TCAS question
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Scotland
Age: 84
Posts: 1,434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TCAS question
I know absolutely diddelly squat about TCAS exept that it is designed to help avoid collisions.
Could someone please enlighten an iggerant early stude like me?
Do these devices only interrogate transponder equipped ac thereby making them "blind" to a gaggle of un-equipped gliders or what?
I do not recall reading that Herr Goering's outfit were so equipped Is there anything fitted to light GA that can detect just a lump of aluminium & inform the pilot?
Sorry if this is a stupid question & I will learn to know better in a week or two.
Trevor
Could someone please enlighten an iggerant early stude like me?
Do these devices only interrogate transponder equipped ac thereby making them "blind" to a gaggle of un-equipped gliders or what?
I do not recall reading that Herr Goering's outfit were so equipped Is there anything fitted to light GA that can detect just a lump of aluminium & inform the pilot?
Sorry if this is a stupid question & I will learn to know better in a week or two.
Trevor
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: LONDON
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You probably want to get someone like IO540 to answer this ... but in the meantime take a look at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic...oidance_System
Yes, participating aircraft need transponders.
I did try one of the portable units available from Transair (and others) but found that they don't give 'bearing' on the cheaper models ... so you have no idea where to look ! Quite distracting (the LEDs were flashing non-stop around the London TMA) so I returned it ASAP. There is another portable model which does give bearing for £1,000 but my experience lead me to believe that it is only worth having if you get a more expensive installation that calls out bearing, range ect over your intercom as that way you're not heads down inside the cockpit studying threats when you're better off just scanning with yours eyes in the normal way.
Panel mounted units such as the Avidyne TAS600 (formerly Ryan) can be installed for around £10K (try Lees Avionics at Booker).
Please bear in mind that on a sunny weekend below 2,400' around the London area then you will find there are dozens of threats from all directions ... and that doesn't include the non-transponder traffic. I believe it is a valuable system in many circumstances but it is not the total answer to weekend GA in high congested areas ! - IMHO
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic...oidance_System
Yes, participating aircraft need transponders.
I did try one of the portable units available from Transair (and others) but found that they don't give 'bearing' on the cheaper models ... so you have no idea where to look ! Quite distracting (the LEDs were flashing non-stop around the London TMA) so I returned it ASAP. There is another portable model which does give bearing for £1,000 but my experience lead me to believe that it is only worth having if you get a more expensive installation that calls out bearing, range ect over your intercom as that way you're not heads down inside the cockpit studying threats when you're better off just scanning with yours eyes in the normal way.
Panel mounted units such as the Avidyne TAS600 (formerly Ryan) can be installed for around £10K (try Lees Avionics at Booker).
Please bear in mind that on a sunny weekend below 2,400' around the London area then you will find there are dozens of threats from all directions ... and that doesn't include the non-transponder traffic. I believe it is a valuable system in many circumstances but it is not the total answer to weekend GA in high congested areas ! - IMHO
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Scotland
Age: 84
Posts: 1,434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for that, which confirms what I thought, they are really expensive bits of kit fitted to expensive aircraft that can only talk to each other.
Therefore their actual effectiveness is limited. In this day & age of high tec things in general it's a bit dissapointing that the mark one eyeball is still king of the hill. Is there any organisation looking at anything better?
What are the chances of a poor mans version of the millitary stuff.
It just seems to me that CAA etc put such a lot of "faith" in these things with talk of Mode C, Mode S & such, that if mandatory would put large numbers of small ac out of the game.
I am no expert on electronics, I'm an engineer / toolmaker but I can't see why a cheap simple even short range on board radar system can't be developed. It seems so obvious that I know I must be missing something pretty simple.
Are there any experts in the subject that can explain in simple terms why not?
Trevor
Therefore their actual effectiveness is limited. In this day & age of high tec things in general it's a bit dissapointing that the mark one eyeball is still king of the hill. Is there any organisation looking at anything better?
What are the chances of a poor mans version of the millitary stuff.
