Proposed amendment of the ANO: Mode S
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Witney
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a post on the Vintage Glider Club website forum dated August 18th which I will take the liberty of quoting.
"I went to last night's meeting with the CAA organised by Lasham (gliding club). It was very informative with a great deal of information passed in both directions.
It was very apparent that the CAA people didn't understand private GA let alone the gliding movement. However they were very open about taking on board the information that was proferred.
I have no idea what the outcome will be however I am sure that they are now fully aware of, not only the feeling raised by this issue, but also the illogic of their proposals when applied to the private end of GA.
My thanks go to Lasham and Patrick Naegli/Pete Stratten for the well organised very informative and well orchestrated event"
End of quote.
"I went to last night's meeting with the CAA organised by Lasham (gliding club). It was very informative with a great deal of information passed in both directions.
It was very apparent that the CAA people didn't understand private GA let alone the gliding movement. However they were very open about taking on board the information that was proferred.
I have no idea what the outcome will be however I am sure that they are now fully aware of, not only the feeling raised by this issue, but also the illogic of their proposals when applied to the private end of GA.
My thanks go to Lasham and Patrick Naegli/Pete Stratten for the well organised very informative and well orchestrated event"
End of quote.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by BEagle
OK then:
Class A to C airspace - Mode S compulsory.
Class D - Mode S compulsory under IFR if > 2000kg. Mode C compulsory under VFR or under IFR if < 2000 kg.
Class E to G - Mode C compulsory under IFR. Mode C optional under VFR, Mode A not permitted.
Would that be OK? - I'm meeting the CAA next week.
Class A to C airspace - Mode S compulsory.
Class D - Mode S compulsory under IFR if > 2000kg. Mode C compulsory under VFR or under IFR if < 2000 kg.
Class E to G - Mode C compulsory under IFR. Mode C optional under VFR, Mode A not permitted.
Would that be OK? - I'm meeting the CAA next week.
So, for me, it would read:
Class A to C airspace - Mode S compulsory.
Class D - Mode S compulsory under IFR if > 2000kg. Mode C compulsory under IFR if < 2000 kg. Mode C optional under VFR if < 2000 kg, Mode A not permitted.
Class E to G - Mode C compulsory under IFR. Mode C optional under VFR, Mode A not permitted.
Originally Posted by Aunt Rimmer
...
Scenario 1
OK, I fit Mode S.
Johnny Tornado is exempt and doesn't have to - Johnny Tornado hammers around low-level, then zoom climbs through an advisory route from low level (pops up from below radar cover) causing men, women and children to be flung about in the back of an EZY737 (mode S and ACAS equipped) dropping into Inversneckie. Johnny Tornado (oblivious to the mayhem) then descends low level hammers round a couple of valleys and smacks into me (below radio and radar cover) just as I take off from Loch Tay.
Did Mode S make my flight safer ?
Did it make the 737s flight safer ?
Did it make the Tornadoes flight safer ?
Am I pissed off ?
...
Scenario 2
OK, I fit mode S. Johnny Tornado fits mode S and ACAS.
Same sortie - perhaps Johnny Tornado is now aware of the EZY737 ?
Perhaps JT is now aware of me coming round the corner ?
Perhaps we don't die, and save the £6m cost of loss of planes and life.
Then I can begin to see a benefit.
...
Scenario 1
OK, I fit Mode S.
Johnny Tornado is exempt and doesn't have to - Johnny Tornado hammers around low-level, then zoom climbs through an advisory route from low level (pops up from below radar cover) causing men, women and children to be flung about in the back of an EZY737 (mode S and ACAS equipped) dropping into Inversneckie. Johnny Tornado (oblivious to the mayhem) then descends low level hammers round a couple of valleys and smacks into me (below radio and radar cover) just as I take off from Loch Tay.
Did Mode S make my flight safer ?
Did it make the 737s flight safer ?
Did it make the Tornadoes flight safer ?
Am I pissed off ?
...
