS aerodrome secondary radars are not yet Mode S capable. Non-Mode S interrogators are unlikely to be licenced by the CAA post 2012 so there is still a lot of work to do on the ground equippage.

[dublinpilot]

It will certainly be possible to do serious touring (VFR) post March 08 without Mode S

Rod,

As much as I hope that is true, I'm not sure that you presented enough into there to back that up.

What is the French's position on non French aircraft entering their airspace? As I understand it, the French are exempting (French aircraft only??) from mode S, outside controlled airspace only. As I understand it, they will need mode S to enter controlled airspace.

As you must enter France via a port of entry, and almost all ports of entry are contained within controlled airspace, you must have mode S to enter.

I'd love to be wrong, and am just going on what I've read here already. But your report from the meeting doesn't deal with these issues, presumably because no one from the DGAC was there, and as such isn't sufficent to back up the quote above.

dp

[Rod1]

dublinpilot

I would have considered flying from the Midlands (let alone the south coast) to Wick to be “serious touring”, but you are right, I did not define the term when I asked the question.

The situation regarding French airspace is unclear to the CAA, who is trying to sort it out and have a meeting in December, which may give us the position in the rest of Europe. If the French want to fly to the UK with no Mode S (and they will) then I think the CAA will allow an exception provided we can fly there. The existing class D airspace around L2K is theoretically Mode C mandatory, but you can get permission to enter with no Transponder at all, so we will have to see.

Rod1
PS there is a very lively discussion going on on Flyer if you want a look.

[IO540]

To me, the Mode S battle seems to be practically lost and anybody doing any European touring should fit one and get on with their lives.

The real way to fly long legs in Europe under VFR is not scud running in Class G, often below 1000ft AGL, etc, but flying VMC on top in CAS, say Class C, at 5000-10000ft. In Spain and many other places you can go a lot higher. Class G scud runs are the norm in the UK but outside the UK they are reserved for hardened retired perpetual travellers who like to enjoy the local wine every time they get forced down :)

[robin]

IO540

At today's meeting the issue of a pilot was raised who intends to travel to Europe next year and wants to fit a Mode S, but this would take him outside the W&B limits of his craft.

There are still serious issues of practicalities with Mode S which won't be sorted for some time yet.

There were long discussions about this today and the CAA representatives have still not fully addressed the problem. This is reflected in the slowing down of the timescales since the previous RIA

[Fuji Abound]

At today's meeting the issue of a pilot was raised who intends to travel to Europe next year and wants to fit a Mode S, but this would take him outside the W&B limits of his craft.

I would be interested to know the what aircraft the pilot owned where the weight and balance was so critical as to prevent him being able to fit one of the new light weight mode S units.

[Rod1]

The example given (and this is a bit off track) was a C42 micro. It is right on the micro empty weight limit, so cannot fit any more kit. He could take out the radio and then might have the ability to fit a Transponder, but the Germans require a radio so he still could not fly. This is not uncommon for a three-axis machine, several fit into the same category. In Europe allowance is given to fit certain kit on top of the empty weight limit, but not in the UK.

[chrisN]

After the microlite example, I also mentioned gliders such as the type I flew (Ka6) for 23 years, of which there are probably a hundred similar examples in the country, where in spite of stretching the maximum cockpit load by the maximum permitted 10 percent, I found myself unable to accommodate anything extra at all within the permitted weight limits. No room for extra instruments on the panel, no accommodation for extra weight for the battery to drive them. One did not have to be particularly heavy for the situation to arise with older gliders of that type, and possibly numerous others.

(The batteries required to drive a transponder, for several hours flying, would weigh several kilograms, in addition to the weight of the unit itself.)

The CAA response was that they didn't mention practicalities as a problem that emerged in their consultation, because it was covered by ”cost.” Their argument was that anything can be solved by throwing enough money at it. In cases like this, however, the only way throwing money at the problem could solve it would be by throwing away the whole aircraft and buying a different one, without such as severe weight limitation. In the microlite case, I wonder if that might extend to throwing away existing licensing and paying for a new course of training to get a licence for a different sort of aircraft.

Chris N

[IO540]

At today's meeting the issue of a pilot was raised who intends to travel to Europe next year and wants to fit a Mode S, but this would take him outside the W&B limits of his craft.

It's silly to have an empty weight limit; that needs to be addressed in a meaningful manner. Otherwise, he could lose a bit of weight :) The way Great Britain is going on obesity, the sales of these machines must be heading towards zero over here.

The batteries required to drive a transponder, for several hours flying, would weigh several kilograms

That's quite incorrect and is just another Mode S scare story going around. My GTX330 draws about 0.5A at 28V. Two little sealed lead acid batteries in series would weight about 1kg total, dimensions 140x80x20mm (I have one in my hand) and at 2Ah would drive the unit for about 4 hours. But this is old technology and a laptop-type lithium battery would do several times the time for about 1/3 the weight; I have one of those in my hand too.

[Fright Level]

sealed lead acid batteries .. (I have one in my hand) ... lithium battery ... I have one of those in my hand too.

Made me smile as it reminded me of this playground joke:

Q. If I had one green ball in one hand, and another green ball in another hand, what would I have?

A. The undivided attention of the jolly green giant :}

[IO540]

That one probably derives from the mothball one: a mothball in one hand and a mothball in the other hand, what do you have? A bl00dy big moth.

