God bless TCAS
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NW England
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suppose with Mode S on the horizon it would certainly make alot of sense to have TCAS as well - I just don't know where I can put all these fancy gizmos.
It would most certainly have helped me in a very close airprox that I had with a C172 in August.
Loading up my microlight with gadgets such as Mode S, TCAS and solid state horizon may be very beneficial for safety but unfortunately it may well take me above my empty weight limit - but that is another debate.
It would most certainly have helped me in a very close airprox that I had with a C172 in August.
Loading up my microlight with gadgets such as Mode S, TCAS and solid state horizon may be very beneficial for safety but unfortunately it may well take me above my empty weight limit - but that is another debate.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Wor Yerm
Age: 68
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And while we are at it, don't forget that squawking mode C will keep the bigger boys off you as well. It not unknown for some of our LoCo's to wizz about at speeds which will give a closing speed of 230 kts even if he/she is in your 6 o'clock. I recon getting a Boeing up your bum is a painful experience and one best avoided.
Marvellous stuff TCAS.
PM
Marvellous stuff TCAS.
PM
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Cambridge, United Kingdom
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think any right-minded pilot would argue against the benefits of TCAS. But as scooter boy previously commented, it's installation into the wider GA fleet is entirely a question of finance and technicality. I would install a transponder and TCAS tomorrow if it was cheap and didn’t take my ship overweight.
I just hope that quest for the elusive 100% safe airspace doesn’t end up grounding me and a large proportion of the rest of the GA fleet. That would be a very, very sad day.
Although it’s ludicrous to think this could even happen in aviation, I’m hoping that a cheap and effective solution will come along one day that everyone can install. Perhaps like Bluetooth for airplanes, constantly transmitting and with a few miles range so just enough for a warning against an air-to-air.
I just hope that quest for the elusive 100% safe airspace doesn’t end up grounding me and a large proportion of the rest of the GA fleet. That would be a very, very sad day.
Although it’s ludicrous to think this could even happen in aviation, I’m hoping that a cheap and effective solution will come along one day that everyone can install. Perhaps like Bluetooth for airplanes, constantly transmitting and with a few miles range so just enough for a warning against an air-to-air.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Not a million miles from EGTF
Age: 68
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How are you constantly reminded that there are other aircraft out there? My experience of flying with friends TCAS-equipped is that they only respond to TCAS alerts and aren't looking out more than I do
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,597
Received 450 Likes
on
239 Posts
Certainly. The TCAS display (in the aircraft I fly it's on the right of the instrument panel) is included in the left / right lookout scan. It takes a second or two to include it and assimilate a potential conflict. Believe me, no-one with a modicum of airmanship about them stares at TCAS for long periods of time, heads in.
On a clear day or less so, one can scan the sky and see absolutely nothing. In these circumstances, without TCAS, a pilot might be tempted in blissful ignorance to relax a little and fold a chart, or look up a frequency, or get eye contact with a passenger and make conversation, etc etc.
However, the TCAS screen perhaps shows targets ahead at various clock-codes, perhaps ten, eight, six and three miles away. Eyes return to outside and stay outside. No chart folding, no frequency look up, no eye contact and no conversation except "Where are they?"
Normally, before the time the TCAS gives us a "Traffic, Traffic!" warning, we have visually aquired the conflict, switched on the searchlight to increase our own conspicuity and already taken, or are poised to take appropriate avoiding action. The other aircraft presumably when not TCAS equipped, more often than not give NO indication that the crew have seen us until very late, if at all. We make a lot of avoiding action when the other pilot has made no effort to do so, despite his responsibility under rules of the air.
All I can say is, if your friends don't include the TCAS display in a lookout scan then they aren't using it properly.
On a clear day or less so, one can scan the sky and see absolutely nothing. In these circumstances, without TCAS, a pilot might be tempted in blissful ignorance to relax a little and fold a chart, or look up a frequency, or get eye contact with a passenger and make conversation, etc etc.
However, the TCAS screen perhaps shows targets ahead at various clock-codes, perhaps ten, eight, six and three miles away. Eyes return to outside and stay outside. No chart folding, no frequency look up, no eye contact and no conversation except "Where are they?"
