Transponder Mandatory Zones - Have NATS consulted you individually?
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,809
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
1 Post
Oops, spot of nerve-touching here. First, zkdli, I didn't say the NATS figures weren't correct, just that the method of counting them has changed. In that context I'm surprised by your comment that "the ones reported are the tip of the iceberg". Why aren't the others reported? Or are you talking about infringements at non-NATS airports where they may not have the same reporting policy? Whatever the explanation, I find it hard to believe that the currently reported number are only a small fraction of actual infringements.
Second, I completely agree that any infringement is not acceptable. The question is, how do we improve the situation in the context of busier traffic inside CAS leading to more GA traffic trying to squeeze round the outside of it? More stringent equipment requirements such as TMZs won't actually stop an infringement by unknown traffic, they'll simply give the controller more accurate information on who the infringer is and what height they're at, which may give more options for vertical avoidance although given the requirement against unverified Mode C infringing CAS is 5000ft I doubt it would make any difference in practice. Surely a mandatory radio zone would be better? We already have an Advisory Radio Area around Boscombe Down, why not extend the concept to make it mandatory in the key infringement areas such as between the Stansted and Luton CTRs? "Too much controller workload" I hear you say. OK, so if the issue is "stop infringements or hundreds of bodies will rain from the skies" I'm guessing the risk assessors would probably say it was worth spending a couple of hundred thousand a year on a dedicated controller position during the key hours at the key places.
Third, Chevvron, I'm not sure the problem can be characterised as "dead reckoning-map reading good, radio navaids bad", nor that there is a microlight/other split here. It's over-reliance on GPS that is usually cited as the culprit. Where I fly virtually none of the aircraft (not microlights) have GPSs so all student and PPL flying is pilotage. I don't fly microlights but in my experience they rely much more heavily on GPS than map-reading. Personally, I find radio navaids are the best way of double-checking position accurately when flying in unfamiliar territory close to CAS - e.g. planning to never fly closer than X DME.
It is true that RT standards among PPLs are generally not very good, and this puts people off talking. I wonder if the CAA has a role to play here in enforcing higher standards through instructor/examiner training? I've always found it rather strange that RT examination is formally done through an FRTOL examimer who never hears how the candidate actually performs in the air, while flying instructors tend to focus on teaching to fly the aircraft and perhaps don't spend enough time on teaching high RT standards. Maybe it should be made compulsory for students to have demonstrated their capability to obtain a clearance to transit CAS, and fly it? Maybe not in the test since that may not be practicable in some areas, but at least an instructor sign-off during the course?
NS
Second, I completely agree that any infringement is not acceptable. The question is, how do we improve the situation in the context of busier traffic inside CAS leading to more GA traffic trying to squeeze round the outside of it? More stringent equipment requirements such as TMZs won't actually stop an infringement by unknown traffic, they'll simply give the controller more accurate information on who the infringer is and what height they're at, which may give more options for vertical avoidance although given the requirement against unverified Mode C infringing CAS is 5000ft I doubt it would make any difference in practice. Surely a mandatory radio zone would be better? We already have an Advisory Radio Area around Boscombe Down, why not extend the concept to make it mandatory in the key infringement areas such as between the Stansted and Luton CTRs? "Too much controller workload" I hear you say. OK, so if the issue is "stop infringements or hundreds of bodies will rain from the skies" I'm guessing the risk assessors would probably say it was worth spending a couple of hundred thousand a year on a dedicated controller position during the key hours at the key places.
Third, Chevvron, I'm not sure the problem can be characterised as "dead reckoning-map reading good, radio navaids bad", nor that there is a microlight/other split here. It's over-reliance on GPS that is usually cited as the culprit. Where I fly virtually none of the aircraft (not microlights) have GPSs so all student and PPL flying is pilotage. I don't fly microlights but in my experience they rely much more heavily on GPS than map-reading. Personally, I find radio navaids are the best way of double-checking position accurately when flying in unfamiliar territory close to CAS - e.g. planning to never fly closer than X DME.
It is true that RT standards among PPLs are generally not very good, and this puts people off talking. I wonder if the CAA has a role to play here in enforcing higher standards through instructor/examiner training? I've always found it rather strange that RT examination is formally done through an FRTOL examimer who never hears how the candidate actually performs in the air, while flying instructors tend to focus on teaching to fly the aircraft and perhaps don't spend enough time on teaching high RT standards. Maybe it should be made compulsory for students to have demonstrated their capability to obtain a clearance to transit CAS, and fly it? Maybe not in the test since that may not be practicable in some areas, but at least an instructor sign-off during the course?
NS
NS: a thread in Flyontrack has revealed that those students with best confidence and competence on RTF are those who work on busy frequencies during their training eg Cranfield, presumably because they are constantly listening to chatter when under instruction. Certainly those local to my unit seem to be 'better' than those who don't have a LARS frequency locally to listen to.
It used to amaze me years ago that the first time a student would use RTF would be on his/her first solo, and I used to moan constantly to the instructors about this; fortunately training policy has now changed.
It used to amaze me years ago that the first time a student would use RTF would be on his/her first solo, and I used to moan constantly to the instructors about this; fortunately training policy has now changed.
Guest
Posts: n/a
NorthSouth,
Whether a mandatory radio area or a mandatory transponder area is considered either way there will be opposition from somewhere. Anyone remember the Upper Heyford Mandatory Radio Area?