[3 Point]

Also prompts me to observe he must be a jolly clever chap to type with both hands full:ok:

[Life's a Beech]

IO540anybody doing any European touring should fit one and get on with their livesCan't you accept that other people want something different from their flying than you do? Some people like doing it with cheap and simple equipment, some can only afford to do so. I have friends who go to Europe in a Cherokee 140. The aircraft is probably worth about £15k, so £4000 to fit a Mode S is a hell of a lot, especially when it might be out of date in a few years if the EASA decides on ADS-B.

4 hours is great battery life, I agree. However a glider's endurance limit is hours of daylight, in the right conditions. Scotland, mid summer, a bit windy for some nice wave. 16, 17 hours maybe? I know people who have been up for well over 5 hours. In any case you are also wrong about the current drain. The unit has a power input of 27W, which would require 0.96A on your 28V alternator, or 1.125A on a 24V battery (assuming that yours are 24V, not 12V which would require twice the current) which means that they would only last an hour and three quarters. No use at all to a glider pilot. That is before even considering that the pilot might prefer to have a radio, which itself needs power.

[Edit - glider endurance record is 56 hours 15 minutes, set in Provence]

[dublinpilot]

Life's a Beech,

I think the point is that these exemptions don't seem to allow your friend to continue doing that. His touring looks like it will be limited to the UK unless he installs mode S.

I don't think IO is saying that Mode S is the way it should be, but rather that it is the way that it is.

Unfortunately, I'm coming to the same conclusion.

dp

[Life's a Beech]

That is my point. There is still a need to campaign against this idiocy, despite a victory in the UK, at least for those that care about the health of aviation overall rather than just their little bit. Doesn't affect me, my employer has fitted all our aircraft with Mode S and it is already required for public transport. That doesn't mean I don't back other people's case.

[Jodelman]

His touring looks like it will be limited to the UK unless he installs mode S.

Not sure this is true. Certainly, what France has said is that the airspace at present requiring a transponder will need a Mode S one from March 2008 (and I suspect that even that will change). There is a huge amount of airspace in France where you do not need a transponder.

[IO540]

There is a huge amount of airspace in France where you do not need a transponder.

What about Class D? One can do a lot in Class E but one gets only so far.

Beech - I disregard personal attacks, you can take them to the other forum. If you want to make a point, put your inteligence to a better use. Do a VFR flight plan from your UK airfield to, say, LFMD, and base your comments on that. Look at different routing options, and discuss them.

[Life's a Beech]

What personal attack? The point I was making was entirely the opposite, that this is not personal, and that your personal flying preferences are not the basis of aviation regulations! Don't be so sensitive when someone corrects you. I admit I looked up the Garmin 330. Although we have them fitted there is no need for me to know the power required, and I wouldn't expect you to know.

If someone can fly VFR to Turkey in an Islander or from Denmark to Italy in a Cessna 152 then I don't see why VFR to Cannes should be out of the ordinary in a PA28! The style of flying might not be your preference, and it might not be the safest way to fly there, but that doesn't mean that no-one should be able to do it as cheaply as is safely possible and within reasonable regulations.

I wouldn't do it (although some of our competitors would) because I think it would be unprofessional for a public-transport flight. If I was positioning, not worrying about fatigue, it was nice weather and I had time to plan it? I would. If I was flying only for my own enjoyment? Again, yes I would.

[CherrytreePilot]

The latest Pilot Mag has a letter from someone who was told by official at Texel that as from 31st March 2008 all a/c must have Mode S to fly in those countries.
Does anyone have any firm info?.

[Rod1]

CherrytreePilot

The notes above are from a meeting with the CAA, how firm do you want it?

Rod1
:ugh:

[dublinpilot]

The latest Pilot Mag has a letter from someone who was told by official at Texel that as from 31st March 2008 all a/c must have Mode S to fly in those countries.
Does anyone have any firm info?.


The notes above are from a meeting with the CAA, how firm do you want it?



Rod,

Texel is in Holland....the official was say that you will need mode S to fly in Dutch airspace.

I'm not sure if you missed that point, or are you suggesting that your notes mean that the CAA was saying these provisions and timescales apply across all JAA countries?

p

[IO540]

The way I prefer to fly (how do you know, Beech, have we ever met?) is irrelevant. There are easy ways to do a flight and there are more difficult ways.

One can scud run (OCAS) from anywhere to anywhere.

However, if the suggestion that Mode S is not required for VFR European touring is based on that, then good luck to you, enjoy the flight.

[Life's a Beech]

??????????

You are making no sense.

Scud running is not related to airspace. I have scud run INCAS and OUTCAS.

I make no judgement as to whether S is required for VFR touring - I don't know, and as a pilot who crosses Europe IFR with mode S fitted I have no need to know. I am saying that mode S should not be required. There is no practical need for it.

The idea that mode S makes flight easier for a pilot of a PA28-140 is absurd.

I have no need to meet you to know the sort of flying you like. You make no secret of it. You have some hot single with all the gadgets, and seem to dislike the idea of aviation without all the kit. That's fine for you, but not everyone's idea of fun. It is relevant because you seem to have little sympathy with people who like other types of flying.

