Mode 'S' mandatory for gliders.

[snapper1]

I'm dipping my toe into what might turn out to be hot water here, but here goes.

I would be interested to know the views of ATC professionals on the CAA's proposals for mandatory fitting of Mode 'S' transponders in gliders.

The new proposals can be summarised as:
1. The carriage and use of Mode S transponders will be mandated within all UK controlled airspace (A-E).
2. In addition, the consultation proposes the implementation of a formal process to create Transponder Mandatory Zones (TMZs) within uncontrolled (Class G) airspace.
3. Gliders will be fully included in these proposals – i.e. there will be no blanket exemption for gliders, irrespective of whether or not suitable equipment is available. This move would mean that no glider could enter any airspace above FL100 (whether controlled or not) unless equipped with a Mode S transponder.
The consultation document mentions that local letters of agreement might be put in place to enable non Mode S equipped aircraft to operate within controlled airspace and that specifically agreed non-transponder transit corridors/routes in controlled airspace and TMZs might be established. However, the consultation document provides no guarantees that this would happen.

The CAA's view seems to be that regulation is necessary on safety grounds. I hold no office within my club or the BGA. I am simply a glider pilot who sees his sport being threatened by regulation which thus far has not been necessary.

[cats_five]

*if* fitting Mode S to a glider was a £500 shot (it isn't) *and* there weren't problems in most gliders with the batteries being able to power it for long enough I don't think it would the issue it is. For a lot of low-value gliders fitting Mode S will cost as much as the glider is worth, or more. Even for a 15K glider, it's still going to cost 30% or so of the value.

Interested to see the replies from the ATC folks.

[Radarspod]

I would ask what is it about gliders that make them different to other aircraft such that they shouldn't carry a transponder when powered aircraft must at FL100. A glider is just a much a collision risk as any other aircraft. If it had a transponder then there is a much better chance that an ACAS equipped aircraft would be able to avoid.

I do however share sympathy for cost - I have a number of family and friends who have spent time on gliders - a transponder is a little pricey compared to the cost of purchasing and running a glider. Having said that, there are a number of new boys on the scene - Trig, Filser(*) to name a couple who come to mind - who are making reasonably priced lightweight Mode S transponders. It could be possible to get a reasonable glider sized piece of kit not too far in the future.

RS

(*) other transponder manufacturers are available :ok:

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

...... and a lightweight battery with adequate capacity to go with it?

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

I can't believe it will be too long before someone comes up with a solar panel to run the thing; maybe they have done already? Having acquired a few grey hairs over gliders infringing CAS I have to agree with Radarspod.

[eagleflyer]

Take a standard 7,2Ah battery and it will be enough for a day of non-stop transponder usage. With solar cells you can even keep the capacity of the battery if the weather is reasonably well.

I do have a Mode-S transponder in my glider and switch it on from time to time when crossing an airspace-E-final of a busy military aerodrome or when entering C for a wave flight.

As an ATCO I would not recommend a mandatory utilisation of transponders in E for all gliders since conflict alerts would cover all our screens. It might be useful in certain areas where TMZs could be implemented (as they are in Germany, but only in controlled airspace). Also they don´t have to be Mode-S transponders, the old Mode A/Cs are just fine as well. I don´t mind the registrations of the glider, it´s just good to know that someone is there.

[Spitoon]

As has been alluded to already, it's not just an ATC thing but also to provide additional safety to other aircraft that are fitted with ACAS.

Of course, this might be less of an issue if we established controlled airspace to protect commercial passenger carrying aircraft as many other countries do (instead of, sometimes, forcing them to fly through class F or G airspace). But then, whenever additional controlled airspace is proposed one of the main opponents is the GA and sport flying lobby. The other main opponent to more airspace is usually the mil - and if I recall correctly many BritMil aircraft have recently been equipped (as some expense to the taxpayer) with ACAS compatible equipment....so the mil are probably in favour of the idea of mandatory carriage of tx'ders to provide additrional protection to their fleet.

This is not to try and say who is right or wrong but simply to illustrate that it's a complex topic.

But resistance is probably futile because I think the proposal is intended to harmonise tx'der carriage and operation across the European region (I stand to be corrected by those who've read the proposals and their justification).

If you simply want my personal ATC view, for those controllers working outside controlled airspace it's a very good idea, and for those that have the luxury of only having controlled airspace to worry about it is a useful improvement to awareness of infringements etc.

[ComJam]

It's a flight safety issue. If you guys want to operate gliders above FL100, where you ARE a hazard, then you must carry the appropriate kit.

Spitoon, you're quite correct, the RAF Tucanos have recently been fitted with a nice little TCAS system to enhance flight safety in the very busy Vale of York area.

It's not long ago that I came across a glider well above FL100 over Scotland in Uncontrolled Airspace, no transponder therefore no TCAS warning, not seen on radar...no warning...wasn't a close one, but, could easily have been.

What price safety?

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<Of course, this might be less of an issue if we established controlled airspace to protect commercial passenger carrying aircraft>>

My opinion for the last 40 years. I corresponded with GATCO from overseas about the UK situation. In those days Control Zones only existed at airfields with Min of Av ATC, but then various "fixes" (SRzs, etc) were introduced. I'm a great believer in total control - Class A if you like - around airfields operating commercial traffic.

[ZeBedie]

What's to say that these transponders will be kept serviceable and their batteries will be kept charged? Who would ever know?

Didn't they do something similar in Australia years ago and decide that it was a failure because there were so many gliders concentrated in certain small areas?

[bad bear]

ADSB is the answer

[Greasey Pete]

We're the hazard? Outside of controlled airspace and we're the hazard while you're not?
Smacks of school-yard tactics - I'm bigger than you so...

Can you justify your premise?

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Greasey Pete... Somebody riding a bicycle on a country lane is a "hazard" - much more so on a busy A road. End of lecture.

[Radarspod]

re: zebedies remark on the Australia trials with transponders - Good point, but I believe (and am happy to be proved wrong :confused:) that these were Mode A/C only transponders and as a result gaggles of gliders in one area caused lots of garbling and hassle for ATC to negate any benefit.

As any new fit transponder must be Mode S in the UK, and all non-Mode S SSR radars will not get approval to operate from 2012 (unless credible replacement plan in place) in UK, in the future there should be no reason why a group of gliders could not be tracked quite happily by any unit with a Mode S radar.

In saying tracked I mean from a system level, having a whole bunch of overlapping lables presented to a controller is a different issue, and one I don't have to deal with :ok:

Of course, ADS-B could be the way forward. You don't need a fully capable Mode S transponder to broadcast ADS-B squitters.

[Max Angle]

The proposals go way beyond just gliders which are currently exempt from the requirement to carry a transponder above FL100. The current proposals will require ANY aircraft operating in controlled airspace (crossing a class D zone for instance) to have a mode S transponder.

The new rules also allow for the creation of transponder mandatory zones (TMZs) which can be put around as well as below current controlled airspace to act as a buffer, any aircraft operating in these zones will also require a mode S transponder. If these zones are applied for (and they surely will be) we could find that any aircraft, glider, or microlight (many of which do not have electric systems at all) will need to carry a mode S transponder to operate near or underneath any controlled airspace, think about the area the London TMA covers. The cost, including installation, is going to run into thousands of pounds for each aircraft and having seen the CAA presentation on the subject I am far from convinced that they have a valid case.

Everyone involved in light aviation in the UK needs to fight tooth and nail to shoot down these proposals and make the CAA think again. You can read the proposals here:

http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=1698&pagetype=90&pageid=9307

and lodge your response here:

http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=7&pagetype=65&appid=37

The British Gliding Association are not surprisingly very vocal about it and have an excellent web page on the subject:

http://www.gliding.co.uk/bgainfo/airspace/modes2008.htm

If you operate any sort of light aircraft a little time spent looking at this lot and coming up with a reasonable response could save you a great deal of money, go to it.

[slatch]

Well while I understand the reasons the gliders dont want to have a transponder on it makes no sense whe you look at modern avionic power requirements. South of Reno many gliders work out of Minden in the summer with no transponder at up to FL180. We have many near hits every year. There is a lot of high speed jet traffic decending and climbing through the area. About 18 months ago we had a mid air between a Hawker and glider. The glider even had a transponder but did not have it turned on.

http://jeremy.zawodny.com/blog/archives/007288.html

There is no way a jet at 350mph is going to see a white glider visually everytime.

[Quokka]

Max Angle... so the price of the lives of a couple of hundred passengers is not worth five thousand Pounds?

[ComJam]

Greasy Pete

Operating outside controlled airspace with TCAS and a Mode S transponder WE are much less of a hazard to each other than you are...by virtue of the fact that YOU don't have such equipment, i thought that was obvious. :ugh:

[Radarspod]

It still amazes me, IMHO, the blinkered view of the GA and Glider forum. How about some acceptance of the times we live in. Airspace is busy and getting busier, people want to fly more, bigger aircraft carrying more people are using airspace alongside smaller, faster aircraft with clever avionics flying in places they've previously been excluded. We all need to keep safe.

The airspace of the UK is developing for the future, not to meet the needs of the past, and I believe the CAA are addressing that the best way they can. GA and the Gliding fraternity need to keep up, or lose out.:ugh:

[Greasey Pete]

This may be more philosophical than practical but the hazard on the country road is not, a priori, the cyclist, its the motorist driving in such a fashion as to de-rate the cyclist from his status of rightful user.
Class A equates to Heathrow Director's busy main road. Class G is the country lane.
Surely HD and Comjam can manage a more reasoned response? So far "end of lecture" and head butting smileys smacks more of PMT than discourse.
Historically CAT has inexorably curtailed VFR sporting aviation and I welcome the CAA's attempts to find a way of ameliorating the next expansion but its all in terms of "if you install all this gear we MAY let you back on your country lane if we feel like it". I do have a mode S in the glider but with no guarantee it'll facilitate my passage.

Maybe the intellectual analysis of school-yard tactics is tangential to the topic so how about another sprat?
In what way do all you IFR flyers think CAT and the use of airspace could be reorganised to preserve the open FIR for VFR sporting aviation?
Does sporting aviation have any value to society?

[22/04]

Define society. What most people do. Deeply unoriginal.

I like to think society is largely governed by primitive instinct.

Get wealth and power, acquire BMW and four bedroom house, have ability to travel, all with purpose to attract mate and breed.

I have brain University career, Mondeo, three bedoomed house glider and am content to belive I think rather than act instinctively. BTW also happily single!

There is no evidenced base reason to extend Mode S to gliders, only the will of the above types to attempt to be super safe and dominate by way of their sheer number.

These guys will take the world to the grave via Gobal Warming and war for diminishing resources.

[Shunter]

Personally I see no reason why gliders (and older aircraft with little/nothing in the way of electrical systems) should, generally, need transponders. Especially when operating OCAS. However...

It's a whole different story when they start flying in cloud. If I'm flying along in IMC in receipt of a radar service I do NOT want something invisible to SSR anywhere near me. At the very least a charlie-capable transponder squawking a discrete "I'm a glider in cloud" code that can be switched on before they enter IMC would be a good idea, surely?

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<attempt to be super safe>>

One can never, ever be "super safe". Having spent a life time as a professional air traffic controller (5-bedroomed house, Reliant Robin, Austin Allegro and other trappings of wealth... and also an avid aviation enthusiast) I have seen enough dangerous incidents for me not to change my attitude about control of airspace and the need for aircraft using that airspace to be properly equipped. Of course I appreciate the desire of people to enjoy their flying but SAFETY is of paramount importance to me, far and above Fred Bloggs enjoying his gliding.

Air traffic controllers are far better equipped than pilots to see exactly what goes on. During the competitions at Wycombe I experienced on more than one occasion reports from commercial pilots of gliders "at the same level", "we have a glider above us", etc. Unlike the old primary radar, modern radars do not see flimsy aeroplanes too well so it is only sensible to have those aeroplanes properly equipped so that they can be seen.

Personally, I wouldn't set foot in an aeroplane which was about to be flown anywhere near CAS unless I knew that it had a fully serviceable transponder and somebody with a modicum of commonsense driving it. I'm NOT anti-light aircraft or gliders but I AM pro-safety at all cost.

[cats_five]

<<attempt to be super safe>>

One can never, ever be "super safe".

Indeed one cannot, but the guys who 1) flew over our gliding field upwind at circuit height (more or less along the line of the winch cable), and 2) flew across the business end of the winch at less thatn 2,000'agl could certainly have been a whole lot safer. It's not as if the field is unmarked on the chart, or difficult to make out from the air.