Normally, before the time the TCAS gives us a "Traffic, Traffic!" warning, we have visually aquired the conflict, switched on the searchlight to increase our own conspicuity and already taken, or are poised to take appropriate avoiding action. The other aircraft presumably when not TCAS equipped, more often than not give NO indication that the crew have seen us until very late, if at all. We make a lot of avoiding action when the other pilot has made no effort to do so, despite his responsibility under rules of the air.
All I can say is, if your friends don't include the TCAS display in a lookout scan then they aren't using it properly.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pegasus912 wrote [snip] . . . I'm hoping that a cheap and effective solution will come along one day that everyone can install. Perhaps like Bluetooth for airplanes, constantly transmitting and with a few miles range so just enough for a warning against an air-to-air.
There is. Flarm. Unfortunately, CAA won't approve it, airlines appear to be uninterested and are pressing only for the impractical (for light and unpowered aircraft) Mode S, so we are stuffed.
Chris N.
There is. Flarm. Unfortunately, CAA won't approve it, airlines appear to be uninterested and are pressing only for the impractical (for light and unpowered aircraft) Mode S, so we are stuffed.
Chris N.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: South Norfolk, England
Age: 58
Posts: 1,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes Chris, that looks a much better idea ...
http://lbs.gpsworld.com/gpslbs/artic....jsp?id=308235
Far too sensible for the CAA to adopt. Maybe it's because whilst it would aid safety, it would not aid their tracking of us and allow the adoption of future airspace charges?
SS
http://lbs.gpsworld.com/gpslbs/artic....jsp?id=308235
Far too sensible for the CAA to adopt. Maybe it's because whilst it would aid safety, it would not aid their tracking of us and allow the adoption of future airspace charges?
SS
1) It uses its own standards, so instead of having interoperability, everyone has to carry a FLARM device regardless of their other equipment. It doesn't interact with TCAS.
2) It is very low power, and therefore has a range of 2-3 km. That may be enough for glider-on-glider collision avoidance, but it's not nearly enough to be effective for larger aircraft.
If you were to start from scratch to produce a device that conformed to international ADS-B standards, was high-enough power to have the range for higher speed interactions, and was capable of responding to TCAS, you'd end up with something very like the LAST or LPST.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: UK
Age: 85
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh dear the topic is going along the hate GPS lines!
I am interested in getting a TCAS unit for my light aircraft, I assume that you all may have the 'posh' expensive types in your aircraft but can you advise me if the small and less expensive units are OK, any suggestions on wjat I could buy?
G-BYZD
I am interested in getting a TCAS unit for my light aircraft, I assume that you all may have the 'posh' expensive types in your aircraft but can you advise me if the small and less expensive units are OK, any suggestions on wjat I could buy?
G-BYZD
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have no problem with you guys playing with your toys, but please do not try to make them compulsory. I like flying for fun and the idea of flying a computer leaves me cold. I assume the flight sim enthusiasts are the people who cannot afford to fly fully equipped aircraft.
The PFA and BMAA fleets combined offer about 5000 aircraft without Transponders, most without radio. The BGA will obviously add to this very considerably. Interesting that the number of people who actually fly into each other is so incredibly small. We would add more to flight safety by spending the money on an extra hour a year on stall/spin awareness than on collision avoidance. Perhaps an hour of basic aerobatics for all PPL’s would reduce the fatality’s more than compulsory transponders?
Rod1
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CAA and its apologists (here and elsewhere) just won't listen to reason and only use facts which support their argument. Just some points:
"[FLARM] uses its own standards, so instead of having interoperability, everyone has to carry a FLARM device regardless of their other equipment. It doesn't interact with TCAS."
Yes. Mode S uses ICAO standards and has no interoperability with anything a glider, hang-glider, microlite, parascender or many small GA types can carry at present, so is useless to glider/glider or glider/most-GA or most-GA/most-GA collision risks. The ICAO standard was drawn up without heed to practicalities of implementation in many types type of glider, hang-glider, microlite, parascender.
