Talking to traffic in the circuit

[Chilli Monster]

Evo

especially as 'no mode Charlie' includes those with no transponder, not just those with only mode Alpha

Actually it doesn't. Transponding aircraft with no mode 'C' are a pain in the backside from both the 'TCAS' and similar equipped aircraft that are finding their way on the market, as well as from an ATC point of view. If you don't have a transponder well - such is life.

If you go back and read my post you'll understand - you can't avoid what you can't see, but you must avoid what you can't place 3 dimensionally.

The problem a lot of airfields have is they have their own primary radar head, but the SSR aerial can be up to 50 miles away, shared with other users and piped in down the phone line. Now - the average primary radar base of cover increases by 1000ft per 10nm away from the radar. This means that traffic 25 miles away below 2000ft is possibly going to be invisible.

Now - add an SSR aerial which is the other side of the target, on top of a hill, thereby increasing the range by an ability to 'look down' and you end up with SSR returns, but with no corresponding primary. Makes no difference - if you can see the Squawk you have to avoid it, even though primary radar performance may provide the assumption that it's low-level. The one thing you cannot do in that game is assume however.

[englishal]

I agree that if you don't have Mode C, then whats the point in transponding at all.....and controversially I think that if anyone wants an ATC service, then they should sqwark mode C......

But thats just me, I was brought up in a mode C vail, and I like talking to ATCO's, they're nice people really

[Mr Wolfie]

valenii wrote:

You will probably come out the worst afterall the Cirrus will pull its CAPS and walk away....

This attitude makes Cirrus drivers and their BRS chutes look remarkably similar to Volvo drivers and their wannabe tanks.

The whole SIPS (side impact protection system) nonsense was promoted by Volvo and aimed at drivers who wanted technology to make up for their own lack of observational skills and ability, and to still have the best chance of walking away from the accident that they just caused by pulling out of a side road into traffic.

-"So what if I can't keep on top of my fast plane? Why bother to look out of the windows when I've got a couple of nice telly screens to look at and a nice computer voice to listen to? If I should run into someone else, well, I'll just pull my little red handle & I'll be all right Jack".



Mr. W

[valenii]

Ben

I have no doubt that the Cirrus is a great aeroplane; the benefits of the equipment are, I think, unarguable, and I would love to have access to one for when i'd like to go touring. However, you did say that "I propose that the CAA ban flight above 1,500feet if you have no Mode Charlie" and I think it's unrealistic, and somewhat unhelpful, to expect the rest of aviation to change to fit equipment that most will not have for years, if ever.

Thanks for your reasoned response and for treating me decently, I apologise if my original post looked like it was intended to provoke a response! In a way it was, but I did not intend it to offend or cross any "netequette".

I have always been known as a bit of a forward thinker and as an "unreasonable man" in the George Bernard Shaw definition "A reasonable man adapts himself to the world, and unreasonable man adapts the world to himself; its only through unreasonable men that we ever make progress".....

I am also new to aviation, having only been flying since April 2001 and having only got 730 hours or so.... mostly in a Cirrus. So I can take a fresh look so to speak. I do appreciate the value of "stick and rudder" uninstrumented flight, and would never want that to disappear, and a lot of Cirrus drivers are the same. (Did you know the Cirrus CEO just bought a Chipmunk??!)

I think the real issue here is one of airspace and available ATC services. I honestly believe that the comblination of new generation aircraft like the Cirrus and possibly others, together with small airfields around Europe could be used as an effective personal transportation infrastructure, but changes need to be made to make this safe and effective.

The fact is that my SR22 IFR to Brussels National from Denham, can do it in basically the same time as a BMI from heathrow, and at a third of the cost. Now that might not be the right route, but in the UK routes such as Norwich to Exeter, or Southend to Oxford, or Southampton to Hull, just beg for an efficient air transportation system, travelling these routes any other way is pure hell.

I think one day I would like to get a study done that looks at the cost of upgrading the roads and railways, compared with the costs of changing the regulations to allow small aircraft & small airport operations to really work, and the effect on the UK transportation infrastructure.

Sure you would need special "airways" (called Victor Airways in the US) proper radar services, GPS approachs, single pilot, single engine commercial operations etc. but it could all be done very easily. Much easier than enlarging the M25!

Imagine a world where clearances were automatically relayed to your aircraft, where traffic seperation was built into the autopilot, where every little airfield in the country was as well equipped as the average motorway service station.

In this world, (that I would love to see happen) then I am sure that the use of non mode C transponders would be confined to smaller areas designated open FIR and that the airspace structure of the skys was much different, with a large amount given over to non-Class A public cat operations.

It was in the context of such a dream that I made the "flippant" comment that we should ban non-mode C traffic above a particular altitude. I kinda thought it might make a start.....

I would like to see GA taken seriously and be more than a "hobby", if it was then I am sure that the knock on effect, in a larger GA economy, for those that just fly for fun would be better cheaper equipment, more facilities and better safety.

Its in the interest of all flyers everywhere to see growth and change, the alternative is stagnation and decay. So lets support companies like Cirrus, who have been bold enough to change things, I would like to see flying in the 21st century change as much as it did in the 20th. How about you?