IMHO this sort of thing is a much, much bigger threat to safety than a collection of gliders without transponders ever would be, partly because pilots displaying such a lack of awareness of where they are and what the specific hazards of a gliding site are are probably just as unaware about many other hazards.

[Single Spey]

Heathrow Director

I wouldn't set foot in an aeroplane which was about to be flown anywhere near CAS unless I knew that it had a fully serviceable transponder and somebody with a modicum of commonsense driving it.


However you are more than content to provide a safety service with a system that :


Unlike the old primary radar, modern radars do not see flimsy aeroplanes too well


So why doesn't the CAA insist that these modern radars are removed from service and revert to 'old radars' until such time as all airspace users are equipped with the new systems?

[1985]

Unlike the old primary radar, modern radars do not see flimsy aeroplanes too well


More likely to be the materials used in the making of the gliders to reduce weight that don't reflect the radar waves as well as they would have in the past.

We still have primary radar, its just more computer processed than it used to be. Any return that isn't moving above a specified speed gets filtered out by the computer before being put on the screen, ie weather, static returns from buildings etc...

[gpn01]

A couple of thoughts...

The willingness for safety "at any cost" - this simply isn't realistic. Everybody, whether that be a GA pilot or an airline business, makes a tradeoff between relative risk and the associated cost. Airline manufacturers could make aircraft safer by, for example, improving crash survivability (such as on board water sprays). They don't because this increases the weight of the aircraft, decreases the available load and increases the cost. IF we REALLY supported the principle that CAT must at all costs be made as safe as possible then a starting point would be to be ban ALL GA and military traffic (thereby decreasing the probability of collision) and insisting on considerable investment in ATC facilties (and passing the charge on to the airlines who'd build it into the price of a ticket).

Improving safety through additional controlled airspace - The latest set of airprox data (jan-Jun 2007 - http://www.airproxboard.org.uk/docs/423/ukabbk18.pdf) states that:
"Airprox where controllers did not seperate CAT aircraft or exercised poor judgement.... featured 11 times, an increase of 37% over the same period in 2006". Overall, GA airproxes remain pretty much unchanged year on year, whilst controlled airspace ones have increased. Would this not suggest that the area that needs to be improved is INSIDE controlled airspace, not outside ?

[robin]

ADSB is the answer


Hmm

From the guys at the Belgrano, ADSB isn't the clever solution that many believe. Although who trusts the Belgrano.....:=

We were told that ADSB would be a future option, but would depend on 'an approved GPS', so that rules out Garmin196 etc/Skymap IIIc etc, so will mean even more expense - a Mode S + an approved GPS

[bad bear]

Radarspod

The airspace of the UK is developing for the future, not to meet the needs of the past
sadly this is what is definitely not happening
RNP 5 nav and controllers giving vector belongs to WW2 era. If we were even in the 1990's we would be on PRNAV and hardly talking to ATC at all. The way things are done inside CAS is well past its sell by date.

e.g.
To require an airway 22nm wide for aircraft to operate autonomously is ridiculous in modern times (N862/4)
or
Having the BNN holding pattern over the Heathrow out bounds is insane, and the current TC North plan does nothing to relieve this bizarre bottleneck in the sky

So why not sort the problems of big aeroplanes against big aeroplanes inside controlled airspace first, that is where the real problems are.

Does recreational flying fit in to your vision of the future?

[bad bear]

HEATHROW DIRECTOR

Air traffic controllers are far better equipped than pilots to see exactly what goes on. During the competitions at Wycombe I experienced on more than one occasion reports from commercial pilots of gliders "at the same level", "we have a glider above us", etc. Unlike the old primary radar, modern radars do not see flimsy aeroplanes too well so it is only sensible to have those aeroplanes properly equipped so that they can be seen.

This clearly shows that look out works and even airline pilots can actually see gliders on the very rare occasion that they use the windows for their intended purpose. There is a common misunderstanding amongst pilots that anything they see on or slightly above the horizon is above them, when the trafic is actually below them. NW of Henley you should expect that gliders will be above the inbounds as the base of CAS (5,500') allows this as there is lateral separation and not all airline pilots have got the hang of CDAs.

But if you are far better equipped than pilots to see exactly what goes on you will have known that and reassured them.

If you want to be pro-safety at all cost... get NATS to give you radar that does see all the traffic and not just some of it. Don't think you can just pass the cost on to someone else's budget, or are NATS going to pay for all the transponders?

[gpn01]

Quoting Heathrow Director: "Unlike the old primary radar, modern radars do not see flimsy aeroplanes too well so it is only sensible to have those aeroplanes properly equipped so that they can be seen."

So, what you're saying is that the new equipment is less able to do the job and so the "solution" is to force the flimsy aeroplanes to be kitted out with expensive equipment to overcome the shortfalls of the new radar ? H'mmm, sounds a bit like treating the symptom (GA trafic doesn't always appear on the radar) instead of the cause (inadequate radar).

[ComJam]

Part of the problem with the newer radars is that they don't "see" gliders made from newer composite materials. ATC has already been equipped with radar that does see ALL traffic, it's called SSR, unfortunately (for you glider types) it requires ALL traffic to have a Transponder.

I can't understand your problem with fitting the kit. Surely it enhances flight safety for everyone, not just your commercial pilots (who apparently don't look out of the window :ugh:) What possible objection can you have to be being visible on radar and visible on TCAS?? Is it just the cost??

I spend a lot of time transiting and operating outside CAS, lookout is very important, unfortunately gliders are not the easiest thing to spot even at a TAS of 250kts...so for guys going considerably faster the problem is even greater. The danger of mid-air collision is considerably reduced by the use of TCAS / Mode S / SSR and a radar service.

It would be interesting to hear the views of any military guys operating the fast metal over the highlands outside CAS.

[Greasey Pete]

What possible objection can you have to be being visible on radar and visible on TCAS?? Is it just the cost??

Wish it were so simple. Capital and recurrent cost is undoubtedly a factor. Recreational flyers don't have the resource of CAT so if the expense is deemed unaffordable then ipso facto they are barred from their 'country lanes' and being forced out causes deep and often irrational resentment. Especially when the 'aggressor' is perceived as little more than unabashed commercialism.

OK, many of the guys flying well above FL 100 are likely to be of the ilk that will fit a transponder for all the sensible reason that you espouse but the lower down you come the more likely you are to find those who wouldn't (given the choice) and FL 100 is the sort of level where you learn your wave flying. Lower than that then cross country flights become potentially hazardous because of the areas of sink you have to cross. If you can't make it to the next area of lift you are likely out of the sky and in a field.
The lower performance gliders are the ones more likely to have tight budgets and they are the ones that won't succeed at the upwind jump in 10kts sink.
Believe us when we say that a 9-10,000ft ceiling on wave flying is a disaster for gliding.

But it doesn't stop there. TMZs. I fly in the Peak district where we are boxed in by airways overhead, East Midlands to the South, Manchester to the West, Leeds/Bradford to the North and soon Finningley to the East. (What pc committee of little drips decided to call it Robin Hood? Yuk. End rant). .
If TMZs were wrapped around all that lot our airfield would be in them! So then its transponders in everything -right down to the £500.00 Ka8 that we use for early solos. Which incidentally is quite capable of floating above FL100.
The mainstay of gliding clubs is those members who are quite happy flying local without ambitions to be heroes but who nurture the new bloods and and keep the infrastructure going. If they give up because its all too complicated or expensive the the whole movement is threatened. UK gliding, by he way, produces world champions and a steady stream of ATPLs and many of the wave flights in Scotland are held in awe by more than just we Brits.
A bit like school playing fields, municipal parks, musical education and excellence in anything you care to name we ARE of benefit to society but trying to be heard is an uphill struggle.

So, no - its not just the cost. It the threat of extinction as well.

[ComJam]

I can see all of the points you make Pete but:

Especially when the 'aggressor' is perceived as little more than unabashed commercialism

I take it by that you mean CAT operators flying outside CAS on direct tracks because it's more economical and more "green"? That is something that is unavoidably going to increase and with it the "hand-over" of airspace to growing airfields, (RHIDS :yuk:) for one and busier en-route sectors, the "part-time" airway between NCL and ABZ as an example, deemed necessary to protect transiting aircraft from Military operations over Northumberland.

Regardless of what you feel your sport does for society, the fact is that the sky is getting busier, there will be a need for more controlled airspace and therefore the appropriate equipment will be necessary for flight safety.

Nobody minds you flying your aircraft, known gliding areas are easy enough to avoid, but long cross country transits in gliders at any level just doesn't seem sensible if you're invisible to the technology that keeps us safe.

What effect do you think a mid-air between a non-squwaking glider and a commercial aircraft is going to have on your sport? A lot more damaging than having to fit Mode S i'd imagine.

[Greasey Pete]

What effect do you think a mid-air between a non-squwaking glider and a commercial aircraft is going to have on your sport? A lot more damaging than having to fit Mode S i'd imagine.

Oh, disastrous, no doubt about it. You did ask if there was more than mere cost behind the gliding movement's angst....

The CAA's round 2 consultation is in effect the negotiation to formulate new rules to avoid such a grim event and any negotiation is facilitated by understanding all aspects of each others problems. Hence the rather emotional level of my last post.
which brings me back to In what way do all you IFR flyers think CAT and the use of airspace could be reorganised to preserve the open FIR for VFR sporting aviation?.
Not just above FL100 but everywhere.

Renaming RHIDS would be a start - we'd be inclined to take them seriously then!

[gpn01]

Originally Posted by Comjam: "What effect do you think a mid-air between a non-squwaking glider and a commercial aircraft is going to have on your sport? A lot more damaging than having to fit Mode S i'd imagine".

Let's try the situation from a different perspective:
"What effect do you think a mid-air with a commercial aircraft flying in uncontrolled airspace, where it is well known that not all traffic cannot be seen, is going to have on commercial operations?"

Some of the challenges that light aviation (not just glidng) is facing with the feasibility of Mode-S include:

(1) There often isn't the space to install a transponder in glider or microlight (panel space on some gliders is very limited). Where will a parascender fit their kit?
(2) Mode-S requires power. Not all gliders have batteries, let alone ones that'll operate continously for twelve hours or more.
(3) Mode-S doen't provide autonomous interoperability as it requires either TCAS to be also fitted or to be in contact with ATC (and not all gliders have radios). Trials have taken place in Europe with gliders using FLARM, which is a GPS-based collision avoidance system which gives you warning of all potential collision risks with other suitably equipped aircraft and overcomes the need for a controller to be monitoring traffic.
(4) No research seems to have been done to show what degradation in performance having an external antenna fitted has. If you have a nice big engine dragging you through the sky then this isn't a problem. Take a look at how finely polished glider wings are and you'll see that a 'small' decrease in performance actually makes a big difference.
(5) Does anybody have proof that having a transmitter constantly broadcasting within a few feet of you doesn't have any effect on your body ? The effect of long term exposure to magnetic/radio transmissions still isn't fully understood. And before anybody says "oh but we all use mobiles and they're ok", I'd suggest doing some proper research1
(6) Cost is an issue - A vintage glider is probably worth about £1000. A Mode-S transponder, once a low consumption version is available, is likely to cost several thousand pounds. That's aside from the annual tests, maintenance, calibration, approval, etc. Cost is an issue that could actually be overcome by charging commercial users a small premium for the ability to use Open airspace. This premium could then be used to pay for the development, hardware and installation in every GA aircraft, glider, microlight and parascender.

[Denti]

Let's try the situation from a different perspective:
"What effect do you think a mid-air with a commercial aircraft flying in uncontrolled airspace, where it is well known that not all traffic cannot be seen, is going to have on commercial operations?"


Just look around europe for your answer. For example in germany IFR traffic is not allowed to fly in uncontrolled airspace (except approaches in Class F, but only one IFR traffic at a time). Result, the controlled airspace gets changed so that all IFR traffic can safely fly within its boundary and further protected so that it is all transponder mandatory (which means since march this year mode s mandatory) airspace.

That leads to many nasty problems especially for glider pilots as the airspace available to them gets reduced every single year.

[ComJam]

Denti: Spot on.

gpn01: if all traffic was required was to have a Mode 3 or a Mode S transponder then they WOULD be visible thereby increasing visibility and enhancing Flight Safety....isn't that what we'd ALL like....an increase in flight safety?

(3) Mode-S doen't provide autonomous interoperability as it requires either TCAS to be also fitted or to be in contact with ATC (and not all gliders have radios). Trials have taken place in Europe with gliders using FLARM, which is a GPS-based collision avoidance system which gives you warning of all potential collision risks with other suitably equipped aircraft and overcomes the need for a controller to be monitoring traffic.