Scenario 2
OK, I fit mode S. Johnny Tornado fits mode S and ACAS.
Same sortie - perhaps Johnny Tornado is now aware of the EZY737 ?
Perhaps JT is now aware of me coming round the corner ?
Perhaps we don't die, and save the £6m cost of loss of planes and life.
Then I can begin to see a benefit.
...
Mode S is a totally unnecessary addition for most GA aircraft as they are not capable of providing the additional Air Data feeds such as TAS, heading, or datalink capability that Mode S can utilise. For such aircraft, the only "benefit" that I can see is that the aircraft identification is provided to ATC in the SSR response.
JD
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: 180INS500
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What is worrying in this scenario is why should I need any transponder (Mode C or otherwise) under IFR in unregulated airspace - after all I can fly IFR in VMC and still provide my own separation.
The IFR outside controlled airspace - Minimum ht Rule 29, and quadrantals Rule 30. So how does a transponder help?
The IFR outside controlled airspace - Minimum ht Rule 29, and quadrantals Rule 30. So how does a transponder help?
Because it is people who are demanding IFR separation in 'free airspace' who are causing the whole issue. And why on earth do people fly 'under IFR' by day in VMC in 'free airspace'? What's the point?
In fact, if you were really stupid, you could also fly in IMC outside controlled airspace in the UK without any radar service (or even 2-way RT) and still be legal.... Time that such nonsense was stopped.
Give a little - or lose the lot. That's as I see it.
Height encoding transponders should be mandatory in Class D airspace - with Mode C being acceptable if < 2000 kg MTOW.
Mode A should be phased out everywhere asap.
In fact, if you were really stupid, you could also fly in IMC outside controlled airspace in the UK without any radar service (or even 2-way RT) and still be legal.... Time that such nonsense was stopped.
Give a little - or lose the lot. That's as I see it.
Height encoding transponders should be mandatory in Class D airspace - with Mode C being acceptable if < 2000 kg MTOW.
Mode A should be phased out everywhere asap.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Oxford
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by BEagle
In fact, if you were really stupid, you could also fly in IMC outside controlled airspace in the UK without any radar service (or even 2-way RT) and still be legal.... Time that such nonsense was stopped.
Tim
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: 180INS500
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle
I agree with tmmorris that until we get 100% radar cover above MSA then you can be forced to fly IMC outside controlled airspace without a service. So would you prefer us to all stay on the ground in those circumstances?
Regarding the people demanding IFR separation in free airspace - there is no such thing. There is no difference between separation in VFR or IFR it is only who is providing the separation that counts. And lets remember that TCAS which is what they wish to use to give them separation is not a separation system. It is a collision avoidance system. Any aircrew who use it for separation are misusing the kit, do not understand the limitations, and in some documented situations have actually eroded separation by using the TCAS display to try and vector around othr traffic. Are you now going to campaign to stop flights into airports without radar like Wick, Inverness under IFR, or more correctly in IMC, as you consider the operators to be really stupid?
The 'give a little or lose the lot' should be applied to the commercial operators and the answer as I have suggested is to legislate that they cannot operate commercial flights into airports without the appropriate infrsatructure which must include radar. NATS should be mandated to provide cover within the UK FIR overland down to 10000 ft. Then we have seamless cover for all IFR flights to operate with a radar service, thereby assuring separation and improving safety. This is the issue that the RIA attempts to solve. I still don't believe that the CAA have proved the case for ALL aircraft to be technically interoperable as the only cost effective solution.
Not sure what you see as the difference between a height encoding transponder and Mode C? In future you wont be able to even fit a Mode C transponder because they create too much RF pollution. The CAA would require it to be a Mode S ' height only' transponder as the CAA want to do away with Mode A and C No one that I am aware of makes a height only transponder that operates according to Mode S principles so cost of development and certification etc would be an issue. And then we have the problem that with a Mode C or height only return how would a controller know if it was verified or not without being able to see an associated callsign or recognised Mode A code?