It just seems to me that CAA etc put such a lot of "faith" in these things with talk of Mode C, Mode S & such, that if mandatory would put large numbers of small ac out of the game.
I am no expert on electronics, I'm an engineer / toolmaker but I can't see why a cheap simple even short range on board radar system can't be developed. It seems so obvious that I know I must be missing something pretty simple.
Are there any experts in the subject that can explain in simple terms why not?
Trevor
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
These TCAS debates run for ever but I think a fair summary is that the driving force behind it is to get something that will trigger the existing TCAS systems on commercial jets.
That narrows the technical options to current Mode C or current Mode S. The CAA appears to think that Mode S is necessary because Mode C would generate too many returns and swamp the radars (that's my understanding).
There are other ways to get traffic warnings but they don't meet the above requirement so they are a bit academic.
Also nobody in authority cares about GA-GA conflicts and I think that's probably reasonable. They are extremely rare and technical solutions based on existing transponder technology are expensive, £10k as mentioned above. They also don't do much because so many planes are not transponding.
It's possible that if/when Mode S is made mandatory for VFR, other solutions will emerge on the back of that (Mode S provides a means of unsolicited broadcasting of the aircraft position) but I don't hold out much hope for a universal adoption because most of the GA scene, UK and elsewhere, won't spend any money they can avoid spending.
That narrows the technical options to current Mode C or current Mode S. The CAA appears to think that Mode S is necessary because Mode C would generate too many returns and swamp the radars (that's my understanding).
There are other ways to get traffic warnings but they don't meet the above requirement so they are a bit academic.
Also nobody in authority cares about GA-GA conflicts and I think that's probably reasonable. They are extremely rare and technical solutions based on existing transponder technology are expensive, £10k as mentioned above. They also don't do much because so many planes are not transponding.
It's possible that if/when Mode S is made mandatory for VFR, other solutions will emerge on the back of that (Mode S provides a means of unsolicited broadcasting of the aircraft position) but I don't hold out much hope for a universal adoption because most of the GA scene, UK and elsewhere, won't spend any money they can avoid spending.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: suffolk
Age: 71
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If, and I think that you are correct, that the driving force behind mode S is the commercial traffic being able to "see" the other traffic, and that there is really no benefit for GA to GA use; then surely it should be the commercial operators who fund the GA fitting of the Mode S trandsponders?
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
surely it should be the commercial operators who fund the GA fitting of the Mode S trandsponders
Yes but that's not the way the world works
The entire aviation regulatory / administration apparatus around the world is geared for just one thing: commercial air traffic.
GA exists in the nooks and crannies, cracks and crevices that are left, which are for the most part safeguarded by ICAO. They are most definitely not safeguarded by national politicians.
In the few countries that have a significant amount of GA activity (the USA is big of course, and in Europe you have the UK, Germany, France) there is also support for GA through influential people doing private flying.
But that's about it. European GA could be abolished tomorrow and the Big Brother watching intellectual elite would never notice. Sad, isn't it?
Curiously, mandatory transponders have been an ICAO requirement for years. The UK CAA, despite being largely "owned" by the airlines, has protected GA from this by filing an exception and so have most other CAAs. For some reason, probably airline pressure, this is ending.
Yes but that's not the way the world works
The entire aviation regulatory / administration apparatus around the world is geared for just one thing: commercial air traffic.
GA exists in the nooks and crannies, cracks and crevices that are left, which are for the most part safeguarded by ICAO. They are most definitely not safeguarded by national politicians.
In the few countries that have a significant amount of GA activity (the USA is big of course, and in Europe you have the UK, Germany, France) there is also support for GA through influential people doing private flying.
But that's about it. European GA could be abolished tomorrow and the Big Brother watching intellectual elite would never notice. Sad, isn't it?
Curiously, mandatory transponders have been an ICAO requirement for years. The UK CAA, despite being largely "owned" by the airlines, has protected GA from this by filing an exception and so have most other CAAs. For some reason, probably airline pressure, this is ending.
If you get the chance, read the PFA's paper rebutting the ludicrous CAA 'partial regulatory impact assessment' concerning Mode S. It destroys the CAA's arguments in every area.