Only one of the aircraft involved needs to have TCAS fitted, it's clever enough to give Traffic Advisories and Resolution Alerts against all Mode 3 squwakers be they mode S equipped or not. The controller isn't even necessary in that.

(5) Does anybody have proof that having a transmitter constantly broadcasting within a few feet of you doesn't have any effect on your body ? The effect of long term exposure to magnetic/radio transmissions still isn't fully understood. And before anybody says "oh but we all use mobiles and they're ok", I'd suggest doing some proper research1

Straws....clutching at............?

Let's try the situation from a different perspective:
"What effect do you think a mid-air with a commercial aircraft flying in uncontrolled airspace, where it is well known that not all traffic cannot be seen, is going to have on commercial operations?"

Not all "commerial" aircraft are passenger carrying air transport operations. In my job (on both types that I fly) we have GOT to operate outside CAS at all levels in order to get the task done. We are a civilian company with an AOC and therefore technically a "commercial" operation.

Sorry glider guys, there are no arguments that will stand up against the Flight Safety issue. The only other option will be to increase the amount of CAS around airfields, lower the base level of en-route sectors and make it illegal for you to operate above a certain level.....without a Transponder i'd suggest 2000 feet would be a good altitude cap.

[ZeBedie]

Not all "commerial" aircraft are passenger carrying air transport operations.

Well they don't win the emotive "200 pax are worth £5000 argument, do they?

If 757's etc stopped taking needless short-cuts outside CAS, with the compliance of ATC, this would be far less of an issue.

[PPRuNe Radar]

If all gliding folks were like the patronising obnoxious condescending bluntie woman behind the desk at Lasham, I'd support anything to ground gliders immediately in all airspace.

Fortunately all the other folks I met on the site (apart from the club bore) were aviation minded and supportive of a 'mere fixed wing' pilot being there.

I am glad I am professionlly involved with proper professionals such as those on the BGA committee and the clubs who we have negotiated access procedures to Controlled Airspace for, rather than old witches who think they know more about aviation than qualified pilots do.

Having obtained a briefing from a pleasant and accomodating lady at Lasham for a fixed wing landing, and complying with the briefing and RT advice from the tug pilot as we arrived, we were a bit dismayed to have a diatribe from some menopausal mare the next day when simply trying to track down the CFI to say thank you for allowing us to share the airspace and the airfield.

It seems the very helpful lady who gave us a briefing was ''only new here and she will soon learn'' to quote the witch. Preventing our local pilot who had obtained permission for our landing earlier in the week from the CFI from decking the ground nazi was a major effort. Perhaps we shouldn't have ;)

In a time where GA (including gliding) are under threat from all sides, narrow minded selfish pompous gits are a blight on us all. Time they were kicked out of the industry.

[cats_five]

<snip>

And the relevence of this to Mode S is? :confused:

[snapper1]

Wow, you must feel a lot better having got all that off your chest.

I anticipated a certain level of emotional response when I began this thread but I didn't expect it to become a substitute for therapy! Perhaps you should lie down in a darkened room for a while.

If you could engage in the debate further, in your capacity as an ATCO, that would really be appreciated.

[ComJam]

Well they don't win the emotive "200 pax are worth £5000 argument, do they?


Oh right, i see. So as long as it's a smaller commercial aircraft and less people are killed in a mid-air that's acceptable is it??

The point is: GLIDERS WITHOUT ANY TYPE OF TRANSPONDER ARE MORE OF A DANGER THAN GLIDERS WITH ONE......you cannot possibly disagree with that, therefore they should all have them...it's a total "no brainer" :ugh:

[PPRuNe Radar]

And the relevence of this to Mode S is?

As a demonstration of how individuals can dissaffect those who they want to get on side in their campaign. GA needs support from all sides and it would be better for some to realise that they are not the only fish in the pond. The voice of pilots (whatever they fly) will be much louder if people work together rather than looking only after their own interests.

From the ATCO point of view, some form of identification device (whether that be Mode S or not) should be mandatory within Controlled Airspace, whether you are a glider or not. In specific areas, exceptions could be made, by creating Restricted Areas (Temporary) which function under a Letter of Agreement and ensure that only the non transponding traffic is within the area when activation is authorised. In addition, VFR routes where carraige is not required could also be considered, subject to conditions placed on the flight. In Class G, it should be mandatory above FL100 for carraige, since the 250Kts speed restriction put in place for 'see and be seen' is removed above that, making it more important for everyone to be visible electronically. Mandatory equipment carraige zones should also be investigated around major airfields or TMAs, with a proviso that the size of Controlled Airspace be reviewed with a view to reducing it since unknown traffic is now visible.

All that may impinge on gliding, but there is nothing to stop specific local agreements being put in place to provide compromise airspace management and solutions. You won't get unfettered access to all the airspace over the UK if you don't carry the required equipment, but then neither do a whole host of other pilots. What you will get is some airspace sharing, by agreement with everyone who operates in the airspace. Pragmatism works surprisingly well, even if some folks cause you to need a lie down in a darkened room.

Incidentally, the agreements I have worked on with the gliding fraternity seem to work OK from both sides of the house so one bad apple really does not spoil it for the majority. P600 delegation, P600 access, and the Upper Gliding areas were some of the ones I put together.

[gpn01]

First of all thank you PPRUNE_Radar for the rant....made me grin somewhat! Fair point also that "The voice of pilots (whatever they fly) will be much louder if people work together rather than looking only after their own interests".

ComJam - "GLIDERS WITHOUT ANY TYPE OF TRANSPONDER ARE MORE OF A DANGER THAN GLIDERS WITH ONE......you cannot possibly disagree with that, therefore they should all have them...it's a total "no brainer".......Following that same logic, You can't possibly disagree that driving with a bloke walking in front of you with a red flag MUST be safer than not and so we should ban everybody from driving unless there's a man in front of each vehicle waving a red flag. Remember that over 3500 people are killed each year in road crashes, so it would make "sense" as lives are important aren't they?

ComJam - "Only one of the aircraft involved needs to have TCAS fitted".....Err, that kind of emphasises the point that the technology doesn't work to the benefit of everybody, only to the big airplanes (whose lives are presumably more important). How would two non-TCAS equipped aircraft be made aware of a conflict risk ?

I agree with many of the respondants that there is a need to ensure (and improve) flight safety but any 'improvements' need to be for the benefit of all AND proportionate - I think also that we all need to be realistic and that GA (not just gliders, but homebuilds, light aircraft, microlights, parascenders and balloonists) is being squeezed more and more by commercial operations. Perhaps, once oil reaches $2.20 a barrel in the not too distant future, this pressure will decrease as the low cost operators realise that the markup on a sandwich isn't sufficient to operate a jet for a tenner per ticket?

[ComJam]

only to the big airplanes (whose lives are presumably more important). How would two non-TCAS equipped aircraft be made aware of a conflict risk ?

Define big....i don't fly big aircraft, but i do fly commercially and do see the need for the equipment. Nobody's life is more important than any other, hence the need to make it as safe as possible for all.

As for seeing conflict risk, one of the types I operate does not have TCAS, therefore we like to use a radar service particularly above FL100. Below that, i regularly transit VFR, see and be seen applies, it's a choice and i don't expect everything to be squwaking or recieving a service. But in controlled airspace and above FL100 (where the speed restriction is lifted) it should be mandatory to carry a Mode S transponder.

[gpn01]

Don't disagree with your last point - I accept that electronic alerting and avoidance does offer a benefit in controlled airspace. I suppose with increased technology it'll lead to a decreased need for controllers too (which I don't support, as I think nothing beats the human touch).

[ComJam]

Does that mean you still don't accept that it's beneficial in uncontrolled airspace as well??

[ZeBedie]

Oh right, i see. So as long as it's a smaller commercial aircraft and less people are killed in a mid-air that's acceptable is it??

err, yes, more acceptable. How many examples of higher standards for bigger aeroplanes do you want. It's industry standard practice. Indeed, it's the way of the world.

As for seeing conflict risk, one of the types I operate does not have TCAS,

You should be grounded until you have TCAS. My aeroplane has TCAS and I don't want to share the sky with you. Don't you care about my passengers?

i regularly transit VFR,

If you think you need the highest possible standard of safety, you should stay IFR, inside CAS.

[Denti]

The problem is that many gliders use a collision avoidance system that is very good indeed. Sadly it is also completely incompatible with the industry standard of transponders (mode c/s) and TCAS which in turn is only mandatory for bigger airplanes (something like 19 passenger seats, 5.6t?).

I know that some operators of small commercial planes install FLARM (http://www.flarm.org/) in addition to normal transponders, especially those operating in areas with high glider traffic density.

The problem i see with FLARM is the incompatibily problem with the existing system used in most powered aircrafts. Two coexisting incompatible products are not a good idea at all, especially if it leads to a false sense of safety in both communities. The one thing to take into account is that commercial aviation allways has the bigger lobby and more power inside the legislation system to change the system to accomodate its needs. That doesn't mean that GA has just to roll over and take it as it comes, but a less heated discussion is often a better way to achieve results.

[gpn01]

"Does that mean you still don't accept that it's beneficial in uncontrolled airspace as well?"

I believe that there is value in having appropriate mechanisms for the relevant airspace. If Mode-S is the most technologically and cost effective solution within controlled airspace then that's fine. A bit like taking the train really - as a passenger I find some comfort in the idea of signalling equipment, a professionally qualified and trained driver and control/monitoring systems. Rather like in a commercial aeroplane really.

Likewise, considering an uncontrolled airspace analogy, I accept that driving along an autobahn at 200km/h, surrounded by other drivers who may not be awake as me and who could pull out at any moment is an acceptable "risk" which 'could' be overcome through the introduction of technology but which would dramatically increase the cost of car ownership (e.g. every car could be fitted with a simple form of Mode-S/TCAS connected to the accelerator/brake).

If there was a simple, low cost, feasible, reliable, fully interoperable system that could be used autonomously in uncontrolled airspace, then yes that would be a great idea. Unfortunately, the options seem to be Mode-S (expensive and unsuitable for all GA), ADS-B (more advanced than Mode-S but not supported by CAA) and FLARM (being trialled by some glider pilots but incompatible with CAA/NATS kit).

[PH-UKU]

PPruneRadar wrote .... From the ATCO point of view, some form of identification device (whether that be Mode S or not) should be mandatory within Controlled Airspace, whether you are a glider or not.

Well I would disagree, Mr Radar.

I know of someone who has successfully completed a return trip to the south of France from Scotland "sans transpondeur" - VFR all the way, but helpful controllers in CTRs and a bit of prior notice and a lunch emergency .... and it was perfectly feasible.

No reason why you can't have VFR routes in Class D airspace - such as the entry/exit lanes at Glasgow. Or in SVFR routes in Jersey/Guernsey CTAs.

Mandatory is overkill.

What happens to the radar clutter on your tiny radar screens at Scottish ACC if everyone squawks ?

A bigger problem is fastjets hammering around at low level highspeed without ACAS.

Why should I have to spend £3k to fit a transponder, just because Easyjet, Ryanair and Eastflight want to maximise profits ? If they profit, then they should pay. I was there first. :E

[ComJam]

gpn01: we seem to be singing off the same hymn sheet now, good stuff :)

ZeBedie: err, yes, more acceptable

How many people would have to be killed for it to become unacceptable?

You should be grounded until you have TCAS. My aeroplane has TCAS and I don't want to share the sky with you. Don't you care about my passengers?


Sorry, i wasn't totally clear there, one type I fly (Falcon 20) has full TCAS II (ACAS) the other has TCAD (light weight version of TCAS enhancing SA, but without the TA/RA's of the full system), they are Beech 200's which are below the weight limit for full TCAS requirement, but ARE Mode S equipped.

If you think you need the highest possible standard of safety, you should stay IFR, inside CAS.

And you should read an entire thread before you post, I already explained that in the operations we fly we are UNABLE to remain IFR within controlled airspace at all times. Incidently, I DO think I need the highest standard of flight safety and do my best to adhere to it at all times.

Here's hoping the CAA introduce mandatory Mode S transponders for all light aircraft and gliders flying anywhere in UK airspace. I genuinely can't understand why you guys don't want to be electronically visible to the rest of us. Luddites :ugh:

[Greasey Pete]

Here's hoping the CAA introduce mandatory Mode S transponders for all light aircraft and gliders flying anywhere in UK airspace. I genuinely can't understand why you guys don't want to be electronically visible to the rest of us. Luddites

Bully!
Methinks the laddie protest too much. Even Hell hath not the fury of a vested interest masquerading as a moral principle.
"Two hundred Lanzaroti bound lager-louts mow down defenceless glider pilot" probably isn't the headline we would read but in the event it would be quite appropriate.

