Mode S (again)
Thread Starter
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 323
Likes: 0
From: Ashwell, U.K.
Mode S (again)
My engineer likes me to get the oil temperature in my old Lycoming up to speed once a week so despite the cold morning I pulled the plane out and had a very pleasant 30 minute local flight. I saw a Cherokee on the reciprocal course about a mile away and a 737 going in to Stansted in the far distance and that was it. I had the radio on to listen to Duxford's traffic but it was quiet so I switched it off again. All very safe and even the landing in a slight crosswind on to a wet grass runway went well.
Now the point is that this, I would guess, is typical of a lot of the private flying that went on this weekend. I'm not a Luddite but there was no need for a transponder (who would have given me a squawk?) and only a marginal requirement for a radio. Just what would Mode S have done to improve the shining hour? Not much. However rather than just complaining about it I would be happy to subscribe to AOPA, PFA (maybe), or GAPAN if somebody would tell me what they are doing to have this daft idea stopped. Anybody got an update?
Now the point is that this, I would guess, is typical of a lot of the private flying that went on this weekend. I'm not a Luddite but there was no need for a transponder (who would have given me a squawk?) and only a marginal requirement for a radio. Just what would Mode S have done to improve the shining hour? Not much. However rather than just complaining about it I would be happy to subscribe to AOPA, PFA (maybe), or GAPAN if somebody would tell me what they are doing to have this daft idea stopped. Anybody got an update?
Sub Judice Angel Lovegod
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
From: London
ozplane
Unfortunately, you are at the bottom of the tree in terms of what the regulators care about. You carrying Mode S has little to do with protecting you...it is about protecting other, more important, airspace users from you.
It has to do with TCAS alerts, decreasing both false positives and false negatives, and being able to offer transport pilots advisory action to avoid you.
The trouble is, according to the regulators, you just cannot be trusted to remain clear of controlled airspace, either laterally or horizontally.
Unfortunately, on this latter point the regulators are proved right far to often for comfort.
The best thing that light aircraft pilots can do to protect their rights to free flight outside controlled airspace unhampered by what they see as unnecessary equipment is to do everything they can to stop themselves and others penetrating CA without a clearances.
Timothy
Unfortunately, you are at the bottom of the tree in terms of what the regulators care about. You carrying Mode S has little to do with protecting you...it is about protecting other, more important, airspace users from you.
It has to do with TCAS alerts, decreasing both false positives and false negatives, and being able to offer transport pilots advisory action to avoid you.
The trouble is, according to the regulators, you just cannot be trusted to remain clear of controlled airspace, either laterally or horizontally.
Unfortunately, on this latter point the regulators are proved right far to often for comfort.
The best thing that light aircraft pilots can do to protect their rights to free flight outside controlled airspace unhampered by what they see as unnecessary equipment is to do everything they can to stop themselves and others penetrating CA without a clearances.
Timothy
Flies for fun
Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 789
Likes: 0
From: Wishing it was somewhere sunny!
Not familiar with Mode S but assuming that it is altitude encoding the same as Mode C. A transponder gives ATC a clear view of your altitude and makes you a brighter blip on their screens thirdly and more importantly it allerts big jets TCAS systems so that you don't get sucked into their fans. Certainly whilst flying in busy airspace it is my experience that it is useful for ATC to be able to give you the altitude of possibly conflicting aircraft. A little more peace of mind.
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
From: Midlands
“Not much. However rather than just complaining about it I would be happy to subscribe to AOPA, PFA (maybe), or GAPAN if somebody would tell me what they are doing to have this daft idea stopped. Anybody got an update?”
OK
The PFA is working hard to get an exemption for permit aircraft. It has had very little success so far, but the BMAA has managed to get some flying machines exempted, so there is some hope. I know AOPA are fighting that it is totally unnecessary, but I am no longer a member so am not up to date.
My personal view is that if you want to fly a CofA aircraft after 2008 you will have to have a Mode S transponder. I think there is a very slight chance the PFA will get an exemption, in UK airspace only, for permit types. You are also quite right in that you will get no benefit from this technology. Mode S sends out a unique serial number. I fear it will not be many years before the fully computerised system will bill you for every flight where you are seen on radar.