[Jodelman]

There is a huge amount of airspace in France where you do not need a transponder.

What about Class D? One can do a lot in Class E but one gets only so far.


Why go into Class D airspace. I have been all over France without the need to do so.

[wigglyamp]

For those worried about a future transition to ADS-B from Mode S, some of the current Mode S units are already ADS-B compatible - certainly the Honeywell KT73 (KT76A/C plug-in replacement) with a sofware upgrade
and also, I believe, the Garmin GTX330. Therefore complying now if you need Mode S shouldn't have another big cost impact in the future.
Incidentally, an earlier thread mentioned over £4K for a Mode S installation. Currently many avionic shops are quoting around £2.5K.

[Flying Binghi]

wigglyamp, does that quote of yours, (about $5,000 ozzy) cover all aircraft and any panel mod's required ?

[Rod1]

wigglyamp

“Therefore complying now if you need Mode S shouldn't have another big cost impact in the future.”

Some of the units can be upgraded so you may not need a new box, but what about fitting a Certified GPS? Anybody know what the cheapest certified GPS is?

“Incidentally, an earlier thread mentioned over £4K for a Mode S installation. Currently many avionic shops are quoting around £2.5K.”

The CAA’s own research says it can be anything from £1700 ish for a plug replacement up to infinity. It is very hard to generalize.

Option 1 my MCR. I have a KT76a installed. I can buy a plug compatible Mode S, install it myself and pay the PFA £22.50 for a mod and get the installation signed off by my inspector for the cost of his fuel to drive over to look at it. Likely cost about £1500, which I think is the least cost possible.:(

Option 2, a C of A wooden aircraft with no existing transponder. Such an aircraft is likely to suffer from a CAA major mod charge, plus a lot of panel work, plus the cost of the kit. I would have thought £4500 ish would be bottom end, I know of at least one case where the work, excluding the CAA fee, was quoted at £5000.:ooh:

Option 3, a brand new C42 micro (the owner was at the meeting). Impossible to fit a transponder as it takes the aircraft out of the empty weight limit for a micro. Cost, sell aircraft and buy another ££££££!:eek:

CherrytreePilot

The CAA has a meeting with our European friends in December, and the policy of our European friends to Mode S is on the agenda. Unofficial indications are that the Dutch are likely to implement the letter of the law, but France may be very laid back. My opinion is that the individual states will have to work it out between themselves. Those offering a transition period will have to look at how compatible the approaches are and then come to an agreement. This is not far from the negotiations which allow PFA aircraft to tour most of Europe with little hassle when a permit is only valid in UK airspace. We will have to sit on our hands for a few weeks.

Rod1

[Fuji Abound]

I do not accept see and avoid works. I do accept there is a very low risk of a mid air collision, but never the less the risk can be reduced significantly.

For me I feel the sole purpose of aircraft carrying mode S is to enable the risk of a collision to be largely eliminated - at least for those with some form of traffic awareness as well.

In an ideal world I therefore found myself in favour of the adoption of mode S.

However, I also find myself asking is it fair that I should compel others to spend a significant sum of money to reduce my chances of a mid air collision by a insignificant amount?

On balance I have to conclude it would not be fair.

However, advances in safety require a commitment by all participants.

I recall the case for fitting seat belts.

Older cars were and have remained exempt, but gradually the number of those remaining on the roads has reduced. In the same way, the “authorities” should require all new aircraft be fitted with a transponder. (In the event ADS-B wins at least in that way the hole is already in the panel, the wiring behind and the kit in the weight and balance).

What is to be done with the existing fleet?

Firstly, I think the “authorities” have a part to play.

It is plain daft that a transponder cannot be fitted simply because it would take the aircraft out of what is after all an artificial weight category. How simple would it be to say the weight allowance is increased by X lbs if required for the sole purpose of fitting a transponder and if approved by the manufacturers.

Secondly, I recognise that as much as we all complain about what is perceived as the unjustified cost of minor mod fees, in fact in some cases, there is a reasonable amount of work required in order that a proper assessment can be made that the modification is safe. However, a mod of this nature applies across a type of aircraft and is “advantageous” to all operators. It is unfair that the first operator to undertake the mod should pay the cost, to the benefit of everyone else. The CAA should therefore play their part and reduce or waive the fee but recover their costs (note costs, not cost plus profit) by charging a license fee to each aircraft that takes advantage of the mod.

In that way the cost of implementing mode S would at least be reduced for those users who would fall under the exemption, but might otherwise be persuaded to fit a transponder. All new aircraft would be fitted and as aircraft naturally fell out of circulation the number not “able” to carry would gradually fall.

[robin]

FujiAbound

All good points, and very reasonably put.

In my optimistic moods (not very often these days), I would like to think that the CAA and EASA and NATS et al would take such a reasonable line. After all it is in their interests for this to happen.

The trouble is, and this was mentioned on Saturday, the Govt & CAA tends to roll over when big business moans about having costs put on to them. Remember the 2006 hike in CAA costs to reduce 'cross-subsidy'?

GA is still considered by many to be a bunch of rich playboys well able to fund their anti-social activity. The CAA spokesman at the meeting tried to dispel myths, such as Mode S isn't about making GA pay so that the airlines can make more money. I'm afraid he didn't convince many.