What do you reckon to the notion that the beneficiary pays? In that nobody needed transponders until CAT got so big (and our precious government sold half NATS to CAT) that they muscled in on the open FIR the beneficiaries ain't GA for sure.

[pbrookes]

This reminds me of a recent conversation over wearing hi-viz airside at a quiet airfield! A bloke intercepts said pilot at the perimeter. "You're supposed to wear hi-viz airside!"

Pilot: "Who said I wasn't?"

Jobsworth: "The tower! They saw you!"

Pilot: "Well if they have seen me, why do I need a hi-viz jacket?"

The same reasoning applies to transponders. Keep the big boys in controlled airspace and leave us others alone outside!

I have had a few close calls in my microlight with GA pilots, but mode-S won't change that, as neither they nor I will fit TCAS until that becomes mandatory in a few more years to come.

Uncontrolled airspace is just that - uncontrolled, and those of us who freely fly in it accept the risks that without a good lookout, there is a chance of hitting or being hit by something. Mode-S won't change that.

I accept that if I want to transit controlled airspace, I should have a means of making my aircraft clearly 'visible' to ATCOs and other aircraft. I am fitting a Mode-C for that purpose of this summer's excursion. It's surprising how cheap they are now!

When all controllers have the benefit of using Mode-S surveillance capabilities, there may be some argument only if they can improve services outside controlled airspace. Until then, it's just the 'nanny' state spoiling peoples fun!

And as for the 'majority' of the population wanting to fly abroad in the big cans, I can think of more who will fight controlled airspace expansion using the 'green' argument!

[ComJam]

The only moral principle I have here is enhancing flight safety for ALL. It's unusual that large civilian transport aircraft transit outside CAS below FL100, they may have to sometimes in order to reach certain airfields without CAS, Doncaster, Inverness etc. The solutions are (1) require everyone to fit the equipment or (2) establish more CAS. Which is better?

As for keeping the "big boys" in CAS, fine. But, as i've stated before, not all commecial operations can take place in CAS.

Then there's the question of the Military, they DO operate in the open FIR and do have to mix it with the rest of us...surely the fitting of Mode S helps them out as well.

It's not bullying it's common sense.

[pbrookes]

Do the military have TCAS fitted to all aircraft? The number of airprox reports with miltary aircraft leads me to believe Mode-S won't change that!

As for more CAS - going north or south from the Midlands already requires considerable detours and the art of limbo dancing!

It just seems to me that the big boys can take away the freedom of the minority! Perhaps that is the basis of a civil action to defend the human rights of the 'poor' (relatively speaking).

I don't mind fitting Mode-S if the price is reasonable and I am getting benefit, but to spend almost a 3rd of the cost of my aircraft so other people can get rich in the name of safety is not my idea of fairness!

[gpn01]

Another point that isn't being considered is that making more airspace controlled increases the traffic density in the remaining uncontrolled airspace. Adding additional Class-D or TMZ's will work like a funnel effect - GA will be operating in ever narrower corridors. Just hope that a proper risk evaluation of this aspect is being carried out as part of the CAA's Mode-S proposal.

[Mr_Bigchopper]

So, CAT use class G, but can't see us because they are fast and have small windows.... they want US (i.e. light aircraft/gliders etc) to pay for equipment so they can see us! Well this is a fair deal isn't it? I mean, what benefit does this give us?.. What are they doing there in the first place?

Can't really imagine how fitting a mode S transponder and using Farnborough LARS on a sunny day (where you're lucky to even to get in for a FIS let alone a RIS!) is going to help me whatsoever.

If the CATs want more space, they should be paying for it... The rest of us can work perfectly adequately in class G, thankyou very much!

So, we are forced to fit mode-S... Cool... so that means you can see us all, as 1million dots on your screen... so we should be able to reduce the amount of CAS then?... afterall the world is at your fingertips, right?

[ZeBedie]

But why mode S when mode C would appear to satisfy everyones concerns?

[Mr_Bigchopper]

Problem with mode C is that when there are too many hits, the system gets confused (see FRUIT). Mode S has more complexity which combats these issues..

There is a capacity limit... Mode S has higher capacity.. if everyone was forced onto Mode C then system will likely fall apart (as far as I understand it)

[ComJam]

Pbrooks, no they don't, but they recieve generally Radar Services particularly above FL100....so with a Transponder fitted you are visible and therefore safer.

Bigchopper, said What are they doing there in the first place?

Read the whole thread and you'll understand what "they" are doing there. If "they" are there it's for a good reason, i.e there's no other choice, not all airports are under airways or TMA's. In the case of some of the East Coast stuff it's simply much more economical (and environmentally friendly :}) to go Newcastle direct Aberdeen rather than going...TILNI TALLA PERTH ADN. It's going to happen more and they do pay to have the required equipment fitted.

Ultimately we all operate in the same sky, why should Gliders (which is what this thread is about) have any special right NOT to pay for it?

It's a minority sport after all.

[pbrookes]

A friend of mine owns land with a public footpath across it. I am going to suggest that he charges walkers for the privilege of enjoying HIS countryside. After all, walkers are a minority, so why shouldn't they pay for the upkeep of the fences and gates that make their journey safe!

[ComJam]

And on that note, I've had enough of this thread. You know my views by now.

NEXT!

:ugh:

[Mr_Bigchopper]

It's a minority sport after all... and what right does that give big organisations to dictate?

The sky belongs to everyone, yes. So why do we have to pay for it when WE don't need it?

Lets put it another way.. Do you believe that, because this is for the benefit of CAT (and it IS, lets face it!), that the airliners should be subsidising this? If so it would be an easier pill to swallow, but it still doesn't help the folk who do not and cannot have a suitable power supply.

Just coming on here and ranting about the 'Safety Benefits' is not good enough...it is just a very good political reason/excuse to exercise some corporate muscle....

...any special right NOT to pay for it?.. we would not be paying for airspace... we would be paying for someone else to have something that we don't need... We have every right to expect to not pay for it (I think I may have mentioned this before).

[bad bear]

It's a minority sport after all.
I seem to remember that the last time the CAA did a survey gliders were the majority at week ends
8,000 glider pilots in the UK, how many airline pilots that are not glider pilots? Around 3,000 gliders. How many aeroplanes?
UK is the world no 1 ranked country for competition gliding, one of the very few sports Britain is good at.
UK junior gliding team recently scored 1st,2nd and 3rd in junior world gliding champs, how many other sports field such a strong junior team? In recent years the UK has scooped around 50% of the medals at world and European level.The BGA is very proud of its youth training, will the transponder bill force them to cut this ? I guess kids of this generation dont need to grow up being air minded and experiencing the beauty and wonder of exploring the sky. They could always just getting drunk and do drugs like the other kids.

In terms of airsport, gliding is far from a minority!


b b

[bad bear]

In the case of some of the East Coast stuff it's simply much more economical (and environmentally friendly ) to go Newcastle direct Aberdeen rather than going...TILNI TALLA PERTH ADN. It's going to happen more and they do pay to have the required equipment fitted.

You will be pleased to know that there are very few gliders on that over water route, and the one that is sometimes 20nm off shore in that region does have a transponder.

Now the military have transponders and radar and last time I looked at airprox reports they were still getting close to you environmentally friendly risk takers on the east coast, so how will gliders fitting transponders lessen that risk? Gliders are not in that mix but very fast military types most certainly are and it can be quite difficult to keep out of their way with or without transponders and ACAS. There is a good reason why P18 is not H24 and is nothing to do with gliding.


ComJam, if you read the airprox reports on that route you might reconsider your choice. Like many others you seem to ignore real risk when it suites you and blow up perceived risk beyond all reasonable proportions. Do you really think you could reliably out manoeuvre a military jet if you were to encounter one and is that what you should really be doing in this super safe modern world ?

b b

[ComJam]

Thankyou, the NCL to ADN route was being used as an example of how it can be much more economical to route "off airways". But, then, I think you knew that really...

so how will gliders fitting transponders lessen that risk? Gliders are not in that mix but very fast military types most certainly are and it can be quite difficult to keep out of their way with or without transponders and ACAS

Oh but gliders ARE in that mix, over Northumberland, an extremely busy bit of airspace, with Gliders, Light Aircraft, Military fast-jets and the ocassional "off route" medium commercial aircraft. Only one of these types does not have a transdonder fitted (generally, i know not ALL light aircraft have).

With fast military aircraft it is not "difficult to keep out of their way...with ACAS" it gives ample warning, even a simple TCAD system is sufficient IF the threat is squwaking.

Like many others you seem to ignore real risk when it suites you and blow up perceived risk beyond all reasonable proportions.

If by "real risk" you mean operating outside CAS, it's not because it suits me, it's because it's my job. Not all "commercial" aircraft are involved in ferrying punters from A to B. Some of us have tasks to fly that require us to be outside CAS. How else am I going Flight Check the SAB VOR or the Inverness ILS or the Doncaster anything?

Far from "blowing up a perceived risk" i'm acknowledging a known risk. I've had late sightings of gliders while on task and I've had TCAD / TCAS alerts on Military fast movers....the latter is far less concerning because the alerting systems make you aware of the threat nice and early. There is then no need to "out-manoeuvre" it as you are fully aware of where it is and becoming visual with it is much easier.

[Expedient]

On 7 May, ComJam wrote

‘The point is: GLIDERS WITHOUT ANY TYPE OF TRANSPONDER ARE MORE OF A DANGER THAN GLIDERS WITH ONE......you cannot possibly disagree with that, therefore they should all have them...it's a total "no brainer"’

But not even the CAA is proposing that ‘they should all have them’.

Option 3 is to include gliders in all SSR transponder carriage regulations. Leaving aside any locally-negotiated exceptions, when taken with option 1 the effect would be to require gliders to operate a Mode S transponder when in any controlled airspace, or when above FL100, or when in any Transponder Mandatory Zones (TMZ), but not otherwise.

So it looks as if the CAA disagrees with ComJam.

[PPRuNe Radar]

Well I would disagree, Mr Radar.

I know of someone who has successfully completed a return trip to the south of France from Scotland "sans transpondeur" - VFR all the way, but helpful controllers in CTRs and a bit of prior notice and a lunch emergency .... and it was perfectly feasible.

No reason why you can't have VFR routes in Class D airspace - such as the entry/exit lanes at Glasgow. Or in SVFR routes in Jersey/Guernsey CTAs.

Mandatory is overkill.

But that's exactly what I put forward ;)

Mandatory carraige in Controlled Airspace or above FL100 but with agreed exemptions, be that through the use of Letters of Agreement and RA(T)s, published VFR routes and conditions attached, or Prior Permission Required from the ATC unit involved if not either of those. Some of that will help gliders, some won't.

I am not sure that the Emergency Lunch exemption will catch on in the UK. The food at UK airfields is too bad :ok:

[DX Wombat]

I am not sure that the Emergency Lunch exemption will catch on in the UK. The food at UK airfields is too badOi! Come down to Shobdon and say that in person to the ladies who work in the cafeteria. :* :* I won't be able to guarantee your survival.

[ComJam]

Expedient

I can live with that.

[rocketmandlgc]

I'm just getting up to speed on this mode s stuff because i'm just about ready for my first cross country. so this post will be devoid of techie talk since I don't know any

The problems as I see it (keeping my ears tuned around the (gliding) club are

1) cost
2) power consumption
3) time scales
4) perception of the future

Cost/power/timescales - well someone said in an earlier post "I'm sure someone will come up with a reasonably priced piece of kit eventually" OK - but the problem is there's a deadline to all of this and "eventually" might be too late to stop me (and many others) having to pay more than my 30 yr old glider is worth. I understand the safety concerns- being part of the explosives industry we are awash with health and safety regs to the point where a show previously costed at £1500 now costs around £7,500 to avoid a possible accident where the risk is estimated at around 8 million to 1, not quite as bad as trying to win the lottery but getting close. Has anyone actually done a cost versus risk analysis. How many prox's, how many hits involving gliders. If the current status quo was maintained, what would be the risk to those 200 passsengers mentioned in an earlier post

But the main worry in all I hear is more to do with the future and what might happen. We hear rumours that the budget airline community would dearly love to be able to fly in straight lines between regionals. So the big question is - is this the thin end of the wedge? is our sport about to be "control Airspaced" out of existence? Can anyone give assurances that gliding as a sport will still be around in 20 yrs time

BTW - We have been told that those who are to gain commercially from these new measures will be footing the bill for implementation, so can anyone tell me who I send my invoice to for my shiny new transponder:ok:

[rocketmandlgc]

Well some would argue, some idiot driving a fast car on a country lane is the hazard!!

country lanes are for horses and cyclists urban roads and motoways are for fast cars

airways are for your commercial fast jets ...........and .......:ugh:

[aviate1138]

Only Civil Servants would want to crowd air traffic into narrow airways when nowadays [with seriously accurate navigation systems available] aircraft could file their intended routes as they were taking off and a computer could calculate in advance any potential conflicts. That plus inbuilt proximity warning systems should help safety. 100% safety is frankly impossible, only the present PC biased expect that.