Rod1
OK
The PFA is working hard to get an exemption for permit aircraft. It has had very little success so far, but the BMAA has managed to get some flying machines exempted, so there is some hope. I know AOPA are fighting that it is totally unnecessary, but I am no longer a member so am not up to date.
My personal view is that if you want to fly a CofA aircraft after 2008 you will have to have a Mode S transponder. I think there is a very slight chance the PFA will get an exemption, in UK airspace only, for permit types. You are also quite right in that you will get no benefit from this technology. Mode S sends out a unique serial number. I fear it will not be many years before the fully computerised system will bill you for every flight where you are seen on radar.
Rod1
Joined: Oct 1999
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 2
From: UK
So what's next? Implanted transponders in each of us so Tony's control-freak goons can know where each of us is at any time?
CCTV covers most aspects of our lives today in towns and on the roads. One of the last great feedoms in this country is a VFR non-radio bimble outside CAS, with no-one even knowing you're doing it.
Still, I suppose if they felt they couldn't control it, they'd ban it. Timothy is correct to say we don't have much of a voice here, but his advice to 'be good and keep our house in order', while wise in that it should be followed, will not make this go away. The control freaks have us in their sights
At the very least, if the air transport industry wants to protect themselves from us, they should foot the bill. Imagine the outcry if every motorist had shell out thousands of pounds to ease the lives of bus and truck operators?
SSD
CCTV covers most aspects of our lives today in towns and on the roads. One of the last great feedoms in this country is a VFR non-radio bimble outside CAS, with no-one even knowing you're doing it.
Still, I suppose if they felt they couldn't control it, they'd ban it. Timothy is correct to say we don't have much of a voice here, but his advice to 'be good and keep our house in order', while wise in that it should be followed, will not make this go away. The control freaks have us in their sights
At the very least, if the air transport industry wants to protect themselves from us, they should foot the bill. Imagine the outcry if every motorist had shell out thousands of pounds to ease the lives of bus and truck operators?
SSD
Joined: Jan 1999
Posts: 6,209
Likes: 2
From: north of barlu
looking forward to mode "S"
Having just a moment ago compleated the metalwork for the mode S radio rack I am now reading the interconect part of the install manual.
Its good stuff this mode S , soon well in about four years the CAA will have got around to upgrading the ground radar stations to data link both trafic information and weather radar pictures to us in the air.
The flight safety benifits are huge and the cost of the mode S is much lower than buying TCAS and WX radar.
Prices are at the moment quite high but they will come down and the install cost for those of you with King transponders should be practicly nill as most of the King units are "slide in" replacments with minimal changes behind the panel.
Narco have yet to anounce there mode S unit but as I have a number of aircraft with the Narco AT150 transponders fitted I have exchanged emails with the factory and it is the intention of Narco to build a "slide" in mode S unit to replace the AT 50 , AT150 and AT155 transponders.
Its good stuff this mode S , soon well in about four years the CAA will have got around to upgrading the ground radar stations to data link both trafic information and weather radar pictures to us in the air.
The flight safety benifits are huge and the cost of the mode S is much lower than buying TCAS and WX radar.
Prices are at the moment quite high but they will come down and the install cost for those of you with King transponders should be practicly nill as most of the King units are "slide in" replacments with minimal changes behind the panel.
Narco have yet to anounce there mode S unit but as I have a number of aircraft with the Narco AT150 transponders fitted I have exchanged emails with the factory and it is the intention of Narco to build a "slide" in mode S unit to replace the AT 50 , AT150 and AT155 transponders.
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
From: EuroGA.org
SSD
I can see the freedom bit, and very much agree, but what is the benefit to YOU in being able to do "it" without anyone knowing you are doing it?
The reality is that lots of people know you are doing "it" (they can see you on radar) but they can't see how high you are doing "it", so they are compelled to assume that you are doing "it" at the same altitude as they are, and they are trying hard to see you (to avoid a possible colission) when in reality you are say 3000ft below them. I can be flying at FL050 under a RIS and gets stacks of traffic reports which I can't see any trace of even if VMC on top, because they aren't transponding.
I think Mode C should have been mandatory years ago, on all planes which are normally powered etc. Controversial, yes of course.
One of the last great feedoms in this country is a VFR non-radio bimble outside CAS, with no-one even knowing you're doing it.