"[Flarm] is very low power, and therefore has a range of 2-3 km. That may be enough for glider-on-glider collision avoidance, but it's not nearly enough to be effective for larger aircraft."
(a) I would rather know about the rare airliner in class G if it gets within 2-3 km of me than not know, and I would certainly rather know about other gliders and the rest of GA with whom there is a much greater prevalence at the heights and in the places I fly, and with whom there is a much greater collision risk. Unfortunately, CAA and their apologists just don't care about that.
(b) If as much effort were put into R&D for Flarm reception by airliners etc. as is being funded for UAV's, Mode S, and other safety or airspace-capacity issues, no doubt Flarm detection range could be improved. There are none so deaf to the possibilities as those who don't want anything but their preconceived (and ill-conceived) part-solution.
CAA's proposals for a slightly more practical LAST/LPST have not been adopted by ICAO or anybody else. While it is still in negotiation, why not add Flarm to the possibilities?
Certainly Flarm won't register on TCAS - but TCAS-equipped airliners etc. could more easily fit a Flarm too than I can fit a LAST with power enough for a 12 hour flight, let alone hanggliders etc..- and I can't fit a TCAS at all, neither can most (AFAIK) of the rest of GA.
I have no more wish to be in a collision than anybody else. My greatest risk is from other gliders etc.. The right technology could be so much better than the eyeball. Repeated statements of legal and moral obligation to look out effectively will not improve our biology or mental processing power. Most collisions involving gliders, and I suspect power too, involve impact from the rearmost 180 degrees where the eye does not work. Even in the front 180 degree sector, the absence of relative movement other than bloom is the worst possible kind of thing to try to see. We KNOW we miss most of the possible targets. Why can't we try to do something that would actually benefit most air users?
I am not trying to flame bw or anybody else, by the way (except CAA, who deserve it) - that post was just symptomatic of many from the Mode S/TCAS lobby. If I die, like the glider pilot who got hit from behind by a Rockwell Commander, I won't be able to say God bless TCAS. I'd rather not die, and be able to say thank goodness somebody finally got some sense and let us all have an effective aid to collision avoidance.
Chris N.
"[FLARM] uses its own standards, so instead of having interoperability, everyone has to carry a FLARM device regardless of their other equipment. It doesn't interact with TCAS."
Yes. Mode S uses ICAO standards and has no interoperability with anything a glider, hang-glider, microlite, parascender or many small GA types can carry at present, so is useless to glider/glider or glider/most-GA or most-GA/most-GA collision risks. The ICAO standard was drawn up without heed to practicalities of implementation in many types type of glider, hang-glider, microlite, parascender.
"[Flarm] is very low power, and therefore has a range of 2-3 km. That may be enough for glider-on-glider collision avoidance, but it's not nearly enough to be effective for larger aircraft."
(a) I would rather know about the rare airliner in class G if it gets within 2-3 km of me than not know, and I would certainly rather know about other gliders and the rest of GA with whom there is a much greater prevalence at the heights and in the places I fly, and with whom there is a much greater collision risk. Unfortunately, CAA and their apologists just don't care about that.
(b) If as much effort were put into R&D for Flarm reception by airliners etc. as is being funded for UAV's, Mode S, and other safety or airspace-capacity issues, no doubt Flarm detection range could be improved. There are none so deaf to the possibilities as those who don't want anything but their preconceived (and ill-conceived) part-solution.
CAA's proposals for a slightly more practical LAST/LPST have not been adopted by ICAO or anybody else. While it is still in negotiation, why not add Flarm to the possibilities?
Certainly Flarm won't register on TCAS - but TCAS-equipped airliners etc. could more easily fit a Flarm too than I can fit a LAST with power enough for a 12 hour flight, let alone hanggliders etc..- and I can't fit a TCAS at all, neither can most (AFAIK) of the rest of GA.
I have no more wish to be in a collision than anybody else. My greatest risk is from other gliders etc.. The right technology could be so much better than the eyeball. Repeated statements of legal and moral obligation to look out effectively will not improve our biology or mental processing power. Most collisions involving gliders, and I suspect power too, involve impact from the rearmost 180 degrees where the eye does not work. Even in the front 180 degree sector, the absence of relative movement other than bloom is the worst possible kind of thing to try to see. We KNOW we miss most of the possible targets. Why can't we try to do something that would actually benefit most air users?