I agree with tmmorris that until we get 100% radar cover above MSA then you can be forced to fly IMC outside controlled airspace without a service. So would you prefer us to all stay on the ground in those circumstances?
Regarding the people demanding IFR separation in free airspace - there is no such thing. There is no difference between separation in VFR or IFR it is only who is providing the separation that counts. And lets remember that TCAS which is what they wish to use to give them separation is not a separation system. It is a collision avoidance system. Any aircrew who use it for separation are misusing the kit, do not understand the limitations, and in some documented situations have actually eroded separation by using the TCAS display to try and vector around othr traffic. Are you now going to campaign to stop flights into airports without radar like Wick, Inverness under IFR, or more correctly in IMC, as you consider the operators to be really stupid?
The 'give a little or lose the lot' should be applied to the commercial operators and the answer as I have suggested is to legislate that they cannot operate commercial flights into airports without the appropriate infrsatructure which must include radar. NATS should be mandated to provide cover within the UK FIR overland down to 10000 ft. Then we have seamless cover for all IFR flights to operate with a radar service, thereby assuring separation and improving safety. This is the issue that the RIA attempts to solve. I still don't believe that the CAA have proved the case for ALL aircraft to be technically interoperable as the only cost effective solution.
Not sure what you see as the difference between a height encoding transponder and Mode C? In future you wont be able to even fit a Mode C transponder because they create too much RF pollution. The CAA would require it to be a Mode S ' height only' transponder as the CAA want to do away with Mode A and C No one that I am aware of makes a height only transponder that operates according to Mode S principles so cost of development and certification etc would be an issue. And then we have the problem that with a Mode C or height only return how would a controller know if it was verified or not without being able to see an associated callsign or recognised Mode A code?
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In fact, if you were really stupid, you could also fly in IMC outside controlled airspace in the UK without any radar service
I am very suprised you wrote that, Beagle.
The alleged "stupidity" of it is not supported by any evidence whatsoever (midairs in IMC).
Anyway, what would you do to "fix" this dreadful deficiency?
First, you would need radar cover everywhere. CAS alone offers partial protection only, since anybody can still fly through it. In the UK, there is no radar service below the airways - other than bits of LARS when you can get it.
Alternatively, you would need to do what they do in the rest of Europe: restrict IFR to ATS routes (through practice if not fully through legislation), and require a full IR for any IFR. Then you end up with close to zero GA activity beyond little local bimbles. That's about what GA in most of Europe is: little bits of local flying. Anybody wanting to go places will just fly VFR in clouds if necessary. If you fly all the way from the UK to the far end(s) of Europe, you will see/hear more GA planes between Goodwood and Lydd than between the rest of the UK and say Egypt. This is what brainless regulation does.
One has to give the CAA credit for creating and maintaining (albeit starting from a point many years ago; it would not happen today) the present UK GA freedom which is very considerable. The UK IMC Rating is a super privilege too.
I agree with IFR in VMC being on the face of it rather pointless but you only have to call yourself "IFR" anyway should you encounter a little cloud, so I can't see any harm in it.
I am very suprised you wrote that, Beagle.
The alleged "stupidity" of it is not supported by any evidence whatsoever (midairs in IMC).
Anyway, what would you do to "fix" this dreadful deficiency?
First, you would need radar cover everywhere. CAS alone offers partial protection only, since anybody can still fly through it. In the UK, there is no radar service below the airways - other than bits of LARS when you can get it.
Alternatively, you would need to do what they do in the rest of Europe: restrict IFR to ATS routes (through practice if not fully through legislation), and require a full IR for any IFR. Then you end up with close to zero GA activity beyond little local bimbles. That's about what GA in most of Europe is: little bits of local flying. Anybody wanting to go places will just fly VFR in clouds if necessary. If you fly all the way from the UK to the far end(s) of Europe, you will see/hear more GA planes between Goodwood and Lydd than between the rest of the UK and say Egypt. This is what brainless regulation does.