The reality is that lots of people know you are doing "it" (they can see you on radar) but they can't see how high you are doing "it", so they are compelled to assume that you are doing "it" at the same altitude as they are, and they are trying hard to see you (to avoid a possible colission) when in reality you are say 3000ft below them. I can be flying at FL050 under a RIS and gets stacks of traffic reports which I can't see any trace of even if VMC on top, because they aren't transponding.
I think Mode C should have been mandatory years ago, on all planes which are normally powered etc. Controversial, yes of course.
Joined: Oct 1999
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 2
From: UK
So, IO540, if you want a bit of kit fitted to my VFR-only aeroplane in order to make your life easier, are you going to pay for it?
To some guys, the cost of this ridiculous overhead will be more than the value of their aeroplane. So they'll probably have to give up flying for your convenience. Happy about that? I refer you again to the motoring analogy in my previous post.
And you appear to have completely missed my point about control freakery - yes, my aeroplane will appear on radars, but it will be anonomous, and that's fine since if I'm not talking to a controller then I'm outside CAS and nobody needs to know who I am. Your argument seems to support the 'if you've nothing to hide why be concerned about being identified and monitored' approach.
Over half a century ago a lot of people died to save us from loss of freedoms like that. Would you give them up so easily?
SSD
To some guys, the cost of this ridiculous overhead will be more than the value of their aeroplane. So they'll probably have to give up flying for your convenience. Happy about that? I refer you again to the motoring analogy in my previous post.
And you appear to have completely missed my point about control freakery - yes, my aeroplane will appear on radars, but it will be anonomous, and that's fine since if I'm not talking to a controller then I'm outside CAS and nobody needs to know who I am. Your argument seems to support the 'if you've nothing to hide why be concerned about being identified and monitored' approach.
Over half a century ago a lot of people died to save us from loss of freedoms like that. Would you give them up so easily?
SSD
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 616
Likes: 0
From: Essex, UK
A and C
Who, using your very best guess, do you think will pay for all of those secondary radar installations plus the hardware and software networks required to make them work and the training of everyone involved?
Lets not even get started on the cost of NATS monitoring your flights.
And would you have us believe that when an ATCO sits down at his screen, on a lovely Sunday morning, and sees a snow of numbers creeping around it, that he will not turn you off so that he can actually see the commercials that he is trying to get into Gatwick/Luton/Stansted/Heatrow/etc?
Who, using your very best guess, do you think will pay for all of those secondary radar installations plus the hardware and software networks required to make them work and the training of everyone involved?
Lets not even get started on the cost of NATS monitoring your flights.
And would you have us believe that when an ATCO sits down at his screen, on a lovely Sunday morning, and sees a snow of numbers creeping around it, that he will not turn you off so that he can actually see the commercials that he is trying to get into Gatwick/Luton/Stansted/Heatrow/etc?
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
From: UK,Twighlight Zone
I have very mixed views on the whole Mode S debate. For starters I do believe that it will improve safety and situational awareness using the weather uplink services and traffic information. I have a GNS430 and in my aircraft that is capable of receiving traffic and weather data via the Garmin 330 Mode S unit. For my Instrument flying this is a positive benefit.
I don't think that there is any implication on the civil liberties and the right to fly unseen. What it comes down to at the end of the day is money. Pure and simply most people can not afford the current cost of the mode S equipment. These are people that are flying old aircraft with neither the space and often the electrical system to drive them. Most people can't afford to fly and make great sacrifices to be able to get into the air. These are the people that mode S will hurt.
I have mode S about to be linked to my GNS430 and think the potential is huge for my type of flying. I experianced the benefits of Mode S equipment while instrument training in the USA and believe that the benefits outweigh the costs. But I also firmly believe that it should not be forced on the aviation community en-masse.
There is nothing wrong with the mode C system for those casual flyers who once in awhile pass through CAS, for those using the services of controllers and flying IFR then Mode S makes sense allong with the promised "extra" facililites it provides. But in the open FIR for flyers who never enter CAS I question the need.
I don't think that there is any implication on the civil liberties and the right to fly unseen. What it comes down to at the end of the day is money. Pure and simply most people can not afford the current cost of the mode S equipment. These are people that are flying old aircraft with neither the space and often the electrical system to drive them. Most people can't afford to fly and make great sacrifices to be able to get into the air. These are the people that mode S will hurt.