Personally I feel that the main CAA enthusiasm lies in the potential ability to know, with Mode S, who is doing what and where. They are seemingly more keen on increased surveillance than increased safety...
The L-band congestion argument is utter tosh. If that was the case, why is it not a problem in the US with its much larger GA population and activity in the vicinity of large aerodromes?
These are my alternative proposals:
I also consider that no new non-Mode S installations should be permitted after 31 Mar 2010.
Personally I feel that the main CAA enthusiasm lies in the potential ability to know, with Mode S, who is doing what and where. They are seemingly more keen on increased surveillance than increased safety...
The L-band congestion argument is utter tosh. If that was the case, why is it not a problem in the US with its much larger GA population and activity in the vicinity of large aerodromes?
These are my alternative proposals:
I also consider that no new non-Mode S installations should be permitted after 31 Mar 2010.
Last edited by BEagle; 29th Sep 2006 at 07:27.
So detection relies on cooperative systems, which means that everything to be detected must be equipped with the same sort of technology -- it's pointless for 50% of aircraft to be equipped with one system and 50% with the other.
Within the class of cooperative systems, there are again two possibilities. Either the detected aircraft needs to respond to interrogations from the detector -- which is how TCAS works in detecting transponder-equipped aircraft, or it needs to broadcast its presence (including its position) on a regular basis -- something called ADS-B.
A number of different technologies have been proposed and evaluated for the communications part (datalink) of ADS-B. While there are minor differences between them, it essentially comes down to picking a frequency and choosing a power budget. None of the technologies is fundamentally cheaper or less power hungry than another. The bulk of the purchase cost, as always in avionics, comes from development and certification costs. Thus whatever is chosen, if you turn it into an international standard, it's probably going to cost a 4-figure sum.
One of the datalinks, which will almost certainly be chosen as the standard for ADS-B in Australia, Europe and for larger aircraft in the USA, is called 1090ES. That is the datalink over which the Mode S transponder works, and virtually every recent Mode S transponder is capable of doing ADS-B if you plug an appropriate GPS into it.
Thus as well as responding to TCAS and aiding detection by ground radar systems, the Mode S transponder will permit you, in years to come, to participate in ADS-B. There are already desktop ADS-B detectors out there (e.g. Kinetic's SBS-1), and it's only a matter of time before they become available for cockpit use.
The bottom line is that if you want help from technology in detecting other aircraft, you need to get behind the move towards universal equipage with Mode S, even if you don't like the way that the CAA is approaching the issue.
The fundamental problem with these proposals (which are extraordinarily complex, are you by any chance a civil servant BEagle? ) is that for the most part they require transponder carriage in known traffic environments (A-D) and don't in E-G. That's pointless -- transponders are required as an alternative to having to get permission to be there from an ATS unit. It's the airspace in which traffic currently operates without coordination with other traffic where transponders are most needed.
) is that for the most part they require transponder carriage in known traffic environments (A-D) and don't in E-G. That's pointless -- transponders are required as an alternative to having to get permission to be there from an ATS unit. It's the airspace in which traffic currently operates without coordination with other traffic where transponders are most needed.
Hardly 'extraordinarily complex', bookworm - just enter the chart with your a/c category and check whether you will need any transponder in the classes of airspace in which you wish to operate.
E.g. Piper Cub which never intends to operate under IFR or in Class D - no transponder needed. PA28 which operates in and out of Class D airspace and is used for IMC training - Mode C transponder required.
TCAS protection against GA aircraft operating under IFR in the open FIR is one thing, mandating that all GA aircraft should carry Mode S just to 'improve coordination' in the open FIR for the principal benefit of protecting LoCo airliners wanting to operate outside Class A-D airspace is quite another.
And no, I am not a civil serpent. Neither am I an air-trafficker or member of any other flying prevention organisation...
Mandatory transponder equipage should be reasonable, affordable and proportionate. The CAA's proposals are none of these.
E.g. Piper Cub which never intends to operate under IFR or in Class D - no transponder needed. PA28 which operates in and out of Class D airspace and is used for IMC training - Mode C transponder required.
