Expensive Mode-S Transponders for R22 Helicopters
Thread Starter
I do not know anyone in the industry who was " clamoring" for user pays. Certainly not me.
When the Labor government moved to user pays after the Bosch report I wanted the costs to be transparent. - not hidden in a 16 cent fuel tax.
When the Labor government moved to user pays after the Bosch report I wanted the costs to be transparent. - not hidden in a 16 cent fuel tax.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 5th Jun 2015 at 07:37.
Hi Dick. Your initial post states "CASA/Airservices are bringing in a unique mandatory requirement for transponders". It would be helpful to identify which organisation is responsible for the requirement to be mode s capable.
Nevertheless, a four week delay in reply is a poor show. I can't tell you why mode S is being mandated, but if I had to guess, I'd say there's a good chance it may be to reduce or eliminate the occurrence of garbling of targets in close proximity. Sydney would have a high density of targets at times, and it would be undesirable to have returns garbled, if they can be prevented by the use of current generation equipment.
It almost seems like you are asking "Why are we being stuffed around by ASA bureaucracy". The mode S issue that you raise could equally ask other questions, such as why is a piece of electronic equipment so expensive, or should private flights with one or two occupants, as suggested by you with the example of R22's expect to mix it at busy international airports. It's a bit like someone wanting to race in a GP in a Healey Sprite.
You may find that ASA are willing to listen to you, and accommodate you somehow, perhaps by permitting a dispensation, or limiting access to off peak times, or some other solution.
It's easy for someone to slag off at organisations such as CASA and ASA, but if a private chopper was involved in an incident/accident, you can bet there would be a swarm of lawyers looking for a patsy. Sadly, in our society, ar*se covering is a high priority these days. I'd suggest you find the appropriate people to ask, and perservere. A consultative approach is more likely to get a result, rather than a belligerent one. I don't know the current deal, but there was always the option for a dispensation to proceed without a serviceable transponder; it meant the particular situation was considered, including the traffic, weather etc.
Incidentally, I always thought it was a great act of faith to permit a pilot, with perhaps less experience than 20 hours, to be completely responsible for separation with another aircraft that may contain a couple of hundred pax. This happens daily, especially at D towers, and I know from long experience that many pilots of low flying experience often acknowledge instructions with no real idea of what's going on.
Nevertheless, a four week delay in reply is a poor show. I can't tell you why mode S is being mandated, but if I had to guess, I'd say there's a good chance it may be to reduce or eliminate the occurrence of garbling of targets in close proximity. Sydney would have a high density of targets at times, and it would be undesirable to have returns garbled, if they can be prevented by the use of current generation equipment.
It almost seems like you are asking "Why are we being stuffed around by ASA bureaucracy". The mode S issue that you raise could equally ask other questions, such as why is a piece of electronic equipment so expensive, or should private flights with one or two occupants, as suggested by you with the example of R22's expect to mix it at busy international airports. It's a bit like someone wanting to race in a GP in a Healey Sprite.
You may find that ASA are willing to listen to you, and accommodate you somehow, perhaps by permitting a dispensation, or limiting access to off peak times, or some other solution.
It's easy for someone to slag off at organisations such as CASA and ASA, but if a private chopper was involved in an incident/accident, you can bet there would be a swarm of lawyers looking for a patsy. Sadly, in our society, ar*se covering is a high priority these days. I'd suggest you find the appropriate people to ask, and perservere. A consultative approach is more likely to get a result, rather than a belligerent one. I don't know the current deal, but there was always the option for a dispensation to proceed without a serviceable transponder; it meant the particular situation was considered, including the traffic, weather etc.
Incidentally, I always thought it was a great act of faith to permit a pilot, with perhaps less experience than 20 hours, to be completely responsible for separation with another aircraft that may contain a couple of hundred pax. This happens daily, especially at D towers, and I know from long experience that many pilots of low flying experience often acknowledge instructions with no real idea of what's going on.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First off growahead, how hard is it to separate a 'private chopper' from jets? Been there and done that. They can stop, hold, hover and wait till the confliction is out of the way. There is no easier traffic to control than a rotary. All that's required is readily identifiable 'hold-points' and a clearance limit to those points until the potential conflict is resolved. They're generally in view, and low-level in a CTR: this really is kiddy stuff to process.
No disrespect, but you make the assertion that:
What exactly is 'some other solution?' I'd suggest that it's plain ATC competency. This is not brain-busting stuff. Someone entering a zone in a helo, low-level, shouldn't even need a TPDR, let alone Mode-S.
As regards user-pays, I seem to remember 'Free in G,' which was supposedly going to insulate GA from user-pays. Jeez, I scratch de head mon in remembering who pushed that barrel of monkeys.
No disrespect, but you make the assertion that:
perhaps by permitting a dispensation, or limiting access to off peak times, or some other solution.
As regards user-pays, I seem to remember 'Free in G,' which was supposedly going to insulate GA from user-pays. Jeez, I scratch de head mon in remembering who pushed that barrel of monkeys.
Dear Howabout, #32
No disrespect meant, but you suggest it's ATC "competency" (sic, I think you really mean incompetency). Thanks, those slack controllers really have it in for helicopters.