I have mode S about to be linked to my GNS430 and think the potential is huge for my type of flying. I experianced the benefits of Mode S equipment while instrument training in the USA and believe that the benefits outweigh the costs. But I also firmly believe that it should not be forced on the aviation community en-masse.
There is nothing wrong with the mode C system for those casual flyers who once in awhile pass through CAS, for those using the services of controllers and flying IFR then Mode S makes sense allong with the promised "extra" facililites it provides. But in the open FIR for flyers who never enter CAS I question the need.
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,639
Likes: 0
From: TL487591
Over half a century ago a lot of people died to save us from loss of freedoms like that. Would you give them up so easily?
Transponders in general, and Mode C transponders in particular are a great way of allowing essentially uncontrolled traffic to co-exist with bigger controlled stuff.
Realistically, this need for co-existence is at its peak in the various class D zones where the big traffic is at its most vulnerable. So it doesn't seem unreasonable to me for all aircraft that wish to use that kind of airspace to squawk mode C.
If the density of traffic in those zones is such that more refined monitoring is required, it is possible to see why mode S might be desirable too. If you don't want to pay, then stay out of those zones. Simple enough.
In the UK, because of our highly engineered blocks of controlled airspace, that could almost be an end to it, however things change when you cast your eyes over the Channel. There airspace tends to me much freer. Lower level airways are class E and airspace is substantially unrestricted all the way up to (typically) FL195. For this reason, the French and the Germans can't talk in terms of the risk of collision purely in the control zones surrounding large airports. There is a significant risk even to "proper" IFR flights in airways. As a result, to preserve that freedom, and to avoid creating the sort of airspace structure we have in the UK that restricts our freedom to fly VFR wherever we like, Mode S is being mandated.
We in the UK are at the wrong end of this one. Not only do we have the restrictive airspace structure that keeps us apart, but we are likely to have the wholly unnecessary Mode S mandated to small planes when the need is less than abroad.
The obvious solution would be to create an airspace structure that is rather more aligned with the rest of Europe (and indeed the US). At least we would then enjoy some of the freedoms that Mode S is designed to protect.
I think we can safely say though, that this kind of airspace redesign is highly unlikely prior to to Class A-G being abandoned in a few years time and being replaced with the new 3-class system currently being worked through.
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
From: EuroGA.org
SSD
In reality everybody with a radar can see exactly who you are, because there is enough radar cover around the UK (most of it unknown to you and not available as a service) to track you from the moment you get airborne at airfield X to the moment you land at airfield Y, and unless X or Y are farm strips with many aircraft movementsand nobody keeping records, they (whoever "they" are) can usually find out who that radar blip was. Unless you fly pretty low down.
I can see your point about cost to a degree*, but equally this is a debate that will go on until GA is reduced to a few old planes operating from farm strips. And make no mistake about it, this WILL happen. Just look at the falling new PPL numbers, the ageing pilot population and the ageing GA fleet.
* Unless you fly from your very own farm strip, your flying is very probably made possible by the PPL students who spend a small fortune on landing and T&G fees and who keep your local airfield open. So you (and I) are already receiving a big subsidy from others.
yes, my aeroplane will appear on radars, but it will be anonomous, and that's fine since if I'm not talking to a controller then I'm outside CAS and nobody needs to know who I am
I can see your point about cost to a degree*, but equally this is a debate that will go on until GA is reduced to a few old planes operating from farm strips. And make no mistake about it, this WILL happen. Just look at the falling new PPL numbers, the ageing pilot population and the ageing GA fleet.
* Unless you fly from your very own farm strip, your flying is very probably made possible by the PPL students who spend a small fortune on landing and T&G fees and who keep your local airfield open. So you (and I) are already receiving a big subsidy from others.
Joined: Oct 1999
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 2
From: UK
IO540 said:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I can see your point about cost to a degree*, but equally this is a debate that will go on until GA is reduced to a few old planes operating from farm strips. And make no mistake about it, this WILL happen. Just look at the falling new PPL numbers, the ageing pilot population and the ageing GA fleet.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's a depressing picture, if true. However, I have hopes that we won't be the last generation to be able to enjoy flying just for fun. The activities of the PFA, microlighting, and some very innovative kit designs point to a lively future for fun flying. But the threat comes from such impositions as Mode 'S', which I feel we should be fighting with every weapon we have.