The CAA is not about to recommend airlines, NATS, the military and wind turbine companies should pay something to help us out. They have treid this, and got nowhere.

Instead of the principle 'the beneficiary pays', the CAA's line is that the regulated pay. They are not about to change that.

The Mode S issue should never be seen as a single isolated GA problem, as it is often portrayed. It needs to be considered alongside other developments, such as airspace design, where controlled airspace is being set up piecemeal without any over-arching strategic viewpoint.

GA is reduced to responding late on in the day to try to mitigate badly drawn-up proposals. Hopefully with recent changes we will at least have a chance to influence these at a much earlier stage.

[Fuji Abound]

GA is reduced to responding late on in the day to try to mitigate badly drawn-up proposals.

Sadly, that seems to be true of so many walks of life these days - it makes me wonder whether we cant get the quality of civil servant we once had or just dont pay them enough.

FujiAbound

All good points, and very reasonably put.

Thank you.

[Flying Binghi]

Reductio ad adsurdum - the safest aircraft is the one that doesnt fly.

I believe we 'require a commitment by all participants', not to fly their aircraft, so 'risk can be reduced significantly'

Of course the other way to achieve a reduction in flying, is to increase the costs so much, that nobody but the wealthy can afford to fly.

[Jerico]

As someone who flies an aircraft worth £6-7K and flies overseas, the cost of Mode S is significant. On the basis that I want to continue my hobby and by installing a Mode S transponder that this means I will no longer need to go scud running across Europe, is a bit of a joke. The cruise altitudes suggested by others are not attainable and flying above cloud is not possible or safe in this kind of aircraft. What works for one, does not work for all!

[topoverhaul]

The only valid reason for Mode S was the need to reducing garbling of returns in the LHR stacks. However having every aircraft identifiable is very useful for airspace charging and prosecution of airspace infringers.

Currrent TCAS only needs to see Mode A/C data to do a good job of reducing collision risk and indeed having all aircraft transponding A/C around major airports is the US model.
Mode S is being sold there on the basis that additional Traffic Information can be uploaded from the ground and the result is small aircraft can receive useful information on surrounding traffic.

Such a system is not being considered here and to reduce the GA to GA collision risk we need to proceed towards something else which is air based rather than ground based.

This is where Extended Squitter comes in which is basically ADS out. The transponder is hooked up to a GPS and regularly transmits its position for all in the area to copy. Garmin have now released an upgrade of the 330 to incorporate ES and other manufacturers are doing likewise.

With an ES environment, suitable traffic information and collision avoidance can be made available using air based solutions.
This is what should be used to make the cost of mode S to GA provide some benefit for those that pay for the fitment, and remove the suspicion that this is all about the content of the second sentence above.

[Flying Binghi]

Topoverhaul, I have visions of several dozen 172's in a 'stack' over head my local airfield. I can see your reason for supporting this now.

[Jodelman]

very useful for airspace charging

At the meeting the CAA dismissed this completely. The cost and complexity of tracking everyone would be enormous. As the man said, there are easier ways of charging for airspace use.

Mode S is being sold there on the basis that additional Traffic Information can be uploaded from the ground and the result is small aircraft can receive useful information on surrounding traffic.

The main reason given for the change to Mode S was that the current equipment at radar centres will not be able to cope in the future with the increase in Mode C returns

[wigglyamp]

The typical cost of £2500 + VAT was for a standard replacement of an KT76A in a PA28/Cessna 172 with a Garmin GTX330.

The problem of weight seems difficult to believe - a Filser Mode S unit weighs only 700g (and power consumption is only 200mA, so good unit in a Tigermoth on batteries).

Someone else mentioned the cost of mods and that they should be shared by the CAA. For certified aircraft, the fees go to EASA or the design organisation, not the CAA. A different mod has to be used for each aircraft type, because the mod is approved against the indiviual aircraft TCDS (Type Certificate data sheet). The owner of the mod has to determine whether to charge a full cost for generating the data, or a shared amount dependant upon how many aircraft they can use the mod on. Hope that helps.

[Rod1]

“The problem of weight seems difficult to believe - a Filser Mode S unit weighs only 700g (and power consumption is only 200mA, so good unit in a Tigermoth on batteries).”

The Micros have a max empty weight, which must not be exceeded. Most of the 3 Axis aircraft have a small amount of leeway – maybe as little as 0.5kg. The aircraft are weighed every 3 years and if the weight is over the aircraft is grounded. In the UK this is strictly enforced, which for example, is why you cannot paint a Eurostar in the UK, it would push it over the max empty weight! In Europe it is less strictly enforced and there are lists of kit, which do not count, like a Ballistic Parashoot for example.

The CAA has known about this problem since 2003, but has done nothing to solve it. It is easy to say it will be solved, but if you had just bought a brand new C42 and discovered you could (A not fit a Transponder in the weight limit and (B the rules may be about to change to stop you flying to Germany without said Transponder, you would be a bit upset. We have no conformation that the CAA are going to change the rule, or even when a decision will be made. Fortunately for me there is no max empty weight concept in the VLA class!