Ian

[INTENDED TO BE TWO SEPERATE REPLYS, BUT PPRUNE IS JOINING THEM TOGETHER]

<hr>

Mr Wolfie

The whole SIPS (side impact protection system) nonsense was promoted by Volvo and aimed at drivers who wanted technology to make up for their own lack of observational skills and ability, and to still have the best chance of walking away from the accident that they just caused by pulling out of a side road into traffic.

I can assure you that no Cirrus driver I know takes a light hearted approach to risks. We are probably more careful than most, and more worried, more anxious, which is why we fly CAPS equipped aircraft in the first place.

The fact is that your analogy has some interesting parallels in it. When seat belts and airbags were added to cars, they decreased injuries and fatalities. But the \"old school\" were of the thinking \"I don\\\'t need my seatbelt as I am such a good driver that I will not have a crash\"

In road traffic I think you will find your position hard to prove - namely that the existance of SIPS made Volvo drivers cause more accidents.....

What I meant by my comment :

You will probably come out the worst after all the Cirrus will pull its CAPS and walk away....

Was meant as a simple statement of fact, If I loose a wing or a fin in a mid-air, I may still have some options that may keep me alive. I never intend to be in that situation. I also never intend to crash my car. But I still put my seatbelt on.

Ian

[charlie-india-mike]

Well said mr wolfie

See and be seen.

C-I-M

[Say again s l o w l y]

See and be seen sounds fantastic, but in reality it's a very flawed method of traffic avoidance.
TCAS makes life an awful lot easier (and safer IMHO), but it does rely on people having transponders equipped and actually having them on.
There is often a reluctance in the PPL world to use the transponder in anything other than mode A. I cannot understand this at all, sticking on mode C makes sense.
Do people not like it because of a 'big brother' fear? They'll know my height and position etc....
I hope not, as it is a pretty crap argument for not trying to keep some order in the busy skies above europe.

I'm also fed up of TCAS showing traffic up, without any height indication. I know it's going to be a bug smasher far below, but it still means you have to check and that increases the workload ever so slightly. So stick Mode 'C' on to make it easier for us to sleep or drink coffee undisturbed as we trudge along the airways!

[valenii]

See and be seen sounds fantastic, but in reality it's a very flawed method of traffic avoidance.......
There is often a reluctance in the PPL world to use the transponder in anything other than mode A. I cannot understand this at all, sticking on mode C makes sense.

Thank you. And in the circuit too please!!!


Ian

[PPRuNe Radar]

The Cirrus looks like a superb machine .... I want one

Just a subtle point though, it is NOT necessarily equipped with TCAS. And definitely not with TCAS II, otherwise the equipment onboard would offer Resolution Advisories. Hard to see even a Cirrus being able to comply with a 2000fpm climb instruction to avoid a collision .

Most seem to be specced with a Goodrich SkyWatch system which is generally classified as a Traffic Advisory System and does not meet the TCAS standard unless it is the Skywatch HP version and the antenna and cockpit displays comply with the FAA TSO (C147) relating to TCAS. But I would bet it is still a very useful tool nevertheless.

valenii

With your experience on type, I was wondering if such an advanced cockpit with a whole host of electronic features and displays might tend to make pilots of such aircraft fly a lot more heads in, playing with gadgets and fiddling with buttons, etc ? I am referring to VFR flight of course. Would be grateful for your views

PS HOW do you manage to keep all that white leather inside clean ?? It is an aircraft after all and dirt and oil normally appear as if by magic !!

[Fly Stimulator]

When Ian is back in the office this afternoon I shall go and poke him with a sharp stick on behalf of flyers of simple aircraft who would like to avoid the aeronautical equivalent of being forced to cycle in the gutter while the flash cars hog the road!

Puts me in mind of something...

[FNG]

Pooop, poooop! Oh, for the joys of the open woad (or airways). Hoowah!

[Capt. Manuvar]

This is my view on this debate. A couple of months ago, i was doing T&Gs at an unattended A/G airfield. Inbound aircraft made initial calls but didn't get a response. Some of them then proceeded to ask me for airfield information, I did give them the landing runway and last known QFE. But it got me thinking about the legality of what i have done. For example, if i gave someone a wrong QFE and they busted overlying CAS, would I be responsible? On the other hand, there is the need to want to help your fellow aviator. I do agree that there are a few people who misuse the radio, like one pilot who kept persistently trying to ask me for airfield info while i was dodging a tree on short finals. But pilot to pilot communication is sometimes necessary. When you have aircraft with different performance in the circuit it is not unusual for pilots to misjudge the positions of other aircraft in the circuit. In situations like this a short to the point radio call will do no harm. RT is a safety. As for those who insist on sticking to standard RT, The most important rule in avaition is that rules can be broken in the interest of safety.

[FNG]

Fair question, Captain. You might say "advisory QFE blah", but maybe better not to say much, as they ought to be able to work out the QFE for themselves from the airfield elevation. Prob no harm in mentioning the active runway, even though they ought to spot that for themselves also.

[Capt. Manuvar]

FNG
You're right. The whole purpose of the overhead join is to inspect the airfield and not to fulfil some legal obligationlaid down by the CAA. Some pilots are too dependent on radio.