SSD
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I can see your point about cost to a degree*, but equally this is a debate that will go on until GA is reduced to a few old planes operating from farm strips. And make no mistake about it, this WILL happen. Just look at the falling new PPL numbers, the ageing pilot population and the ageing GA fleet.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's a depressing picture, if true. However, I have hopes that we won't be the last generation to be able to enjoy flying just for fun. The activities of the PFA, microlighting, and some very innovative kit designs point to a lively future for fun flying. But the threat comes from such impositions as Mode 'S', which I feel we should be fighting with every weapon we have.
SSD
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
From: EuroGA.org
There is probably no cost/benefit of Mode S to GA which is why I would not support it as mandatory for GA VFR.
But as 2D suggests the argument becomes more complex if a PPL is to be allowed into CAS, which he is, and I don't think many PPLs would support a tradeoff of that sort (i.e. no transponder and Class G only). This is before you get onto the poor nav skills (unsuprising given the PPL syllabus) of many PPLs and any CAS infringements just give the powers to be more ammunition.
I don't believe asking every G-reg owner/operator to spend say £2k max (which is what it will be by the time it is a requirement) is by far the biggest threat to GA; it is a relatively miniscule amount on the scale of what it costs to operate a certified aircraft.
And the chances are the cost will fall substantially further because if mandatory the market will be big enough to be worth looking at by a lot of smaller players. At present the GA avionics market is tiny because most of the stuff is purely optional and appears only in new £150k+ planes, the sales of which are miniscule. Also most avionics comes from very big firms who have to recover their ludicrous fixed costs from very small sales, but in reality the market would be much better served by smaller firms. It costs about £200 in parts and direct labour to make a Mode S transponder (I work in electronics) so I am optimistic.
If you believe the future of GA is in PFA and microlights (which I know many do) then look at where the income of the average GA airfield comes from - you are talking of a large scale collapse, with perhaps 75% of GA airfields closing.
The French DGAC has publicly said that GA in France is facing collapse, but unlike the CAA they are doing something about it.
But as 2D suggests the argument becomes more complex if a PPL is to be allowed into CAS, which he is, and I don't think many PPLs would support a tradeoff of that sort (i.e. no transponder and Class G only). This is before you get onto the poor nav skills (unsuprising given the PPL syllabus) of many PPLs and any CAS infringements just give the powers to be more ammunition.
I don't believe asking every G-reg owner/operator to spend say £2k max (which is what it will be by the time it is a requirement) is by far the biggest threat to GA; it is a relatively miniscule amount on the scale of what it costs to operate a certified aircraft.
And the chances are the cost will fall substantially further because if mandatory the market will be big enough to be worth looking at by a lot of smaller players. At present the GA avionics market is tiny because most of the stuff is purely optional and appears only in new £150k+ planes, the sales of which are miniscule. Also most avionics comes from very big firms who have to recover their ludicrous fixed costs from very small sales, but in reality the market would be much better served by smaller firms. It costs about £200 in parts and direct labour to make a Mode S transponder (I work in electronics) so I am optimistic.
If you believe the future of GA is in PFA and microlights (which I know many do) then look at where the income of the average GA airfield comes from - you are talking of a large scale collapse, with perhaps 75% of GA airfields closing.
The French DGAC has publicly said that GA in France is facing collapse, but unlike the CAA they are doing something about it.
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
From: Euroland
Picture this -
1985, the CAA anounce that there is a new system coming on line called GPS and every powered aircraft will be required to have one from 1/1/1990.
I can picture the outcry.....how dare the CAA restrict our freedom to navigate as we wish.....aren't there enough VORs and NDBs for those who want sometning to back up visual navigation? Our freedoms are being stripped away.
Here we are some years later and those pilots who have never used GPS are very small in number and most operators have not only purchased a GPS (yes even those who have no electrical systems in the aircraft) but they have in many cases upgraded the model several times. Total costs in many cases well over £1000 and that is before we consider database revisions!!!
It's a funny world isn't it!!
------
2Donkeys has hit the nail on the head.
Most people (unfortunately including AOPA at the moment) do not understand the rationalle behind or the benifits of the introduction of mode S.
Perhaps people would better spend their time by pressing for more suitable airspace classifications to be introduced at the same time as mandatory mode S.