That is for the big boys however. For the minnows [who mainly fly VFR for fun only] Mode 'S' is a real pain in the ar*e, literally, as our gonads are rarely more than a few feet away from the transmitter aerial [200 + watts]. Sophisticated sailplanes will have to carry less water and more battery power if they want to cross airways IMHO.

The thought of bimbling PowerChute pilots at 1000 feet sitting on Mode 'S' gear seems utter stupidity.

BTW Not only Sailplanes win World Championships - UK Microlights do too!

a sample http://www.czechinfo.aero/wmc.aspx?lokID=2

[Spin Buster]

The following e mail, that is now posted on a number of web sites, was sent to the CAA two weeks ago and appears to remain unanswered.

Did the CAA fully consider all the issues raised in the questions before formulating their four proposals and the consultation document?

Will they reply in time for consultees to consider their answers?


Dear Mode S Team

The consultation documents & meetings have so far not produced answers or updates on your web site that address the questions below. Would you please provide answers in good time for carefully considered responses to the consultation?




AIRSPACE INFRINGEMENTS


The CAA states that “One of the most significant current safety risks to UK aviation is the inadvertent or unauthorised penetration of controlled and reserved airspace, and it is a major issue currently being considered by the Airspace and Safety Initiative.”(ASI)

The CAA subsequently states “The infringement of Red Arrows airspace in 2005 & 2006, and the subsequent cancellation of certain displays, left many paying spectators particularly disgruntled.”

The following statistics for Infringements resulting in Mandatory Occurrence Reports (MOR’s) for the years 2002 to 2007 is not in included in the Consultation document nor indeed is any explanation of the dramatic reduction in MOR’s of a severity to require investigation.

year (note 1)
infringements (note 2)
ARE investigations (note 3, note 4)
as % of MOR infringements (note 5)
Formal Caution (note 4, note 6, note 7)
Prosecutions (note 7, note 8)
2000
344
9
2.62%
0
5
2001
314
13
4.14%
0
9
2002
326
44
13.50%
4
17
2003
376
51
13.56%
15
10
2004
341
45
13.20%
15
8
2005
517
52
10.06%
22
5
2006
630
40
6.35%
19
5
2007
267
3
1.12%
4
1


By complete contrast NATS reports over 600 Infringements for 2007.
Some of these are said to result in “reduced separation”. This would appear to confirm that the safety layer provided by current radar separation standards is very effective.


Q1 A Bearing in mind the recent year on year reductions in Airspace Infringement MOR’s of a severity to warrant investigation, what evidence of specific risk is the CAA using to opine that – “One of the most significant current safety risks to UK aviation is the inadvertent or unauthorised penetration of controlled and reserved airspace ”



B How many unauthorised, as opposed to inadvertent, penetrations of controlled and reserved airspace by aircraft operating transponders are represented in the above figures?


Q2 As the Red Arrowsinfringements are included in this consultation document they are presumably considered very relevant to transponder carriage. What evidence does the CAA have that the quoted infringements of Red Arrows airspace –
(i) could have been prevented by transponder carriage
OR
(ii) cancellation of the shows avoided by transponders

Q3 Which of the four proposed Options does the CAA believe could have avoided the Red Arrows infringements and/or ensured the shows could commence?

Q4 What vertical, horizontal and risk parameters does NATS apply in recording an airspace infringement?

Q5 What evidence and explanation does the CAA have to account for the 3-year trend of significant annual reductions in Infringement MORs requiring Investigation?

Q6 There are no recommendations from the ASI included in the Consultation document. What formal recommendations have the ASI made to DAP regarding transponders?

Q7 Please supply a copy of the relevant ASI reports & recommendations.

Q8. If there are no relevant reports & quantified recommendations from the ASI, what is the justification for the CAA to pre empt these with proposals for extended transponder carriage as a necessary solution to Airspace Infringements?

Q9 What recent evidence, does the CAA have, of glider Airspace Infringements resulting in Mid Air Collisions, MOR’s or Airprox reports that would justify, in terms of proportionality, gliders being included in the mandating of transponders in TMZs created to address Airspace Infringement risks?


MODE S Consultation Document – Annex E lists “Relevant AAIB & UKAB Reports & Recommendations.”

Annex E Item 1.Lists 16 “examples of UKAB Airprox reports ”

Two of these relate to the uninvented Low Power transponder for gliders and are also represented in Item 2. This leaves 14 examples of which none of the discussion & comment resulted in a formal “Safety Recommendation” relating to transponders. (To put this in context - In the last 10 years there have been over 1500 Airprox reports & the UKAB has issued 84 formal Safety Recommendations)

Airprox no. 175/05 is one of the “relevant” examples cited by the CAA.
The only reference to transponders in this report is a comment by the PA28 pilot involved in the Airprox – “ He opined that it would probably help considerably if gliders were any other colour but white or had radios and transponders so they could participate in ATC.”

The report subsequently states - “It was the unanimous view of the Board that this incident provided another example of the urgent requirement for the development of electronic collision warning systems and their fitment to light aircraft and gliders”.

The CAA has repeatedly quoted Airprox reports and recommendations to justify its proposals. In particular it states in 12.5 “The CAA must consider and, where appropriate, act upon relevant reports and recommendations from such bodies as the Air Accident Investigation Branch (AAIB) and the UK Airprox Board (UKAB).”

Q10 As both the glider and the aircraft were visible on Radar and Transponders do not provide electronic collision warning between gliders and light aircraft; why specifically does the CAA cite this report to be relevant to its Transponder policies and options?


Q11 What “urgent” action did the CAA take to promote the development of collision warning systems suitable for fitment to light aircraft and gliders as a result of this “relevant” Airprox recommendation?

Annex E Item 3. says - “The AAIB has made a recommendation to the CAA concerning the use of SSR transponders with altitude information (AAIB Recommendation 99-34)”
This recommendation dates from 1999. In fact it reads – “The CAA should include in its safety programme the following advice (6 items are listed) to GA operators who plan to use the low level airspace:
d. The routine use of the radar transponder, including height information.” (The other five suggestions do not relate to transponders.)
This is “advice” in relation to a nine-year-old safety presentation not a recommendation to “mandate” any of the CAA’s transponder proposals.

Not mentioned at all are AAIB Recommendations 2005-06 & 2005-08 (both six years later) in relation to glider, helicopter and microlight collision fatalities–
2005-06 “It is recommended that the CAA should initiate further studies into ways of improving the conspicuity of gliders and light aircraft, to include visual & electronic surveillance means, and require the adoption of measures that are likely to be cost effective in improving conspicuity.”

2005-08 “It is recommended that the CAA should promote international co-operation and action to improve the conspicuity of gliders and light aircraft through visual and electronic methods.”

The CAA repeatedly rejected these recommendations stating - “………particularly in the light of impending wider transponder carriage.”

Q12 How would the CAA’s “wider transponder carriage” proposals have provided the necessary electronic conspicuity to minimise the risk of these collisions and future similar collisions?

Q13 Is the CAA now prepared to take concerted action on these AAIB recommendations and the recommendation in Airprox report 175/05?

Annex E Item 2. Says “The UKAB has issued a safety recommendation concerning the carriage and operation of transponders in gliders (UKAB safety recommendation 186/05-02)” –
186/05-02 (3 years ago) reads - “The CAA should continue to promote and with renewed urgency the production of a lightweight transponder and, when available, consider mandating its carriage and use in gliders.”

In the December 2007 update of Airprox 186/05-02 published by the UKAB, the CAA states – “Work on LPST development by several companies continues.”

In Para 3.5 of “The Full RIA for a proposal for Phase 1” published shortly before the Phase 2 Consultation, the CAA states “The LPST is undoubtedly a significant element of the proposals and the CAA has been working with industry for several years to encourage the development of a transponder suitable for these types of aircraft.”

All my attempts to pre-order a low power transponder for my glider have been unsuccessful and AFE Oxford (Transponder retailers) advise that there are no Companies developing such equipment.

Q14 Who are the companies the CAA refers to its December 2007 update?

Q15 What evidence is there of the current stage of development of Low Power transponders?

Q16 Does the CAA now have any evidence of any trials relating to Low Power transponders that are not mentioned in the consultation document?

Q17 If the “significant element” of the CAA’s phased proposals (i.e. LPST) is not being developed, then phases towards a widespread safety layer depending on ACAS in Class G Airspace is severely flawed. What justification is there to implement the Phase 2 Options now, and impose significant costs on GA, at a time that the full potential of other collision warning systems, i.e. available and developing GPS based collision warning & data link systems, usable by aircraft for which there is no transponder, have not been thoroughly re-considered and evaluated?

MODE S Consultation Document Para 12.5

“Moreover, the UKAB has previously advised the CAA that it fully supports the proposals to mandate the equipage of Mode s transponders on all aircraft operating in the UK FIR to the maximum extent possible as permitted by available technology.”
The Airprox Board has never published this as a safety recommendation.
Neither the CAA nor the Airprox Board has published the document containing this advice.

Q18 Please supply a copy of the full document containing this recommendation from the Airprox Board in order that it can be considered in context.

The CAA’s Objectivity in relation to transponders.


Consultation document Page vi – “However, the CAA has four other key priority areas in the use of SSR transponders that it considers should be adopted in the next phase of any expansion in the use of Mode – S.”

In considering the objectivity & credence of the CAA’s proposed Phase 2 Transponder priorities and timescale it is pertinent to consider whether the CAA is prone to overstate the necessity of its transponder proposals.
In the 2006 transponder consultation document the CAA states -
“As safety is the highest priority in aviation any safety improvements will, therefore need to be put in place before air traffic levels can be allowed to increase.”

Q19 What measures did the CAA or DfT implement to prevent Air traffic levels increasing?

Q20 How many CAT operators has the CAA or DfT prevented from flying in Class G Airspace due to the lack of safety improvements?

Q21 How many CAT operators have notified the CAA or DfT that they will not commence operations or increase operations through class g airspace until there are further safety improvements?


OPTION 1

The Phase 1 mandate of Mode-s transponders has ensured that radar spectrum capacity will not be exceeded and the use of Mode a/c transponders will not increase but instead decrease.

The CAA says that Mode-s is backwards and forwards compatible with Mode A/C.

Mandating Class D airspace, which already provides an ATC “known environment”, will burden owners of Mode A/C equipped aircraft to change to mode-s and effectively exclude numerous recreational aircraft for which there are no mode s transponder.

Q22 What key safety benefits would mode-s provide over Mode A/C in the already known environment of Class D airspace?

Q23 What measures could the CAA implement to ensure that aircraft unable to carry Mode S would not be unnecessarily denied access to Class D Airspace?

Thank you

Martin Breen

[Spin Buster]

Herewith below the CAA response but no answers.

Why won't it be possible for the CAA to answer the very simple questions they have been asked?

They repeatedly give their "opinion" in the Consultation document and all they are being asked for is the basis upon which, and evidence on which they have based their statements in various documents and their stated opinion.

How can a consultee respond to the consultation in a valid way if the CAA have not provided relevant evidence in the consultation document and decline to answer simple questions.

Why can't they name the Companies that they claim are devoloping Low power Transponders that they claim are a "significant part" of their proposals?

Why can't they clearly state whether they have evidence of any relevant trials of low power transpnders?

Why is the CAA proposing Transponder legislation to address "Airspace Infringements" when they have not yet had any formal recommendations from the ASI that was set up to review & make recommendations to addess Airspace Infringements?

Why can't they explain the relevance of the Red Arrows references in the consultaion document.

Why can't they provide the MOR figures they are using and account for the trends in them?

Why can't they give the vertical, horizontal and risk parameters used by NATS to log an airspace infringement?

Why can't they provide the document from the Airprox Board that they refer to?

Why can't they just answer all the very simple questions that they have been asked (and presumably have seriously considered in detail before producing proposals for legislation?)- to clarify the basis of their opinions and recommendations.

Will they answer the questions in detail in their proposed response document or will it be necessary for a Judicial Review?

Is this more evasion and obfuscation by the CAA?