One has to give the CAA credit for creating and maintaining (albeit starting from a point many years ago; it would not happen today) the present UK GA freedom which is very considerable. The UK IMC Rating is a super privilege too.
I agree with IFR in VMC being on the face of it rather pointless but you only have to call yourself "IFR" anyway should you encounter a little cloud, so I can't see any harm in it.
"There is no difference between separation in VFR or IFR it is only who is providing the separation that counts."
OK - in that case take 'IFR separation' to mean 'separation from all other aircraft to the same extent as is currently available from RAS- irrespective of flight conditions or Class of airspace. 3nm between identified aircraft or 5nm from unindentified aircraft unless the height difference is known to be > 1000 ft '. To achieve that, all aircraft would need height encoding transponders. It would make little sense for anyone who doesn't yet have a Mode C transponder to fit one - but it would equally make no sense to require that perfectly good existing Mode C transponders in GA aircraft are thrown away.
Only a complete idiot would fly in IMC outside controlled airspace without a radar service - I remain resolutely convinced of that. Hence 100% 24/7 radar cover above MSA would be required to provide adequate safety for such activity. The suicidal pilot choosing to rely on the non-radar big sky theory won't be a threat to a TCAS-equipped airliner if his aircraft is fitted with a height encoding transponder - but he will be a threat to his similarly daft brother coming the other way who doesnt have TCAS.
IO540 - do you really fly in IMC outside controlled airspace without a RIS or RAS?
OK - in that case take 'IFR separation' to mean 'separation from all other aircraft to the same extent as is currently available from RAS- irrespective of flight conditions or Class of airspace. 3nm between identified aircraft or 5nm from unindentified aircraft unless the height difference is known to be > 1000 ft '. To achieve that, all aircraft would need height encoding transponders. It would make little sense for anyone who doesn't yet have a Mode C transponder to fit one - but it would equally make no sense to require that perfectly good existing Mode C transponders in GA aircraft are thrown away.
Only a complete idiot would fly in IMC outside controlled airspace without a radar service - I remain resolutely convinced of that. Hence 100% 24/7 radar cover above MSA would be required to provide adequate safety for such activity. The suicidal pilot choosing to rely on the non-radar big sky theory won't be a threat to a TCAS-equipped airliner if his aircraft is fitted with a height encoding transponder - but he will be a threat to his similarly daft brother coming the other way who doesnt have TCAS.
IO540 - do you really fly in IMC outside controlled airspace without a RIS or RAS?
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by BEagle
[i]
IO540 - do you really fly in IMC outside controlled airspace without a RIS or RAS?
IO540 - do you really fly in IMC outside controlled airspace without a RIS or RAS?
There is not a lot of choice when the last thing you heard on the radio was 'squawk 7000, radar service terminated, contact on route frequency' and you are solid IMC and it is Saturday late afternoon.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Cornwall
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CAA "consultation"
I am military aircrew and also fly a hang glider and have some questions regarding the enforced use of mode s transponders from my own perspective.
1. What are the dangers of operating a microwave transmitter of unknown power output in very close proximity to me? I ask this as the I-band transponder fitted to the A/C at work has a 1.5 metre RadHaz around it.
2. How robust is the equipment going to be? As a member of the HG/PG community, our equipment is quite likely to get knocked around from less than perfect landings and take offs, and if it is rendered u/s as a result, will this not be an increased flight safety hazard by relying on kit that actually isn't working?
3. What use will I actually get from it? I don't use A to G radio (and don't have to) and can't carry a radar, so how will I know who's around? Admittedly it will alert ATC to my presence at known HG/PG sites as that is where we mostly fly but surely other A/C will have planned their Nav route beforehand?
4. Who's going to pay? The cost of the unit, annual maintenance, CAA licensing, etc all adds up to rather a lot of money and probably more than my glider!
5. How big and heavy will it be and what power will it require? I don't think this needs much in the way of explanation for HG's and PG's......