Similar problems can exist in Gliding. Many years ago I flew a M100 and even with a 10% dispensation (the max you could get) I could not even take a transceiver up with me. Again, this could be solved by a change in the regs, but no commitment or date for a decision has been made, to the best of my knowledge.

Rod1

[CherrytreePilot]

Rod 1 your reply to my query did not address the matter. The CAA statement seemed to me to refer only to the UK.
It seems we are all in the dark regarding the continental situation.

[6amtime4bed]

Just skimming through the posts here , the future for us PFA (sorry LAA) types running 40-50 year old Jodels etc looks bleak ! Who can justify spending 3-5k to equip an aircraft just to do a few cross channel jaunts a year . The old timer fly-in in Diest looks set to be down a lot of Brit a/c next year ! Shame

[L-Band]

Why not the Trig TT31 replaces the KT76A, just take one out and install the other and Trig have the STC's for most light aircraft.

L

[Rod1]

The TRT 800A is the one I would fit if I was required to carry one tomorrow. It is 20% cheaper and still plug compatible with the KT76a. It also has Extended Squitter as standard for ADS-B and an integrated encoder saving another £160 ish plus less wiring.

Price - £1342.98 excluding VAT, £1578.00 including VAT

Maybe something else along before 2012.
Rod1

[Single Spey]

Haven't the Australians agreed that their government will pay for GA to equip? :ok:

[robin]

...possibly, but we are dealing with the only Govt who expects their 'CAA' to make a profit.

They are not going to subsidise rich playboys when there are so many deserving causes around, like Northern Rock, Virgin and BA who need tax-payers money more than we do...

[QDMQDMQDM]

Currently my aircraft, a PA18, is not unairworthy / not allowed to fly if its Mode C transponder isn't working, as happens from time to time. When Mode S is mandatory will that change?

If so, it is absurd. I live in North Devon. If I fly one summer evening and don't switch my transponder on will the radar service try to track me back to my field location and prosecute? Are we actually going to see prosecutions of bimblers in uncontrolled airspace for not transponding Mode S? What a good use of public money that will be. I know of one Luton Minor, among many other aircraft, which will never have a Mode S transponder fitted, whatever the regs will say and it isn't alone. This regulation is ridiculous because it is pointless, effectively unenforceable and makes criminals out of otherwise law-abiding (mostly) citizens.

[robin]

QDM

Under the original proposal it might have been suggested that any flight without a working Mode S would have been outside the ANO.

However, the CAA are now very much aware that there are definite problems of practicality with certain types of aircraft. The gradual approach they are now proposing is putting off this sort of difficult problem into the far distant future.

[QDMQDMQDM]

I think you probably know whose Luton I mean, WR, and he is not known to use the radio overmuch either!

Honestly, as far as light aviation and especially farmstrip aviation is concerned, the whole thing is nuts.

[Roffa]

topoverhaul wrote:

The only valid reason for Mode S was the need to reducing garbling of returns in the LHR stacks. However having every aircraft identifiable is very useful for airspace charging and prosecution of airspace infringers.


Just plain wrong on the first count and I thought we'd been able to move away from pointless and simply incorrect hyperbole on the second two.

[bookworm]

This regulation is ridiculous because it is pointless, effectively unenforceable and makes criminals out of otherwise law-abiding (mostly) citizens.

While we're at it, shall we get rid of that dumb regulation requiring aircraft to display lights at night? It's completely unenforceable... :rolleyes:

[QDMQDMQDM]

shall we get rid of that dumb regulation requiring aircraft to display lights at night? It's completely unenforceable...

It may be unenforceable, but it isn't pointless.

[BEagle]

FRUIT and garbling - the 2 main reasons for Mode S - are of vastly less concern at lower (GA) levels or away from major airports.

The only tangible benefit to GA would be provision of 'Deconfliction' service in remote areas, when ADS-B is introduced.

[bookworm]

It may be unenforceable, but it isn't pointless.

Indeed it's not. It exists for exactly the same purpose as mandatory transponder carriage: so that other aircraft can detect you in time to avoid a collision.

[Single Spey]

It exists for exactly the same purpose as mandatory transponder carriage: so that other aircraft can detect you in time to avoid a collision.


But in airspace where TCAS carriage is not mandatory, the majority of other aircraft have no way of detecting you.

Maybe we should have a regulation for all Commercial flights operating outside CAS to have airborne radar fitted - it is proven technology, it would be paid for by the beneficiaries, it would have no impact on non-commercial flights, and it would undoubtedly enhance the safety of those commercial flights. Anyone for lobbying the CAA?

[robin]

If you think the CAA are ready and willing to take on the airlines and NATS on GA's behalf.......

One of the slides shown at the presentation basically said that under the 2003 White Paper on Air Transport, there were certain assumptions:

1) That current traffic growth was to continue
2) That commercial air transport brought economic and social benefits to the UK
3) That ATC capacity needs to be increased to match the capacity of airports to accept increased traffic
etc etc
4) The CAA is expected to make quick progress on dealing with this

Nowhere is there a mention of GA, although it was said that in the short term, the CAA's terms of reference are to be changed to include GA (currently it is only CAT that is mentioned)

[Single Spey]

Nowhere is there a mention of GA,


And nowhere was there a mention of Mode S as being the only game in town...