Spin Buster

----Original Message----
From: [email protected] ([email protected])
Date: 19/05/2008 15:44
To: <[email protected] ([email protected])>
Subj: RE: Mode S Consultation Queries


It will not be possible to provide a detailed response to all the
issues
raised in your e-mail before the end of the consultation period.
Consequently, we intend to treat your correspondence as a formal
response to the Mode S consultation. Having reviewed all the
responses
to the proposals, we propose to publish a 'Response To Consultees'
document on the CAA web pages. This will provide a synopsis of the
various issues raised alongside a CAA response, which will detail any
resulting future investigation deemed necessary by the Authority.

Should you decide to make a further response to the public
consultation,
you may wish to take note of the following general comments:

1. The 2007 figures quoted on the flyontrack website are not for a
full year.
2. A sample of 200 MORs involving airspace infringement revealed
that approximately 15% of infringing aircraft were not carrying and
operating a transponder.
3. No specific ASI recommendations have been received by the CAA
Mode S team.
4. There are a number of transponders on the market which produce a
peak pulse power of 70W and appear to be suitable for use in many
types
of glider.
5. Studies indicate that the key safety benefits of Mode S over
Mode A/C are reduced radio spectrum interference and improved
detection
of aircraft.

Regards

Mode S Team
Surveillance and Spectrum Management
Directorate of Airspace Policy
UK Civil Aviation Authority

[Spin Buster]

To: <[email protected] ([email protected])>
Subj: RE: Mode S Consultation Queries

Dear Mode S Team
Thank you for your brief response to my questions. I note that –

1. You say that the 2007 figures quoted on the flyontrack website are
not for a
full year but you have not provided any alternative figures or
analysis. Please do so.

2. You say that approximately 15% of infringing aircraft were not
carrying and
operating a transponder, which indicates that 85% were doing so, and
never the less infringed Airspace!

3. Your proposals are not based on any recommendations from the
Airspace & Safety Initiative and have pre-empted any recommendations
they might make.

4. The 70w transponder that that you have referred to is unsuitable
for my glider. The additional weight of the transponder and extra
battery reduce the, already very limiting, maximum cockpit load to an
unacceptable figure which is why I asked questions about the Low
Power
Transponder – not the 70w one.

It is not acceptable to me that you should treat my correspondence as
my formal response to the Consultation instead of providing detailed
answers to my questions.

I therefore formally request you to answer my correspondence in
detail
and am copying the correspondence to my MP with a request that he
obtains answers from you in the event that you again choose not to
provide them.

If your current Consultation end date does not allow time for you to
provide the answers in good time for me and other Consultees to
consider them in our formal response then you could extend the
consultation period by the necessary time.

Is it more important to you to close the Consultation on an arbitrary
date rather than allow an extra few days to enable fully considered
responses in the interests of Aviation Safety?

Regardless of any decision that you make in relation to the end date
of the Consultation period I do require my correspondence answered in
detail.

Please confirm that you will provide detailed answers to my
correspondence and state your decision in relation to the end date of
the consultation period.

Regards
Martin Breen,

[zkdli]

Not sure what you mean by the vertical, horizontal and risk parameters used by NATS...

But if an aircraft is seen in CAS that does not have a clearance, then it is reported. As for risk, the required separation from unknown aircraft and the actions required of controllers are in the public domain - published in the UK MATS PT1 available on the CAA website.:)

Regards

ZKDLI

[Expedient]

In post #79, Spin Buster wrote-

‘Why can't they name the Companies that they claim are devoloping Low power Transponders that they claim are a "significant part" of their proposals?

Why can't they clearly state whether they have evidence of any relevant trials of low power transpnders?’

So far, the only low power (30 W or under) transponder that I’ve seen anything about is the Kinetic Avionic Products Limited L.A.S.T (Light Aviation SSR Transponder). Are there any others?

As of May 2005, a Eurocontrol commissioned study reported that ‘Becker, Dittel, Garmin, Unitel and Filser were contacted and only one company, Filser, had plans to develop and license one. This suggests that there is little momentum towards obtaining a solution for light aircraft in the near future.’

The same Study stated that the ‘UK CAA is optimistic that a low power (20W) LAST could be available on the market by 2008’. But the current CAA consultation does not give any information about such a LAST.

Is there a European or international standard for LASTs or LPSTs?

[Expedient]

In post #79, Spin Buster quotes the CAA as replying to one of Martin Breen’s questions (about whether a low power transponder is available) as follows-

4. There are a number of transponders on the market which produce a peak pulse power of 70W and appear to be suitable for use in many types of glider.

But do they give an adequate signal above 15,000 ft? Gliders can easily exceed that height in wave at a number of UK sites.

The manual for the Funkwerk Avionics (formerly Filser) TRT800 (150W maximum output transponder; 18.5 dBW (71 watts) peak power at the antenna) gives its maximum flight level as ‘15000 ft.’

[cats_five]

In post #79, Spin Buster quotes the CAA as replying to one of Martin Breen’s questions (about whether a low power transponder is available) as follows-

4. There are a number of transponders on the market which produce a peak pulse power of 70W and appear to be suitable for use in many types of glider.

But do they give an adequate signal above 15,000 ft? Gliders can easily exceed that height in wave at a number of UK sites.

The manual for the Funkwerk Avionics (formerly Filser) TRT800 (150W maximum output transponder; 18.5 dBW (71 watts) peak power at the antenna) gives its maximum flight level as ‘15000 ft.’

Check the manual for the TRT800H.

[snapper1]

This has been posted on gliderpilot.net (which had been out of action for some weeks due to a hacker). It's a very thorough and well reasoned response and well worth reading in full.

www.lightaircraftassociation.co.uk/Consultation/ModeS%20Sub%20Docs/LAA%20Draft%20Mode%20S%20Consultation%20Response.pdf (http://www.lightaircraftassociation.co.uk/Consultation/ModeS%20Sub%20Docs/LAA%20Draft%20Mode%20S%20Consultation%20Response.pdf)

[bookworm]

It's a very thorough and well reasoned response and well worth reading in full.

It is a thorough and well reasoned response, but it does contain some misconceptions:

...you discuss the need to operate the UK ground environment in “mixed mode”, that is to say, all radars interrogate in both Mode S and Mode A/C because of safety issues. So all Mode S transponders reply in both modes and we understand this is likely to continue for some years, certainly until 2012 and beyond if equipment programmes are not delivered by then.
Until the day that Mode A/C interrogation is turned off, all Mode S transponders will also respond in Mode A/C. This has not been a problem so far as virtually all aircraft that have fitted Mode S, previously had Mode A/C so the number of units has remained broadly constant.
If all 15,000 aircraft that are now proposed for Mode S fit were to do so by March 2009, they too would respond to Mode A/C interrogation and UK ATC systems would be overwhelmed.

Mixed mode operations are considerably more sophisticated than the author assumes. "All-call" periods, during which Mode A/C interogations are sent, occupy only a small part of the overall cycle. The rest is "roll call", during which the interrogation is selective. Additionally, Mode A/C interrogations sent during that all-call period can be modified (a "short P4") in such a way that a Mode S transponder does not respond.

Thus having 15,000 Mode S transpoder equipped aircraft poses no problem to mixed mode operations -- having 15,000 Mode A/C only transponder equipped aircraft certainly would be more of an issue.

[Expedient]

In post 84, cats_five suggested that I should ‘Check the manual for the TRT800H’, but did not give its output.

I had referred (in post #83) to the CAA’s suggestion that a number of transponders on the market produced ‘a peak pulse power of 70W and appear to be suitable for use in many types of glider’. I asked if those transponders gave an adequate signal above 15,000 ft.

I had in fact checked the TRT800H before posting. It is indeed good up to 35,000 ft. But its output is 250 W (125 W at antenna), which is a fair bit above 70W. Gliders really need a LPST.

So I’m still looking for a 70W transponder, good for use above 15,000 ft.

[Final 3 Greens]

Glider pilots need to wake up and smell the coffee.

About 10 years ago, following the Dunblane shooting, Britain's recreational taget shooting community lost the right to own certain categories of gun.

If glider pilots do not adopt a more cooperative attitude, they could find themselves in the same boat and frankly few people in the community at large would shed many tears for them, since most people are more interested in their sun flights than protecting minority rights.

Like it or not that is the reality.

It would be a real shame if this happened.

[bookworm]

So I’m still looking for a 70W transponder, good for use above 15,000 ft.

The power required to meet regulatory requirements is determined by ceiling and max speed. Lower power is permitted only on aircraft not capable of operating above 15,000 ft and with a maximum crusing speed of 175 kt or less. If you exceed either restriction, the transponder doesn't stop working, it just ceases to meet regulatory requirements.

[Expedient]

bookworm wrote-


The power required to meet regulatory requirements is determined by ceiling and max speed. Lower power is permitted only on aircraft not capable of operating above 15,000 ft and with a maximum crusing speed of 175 kt or less. If you exceed either restriction, the transponder doesn't stop working, it just ceases to meet regulatory requirements.


Indeed. I didn’t suggest otherwise.

But the CAA replied to Martin Breen-

There are a number of transponders on the market which produce a peak pulse power of 70W and appear to be suitable for use in many types of glider.


So what are these 70W transponders for high-flying gliders? Who makes them?

Are they even technically feasible?

Incidentally, the only study of the potential radiological effects of Mode S transponders cited by the CAA related to ‘an 80 Watt transponder with typical antenna’ (para. 10.3 of the consultation). And it only used a ‘generic computer model’.

So no one really knows what the radiological effects of, say, a 125W transponder in a glider will be.

[pbrookes]

There is a certain arrogance coming across on this discussion that seems to be "put up or shut up!" which is not very helpful. The whole idea of a consultation is to get the views from all parties and to reach a position where most parties are in agreement.

For that to be achieved, the pros and cons need to be considered (not disregarded) and an appropriate response developed.

Enforcing something onto someone who may or may not benefit from it without consideration is worthy of a communist state, not a free country, which I believe the UK is!

:=

[bookworm]

So what are these 70W transponders for high-flying gliders? Who makes them?

Are they even technically feasible?

The question on feasibility is meaningless. The regulatory requirement makes them unsuitable for aircraft flying above 15,000 ft. The CAA's response is correct in that "many types of glider" do not exceed 15,000 ft.

What you need to argue for is a regulatory change to permit the use of 70W equipment above 15,000 ft by gliders. Good luck.

[rocketmandlgc]

Glider pilots need to wake up and smell the coffee.

About 10 years ago, following the Dunblane shooting, Britain's recreational taget shooting community lost the right to own certain categories of gun.

If glider pilots do not adopt a more cooperative attitude, they could find themselves in the same boat and frankly few people in the community at large would shed many tears for them, since most people are more interested in their sun flights than protecting minority rights


I hardly thibnk this is an appropriate response. Unless of course some jetliner pilot is going to deliberately set out to sideswipe lots of other aircraft out of the sky.

It seem to me as if we have a situation whereby a governing body has already decided how they want to proceed, and have formulated their "options" accordingly. As the light aircraft people have stated, this consultation is badly flawed, does NOT meet government guidelines, is ill conceived and badly thought through with litle or no evidence to support its options and has not given anyone an opportunity to comment on a "do nothing" option.

All the evidence suggests that safety is improving all the time. Proxes are significantly down, I won't re-print the figures - read other posts. The CAA's own figures state that 15% of airspace infrigements involve aircraft without transponders. I would respectfully point out that in reality that means 85% of infringements are by aircraft WITH transponders. So the answer is simple, take out all the transponders and reduce the infringements (I'm kidding of course but I hope you can see the point- the figures just do not make the CAA's case that light aircraft (including gliders) represenrt any kind of threat to other air users,

The only conclusion many of us can come to is that the CAA has recently changed it's name to "Commercial Aviation Authority" and no longer has the best interests of the rest of civil aviation at heart

[cats_five]

The question on feasibility is meaningless. The regulatory requirement makes them unsuitable for aircraft flying above 15,000 ft. The CAA's response is correct in that "many types of glider" do not exceed 15,000 ft.

What you need to argue for is a regulatory change to permit the use of 70W equipment above 15,000 ft by gliders. Good luck.

Oh dear. Just about any type of glider can exceed 15,000 ft if it is flying in decent wave. The CAA should have said that "many glider flights do not exceed 15,00 ft".

However, anyone who wants a Diamond height will have to do so and people have been doing Diamond heights for some considerable time, in all sorts of gliders, not just nice white modern GRP ones.

And quite a few flat-landers (who otherwise might well not need Mode S, depending on what the final outcome is) visit Scotland (or other wave sites) in search of that elusive Diamond height. But not, I suspect, if they have to spend some £4k on getting a transponder fitted.