6. Regarding point 1 above, I presume the CAA will have a Duty of Care to ensure that the equipment that they specify will be safe to use, as i can imagine the number of lawsuits a few years down the line if we all start firing blanks or develop tumours as a result of enforced use.
This is far from exhaustive but just some food for thought. I must admit that I did find the questionnaire somewhat steered to what the CAA wanted to hear, and as for the time span before proposed implementation, well........................................
1. What are the dangers of operating a microwave transmitter of unknown power output in very close proximity to me? I ask this as the I-band transponder fitted to the A/C at work has a 1.5 metre RadHaz around it.
2. How robust is the equipment going to be? As a member of the HG/PG community, our equipment is quite likely to get knocked around from less than perfect landings and take offs, and if it is rendered u/s as a result, will this not be an increased flight safety hazard by relying on kit that actually isn't working?
3. What use will I actually get from it? I don't use A to G radio (and don't have to) and can't carry a radar, so how will I know who's around? Admittedly it will alert ATC to my presence at known HG/PG sites as that is where we mostly fly but surely other A/C will have planned their Nav route beforehand?
4. Who's going to pay? The cost of the unit, annual maintenance, CAA licensing, etc all adds up to rather a lot of money and probably more than my glider!
5. How big and heavy will it be and what power will it require? I don't think this needs much in the way of explanation for HG's and PG's......
6. Regarding point 1 above, I presume the CAA will have a Duty of Care to ensure that the equipment that they specify will be safe to use, as i can imagine the number of lawsuits a few years down the line if we all start firing blanks or develop tumours as a result of enforced use.
This is far from exhaustive but just some food for thought. I must admit that I did find the questionnaire somewhat steered to what the CAA wanted to hear, and as for the time span before proposed implementation, well........................................
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: 180INS500
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote by BEagle:
"The suicidal pilot choosing to rely on the non-radar big sky theory won't be a threat to a TCAS-equipped airliner if his aircraft is fitted with a height encoding transponder - but he will be a threat to his similarly daft brother coming the other way who doesnt have TCAS."
Two points. Under IMC both aircraft should be IFR and thus on quadrantals - so he will miss his brother coming the other way by 1000 ft. The only aircraft at the same level will be on tracks in the same quadrant.
I don't believe that TCAS can provide resolution advisories based on height only - it will identify the other aircraft but unless both parties have TCAS they cannot form a contract to agree avoiding action. And pilot must not use TCAS for separation purposes.
"The suicidal pilot choosing to rely on the non-radar big sky theory won't be a threat to a TCAS-equipped airliner if his aircraft is fitted with a height encoding transponder - but he will be a threat to his similarly daft brother coming the other way who doesnt have TCAS."
Two points. Under IMC both aircraft should be IFR and thus on quadrantals - so he will miss his brother coming the other way by 1000 ft. The only aircraft at the same level will be on tracks in the same quadrant.
I don't believe that TCAS can provide resolution advisories based on height only - it will identify the other aircraft but unless both parties have TCAS they cannot form a contract to agree avoiding action. And pilot must not use TCAS for separation purposes.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IO540 - do you really fly in IMC outside controlled airspace without a RIS or RAS?
Of course, do so absolutely routinely. Same as most instrument pilots do. This is normal life in UK GA.
Let's say one plans an OCAS route, and along the route one might get a service from 3 LARS units. (In the UK one won't get a service from the IFR sectors e.g. London Control).
Perhaps one of the LARS units is shut, or is offering FIS only. There is me sitting in IMC. What do I do?
GA versions of TCAS (the proper ones, anyway, costing £8k+) give bearings to the targets. But until Mode C is mandatory, this equipment will be of limited use.
Quadrantals don't really come into it if low down say below the LTMA.
Obviously one tries to get an RIS but not getting it is not a flight planning issue like icing, conditions at the destination, embedded CBs, etc.
Of course, do so absolutely routinely. Same as most instrument pilots do. This is normal life in UK GA.