I am not trying to flame bw or anybody else, by the way (except CAA, who deserve it) - that post was just symptomatic of many from the Mode S/TCAS lobby. If I die, like the glider pilot who got hit from behind by a Rockwell Commander, I won't be able to say God bless TCAS. I'd rather not die, and be able to say thank goodness somebody finally got some sense and let us all have an effective aid to collision avoidance.
Chris N.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Robin, have you got room for both a Mode S and a Zaon XRX? I don't.
Bw, have you read the reports of false positives and missed actuals that seem to afflict these detectors? Have you read the reports of Flarm detection rates, and of the algorithms to cope with thermalling gliders, which seem to me to be much better? Why is CAA not studying these reports and forming an informed, not prejudiced, view?
Why do I bother? Don't think I will any more.
Chris N.
Bw, have you read the reports of false positives and missed actuals that seem to afflict these detectors? Have you read the reports of Flarm detection rates, and of the algorithms to cope with thermalling gliders, which seem to me to be much better? Why is CAA not studying these reports and forming an informed, not prejudiced, view?
Why do I bother? Don't think I will any more.
Chris N.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Not a million miles from EGTF
Age: 68
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Chris
No I don't have room for both, neither do I have the power supply for that.
A friend fitted the £300 PCAS (the one with the coloured LEDs) and unless you are able to run it off the aircraft electrics, the battery life is tiny. Certainly not good enough for one of your epic flights - I remember seeing you after an 11 hour trip!!!
Back along we had a visit from reps of the CAA and although most were active pilots, it was fairly obvious that they had little knowledge of gliding or PFA/microlight flying.
As a result they kept on about flying under a radar service at all times, the use of TCAS and transponders, and failed to understand that 90% of the 100 pilot had none of the required kit.
It would be so good if we had someone from our end of the aviation spectrum in a role within CAA to evaluate any proposal before it gets out for consultation ie before it is too far gone to change.
No I don't have room for both, neither do I have the power supply for that.
A friend fitted the £300 PCAS (the one with the coloured LEDs) and unless you are able to run it off the aircraft electrics, the battery life is tiny. Certainly not good enough for one of your epic flights - I remember seeing you after an 11 hour trip!!!
Back along we had a visit from reps of the CAA and although most were active pilots, it was fairly obvious that they had little knowledge of gliding or PFA/microlight flying.
As a result they kept on about flying under a radar service at all times, the use of TCAS and transponders, and failed to understand that 90% of the 100 pilot had none of the required kit.
It would be so good if we had someone from our end of the aviation spectrum in a role within CAA to evaluate any proposal before it gets out for consultation ie before it is too far gone to change.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,597
Received 450 Likes
on
239 Posts
So the pilots of less well equipped aircraft complain that the well equipped aircraft are not looking out of the window, and the pilots with the kit think that pilots without it do not know the rules of the air. What a great world we live in!
I have no problem with you guys playing with your toys, but please do not try to make them compulsory. I like flying for fun and the idea of flying a computer leaves me cold. I assume the flight sim enthusiasts are the people who cannot afford to fly fully equipped aircraft.
The PFA and BMAA fleets combined offer about 5000 aircraft without Transponders, most without radio. The BGA will obviously add to this very considerably. Interesting that the number of people who actually fly into each other is so incredibly small. We would add more to flight safety by spending the money on an extra hour a year on stall/spin awareness than on collision avoidance. Perhaps an hour of basic aerobatics for all PPL’s would reduce the fatality’s more than compulsory transponders?
Rod1
I have no problem with you guys playing with your toys, but please do not try to make them compulsory. I like flying for fun and the idea of flying a computer leaves me cold. I assume the flight sim enthusiasts are the people who cannot afford to fly fully equipped aircraft.