[Expedient]

rocketmandlgc wrote-


As the light aircraft people have stated, this consultation is badly flawed, does NOT meet government guidelines,


The consultation contravenes various provisions of the Government’s Code of Practice on Consultation (September 2005)-

no list of consultees is included (see para. 2.6 of that Code);

there is no glossary, despite the many technical terms (see para. 3.1);

it doesn’t ‘Invite respondents to comment on the extent to which the criteria have been adhered to and to suggest ways of further improving the consultation process’ (see para. 3.9).;

The consultation document should state the … the web address where, the summary of responses will be published (see para. 4.3).

In addition, some parts of the consultation do not satisfy the Principles of Good Regulation (see para. 6.6 of that code), in that they are not proportional or transparent (does any one really know what Option 2 means?).

The code binds UK agencies, such as the CAA, unless Ministers allow departures in exceptional circumstances.

The Code of Practice on Consultation can be found at-
http://www.berr.gov.uk/bre/consultation%20guidance/page44459.html

the address given at para. 3 in Annex L to the consultation is wrong.

Why does the CAA think that it does not need to bother to comply with the Code?

[cats_five]

<snip>
All the evidence suggests that safety is improving all the time. Proxes are significantly down, I won't re-print the figures - read other posts. The CAA's own figures state that 15% of airspace infrigements involve aircraft without transponders. I would respectfully point out that in reality that means 85% of infringements are by aircraft WITH transponders.
<snip>


More to the point, could transponders have prevented any of the non-transponder equiped proxes or infringements? I suspect not - Mode S (if the transponder is turned on) will help find the culprit, but it won't stop them infringing. I read some of the airprox reports and found that the infringements often seemed to involve a pilot who was 'temporarily unsure of his postition' e.g. lost.

The sort of software on a PDA linked to a GPS that most XC glider pilots use might do more to prevent infringements than a transponder, and it can be implemented for less than £100. (free software, 2nd hand GPS & PDA from Ebay) It's also fairly easy to reload the airspace when that changes - downloads are easy to find on the Internet, and are also easy to check against a chart.

[mm_flynn]

More to the point, could transponders have prevented any of the non-transponder equipped proxes or infringements? I suspect not - Mode S (if the transponder is turned on) will help find the culprit, but it won't stop them infringing.
It is important to understand why transponders a relevant to 'reducing infringements'. The transponder doesn't change the fact the infringement has happened, but it does help everyone else deal with the fact safely. Also, a non-transponding aircraft can realistically only be detected infringing a Zone (not an area or airway) unless it is also an airprox - because no one can see it happen unless they nearly hit the infringing aircraft! In terms of infringements that were in the 'but for the Grace of God...' camp, they are split about 1/3 no-transponder, 1/3 transponder with no Altitude, and 1/3 Mode C/S. When I looked at it, all of the Mode C/S 'close call' infringements had some complicating factor that resulted in ATC having little time to react.

The sort of software on a PDA linked to a GPS that most XC glider pilots use might do more to prevent infringements than a transponder, and it can be implemented for less than £100. (free software, 2nd hand GPS & PDA from Ebay) It's also fairly easy to reload the airspace when that changes - downloads are easy to find on the Internet, and are also easy to check against a chart.
While people may use this kind of roped together system, I have also seen plenty of issues where people get muddled up with the technology and would have been better off with much more traditional nav approaches. All the various threads around loss of GPS reception, GPS showed wrong position, map stopped working, etc. seem to involve these roped together solutions. Panel mount GPS is an ultra reliable system. Used PDAs with internal GPS antenna, limited battery life/power codes and cables trailing around the cockpit, running free software is not a great solution to certainty of position or maintaining a good external lookout. (IMHO)

[chrisN]

Can any of the ATCO’s please advise what is the truth behind suggestions that (a) Mode S would be required to be on at all times and (b) people who say that ATC will tell people to switch them off when the screens become too cluttered and/or TCAS’s trigger too many false alarms.

Two things prompt my enquiry. 1st – a visit to a UK Tower ATC last week – the ATCO said if he saw too many glider responses on the screen, they would suppress the labels because they would garble (I think that is the correct phrase). 2nd: A posting on u.r.a.s. (a UK gliding web site) today includes:

Author : Gavin Short [snip]

I am concerned at ATC overload. My experience is of flying in NE Belgium/Netherlands; Last summer a TMZ was introduced on the southern edge of the Eindhoven CTR which cut off the route east into Germany for clearer airspace and better soaring weather.

The first day of decent soaring weather caused a rush of those gliders who were transponder equiped into the TMZ to head east. Perhaps in excess of 10 gliders which promptly triggered a call from the ATC for 'all gliders in the Eindhoven TMZ to switch of their transponders because ATC could not cope with the multiple contacts' - an interesting legal point - who can authorise aircraft in a TMZ to switch off their transponders?

[snip]

Chris N.

[Cobalt]

There are two separate issues here

1) Garbling. This happens if multiple transponders respond to the same interrogation, e.g., with same slant range but different ground range, or when transponder replies overlap. This is an increasing issue because of

- more and more interrogators flying (TCAS)
- many ATC radars in Europe with overlapping ranges.
- more data being transmitted in the transponder reply (enhanced Mode S, ADS-B etc.)

S stands for "selective" - a standard Mode A/C transponder will reply to any interrogation for that mode, a Mode S transponder only to one that is directed at that individual transponder, using the 24-bit, which avoids garbling. A Mode S radar does infrequent "all calls" to find out who is around and then interrogates each transponder individually.

Or, put more simply, Mode S is a fix required to accomodate a much larger number of transponding aircraft. That is why universal Mode A/C is not sufficient and the authorities want mode S even for those aircraft that in effect will only ever transmit a 12-bit squawk and pressure altitude, and not only for the heavy/fast guys that transmit a lot more.


2) Screen clutter

That is up to the radar display software, can't comment here.


I am afraid the real debate is whether everyone should squawk or not. If the answer is yes, Mode S is necessary to avoid the ancient A/C technology breaking down in some locations. And while there are better technologies that could do the trick, Mode S is the de-facto incumbent in the airline world.

Maybe the debate is more usefully directed at how to minimise the impact. Do we have to pay silly mod fees for paperwork for safety related equipment?

[chrisN]

Cobalt, I was pointing also to what seems to me at least a third issue – that if all the things (not only gliders) below, say, a TMA, have transponders, then descending CAT gets TCAS triggers all the time – because TCAS does not know that the CAT will level out before reaching the below-TMA level – so lots of false alerts. So ATC tell the below-TMA people to switch off.

Presumable the same could happen as a result of ATC’s collision alert system.

So would ATC tell people to switch off – as they reportedly are doing in Holland – or not?
-----------------
And another post on u.r.a.s. said:

“With Mode S, an ATC unit can instruct any S-transponder not to respond to signals from that unit.

“It will still respond to TCAS. However TCAS does not, at present, cope with multiple threats, so guess how much use your mode S will be if you fly in gaggles. FLARM would be a better bet!
[snip]

Chris N.

[gpn01]

"who can authorise aircraft in a TMZ to switch off their transponders? "...and how ? Would this mean that everybody would need to have a radio tuned in to a designated frequency ? Cue frenzied feedback about "my glider/parascender doesn't have a radio/no space/already at max weight, etc etc". Suppose it'd resolve the issue of garbling when you have 20+ gliders all circling within a 50 metre radius of each other and all using Mode-S.

Does beg an interesting question though....if you're TCAS equipped, operating in a TMZ, and all the GA in the sector has been told to switch their transmitters off....Who tells the TCAS enabled pilots that they'd better start watching out ?

Seperate point made earlier provides an interesting scenario too whereby you have intensive Mode-S transponding GA below controlled airspace but climbing, at the same time as you have controlled, TCAS equipped aircraftdescending towards the bottom of their operating zone. Would this mean that TMZ buffer zones would be needed around the TMZ's ? That'd then constrict much of GA into an even smaller area. There's likely to be a few nasty crunches under that scenario.

[cats_five]

Whatever your standpoint on the Mode S proposals, the closing date for sending your response to the CAA looms.

The consultation closes on the 31st May, which is this coming Saturday. It's not clear to me if snail mail replies have to arrive by then (I'm sure they don't work on a Saturday!) or be postmarked 31st May or earlier.

[Spin Buster]

Martin prefaced his questions with - "please provide answers in good time for carefully considered
responses to the consultation"

Andy knill has replied that Martins questions "could be interpreted as being your response to the consultation." Andy has again evaded answering the questions - WHY????????

Exactly which part of the phrase "please provide answers in good time for carefully considered responses to the consultation" can be interpreted as being the response to the consultation???

They don't want to answer Martins questions!!!! All the more reason that they should.

Spin Buster




----Original Message----
From: [email protected] ([email protected])
Date: 28/05/2008 11:12
To: <[email protected] ([email protected])>
Subj: FW: Mode S Consultation Queries

Dear Mr Breen

Thank you for your e-mail. First of all, in any consultation there
will
be queries which arise as part of a formal response and these are
dealt
with through the Summary of Responses (SoR) and CAA comments process.
A
consultation is there to elicit answers and information as,
notwithstanding the considerable time spent with user groups prior to
publication, it is recognised that not every facet of a proposal will
be
covered in the document. Indeed, the Better Regulation process is
designed to ensure that individuals and organisations can raise
queries
and provide information during the process. This is then dealt with as
part of the full process so that a submission to Government can cover
these aspects before any decision is taken.

The consultation commenced on 31 January and is due to end on 31 May
08.
The questions, which you submitted on 6 May, could be interpreted as
being your response to the consultation, in which case they would be
dealt with, in conjunction with many others as appropriate, in the SoR
document. However, if this is not your formal response, please submit
the challenges to the consultation document as part of your formal
submission. Your questions will then be dealt with accordingly.

In terms of the length of the consultation, the period given is in
excess of that required and every effort has been made to further
inform
the debate through briefing sessions and media material. Given that
you
raised your queries with less than 4 weeks to run, I do not consider
your demands to be reasonable, particularly as there is an accepted
process for dealing with questions raised through the consultation
process.

I look forward to receiving your formal response.

Regards


Andy Knill

[Spin Buster]

ZKDLI
Airways were established 10 miles wide to allow for navigation errors using NDB's etc. Likewise other Airspace boundaries allow for deviations from the ideal track and provide safety margins.

Radar separation standards also provide significant margins.

These margins are provided to allow for minor errors that reduce the margins without incurring undue risks.

Controlled Airspace boundaries are not drawn to align with ground features that can be used accurately by pilots relying on visual navigation. They are invisible except on moving maps or radar.
It is inevitable that pilots navigating visually will infringe airspace by small amounts whilst using their best endevours to avoid doing so.

Does NATS record an Airspace infringement of 1 foot vertically or horizontally over the line? If not 1 foot then what vertical and horizontal parameters are used?
Is the recording of minor infringements a numbers game ploy to justify more airspace, more air traffic controllers, better pay or is genuine risk a parameter?

Regards
Spin Buster

[mm_flynn]

NATS has recently (last couple of years) changed to recording every infringement they are aware of. They then classify the results of these infringements depending on the impact on traffic in CAS. You can see a summary of this on the flyontrack web site. The classification are broadly
Minor - separation was maintained - 93%
A concern - standard separation was lost - 5%
Serious - The aircraft were quite close - 2%

NATS and the CAA acknowledge clearly that the trend in minor infringements is driven more by reporting than any change in activity.

non-transponder/Mode A only aircraft can only be detected infringing control zones (not areas) unless they full into the A Concern or Serious categories and hence they figure to a much higher proportion in the later two categories than the first one.

With regard to the comment It is inevitable that pilots navigating visually will infringe airspace by small amounts that shouldn't be true in general. However, for airports partially embedded in CAS or transiting some of the narrow gaps, the VFR flyer has to be able to navigate to the same precision as a two crew aircraft with PRNAV, and this clearly does result in minor infringements (which is why you see clusters around the London area GA airports).

[Spin Buster]

Thank you mm flynn for pointing me at the FLYONTRACK web site.

It appears that around 98% of NATS reported Airspace infringements are not "serious".
Is reporting them a good use of ATC time?

There is no detailed analysis of the "serious" ones.
Are they all GA pilots? Are they without transponders?
What common factors are there to these "serious" infringement?
Does anyone know where the detailed analysis can be found please?

Flyontrack makes a big thing of the cost of 747's having to go around as a result of Infringements but there are no statistics given for 747 go arounds in these circumstances.
Anyone know how many of these there are per year and how the cost compares with ATC holding delays on the ground and in the air?
I can see one of the LHR holds from my garden and it is in regular use. I can't see the go arounds so cannot comment.
Regards
Spinbuster

[mm_flynn]

Thank you mm flynn for pointing me at the FLYONTRACK web site.