I can imagine the response from the airlines should airborne radar equipage as a solution be considered:

The equipment is too expensive.
We haven't got enough power on board.
It would add weight and reduce our payload.
Where would we fit the display in the cockpit?
Doesn't it produce a radiation hazard?

Any of this sound familiar? :)

[bookworm]

But in airspace where TCAS carriage is not mandatory, the majority of other aircraft have no way of detecting you.

Of course they do. You can buy a number of simple transponder detectors for a few hundred quid. As the carriage of transponders becomes more widespread, the sophistication of such devices will increase and the price may fall.

Maybe we should have a regulation for all Commercial flights operating outside CAS to have airborne radar fitted - it is proven technology, it would be paid for by the beneficiaries,

They do have radar fitted. It's called TCAS. But it's a secondary radar, and it needs cooperation from the other aircraft flying in the space. Suggesting that they carry primary radar is analogous to suggesting that they should carry massive searchlights capable off lighting up other aircraft in their path to save the others from having to display lights.

[Rod1]

bookworm

“But in airspace where TCAS carriage is not mandatory, the majority of other aircraft have no way of detecting you.”
“Of course they do. You can buy a number of simple transponder detectors for a few hundred quid. As the carriage of transponders becomes more widespread, the sophistication of such devices will increase and the price may fall.”

If you are saying that the majority of airspace users carry such devices now then I think you live in a very different world to me! Most airspace users could not carry such devices if they wanted to,

Rod1

[QDMQDMQDM]

Indeed it's not. It exists for exactly the same purpose as mandatory transponder carriage: so that other aircraft can detect you in time to avoid a collision.

Oh you narrow person. Not everyone is operating in CAS and this regulation throws up endless absurdities like a Luton Minor in remote North Devon being unairworthy because its Mode S transponder isn't working. It's unenforceable and for the majority of us pointless. And anyway we don't have a big problem with mid-air collision in this country.

[bookworm]

If you are saying that the majority of airspace users carry such devices now

No, I'm not. I'm saying they could, which appears to be at odds with

Most airspace users could not carry such devices if they wanted to

Why not? The current generation are light, battery-operated and reasonably effective. They're not TCAS, but they're out there and available.

[bookworm]

And anyway we don't have a big problem with mid-air collision in this country.

Well let's just send NATS packing and save us all a lot of money, shall we?

If you're not prepared to play along to de-risk sharing the airspace, commercial air transport, whose operators believe that there is a problem with the potential for mid-air collision, is simply going to grab more and more of the air until you have nowhere to fly your Minor. And Joe Public is going to be with them all the way.

[Rod1]

“The current generation are light, battery-operated and reasonably effective.”

OK, well the one I have looked at (which the owner sent back as it was not much good) was about 2kg and quite big. If there is a new generation the size and weight of a mobile then I stand corrected.

Rod1

[Single Spey]

If you're not prepared to play along to de-risk sharing the airspace, commercial air transport, whose operators believe that there is a problem with the potential for mid-air collision,

I'm all for de-risking sharing the airspace - as I said get all commercial operators to fit an airborne primary radar. As you say, they are the ones who believe there is a problem.

To put your points into another perspective - passenger trains have been known to hit vehicles on level crossings. So, lets mandate that all privately owned cars must fit a transponder that alerts a train driver to the presence of a vehicle on a level crossing in enough time for him to stop. De-risking the journey for the fare paying passenger as you would describe it. Alternatively we should embark on a programme to close all level crossings and force private vehicles to make a detour.

[QDMQDMQDM]

Spot on, Single Spey.

Tell you what, bookworm, why not mandate Mode S for everything that flies AND add in the requirement for a VFR flightplan for every flight, like they do in Spain. That would give even more 'de-risking', wouldn't it?

[Rod1]

CAA presentation now available at;

http://www.pfa.org.uk/

Rod1

[tmmorris]

Are Mode S transponders self-monitoring?

If not, and you fly NORDO (and no-one is proposing mandatory radio carriage or use OCAS) how do you know if it's working?

Tim

[IO540]

You don't know.

But let's face it, your existing Mode C doesn't get checked unless some ATC unit tells you that you are at 65,000ft and should descend immediately ;)

[JBGA]

Perhaps the ideal hardware doesn't exist right now but don't you think that when the CAA/EASA publish the technical specifications, avionics companies will be clambering over each other to produce new equipment designed specifically for our requirements? After all, if everyone is going to have to buy one there is a HUGE potential market and competition will be strong.

I'm certain that by the time this all happens in 2021, Mode S transponders will be the size of a fag packet, will run for several days non-stop on a single charge and probably include traffic awareness information to help us stop bumping in to each other. And they will all be 'ADS-B Ready' which opens up a whole world of possibilities like availability of real-time graphical and textual weather and 'Virtual radar' etc. in the cockpit.

[JBGA]

But let's face it, your existing Mode C doesn't get checked unless some ATC unit tells you that you are at 65,000ft and should descend immediately

Reminds me of that little anecdote about a Scottish controller who recieves a request from a private aircraft to change to FL650. Thinking the chap has made an error he wittly asks 'How are you going to get up there then' and the response comes 'We're not.....we'd like to DESCEND to FL650 please'. Yep, it was an American U2! :p

[IO540]

So much bull in this thread.