The PFA and BMAA fleets combined offer about 5000 aircraft without Transponders, most without radio. The BGA will obviously add to this very considerably. Interesting that the number of people who actually fly into each other is so incredibly small. We would add more to flight safety by spending the money on an extra hour a year on stall/spin awareness than on collision avoidance. Perhaps an hour of basic aerobatics for all PPL’s would reduce the fatality’s more than compulsory transponders?
Rod1
I take great exception to you accusing me and others of playing with toys. I fly for a living, every working day and have done since 1977. I by no means play with toys in the air. I'm interested in keeping myself and my passengers alive, not amused.
I justifiably commented that some flyers don't seem to know the rules of the air because if they HAD seen us, they had taken absolutely no effort to avoid a collision when the rules of the air required THEM to give way to an aircraft converging from the right. I had one such incident recently and was forced to take very positive avoiding action on an aircraft that got extremely close, where he should have given right of way. I filed an AIRPROX (don't usually, but this was very close to a mid-air hit). During the ATC follow up the pilot completely and aggressively denied it could have been him because he saw no other aircraft. We were a little surprised he hadn't seen us....... we nearly chewed his starboard wing off with our rotors as he descended across our nose.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Not a million miles from EGTF
Age: 68
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I justifiably commented that some flyers don't seem to know the rules of the air because if they HAD seen us, they had taken absolutely no effort to avoid a collision when the rules of the air required THEM to give way to an aircraft converging from the right. I had one such incident recently and was forced to take very positive avoiding action on an aircraft that got extremely close, where he should have given right of way. I filed an AIRPROX (don't usually, but this was very close to a mid-air hit). During the ATC follow up the pilot completely and aggressively denied it could have been him because he saw no other aircraft. We were a little surprised he hadn't seen us....... we nearly chewed his starboard wing off with our rotors as he descended across our nose.
Shytorque
I think you are right about the general lack of knowledge of the rules of the air. I assume that even if I have right of way, I'm still going to take early avoiding action, just in case they haven't seen me. In an aircraft the size of mine, I know I'm coming off worst, so I'm not risking my safety by relying on the Rules of the Air.
I do wonder though why it is that some pilots aren't looking out or even thinking about their routing.
An example - flying VFR along a major line feature, I am following the rule that keeps it on my left. I then encounter someone who is obviously following a straight line course between 2 VRPs which takes them on the wrong side of the line feature. My guess is that this person is following a GPS track and is concentrating hard on not deviating from the 'line'.
He might well say that he is flying on instruments OCAS, so he is perfectly entitled to fly the wrong side, but that doesn't help me if I don't take the avoiding action, as he probably isn't looking out that much - if he was, would he not bend his course to the correct side of the line feature?
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An example - flying VFR along a major line feature, I am following the rule that keeps it on my left. I then encounter someone who is obviously following a straight line course between 2 VRPs which takes them on the wrong side of the line feature. My guess is that this person is following a GPS track and is concentrating hard on not deviating from the 'line'.
I've got plenty of work to do but this is the kind of comment which requires a reply.
When using a GPS (which clearly Robin you do not and never have, not correctly anyway) one doesn't "concentrate hard" The GPS (unless it is a £100 piece of non-moving-map junk from a camping shop) shows a dotted line which represents your track. It also shows a solid line which represents your pre-programmed route (if you programmed a route; if not it doesn't really matter) and the way you fly the plane is you fly a HEADING which keeps the two lined up.
That's the key to nearly all flying, whether it is VFR, IFR, flying an instrument approach (including an ILS), etc: you are always flying a heading. You don't follow some instrument. You fly a heading, and you PERIODICALLY adjust that heading according to the indication from whatever instrument you use for lateral guidance (VOR, NDB, GPS, even a DME if flying a DME arc).
That is why using a GPS reduces navigation workload so much. You fly a heading, and every few minutes you tweak the heading to keep the GPS track line pointing where you want to go.