TCAS protection against GA aircraft operating under IFR in the open FIR is one thing, mandating that all GA aircraft should carry Mode S just to 'improve coordination' in the open FIR for the principal benefit of protecting LoCo airliners wanting to operate outside Class A-D airspace is quite another.
And no, I am not a civil serpent. Neither am I an air-trafficker or member of any other flying prevention organisation...
Mandatory transponder equipage should be reasonable, affordable and proportionate. The CAA's proposals are none of these.
Last edited by BEagle; 29th Sep 2006 at 09:39.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Not a million miles from EGTF
Age: 68
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But the issue there is that we have Piper Cubs and PFA types operating safely from strips within Class D now with the agreement of the local ATC. Usually they have specific arrival and departure routes so that they can continue to operate.
Does your proposal mean that these agreements will cease? If so, I suggest that such situations need to be included in the exceptions
Does your proposal mean that these agreements will cease? If so, I suggest that such situations need to be included in the exceptions
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Some dusty outpost in the ME
Age: 45
Posts: 176
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There appears to be two different discussions happening here! TCAS and Mode S, which are very different beasts…
Crash One
TCAS or ACAS, generally speaking, is a system used by commercial operators and I believe it’s fitted to a number of non-civilian types. It works on the principle on the SSR, where a signal is sent by one a/c, searching for responses from transponders within a selected range, in both the vertical and horizontal. Where found, the system will calculate if a conflict occurs and give either a TA (traffic advisory) where no conflict occurs at that point in time, or RA (resolution advisory) when you are given guidance on how to manoeuvre you’re a/c to avoid collision.
If you are operating in the light a/c GA world, this system is financially prohibitive. Having a quick look at the Honeywell site gives a shock to the system – I didn’t realise they were that expensive!! There are cheap systems on the market, but is your life really worth so little!! See and avoid……
Assuming you operate in this environment and as your profile suggests, Scotland where we have a huge chunk of Class G, having a Mode C transponder installed at say £1500 - £2k is almost a no brainer. It will assist flight safety to a great deal and also assist ATC in accurately identifying your position – no bad thing if you ask me.
Mode S, in my opinion is a very different matter…
As I understand, the main push behind this system is for accountability and financial reasons from the Campaign Against Aviation, where your flight details are recorded and bills issued for use of the airspace. I can’t see how it provides any further help in flight safety over the current Mode C equipment.
The table posted by Beagle seems to be a very simple and sensible proposal, but then that’s not going to make very much money for those in the big grey building. I agree that mandatory usage is not unreasonable, but it must not be a sweeping all must carry Mode S statement.
Robin – I can’t see why such agreements would stop. Your types under from the table above would require no more than a simple Mode C unit. To be honest, you may even be asked not to use it within certain parts of Class D to minimise RA’s and the resulting MOR’s.
Crash One
TCAS or ACAS, generally speaking, is a system used by commercial operators and I believe it’s fitted to a number of non-civilian types. It works on the principle on the SSR, where a signal is sent by one a/c, searching for responses from transponders within a selected range, in both the vertical and horizontal. Where found, the system will calculate if a conflict occurs and give either a TA (traffic advisory) where no conflict occurs at that point in time, or RA (resolution advisory) when you are given guidance on how to manoeuvre you’re a/c to avoid collision.
If you are operating in the light a/c GA world, this system is financially prohibitive. Having a quick look at the Honeywell site gives a shock to the system – I didn’t realise they were that expensive!! There are cheap systems on the market, but is your life really worth so little!! See and avoid……
Assuming you operate in this environment and as your profile suggests, Scotland where we have a huge chunk of Class G, having a Mode C transponder installed at say £1500 - £2k is almost a no brainer. It will assist flight safety to a great deal and also assist ATC in accurately identifying your position – no bad thing if you ask me.
Mode S, in my opinion is a very different matter…
As I understand, the main push behind this system is for accountability and financial reasons from the Campaign Against Aviation, where your flight details are recorded and bills issued for use of the airspace. I can’t see how it provides any further help in flight safety over the current Mode C equipment.