Let's say one plans an OCAS route, and along the route one might get a service from 3 LARS units. (In the UK one won't get a service from the IFR sectors e.g. London Control).
Perhaps one of the LARS units is shut, or is offering FIS only. There is me sitting in IMC. What do I do?
GA versions of TCAS (the proper ones, anyway, costing £8k+) give bearings to the targets. But until Mode C is mandatory, this equipment will be of limited use.
Quadrantals don't really come into it if low down say below the LTMA.
Obviously one tries to get an RIS but not getting it is not a flight planning issue like icing, conditions at the destination, embedded CBs, etc.
The idea of TCAS is to prevent collisions with people who should't be where they are. In other words, in an ideal world it would be unnecessary - originally proposed for use in terminal areas, its use has slowly been rolled to to en-route airspace as well.
TCAS will indeed provide Resolution Advisories against Mode C; however, if both aircraft have Mode S and TCAS II, such RAs will be co-ordinated.
If TCAS is used outside CAS, VFR traffic squawking Mode C may cause RAs to be generated because the degree of separation TCAS attempts to achieve is greater than the VFR 'see and avoid' separation being used. Crews should consider selecting TA instead of TA/RA in such an environment; they must not develop a culture of ignoring RAs.
With mandatory Mode S outside CAS, the incidence of nuisance RAs generated will increase due to the greater number of transponding aircraft around.
Mode A will generate TAs, never RAs. It thus becomes worse than useless - is the TCAS TA spurious because the Mode A aircraft is well clear of the other's level? Or does it mask a serious collision risk which would have generated a RA had the Mode A aircraft been equipped with Mode C?
As has been alluded to, TCAS must not be used for lateral separation due to the angular resolution being very approximate.
Flight in IMC outside CAS without a Radar Service is exceptionally hazardous. It is probably because you are one of the few people doing so that you haven't had a collision yet, IO540. What do you do if you can't obtain a radar service? Plan to fly in VFR or fly under IFR inside CAS. Or wait until the UK has a decent radar service outside CAS - which you will probably have to pay en-route IFR charges for.
'Low down' such as below the LTMA? Let's say that you take-off from somewhere like Elstree and there's an overcast cloudbase at 1000 ft. Are you really saying that you would fly in IMC below the LTMA without a radar service in such conditions? If so, at what altitude?
TCAS will indeed provide Resolution Advisories against Mode C; however, if both aircraft have Mode S and TCAS II, such RAs will be co-ordinated.
If TCAS is used outside CAS, VFR traffic squawking Mode C may cause RAs to be generated because the degree of separation TCAS attempts to achieve is greater than the VFR 'see and avoid' separation being used. Crews should consider selecting TA instead of TA/RA in such an environment; they must not develop a culture of ignoring RAs.
With mandatory Mode S outside CAS, the incidence of nuisance RAs generated will increase due to the greater number of transponding aircraft around.
Mode A will generate TAs, never RAs. It thus becomes worse than useless - is the TCAS TA spurious because the Mode A aircraft is well clear of the other's level? Or does it mask a serious collision risk which would have generated a RA had the Mode A aircraft been equipped with Mode C?
As has been alluded to, TCAS must not be used for lateral separation due to the angular resolution being very approximate.
Flight in IMC outside CAS without a Radar Service is exceptionally hazardous. It is probably because you are one of the few people doing so that you haven't had a collision yet, IO540. What do you do if you can't obtain a radar service? Plan to fly in VFR or fly under IFR inside CAS. Or wait until the UK has a decent radar service outside CAS - which you will probably have to pay en-route IFR charges for.
'Low down' such as below the LTMA? Let's say that you take-off from somewhere like Elstree and there's an overcast cloudbase at 1000 ft. Are you really saying that you would fly in IMC below the LTMA without a radar service in such conditions? If so, at what altitude?