I must admit no instructor never taught me this very basic thing, but then I was never taught what the trim really does either. So it doesn't suprise me that so many people think that pilots fly with their nose stuck to a GPS
As for following line features as per the book, opinions on this will differ but I don't think many people really care. Let's say I am flying over a motorway, and there is a railway a mile to one side of it, parallel. Which of the two line features should I be following? Same with a coast - you might argue that is a really significant line feature but if it's heavily built-up (which it often is) I don't want to be flying over the houses, especially if there is a strong onshore wind which would make a glide to the beach difficult. Locally to where I live I see countless pilots flying over a town, without being in glide range of anywhere useful. So I wouldn't criticise somebody not following a line feature.
I've got plenty of work to do but this is the kind of comment which requires a reply.
When using a GPS (which clearly Robin you do not and never have, not correctly anyway) one doesn't "concentrate hard" The GPS (unless it is a £100 piece of non-moving-map junk from a camping shop) shows a dotted line which represents your track. It also shows a solid line which represents your pre-programmed route (if you programmed a route; if not it doesn't really matter) and the way you fly the plane is you fly a HEADING which keeps the two lined up.
That's the key to nearly all flying, whether it is VFR, IFR, flying an instrument approach (including an ILS), etc: you are always flying a heading. You don't follow some instrument. You fly a heading, and you PERIODICALLY adjust that heading according to the indication from whatever instrument you use for lateral guidance (VOR, NDB, GPS, even a DME if flying a DME arc).
That is why using a GPS reduces navigation workload so much. You fly a heading, and every few minutes you tweak the heading to keep the GPS track line pointing where you want to go.
I must admit no instructor never taught me this very basic thing, but then I was never taught what the trim really does either. So it doesn't suprise me that so many people think that pilots fly with their nose stuck to a GPS
As for following line features as per the book, opinions on this will differ but I don't think many people really care. Let's say I am flying over a motorway, and there is a railway a mile to one side of it, parallel. Which of the two line features should I be following? Same with a coast - you might argue that is a really significant line feature but if it's heavily built-up (which it often is) I don't want to be flying over the houses, especially if there is a strong onshore wind which would make a glide to the beach difficult. Locally to where I live I see countless pilots flying over a town, without being in glide range of anywhere useful. So I wouldn't criticise somebody not following a line feature.
When considering which txp to install in my Pioneer, I thought I might as well bite the bullet and install a Mode S. Mode S must be installed by a certified avionics facility. However none of the avionics installation people I spoke to would agree to install anything into a "homemade" wiring loom. (In the event I installed a mode C myself). Dunno how that's gonna be resolved if S becomes compulsory...
One significant negative point for TCAS in GA is the lack of training in it's use. Some of the cheaper GA traffic avoidance gizmo's available do not even give any azimuth &/or altitude indication...WTF is a pilot supposed to do when the units yelling traffic at him that he can't see and has no idea of its location?
Radar (and more recently anti-collision radar) should have prevented any collisions at sea, but it did not, in fact a new phenomenon of "radar-assisted collisions" started to occur. I fear this may also become the case for GA TCAS, unless better technology is introduced, and training is vastly improved.
One significant negative point for TCAS in GA is the lack of training in it's use. Some of the cheaper GA traffic avoidance gizmo's available do not even give any azimuth &/or altitude indication...WTF is a pilot supposed to do when the units yelling traffic at him that he can't see and has no idea of its location?
Radar (and more recently anti-collision radar) should have prevented any collisions at sea, but it did not, in fact a new phenomenon of "radar-assisted collisions" started to occur. I fear this may also become the case for GA TCAS, unless better technology is introduced, and training is vastly improved.
Last edited by Mariner9; 21st Sep 2006 at 14:51.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the CAA doesn't allow your local avionics shop to install Mode S, then that's a pretty good defence to any requirement to install it, IMHO.
Aviation is a world of anal retention, anal retention, and then some more anal retention. But I must not ridicule it; thousands of jobs and civil service pensions around Europe depend on it.
If it was me, I would just install it myself, in a Permit plane. Save a few hundred quid; more if you can get one from Ebay.
Aviation is a world of anal retention, anal retention, and then some more anal retention. But I must not ridicule it; thousands of jobs and civil service pensions around Europe depend on it.
If it was me, I would just install it myself, in a Permit plane. Save a few hundred quid; more if you can get one from Ebay.