Like a minority of pilots, you seem to take the view I'm here, in my helicopter, and I want to go to XXX now. There is a bigger picture. Transponders permit TCAS to enhance situational awareness by pilots, and leading to avoidance procedures if deemed appropriate. It may be that a helicopter, on a converging track and vertical rate, could generate a TA, or even a RA. I'm sure most crews are more comfortable when they have accurate position on traffic in close proximity, and even more comfortable when they can see the traffic, which TCAS assists. I've already explained how mode s addresses the issue of garbling.
Disregarding the difficulty or lack thereof in separating helicopters and other traffic, a helicopter will occupy the frequency. I've been in jets on final into Brisbane and Sydney when, due to frequency congestion, landing clearances weren't received until very late final. Let's have a VFR helicopter in that mix. Ha ha.
You ask exactly what is "some other solution". I'm giving you the opportunity to display your creative side. I gave two examples, I'm sure there are others, do really want me to do all your thinking for you?
I'm not supporting the case for mode s, it may in fact be overkill. I'm trying to add to a conversation, but the correct decision should be reached by industry experts, not a bunch of point scoring amateurs.
I do agree with your summary in post 28. Sadly, the world is being taken over by corporations, but that's another issue.
You finished off with an impressive display of French. Well, allow me to help you a little; "my head" would be "ma tete"(possessive), except the french don't refer to their personal body parts in that way, in context it becomes "la tete". The phrase you are looking for is something like "je me gratte la tete". Your mastery of airspace management, it seems, is matched by you mastery of French. Kiddy stuff, really.
No disrespect meant, but you suggest it's ATC "competency" (sic, I think you really mean incompetency). Thanks, those slack controllers really have it in for helicopters.
Like a minority of pilots, you seem to take the view I'm here, in my helicopter, and I want to go to XXX now. There is a bigger picture. Transponders permit TCAS to enhance situational awareness by pilots, and leading to avoidance procedures if deemed appropriate. It may be that a helicopter, on a converging track and vertical rate, could generate a TA, or even a RA. I'm sure most crews are more comfortable when they have accurate position on traffic in close proximity, and even more comfortable when they can see the traffic, which TCAS assists. I've already explained how mode s addresses the issue of garbling.
Disregarding the difficulty or lack thereof in separating helicopters and other traffic, a helicopter will occupy the frequency. I've been in jets on final into Brisbane and Sydney when, due to frequency congestion, landing clearances weren't received until very late final. Let's have a VFR helicopter in that mix. Ha ha.
You ask exactly what is "some other solution". I'm giving you the opportunity to display your creative side. I gave two examples, I'm sure there are others, do really want me to do all your thinking for you?
I'm not supporting the case for mode s, it may in fact be overkill. I'm trying to add to a conversation, but the correct decision should be reached by industry experts, not a bunch of point scoring amateurs.
I do agree with your summary in post 28. Sadly, the world is being taken over by corporations, but that's another issue.
You finished off with an impressive display of French. Well, allow me to help you a little; "my head" would be "ma tete"(possessive), except the french don't refer to their personal body parts in that way, in context it becomes "la tete". The phrase you are looking for is something like "je me gratte la tete". Your mastery of airspace management, it seems, is matched by you mastery of French. Kiddy stuff, really.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Australia
Age: 66
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick, or anyone else.
At one of the consultative meetings I seem to recall Greg Russell suggesting that Airservices would subsidise the ADS-B transponder replacement for GA.
I can't recall the exact date but I think it was mid 2008? But it was definitely discussed with a throw away comment "$5,000 for 5,000 aircraft could be accommodated in the budget".
?
At one of the consultative meetings I seem to recall Greg Russell suggesting that Airservices would subsidise the ADS-B transponder replacement for GA.
I can't recall the exact date but I think it was mid 2008? But it was definitely discussed with a throw away comment "$5,000 for 5,000 aircraft could be accommodated in the budget".
?
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi, growahead, as the cricket is on I was speaking West Indian, not French; but I should have actually phrased the line:
'Jeez, I scratch de head mon in remembering who pushed dat barrel of monkeys.'
As regards separating rotary from the 'big stuff,' you seem to be unrealistically reliant on expensive technology, when using the eyeball now seems to be a forgotten technique.
The rotary crowd have no more wish to kill themselves than your average jet pilot. They'll comply with your instructions and hold, if necessary, until the large stuff is out of the way. It used to be called ATC and I gave you the solution when it comes to facilitating rotary in a CTR.
Sadly, your emphasis seems to be on the 'confidence' of the big guys with the air picture, rather than their confidence in you as the 'ringmaster.' Implicit in your post is a disdain for the professionalism of rotary and, dare I say it, an abrogation of the fundamental responsibilities that go to flexibility and controlling traffic.
BTW, I am happy to be labelled as a 'point scoring amateur.' From you, I take it as a compliment. The dog needs his walk.
'Jeez, I scratch de head mon in remembering who pushed dat barrel of monkeys.'
As regards separating rotary from the 'big stuff,' you seem to be unrealistically reliant on expensive technology, when using the eyeball now seems to be a forgotten technique.