How would the pilot seeking freedom, who in the area arround duxford can be restricted by very low class A airspace levels, like a UK airspace map similar to France where most airspace outside the London TMA was class E up to FL115.
I operate both VFR and IFR in the UK, both in and outside controlled airspace. While the cost is a pain in the but, what I would like to see is all enroute airspace from FL55/1000ftAGL up to FL115 made class E. Yes that restricts the class G flyers, but if VFR then there is no significant difference. For the IFR flyers, it affords some protection while at the same time providing more direct routings thus removing many bottlenecks in the system.
Regards,
DFC
PS, those European people who gave their lives to protect freedom over the past centuries when Empire building was taking place did so looking to the future not for self gratification!
1985, the CAA anounce that there is a new system coming on line called GPS and every powered aircraft will be required to have one from 1/1/1990.
I can picture the outcry.....how dare the CAA restrict our freedom to navigate as we wish.....aren't there enough VORs and NDBs for those who want sometning to back up visual navigation? Our freedoms are being stripped away.
Here we are some years later and those pilots who have never used GPS are very small in number and most operators have not only purchased a GPS (yes even those who have no electrical systems in the aircraft) but they have in many cases upgraded the model several times. Total costs in many cases well over £1000 and that is before we consider database revisions!!!
It's a funny world isn't it!!
------
2Donkeys has hit the nail on the head.
Most people (unfortunately including AOPA at the moment) do not understand the rationalle behind or the benifits of the introduction of mode S.
Perhaps people would better spend their time by pressing for more suitable airspace classifications to be introduced at the same time as mandatory mode S.
How would the pilot seeking freedom, who in the area arround duxford can be restricted by very low class A airspace levels, like a UK airspace map similar to France where most airspace outside the London TMA was class E up to FL115.
I operate both VFR and IFR in the UK, both in and outside controlled airspace. While the cost is a pain in the but, what I would like to see is all enroute airspace from FL55/1000ftAGL up to FL115 made class E. Yes that restricts the class G flyers, but if VFR then there is no significant difference. For the IFR flyers, it affords some protection while at the same time providing more direct routings thus removing many bottlenecks in the system.
Regards,
DFC
PS, those European people who gave their lives to protect freedom over the past centuries when Empire building was taking place did so looking to the future not for self gratification!
Thread Starter
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 323
Likes: 0
From: Ashwell, U.K.
So, it looks as though SSD and myself are the only 2 aviators that enjoy a Sunday afternoon bimble, for which the cost of entry from 2008 will be £2000 for a piece of kit that is of no use to me. Those of you who believe in a £500 transponder probably believe in WMD and that Tony Blair is the patron saint of students. The reality is that it will reduce the number of private owners and their style of flying quite significantly. I don't buy the reduction in risk either. How many GA/airliner mid-air accidents have there been in the UK? The real danger is the low-level RAF aircraft whose TCAS programme is delayed, so by the same token they should be restricted to their designated low-level areas until it is up and running.
I'm quite happy to stick to Fenland, Old Buckenham, Wellesbourne etc for my £120 cup of coffee and I'm quite happy to fly in uncontrolled airspace so that Air Ruritania Tu-154s don't bang in to me. I'm not in favour of Mode S .
I'm quite happy to stick to Fenland, Old Buckenham, Wellesbourne etc for my £120 cup of coffee and I'm quite happy to fly in uncontrolled airspace so that Air Ruritania Tu-154s don't bang in to me. I'm not in favour of Mode S .
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,648
Likes: 2
From: UK
So, it looks as though SSD and myself are the only 2 aviators that enjoy a Sunday afternoon bimble, for which the cost of entry from 2008 will be £2000 for a piece of kit that is of no use to me.
BTW, my cycle doesn't even have an electrical system fitted.
Joined: Jan 1999
Posts: 6,209
Likes: 2
From: north of barlu
Bar Shaker
It would help if you had the first idea of what you were talking about before you posted here !.
The the traffic imformation and WX radar pictures are data linked to you mode S unit from the ground radar station so I cant see how an ATCO would want to turn off this function as it would increase his workload insted of decrease it , yes ATC can switch you off there screens the S in mode "S" is for selective this will remove the clutter from the screen as it will eliminate from the controlers screen traffic that is below controled airspace but climb into that airspace and you can be sure that you will be on the guys radar screen with the aircraft ident .