Last edited by BEagle; 22nd Aug 2006 at 08:09.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: He's on the limb to nowhere
Posts: 1,981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by BEagle
With mandatory Mode S outside CAS, the incidence of nuisance RAs generated will increase due to the greater number of transponding aircraft around
The idea of TCAS is to prevent collisions with people who should't be where they are. In other words, in an ideal world it would be unnecessary - originally proposed for use in terminal areas, its use has slowly been rolled to to en-route airspace as well.
With mandatory Mode S outside CAS, the incidence of nuisance RAs generated will increase due to the greater number of transponding aircraft around.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is off topic but I will answer it.
Flight in IMC outside CAS without a Radar Service is exceptionally hazardous. It is probably because you are one of the few people doing so that you haven't had a collision yet, IO540
Can you provide supporting evidence for this, Beagle?
Flight in IMC outside CAS without a Radar Service is exceptionally hazardous. It is probably because you are one of the few people doing so that you haven't had a collision yet, IO540
Can you provide supporting evidence for this, Beagle?
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: SE England
Age: 70
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Easy,easy,steady.
1. What are the dangers of operating a microwave transmitter of unknown power output in very close proximity to me? I ask this as the I-band transponder fitted to the A/C at work has a 1.5 metre RadHaz around it.
Originally Posted by Easy,easy,steady.
2. How robust is the equipment going to be? As a member of the HG/PG community, our equipment is quite likely to get knocked around from less than perfect landings and take offs, and if it is rendered u/s as a result, will this not be an increased flight safety hazard by relying on kit that actually isn't working?
Originally Posted by Easy,easy,steady.
3. What use will I actually get from it? I don't use A to G radio (and don't have to) and can't carry a radar, so how will I know who's around? Admittedly it will alert ATC to my presence at known HG/PG sites as that is where we mostly fly but surely other A/C will have planned their Nav route beforehand?
Originally Posted by Easy,easy,steady.
4. Who's going to pay? The cost of the unit, annual maintenance, CAA licensing, etc all adds up to rather a lot of money and probably more than my glider!
Originally Posted by Easy,easy,steady.
5. How big and heavy will it be and what power will it require? I don't think this needs much in the way of explanation for HG's and PG's......
Originally Posted by Easy,easy,steady.
6. Regarding point 1 above, I presume the CAA will have a Duty of Care to ensure that the equipment that they specify will be safe to use, as i can imagine the number of lawsuits a few years down the line if we all start firing blanks or develop tumours as a result of enforced use.
Originally Posted by Easy,easy,steady.
This is far from exhaustive but just some food for thought. I must admit that I did find the questionnaire somewhat steered to what the CAA wanted to hear, and as for the time span before proposed implementation, well........................................
IO540 - if you can't understand that flying 'blind' without knowing what else is around is dangerous, then I query your airmanship and judgement. You don't need 'supporting evidence' to support what something which is fundamentally axiomatic. Rely on statistics and you may well become one yourself.
The 'quadrantal' argument is irrelevant - there may well be another suicidal fool in the same quadrant on a converging course with you.
And your answer to my Elstree question is...
The 'quadrantal' argument is irrelevant - there may well be another suicidal fool in the same quadrant on a converging course with you.
And your answer to my Elstree question is...
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: SE England
Age: 70
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well said BEagle
I often use the nasty little airspace between WW and Elstree on my way north-east
In those sectors, and others, you can forget about quadrantals. Aircraft are making their way around the TMA, squeezed into a small area and keeping below the TMA, as best they can
So being equipped with TCAS with Wycombe gliders, circuit traffic, helos and transitting traffic, do you honestly know how to plot a course to avoid the traffic? You might avoid one to place yourself into conflict with another.
I often use the nasty little airspace between WW and Elstree on my way north-east
In those sectors, and others, you can forget about quadrantals. Aircraft are making their way around the TMA, squeezed into a small area and keeping below the TMA, as best they can
So being equipped with TCAS with Wycombe gliders, circuit traffic, helos and transitting traffic, do you honestly know how to plot a course to avoid the traffic? You might avoid one to place yourself into conflict with another.