The rotary crowd have no more wish to kill themselves than your average jet pilot. They'll comply with your instructions and hold, if necessary, until the large stuff is out of the way. It used to be called ATC and I gave you the solution when it comes to facilitating rotary in a CTR.
Sadly, your emphasis seems to be on the 'confidence' of the big guys with the air picture, rather than their confidence in you as the 'ringmaster.' Implicit in your post is a disdain for the professionalism of rotary and, dare I say it, an abrogation of the fundamental responsibilities that go to flexibility and controlling traffic.
BTW, I am happy to be labelled as a 'point scoring amateur.' From you, I take it as a compliment. The dog needs his walk.
Dear Howabout,
Thank you for your reply. We can agree to disagree. I would make the observation that aviation is all about technology, especially these days.
In the good old days, we relied on individuals performing exceptionally. These days it's all about systems and procedures. The stats speak for themselves; although skills have been dumbed down, the safety record has improved enormously.
I embrace technology, and would pose the question about price. Smart phones are an example, costing up to $1K to buy, but corporations (I won't mention the A name) making billions (no exaggeration) in less than a year. Look what has happened to the price of GPS units, how can $20k be justified for one transponder?
I have no disdain for pilots of any discipline, in fact I am one myself. As alluded to above, it's no longer so much about the ringmaster, but management. Would you really suggest we abandon TCAS, and rely on ringmasters? Any enhancement of safety should be welcome.
Finally, I didn't refer to you as a point scoring amateur. That would be disrespectful and name calling is a form of bullying.
Let's hope that policy is made based on evidence and reason; what cracks are there, how often do they happen, what can we do about it. Discussion on a forum is ok, but there are better ways to achieve a positive contribution.
Regards, Growahead
Thank you for your reply. We can agree to disagree. I would make the observation that aviation is all about technology, especially these days.
In the good old days, we relied on individuals performing exceptionally. These days it's all about systems and procedures. The stats speak for themselves; although skills have been dumbed down, the safety record has improved enormously.
I embrace technology, and would pose the question about price. Smart phones are an example, costing up to $1K to buy, but corporations (I won't mention the A name) making billions (no exaggeration) in less than a year. Look what has happened to the price of GPS units, how can $20k be justified for one transponder?
I have no disdain for pilots of any discipline, in fact I am one myself. As alluded to above, it's no longer so much about the ringmaster, but management. Would you really suggest we abandon TCAS, and rely on ringmasters? Any enhancement of safety should be welcome.
Finally, I didn't refer to you as a point scoring amateur. That would be disrespectful and name calling is a form of bullying.
Let's hope that policy is made based on evidence and reason; what cracks are there, how often do they happen, what can we do about it. Discussion on a forum is ok, but there are better ways to achieve a positive contribution.
Regards, Growahead
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
growahed; yep I'm happy to agree to disagree and keep it civil.
I have no issues with most of the technology - who could realistically argue against TCAS for what used to be called RPT?
However, despite your (valid) arguments that technology is unrealistically expensive, that cost remains a fact in the real world; a cost which has to be paid by already cash-strapped GA to be 'compliant' on the whim of bureaucrats. Bureaucrats that take their advice from fellow bureaucrats that live in 'lah-lah land' in CASA and Airservices.
My point was that we don't have to take it to the nth degree, when there are CDF answers. I was merely referring to facilitating low-level visual stuff in a CTR, and questioning the need for something like Mode-S when there are valid, KISS alternatives that won't cripple a GA operator.
Anyway, I am getting goo-goo eyes from the Border Collie for his run.
I have no issues with most of the technology - who could realistically argue against TCAS for what used to be called RPT?
However, despite your (valid) arguments that technology is unrealistically expensive, that cost remains a fact in the real world; a cost which has to be paid by already cash-strapped GA to be 'compliant' on the whim of bureaucrats. Bureaucrats that take their advice from fellow bureaucrats that live in 'lah-lah land' in CASA and Airservices.
My point was that we don't have to take it to the nth degree, when there are CDF answers. I was merely referring to facilitating low-level visual stuff in a CTR, and questioning the need for something like Mode-S when there are valid, KISS alternatives that won't cripple a GA operator.
Anyway, I am getting goo-goo eyes from the Border Collie for his run.
Thread Starter
The law requires a Regulation Impact Statement to be prepared.
It looks as if this was not done.
Is anyone concerned that CASA does not comply with the law of the land What does Creamy think?
It looks as if this was not done.
Is anyone concerned that CASA does not comply with the law of the land What does Creamy think?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 72
Posts: 774
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This thread started about helicopters at Sydney and rapidly moved to Bankstown. Nowhere is there a link or copy of the document re Sydney. Where is the requirement published?
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: North Queensland
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mode S Transponders
I put a Trig 21 low power Mode S into my aeroplane for about $2300.00. ATC said they could see it fine. Don't know what the R22 voltage is but mine is 12 V DC. I recall there was some talk of financial assistance for ADSB fitment for GA from Airservices a few years ago but I don't think any aircraft owner seriously believed that would happen.