Spain requires flight plans for VFR only for flights in controlled airspace. Look in their AIP, rather than propagate this disinformation yet again.

Airborne radar which can pick up other aircraft is massively expensive. Only some military planes have it.

The case for transponders in GA is to ensure that TCAS systems carried by commercial traffic (this is mandatory for anything of any size) can detect the GA aircraft, should it get too close. And 'getting too close' usually means somebody got lost and busted controlled airspace. Had there been no CAS busts I doubt we would be seeing this situation, but they continue because lots of GA traffic is unable to navigate.

A small piece of the case for transponders is that some commercial traffic also flies in Class G. One can moan about this but the obvious solution is to have more controlled airspace! Now, do you want more CAS, or mandatory transponders?

Now, to trigger somebody's TCAS one needs only Mode C; no need for Mode S. If Mode C had been made mandatory years ago, or the UK and Europe adopted US-style Mode C veils around major airports, the fuss would have died down long ago and GA would probably not be compelled to fit Mode S.

But, GA has successfully lobbied against transponders and when it finally lost the battle (the Mode S battle is now lost; it's just a matter of time before they are a practical must-have for VFR or IFR touring) Mode S was the technology of choice because it enables ATC to selectively interrogate traffic.

IMHO it is unnecessary to mandate Mode S for the sector of GA that carries Elementary Mode S (basically anything below 250kt TAS and below 5700kg; above these Enhanced Mode S is required) - Mode C would have been perfectly fine and would have delivered most of the benefit to ATC. But this is what we have and we are stuck with it.

[robin]

>>>Perhaps the ideal hardware doesn't exist right now but don't you think that when the CAA/EASA publish the technical specifications, avionics companies will be clambering over each other to produce new equipment designed specifically for our requirements? After all, if everyone is going to have to buy one there is a HUGE potential market and competition will be strong.

I'm certain that by the time this all happens in 2021, Mode S transponders will be the size of a fag packet, will run for several days non-stop on a single charge and probably include traffic awareness information to help us stop bumping in to each other. And they will all be 'ADS-B Ready' which opens up a whole world of possibilities like availability of real-time graphical and textual weather and 'Virtual radar' etc. in the cockpit. <<<<

Oh you optimist, you

The CAA has been working on Mode S for around 15 years and we still don't have a spec. The CAA will not do so, as they consider the market will develop one.

I have lost count of the times I've been told that the low-powered, small, low-cost TX is just around the corner. It isn't

[Rod1]

“the Mode S battle is now lost; it's just a matter of time before they are a practical must-have for VFR or IFR touring”
I do not think anybody thought that some sort of box would not be mandatory at some point in time, so the battle was about timeframe and what box.

It will be possible, for sure, to tour in the UK, post 2012 without a transponder. It MAY be possible to tour parts of Europe, nobody knows for sure at this time. If this situation continues for a small number of years post 2012, then we will be talking about fitting ADS-B, so the requirement for Mode S may never happen.

The aim of the lobbying was to remove the requirement for all flying machines to have a Mode S box by 2005 (I think this was the original date). The current situation is you do not need Mode S to fly, so we have already won!

The future is still open and no date has been set for a requirement to fit Mode S to everything. The second consultation is coming soon, take part! The longer the debate goes on, the cheaper the box we eventually have to fit will be.

Rod1

[mm_flynn]

Don't get hopes up around ADS-B. In the US for CAT and high altitude flight it is just Mode-S ES with GPS/FMS fed extended squitter - and this is what Europe has indicated it will go for. The US (lobbied extensively by AOPA) are also going for ADS-B based on UAT, which will provide greater bandwidth and allow uplinking of weather METARS, etc (i.e. the same stuff they up link with TIS).

So, going to ADS-B probably will mean, a software upgrade to your Mode-S transponder, and approved GPS for position data (maybe Galileo with a mega£ subscription just to p!ss people off ;), and maybe some major mod paperwork.

[IO540]

I agree ADS-B is a loooooooong way down the road in Europe.

"The longer the debate goes on, the cheaper the box we eventually have to fit will be."

Possibly. The problem is that a minor transponder manufacturer will wait until they are mandatory before out something too revolutionary. This is because the company which owns the market (Garmin) could knock out a cheap Mode S very fast, if they thought there would a lot of demand, so if a small mfg brings one out they will have to move fast. If they play their card and the units are not made mandatory, they will just sell the usual low volumes (made lower still by the massive loyalty to Garmin in the avionics distribution / installation pipeline) and then Garmin will come along and kill them (or buy them and then kill them ;) ).

Garmin haven't done anything, most likely because there is enough demand at the current ~ £2000 price. But they could.

However, if/when transponders become mandatory then price will not be important because you will have to buy one anyway :)

So there is really no case for waiting, unless one's flying pattern is entirely in airspace which doesn't need one.

[tggzzz]

The batteries required to drive a transponder, for several hours flying, would weigh several kilograms

That's quite incorrect and is just another Mode S scare story going around. My GTX330 draws about 0.5A at 28V. Two little sealed lead acid batteries in series would weight about 1kg total, dimensions 140x80x20mm (I have one in my hand) and at 2Ah would drive the unit for about 4 hours. But this is old technology and a laptop-type lithium battery would do several times the time for about 1/3 the weight; I have one of those in my hand too.1) gliders regularly stay up for much longer than 4 hours. In addition, they are frequently used continuously during daylight hours for training (and just plain fun, mustn't forget that!).