As to the cost you cant value you life very highly , this is very cheap TCAS/ WX radar system that will fit most light aircraft those who have fitted the Garmin 430 already have the means to display the imformation so I cant see the problem if it costs me a few quid to have traffic/wx data that at the moment is the preserve of the airliners and biz jets.
Bar Shaker the first time that you have to work your way around an active WX front with this equipment you will see just how good it is and wonder how you ever did without it.
The the traffic imformation and WX radar pictures are data linked to you mode S unit from the ground radar station so I cant see how an ATCO would want to turn off this function as it would increase his workload insted of decrease it , yes ATC can switch you off there screens the S in mode "S" is for selective this will remove the clutter from the screen as it will eliminate from the controlers screen traffic that is below controled airspace but climb into that airspace and you can be sure that you will be on the guys radar screen with the aircraft ident .
As to the cost you cant value you life very highly , this is very cheap TCAS/ WX radar system that will fit most light aircraft those who have fitted the Garmin 430 already have the means to display the imformation so I cant see the problem if it costs me a few quid to have traffic/wx data that at the moment is the preserve of the airliners and biz jets.
Bar Shaker the first time that you have to work your way around an active WX front with this equipment you will see just how good it is and wonder how you ever did without it.
Last edited by A and C; 28th January 2004 at 00:21.
Joined: Oct 1999
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 2
From: UK
Quote:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm going to cycle home in an hour or so. In order to do that legally, I'm going to have to use a set of lights whose cost is at least 20% of the market value of my bicycle. They bring me no direct benefit (well, perhaps the front light helps me avoid potholes but I can't even see the rear light from my cycling position). Why should I have to shell out on the purchase and running costs of such things purely to help other road users? Shouldn't it just be my choice to take the risk?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bookworm, your analogy is flawed. Even if the only other road traffic was bicycles, you would still need those lights to cycle at night if you wanted to avoid running into them and being run into by them.
Now, if bus and truck companies insisted that your puny bike lights cannot be readily seen amid the ligfhts of cars and other motorised traffic, and you therefore constitute a collision risk to them and must take approriate action by fitting a bit of kit that costs twice as much as your bike and consumes power your bike doesn't have, you might have a point.
"But I only ride in cycle lanes", you protest, "never on the road" (let us assume this is in an enlightened country like Denmark which provides real cycle lanes segregated from road traffic).
"Doesn't matter", say the bus and truck companies. "We can't guarantee that you will stick to bike lanes, so you have to have the kit".
Even if we accept your flawed analogy, the cost of your (self-powered, small, and lightweight) bike lights will not be so prohibitive as to prevent you from cycling - in fact the cost is so tiny you probably don't even need to consider it.
Not even remotely the same thing as the threat to recreational GA by the imposition of Mode 'S'.
SSD
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm going to cycle home in an hour or so. In order to do that legally, I'm going to have to use a set of lights whose cost is at least 20% of the market value of my bicycle. They bring me no direct benefit (well, perhaps the front light helps me avoid potholes but I can't even see the rear light from my cycling position). Why should I have to shell out on the purchase and running costs of such things purely to help other road users? Shouldn't it just be my choice to take the risk?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bookworm, your analogy is flawed. Even if the only other road traffic was bicycles, you would still need those lights to cycle at night if you wanted to avoid running into them and being run into by them.
Now, if bus and truck companies insisted that your puny bike lights cannot be readily seen amid the ligfhts of cars and other motorised traffic, and you therefore constitute a collision risk to them and must take approriate action by fitting a bit of kit that costs twice as much as your bike and consumes power your bike doesn't have, you might have a point.
"But I only ride in cycle lanes", you protest, "never on the road" (let us assume this is in an enlightened country like Denmark which provides real cycle lanes segregated from road traffic).
"Doesn't matter", say the bus and truck companies. "We can't guarantee that you will stick to bike lanes, so you have to have the kit".
Even if we accept your flawed analogy, the cost of your (self-powered, small, and lightweight) bike lights will not be so prohibitive as to prevent you from cycling - in fact the cost is so tiny you probably don't even need to consider it.
Not even remotely the same thing as the threat to recreational GA by the imposition of Mode 'S'.
SSD
