Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Ground & Other Ops Forums > ATC Issues
Reload this Page >

ATPL(H) Air Law question that is boggling my mind.

Wikiposts
Search

Notices
ATC Issues A place where pilots may enter the 'lions den' that is Air Traffic Control in complete safety and find out the answers to all those obscure topics which you always wanted to know the answer to but were afraid to ask.

ATPL(H) Air Law question that is boggling my mind.

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 15th September 2008 | 04:31
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
From: An Irish dude in Houston, TX. I miss home!!!
ATPL(H) Air Law question that is boggling my mind.

Hey guys, I'm only a few weeks away from doing some of the exams for the ATPL(H) and have been doing some revision. I came across this question a while back and it raised my eyebrows slightly. Back then I just committed the answer to memory, but now I'm curious.

Q: The radar controller suspects that you are experiencing unlawful interference. What should he do to confirm this with an auto decoder unit? (with no mode A interpretation?)

A: Switch from 7500 to 7700.
So how on earth can a controller decide that we have been hijacked by switching codes on his unit without us indicating it first on our unit? And if we squawk 7500 shouldn't little flashing thingys appear on his screen along with little alarm bells without him having to switch codes on a decoder unit? Any insight would be greatly appreciated. Even if that insight is that I'm a total retard for not getting this totally simple concept!!

On another note, this is the first time I've had something to post in the ATC section of PPRUNE. I'd like to take this opportunity to thank you guys for your support on the ground.

Last edited by darrenphughes; 15th September 2008 at 14:02. Reason: Needed to move the quote box to the proper location.
darrenphughes is offline  
Reply
Old 15th September 2008 | 12:13
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
From: South of UK
That doesn't make a lot of sense! The only way the controller would know if the pilot told him or the appropriate Mode A was set. I would suggest the question is wrong or based on some very old equipment, where auto decoder (plot extractor?) could interpret the pulse replies of the Mode A and display a value - but without a code callsign conversion to convert the Mode A to a meaningful callsign.

Interpreting the question differently could be "The radar controller suspects that you are experiencing unlawful interference. What should he do to confirm this on his display system (without callsign conversion)?

The answer would be to check the Mode A is 7500 - the unlawful interference Mode A code. I don't understand the change from 7500 to 7700 in the answer.

RS
Radarspod is offline  
Reply
Old 15th September 2008 | 14:00
  #3 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
From: An Irish dude in Houston, TX. I miss home!!!
Ok, so on the up side, I'm not a total dumbass!!
darrenphughes is offline  
Reply
Old 16th September 2008 | 09:16
  #4 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
From: An Irish dude in Houston, TX. I miss home!!!
Anyone else got anything more on this. Or is it just another question made up by some little guy trying to justify his ridicules salary in a JAA office somewhere?
darrenphughes is offline  
Reply
Old 16th September 2008 | 10:34
  #5 (permalink)  
VCR
 
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
From: The top of the tower
Makes no sense to me I'm afraid!!
VCR is offline  
Reply
Old 17th September 2008 | 07:03
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
From: Sunny South
certainly makes litte sense. Perhaps the answer that they are looking for is that the controller should confirm your squawk. I think its in MATS pt 1 that it says if an aircraft squawks 7500 a controller should ask the pilot to confirm he has selected the correct squawk, but not to mention the 7500 squawk, with the 'no mode A interpretation' statement trying to make the question less complicated by removing CCDS from the equation.
sr562 is offline  
Reply
Old 20th September 2008 | 14:28
  #7 (permalink)  
15 Anniversary
 
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 879
Likes: 177
From: Itinerant
7500 vs 7700

DPH (and everyone else),
You're correct that the question makes no sense. Even if it did, it doesn't make sense for a question on an ATPL(H) exam to require an answer requiring direct knowledge of ATC internal ops/procedures.

In any event, I can tell you with conviction that you will no longer find that question on the exam.

Grizz
grizzled is offline  
Reply
Old 21st September 2008 | 16:01
  #8 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
From: An Irish dude in Houston, TX. I miss home!!!
In any event, I can tell you with conviction that you will no longer find that question on the exam.
Cool, I'll just assume you have some insider knowledge in this area!!

Thanks to all the responders.
darrenphughes is offline  
Reply

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.