In my opinion, as we're really only talking about the busy airspace of the south east to begin with, the safer option if you're going to have either is to go for the mandatory txpdr area. I wouldn't fancy trying to get and maintain an ident on a whole buch of primary only contacts on a busy summers day. The r/t loading alone will make it impractical, witness Farnborough LARS on a nice weekend.
At least with a txpdr mandatory zone the majority of the traffic in the area will be Mode A/C or S equipped and as such both ground based and airborne technology should ensure that the chances of a worst case scenario developing is fairly remote along with minimal interference to those going about their GA business outside CAS.
Second, I completely agree that any infringement is not acceptable. The question is, how do we improve the situation in the context of busier traffic inside CAS leading to more GA traffic trying to squeeze round the outside of it? More stringent equipment requirements such as TMZs won't actually stop an infringement by unknown traffic, they'll simply give the controller more accurate information on who the infringer is and what height they're at, which may give more options for vertical avoidance although given the requirement against unverified Mode C infringing CAS is 5000ft I doubt it would make any difference in practice. Surely a mandatory radio zone would be better? We already have an Advisory Radio Area around Boscombe Down, why not extend the concept to make it mandatory in the key infringement areas such as between the Stansted and Luton CTRs? "Too much controller workload" I hear you say. OK, so if the issue is "stop infringements or hundreds of bodies will rain from the skies" I'm guessing the risk assessors would probably say it was worth spending a couple of hundred thousand a year on a dedicated controller position during the key hours at the key places.
In my opinion, as we're really only talking about the busy airspace of the south east to begin with, the safer option if you're going to have either is to go for the mandatory txpdr area. I wouldn't fancy trying to get and maintain an ident on a whole buch of primary only contacts on a busy summers day. The r/t loading alone will make it impractical, witness Farnborough LARS on a nice weekend.
At least with a txpdr mandatory zone the majority of the traffic in the area will be Mode A/C or S equipped and as such both ground based and airborne technology should ensure that the chances of a worst case scenario developing is fairly remote along with minimal interference to those going about their GA business outside CAS.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: South of UK
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd like to think that with Mode S the aircraft will be identifiable and the appropriate information / telling off be given by ATC or the regulator - won't be able to hide behind A7000 any more 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,809
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
1 Post
I'd like to think that with Mode S the aircraft will be identifiable and the appropriate information / telling off be given by ATC or the regulator
NS
The Analog Kid
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Brecon Beacons National Park
Age: 57
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is a hot topic in the hang gliding and paragliding world at the moment and many people have individually responded to the request for comments. The main issue for us is the sheer impracticality of current transponder setups. General feeling is also that this is just as much to do with UAVs as with infringements. Whilst there have been a couple of notable hang or paraglider infringements in the past couple of years, specific advice has been issued to cross-country pilots that GPS is not a primary navigational aid as far as airspace compliance is concerned. I'd be interested to see a breakdown of the infringements figures into types of aircraft, transponder / non-transponder.
Of course the one thing very few paraglider or hang glider pilots have is a radio qualification and equipment. As far as conflicts in open airspace are concerned, and given our very slow rate of progress but unpredictability of direction and altitude within a localised area, mandatory radio licence and equipment allied to regular position reporting would be a far more palatable and probably more beneficial approach.
Of course the one thing very few paraglider or hang glider pilots have is a radio qualification and equipment. As far as conflicts in open airspace are concerned, and given our very slow rate of progress but unpredictability of direction and altitude within a localised area, mandatory radio licence and equipment allied to regular position reporting would be a far more palatable and probably more beneficial approach.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,809
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
1 Post
Hang gliding/paragliding are an interesting case because the authorities have been quite happy up to now to have them operating in designated sections of Class D airspace under an LoA with a height cap, some of them directly under final approaches, SIDs etc. The only thing stopping busts is faith that each individual pilot will adhere to the terms of the LoA.
I agree with fyrefli that mandatory radio is likely to be far more effective than mandatory txpdr around the margins of CAS - but of course it would have to be accompanied by someone funding the airports concerned to have a person at the end of the radio who has the time to say a little bit more than "G-AB stand by".
NS
I agree with fyrefli that mandatory radio is likely to be far more effective than mandatory txpdr around the margins of CAS - but of course it would have to be accompanied by someone funding the airports concerned to have a person at the end of the radio who has the time to say a little bit more than "G-AB stand by".
NS
Radarspod: The major problem with Mode S for ATC units is that only the richer ones can afford the displays which show Mode S info; the rest of us will always have to make do with A, C and (sometimes) a groundspeed readout which at best is only +/_ 50kts accurate as it uses the distance between consecutive SSR position symbols.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,809
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
1 Post
Interesting! I had always assumed that the CAA would somehow require all units to have Mode S after a certain time. If not, then Mode A/C could go on for a long time.
As I understand it DAP/SRG are already requiring all units who are replacing their SSR equipment, or installing one for the first time, to put in Mode S.
NS
As I understand it DAP/SRG are already requiring all units who are replacing their SSR equipment, or installing one for the first time, to put in Mode S.
NS
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: South of UK
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was thinking more for finding out who they were afterwards. I'd love for everyone to be using Mode S today (after we've made sure the entire London FIR has Mode S cover now). I don't think it would be very useful for controllers to be looking up aircraft owners on the fly, I'm sure they have better things to be doing - save that task for the investigators.