2) do your power consumption figures include being interrogated at realistic intervals?

3) lithium ion batteries have a reputation for spontaneously igniting quite spectacularly. Look on YouTube for some videos.

Does anyone know what (airliner :) cabin crew are trained to do if a laptop starts burning?

[JBGA]

The problem is that a minor transponder manufacturer will wait until they are mandatory before out something too revolutionary

I don't see the problem with that. The government will approve the proposals at the end of next year. Carriage won't be mandatory until 2012 (According to current proposals). That gives manufacturers around 4 years to come up with something. And all we are talking about is taking an ordinary Mode S transponder (Of which there are already several manufacturers) and making it a bit smaller and lighter and probably battery powered. Hardly 4 years worth of work. This is going to be red letter day for transponder manufacturers so they probably have ideas on the table for how to accomplish the task already.

The weakest link is EASA and the time it takes for them to approve specifications.

[chrisN]

Re batteries for gliders: also, we fly at altitudes where temperature is lower than the idealised laboratory conditions which deliver a claimed "7 amp-hours" so they do less than that even when new; and the manner of use, and recharge cycles, are not optimised so the charge is effectively lower and worsens with time. We are not going to replace them every week. Unusually for IO540 (imho) he/she got this one completely wrong. But then, he/she thinks I did.

The two extra batteries I fitted weigh about 5 kg. A transponder would be another 0.5-0.6 kg, according to specs.

So my "several kg" is correct with current technology. And I won't fit one until either I have to, or a suitable one is on the market. And if it runs out of battery power when I'm flying at up to 13,000 feet or more for 11 hours, along with losing all my other electrical instruments, hard luck, I suppose.

Chris N.

[Rod1]

“The problem is that a minor transponder manufacturer will wait until they are mandatory”

Mode S is mandatory for IFR flight, and several small manufacturers have come in with £1500 ish (inc vat) units.

http://w w w.trig-avionics.com/products.html

http://w w w.lxavionics.co.uk/transponders.htm

(note spaces to comply with pprune rules)

Some units (one of the Garmin ones?) do not have extended squitter, so the poor sods that bought them will have to scrap them and replace them with a new box for ADS-B. The longer you wait the better the chance that you will get something, which the CAA approves of for both.

Some years ago when I designed my panel the best price I could get a Mode S unit for was £4500. It is now £1550 ish and by 2012 it will be down again.

Edited to add

“won't be mandatory until 2012 (According to current proposals)”

No plans to make Transponders mandatory in the UK open FIR but 2012, take a look at my summary on Page 1 and the CAA presentation on the PFA website

Rod1

[bookworm]

It will be possible, for sure, to tour in the UK, post 2012 without a transponder. It MAY be possible to tour parts of Europe, nobody knows for sure at this time.

I'd settle for a compromise like the Dutch have gone for of mandating Mode S above a certain level (I'd even be prepared to add a few hundred feet to their 1200 amsl). Do Luton Minors need to fly higher than that to exercise their god-given right of freedom of the air?

[robin]

>>>>>The government will approve the proposals at the end of next year. Carriage won't be mandatory until 2012 (According to current proposals). That gives manufacturers around 4 years to come up with something.<<<<

But surely this is the wrong way round

The Govt makes a transponder mandatory during 2008, but doesn't create a spec, or even have a working prototype at the time they pass the legislation.

They then live in hope that in 4 years a manufacturer might think it worthwhile to present a model at indeterminate cost and performance for approval.

What if they don't?

We have been told repeatedly that unless an acceptable tx (in terms of cost, size and performance) is available, this will not be mandated.

We could be in the same position as with Part M Lite - the law is in place, but the reality is somewhat different

[JBGA]

But surely this is the wrong way round

The Govt makes a transponder mandatory during 2008, but doesn't create a spec, or even have a working prototype at the time they pass the legislation.

They then live in hope that in 4 years a manufacturer might think it worthwhile to present a model at indeterminate cost and performance for approval.

What if they don't?


First, it's not like Mode S transponders are a new thing. They've been on sale for years. What we are talking about is a small, lightweight and preferably battery powered version suitable for GA that doesn't cost ££££'s

Second, if the CAA mandates Mode S transponder carriage and no manufacturers decide to make a small, lightweight battery powered transponder, I will start a small, lightweight battery powered transponder manufacturing company. I'll be a millionaire overnight.

[robin]

To my certain knowledge, the CAA have been talking about how much they have been working with manufacturers on the low-powered, low-cost tx for some years. At numerous CAA presentations we have been promised a small, safe and sub 700-euro one. Yet we still don't have this in place.

It would be good if someone could actually get this underway - the Kinetics model still is not at marketable stage, as far as I am aware, although the 'prototype' has been in aviation mags for over 2 years.

[gpn01]

If, unlike existing manufacturers in the sector, you have the capability and production capacity to build a lightweight, low power, reliable Mode-S transponder at low cost, then yes you could become rich.

I suspect that low power and light weight isn't, using currently technology, compatible with low cost. Only millionaire you're likely to become will be one with a large minus sign in front of the pound sign!