It appears that around 98% of NATS reported Airspace infringements are not "serious".
Is reporting them a good use of ATC time?

There is no detailed analysis of the "serious" ones.
Are they all GA pilots? Are they without transponders?
What common factors are there to these "serious" infringement?
Does anyone know where the detailed analysis can be found please?

Flyontrack makes a big thing of the cost of 747's having to go around as a result of Infringements but there are no statistics given for 747 go arounds in these circumstances.
Anyone know how many of these there are per year and how the cost compares with ATC holding delays on the ground and in the air?
I can see one of the LHR holds from my garden and it is in regular use. I can't see the go arounds so cannot comment.
Regards
Spinbuster
I did an analysis of a years worth of serious ones (SSE1 and SSE2) and the results are what you probably would expect.


Mostly GA and a bit of MIL are the perpetrators.
1/3 mode C/S, 1/3 Mode A, 1/3 non-transponding.
The Mode A only/Non-transponder were either lost, thought they knew were they were but were wrong, or just chose to fly through the airspace (a para- glider in Southampton comes to mind)
The mode C ones where generally more complex. A couple of 'emergencies' and some foreign pilots (ie. not based in the UK) not understanding the UK system.


The mode C/S ones give good notice of the impending screwup so while they might disrupt flights they generally can be vectored around. It is only if they suddenly do something unexpected that you get an SSE1/2 (i.e. a close shave).

To some of your other questions. Yes it is a good use of time to record all infringements, it is a standard safety management approach to look at the minor events to track if your action plan is reducing the risks of a rare major event.

The scale of time wasted and fuel burned from infringements is going to be small relative to that driven by weather and inadequate runway capacity. But that still doesn't mean it isn't a relevant way of thinking of the impact.

And finally, to put it into proportion, infringements caused about 1/3 of the total serious losses of separation incidents. Level busts was I believe the single biggest issue. Which is why the CAT guys get a constant stream of 'must do better' around compliance with clearances and why the downlink of altitude preselect information on Mode S Enhanced was the first bit to be implemented by NATS.

PS - the 5% that were 'of concern' really are of concern. If a controller allowed to aircraft he was controlling to get that close there would be much paper and probably some retraining at a minimum. The fact this happens with one aircraft that is operating pretty much at random makes it a much more worrying issue for everyone. On top of this the 2% or of close shaves really are very worrying events.

[Spin Buster]

Facinating analysis - thank you once more mm flynn.

If I have understood it-

Over 90% of UK registered aircraft are GA, and they only account for one third of serious losses of separation.
Two thirds are down to professional pilots using ATC in Controlled Airspace.
I am not criticising - mea culpa, having had a FL100/FL110 clearance confusion & level bust - just musing about proportionality.

Of the one third of losses of separation, about two thirds are down to navigational errors.

Moving maps with Airspace warnings are relatively so cheap, low power and readily available for most recreational aircraft that there is scope for dramatically reducing GA Infringements, ATC workload, risks and disruption costs. Prevention being better than cure?
I have two in my glider.
GASCO are encouraging moving maps.

If Notams were provided graphically on an official web site, infringements of temporary airspace, might also be dramatically reduced. An official version of "Notam Map" or similar would help a lot. Even better if the airspace was downloadable into the moving map.

Are TMZ's and extended mode s mandates the best and most proportional answer?

regards
Spin Buster

[cats_five]

Spin Buster, wish you had posted that before I sent my response in! The proportions and comments on moving maps would have been very useful.

[mm_flynn]

Facinating analysis - thank you once more mm flynn.

If I have understood it-

Over 90% of UK registered aircraft are GA, and they only account for one third of serious losses of separation.
Two thirds are down to professional pilots using ATC in Controlled Airspace...


That is a reasonably accurate, but potentially misleading summary. The loss of separation incidents are almost exclusively associated with controlled airspace and the amount of GA activity in this airspace will be small relative to the overall population. In addition, exposure (i.e. flight hours) is much more relevant than the number of aircraft registered (a registered but non-flying aircraft is hardly likely to figure in an infringement!).

NATS and the professional pilots are doing a lot of work on training, awareness, expensive new equipment, etc. to help them address the issues in their control. It is not entirely unexpected, given the money they are putting in to address their issues, that there is pressure for GA to invest in technology to help on the issues for which they are responsible.

[PPRuNe Radar]

Over 90% of UK registered aircraft are GA, and they only account for one third of serious losses of separation. Two thirds are down to professional pilots using ATC in Controlled Airspace.

That statistic you make about UK GA also takes no account of the many aircraft which transit the UK each day, or are based here under a different State of Registry. Do UK GA aircraft represent 90% of all the UK movements ?? I doubt it. The GA in the statistics will be for all GA which are involved in a serious loss of separation, regardless of where they are registered.

You can't say either for certain that all the rest are caused by professional pilots. ATC make errors too, authorities make errors, operating agencies make errors. The list is endless.

All you can say is that statistics can tell you whatever you want to hear.

The real fact of the matter is that an infringement of CAS has the potential to result in a mid air collision. Fact. It will only take one, and should that ever occur (God forbid), then you can expect GA in the UK to be severely restricted and penalised in a classic case of bolting the stable door after the horse has bolted. One collision may have been seen as unlucky, but two will place the authorities in the realms of negligence if they have not taken measures such as mandatory surveillance equipment and other technologies to prevent it reoccurring. So they will use a very large sledgehammer to crack the nut ... and GA.

[Dr_Tre]

Minor thread creep................


not in range of any books at the mo, can anyone answer this v.quick question with certainty - at the mo', is a transponder mandatory for class D airspace transit?

just a yes or no will suffice


thanks in advance

[mm_flynn]

The real fact of the matter is that an infringement of CAS has the potential to result in a mid air collision. .... One collision may have been seen as unlucky, but two will place the authorities in the realms of negligence if they have not taken measures such as mandatory surveillance equipment and other technologies to prevent it reoccurring. So they will use a very large sledgehammer to crack the nut ... and GA.
While not disagreeing that a mid-air would precipitate action, it is useful to note that, where mid-airs with CAT have occurred (and over the decades there are a number), the authorities have generally reacted in a reasonably sensible and proportionate way (IMHO). Specifically Mode C veils were introduced decades ago in the US following the collision above Cerritos. HOWEVER, unlike the current CAA proposals, there was recognition of what could and could not be achieved at reasonable cost. Hence, the ability for gliders and non-electric aircraft to get exemptions.

The CAA proposal (back to the start of the thread) is to fit a very expensive and, to-date technically unproven (unless someone can post the CAA approval for 'portable' battery powered Mode-S for gliders and microlights), solutions. In addition, the proposed solutions do nothing much for the roughly annual GA/GA or GA/MIL mid-air in the UK. It feels like another case of a disproportionate effort to address one rather remote (but very bad) risk while ignoring the rather more common but less bad risk.


not in range of any books at the mo, can anyone answer this v.quick question with certainty - at the mo', is a transponder mandatory for class D airspace transit?No - But if you are technically capable of carrying one go and get one with altitude encoding, it makes everyone else's life easier and makes the case less robust for forcing those people who can't down a blind alley - and possibly it will save your life as more people carry ACAS and NATS does actually start to help like providing a much expanded EGLF LARS)

[Dr_Tre]

Thanks for the reply mm_flynn.

You're preaching to the converted here, I'm all for mode C - i was only asking to help settle a 'disagreement'. :ok:

[Spin Buster]

PPRUNERadar said -
"You can't say either for certain that all the rest are caused by professional pilots."

Absolutely right and I didn't. Sorry that it was open to interpretation that way.
My intention was to highlight that despite all the regulation associated with CAT operations, only one third of serious infringements would be prevented if all GA aircraft were grounded. Proportionality!

Spin Buster

[PPRuNe Radar]

No doubt about that :ok:

[astir 8]

One of the principal arguments put forward by the CAA for increased transponder carriage by GA was a 50% increase in air traffic movements by 2020 which was projected in a Government White Paper published in 2003. That was an increase in commercial traffic, not GA/Gliding.

The newsletter of the Association of European Airlines dated 3rd June rather knocks a hole in that "increased traffic" extrapolation. Stagnation, reduced passenger loads and gloom seems the real current picture. See

http://files.aea.be/news/pr/pr08-019.pdf


I suppose because it appeared after the expiry of the CAA consultation period on 31st May, it won't be counted in the argument

[cats_five]

I'm sure I'm not the only person that has suggested in my response that the projections from 2003 are probably invalid now, given the recent changes in the price of oil. I had no problem finding half-a-dozen CAT bad luck stories to back up my statement.

Of course it will probably cut no ice, but at least I tried.

[rocketmandlgc]

All, Most of the posts on this topic have been on broadly similar themes. Well here is a different one for everyone's consideration. It actually formed part of my response to the consultation. If anyone wants to come back to me I'm more than happy to engage in the debate, although I only get online every couple of days, so don't expect immediate rfeplies.

Here goes:

My response to the consultation is that – whilst I have some sympathy for, and am in broad agreement in principal for Mode S for everyone, some parts of the aviation community – and gliding in particular - should remain exempt from any phase 2 recommendations, and that these exempt categories be made the subject of a phase 3 implementation.

Here are my reasons:

Economic:

Gliding in particular has been a “first introduction” to aviation for many of our current commercial pilots and the number of commercial pilots required in the future will increase if the government’s white paper on the future of aviation is to be implemented..

Gliding (as opposed to hang or para gliding) will – I believe - continue to be of economic benefit to commercial aviation by providing recruitable material , trained to a very high standard of basic flying skills and aerodynamic knowledge, providing that the gliding community remains as a low cost entry point for potential pilots some of whom would not normally be considered as suitable material for other forms of entry into aviation (RAF for example).

Many gliding clubs are non or low profit making, some turning in annual profits of as little as £10,000. My own club xxxx operates a fleet of 3 x 2-seater training aircraft and 3 single seaters for early solo pilots. To equip these at current prices with currently available equipment would cost (CAA figures) between £18K – 30K – or put another way, 3 years of profit, a 3 year postponement of facilities improvements, building renovation and fleet expansion.

Given that our current letters of agreement with xxxxx work extremely well and there have been no recorded incidents EVER – this seems a very high price to pay for something of (immediate) dubious benefit.
Social

In my last section I stated “…..as a low cost entry point for potential pilots some of whom would not normally be considered as suitable material for other forms of entry into aviation (RAF for example).”

My club (and most other clubs i suspect) is proud to boast amongst its membership, a Postman and a High Court Judge. The effects of your current proposals would be to turn my club into a club of high court judges. The Postman would not be able to afford to continue flying – or at least would have his cross country ambitions curtailed so much that the sport would inevitably lose it’s attraction.

I myself was brought up in an inner city area and, like many concerned citizens, I despair at the lack of facilities available to many young people in our society today. The speed at which we appear to be sinking into an abyss of alcoholism and violence is frightening. A former Archbishop, William Temple once said “What is considered to be exceptional behaviour in one generation has a habit of becoming the “norm” in the next”

It is therefore imperative that minority sports such as Gliding – a sport which encourages the best in both team discipline AND individual endeavour, not only be allowed to continue but encouraged to flourish and grow. This encouragement may be in the form of grants for innovative marketing to the youth culture, and (this is where the CAA might come in) funding of new technology implementations to enable gliding to co-exist with other air traffic with no or little impact on the cost of gliding to the majority of its participants.

One way that can be achieved would be for the Civil Aviation Authority to use it’s influence over government to persuade government to fully fund the research and development of a low power pressure altitude transponder of a suitable size for use in gliders.

By funding the R&D costs, this would enable equipment manufacturers to sell at a reasonable price without having to worry about clawing back the R&D element in what is after all a small limited market. Target price excluding installation would be < £1000 (£995 will do)

Another way would be additionally for the commercial sector to fund the equipping of all club registered 2-seater training aircraft and some single seaters where it could be demonstrated that such single seaters were used for early cross country training.

Conclusion

1) There is time – time to pause, time for a phase three

AS I have stated, OUR Letters of agreement with xxxxx are working well. I suspect other clubs will tell you the same, as I also suspect your own incident stats will tell you. There is no need to rush. Despite increases in commercial traffic since 2003, incident reports are down.

2) As the governing body, the CIVIL Aviation Authority should use its powers to encourage Government to protect Gliding, for the economic and social reasons stated above, by the funding and provision of Mode s equipment for the sport., so that the sport can co-exist with the planned increase in air traffic to 2025

Let’s all pause for reflection, so we can get it right for everyone.

Sincerely,