The table posted by Beagle seems to be a very simple and sensible proposal, but then that’s not going to make very much money for those in the big grey building. I agree that mandatory usage is not unreasonable, but it must not be a sweeping all must carry Mode S statement.
Robin – I can’t see why such agreements would stop. Your types under from the table above would require no more than a simple Mode C unit. To be honest, you may even be asked not to use it within certain parts of Class D to minimise RA’s and the resulting MOR’s.
Robin, yes, my proposal is regrettably based on a 'give a little - or lose the lot' compromise principle.
But surely it would be possible to reclassify the entry and exit corridors which you describe as Class E routes? VFR only and no transponder required in such corridors?
But surely it would be possible to reclassify the entry and exit corridors which you describe as Class E routes? VFR only and no transponder required in such corridors?
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I understand, the main push behind this system is for accountability and financial reasons from the Campaign Against Aviation, where your flight details are recorded and bills issued for use of the airspace
Not sure why this one keeps coming up, since there is by far insufficient radar coverage to do the monitoring.
Not sure why this one keeps coming up, since there is by far insufficient radar coverage to do the monitoring.
Assuming you operate in this environment and as your profile suggests, Scotland where we have a huge chunk of Class G, having a Mode C transponder installed at say £1500 - £2k is almost a no brainer. It will assist flight safety to a great deal and also assist ATC in accurately identifying your position – no bad thing if you ask me.
Mode S, in my opinion is a very different matter…
... conspiracy theory snipped ...
I can’t see how it provides any further help in flight safety over the current Mode C equipment.
Mode S, in my opinion is a very different matter…
... conspiracy theory snipped
...I can’t see how it provides any further help in flight safety over the current Mode C equipment.
I would strongly support the idea that aircraft currently equipped with Mode A/C SSR should not have to re-equip until the Mode A/C unit breaks (or ADS-B over 1090ES is adopted). For now, Mode A/C is fine in the numbers that it's currently used. But there are spectrum congestion issues that would make it difficult to move to the sorts of levels of equipage that would be desirable.
I don't believe that there's a technical reason why Mode S equipment needs to be more expensive than Mode C. At the moment the volumes of Mode S are small enough that it commands a premium. Mode C is discounted because of the introduction of Mode S. But in the long run, they're just radios with some logic attached.
".....there is by far insufficient radar coverage to do the monitoring."
At present that may well be the case in many areas.
But were Mode S to become mandatory, particularly when linked to GPS and downlinking via ADS-B, it wouldn't take rocket science to come up with remote ADS-B reading heads to track and charge you.....
The FRUIT and garble which the CAA claim would cause RF congestion is NOT a significant problem at lower levels - particularly at 2-3000 ft in the open FIRs.
At present that may well be the case in many areas.
But were Mode S to become mandatory, particularly when linked to GPS and downlinking via ADS-B, it wouldn't take rocket science to come up with remote ADS-B reading heads to track and charge you.....
The FRUIT and garble which the CAA claim would cause RF congestion is NOT a significant problem at lower levels - particularly at 2-3000 ft in the open FIRs.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: South Norfolk, England
Age: 58
Posts: 1,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For TCAS to be effective ALL aircraft would have to be equipped with transponders. Many (like mine), either, literally could not be so equipped, or financially would be deemed not worth the expense and scrapped (or exported/stored/displayed). There isn't a portable unit available that is small enough or safe enough for use in ALL aircraft, and I can't see that there ever will be. The CAA are happy to go along pretending that the market will make one available for a few hundred quid because it suits their argument. They couldn't give a fig if there's any truth in what they're saying, so long as they get their way and get to suck up close to the airlines maybe?.
So, for TCAS to be of any real use, we will have to not grant exemptions and accept that many of our lovely older and more interesting types will never again grace our skies, and that the gliding and microlighting fraternity will be greatly reduced (and may even be forced to pack up due to fewer members).
I doubt this will happen, and I doubt the CAA really think it will either. They are bound to have to grant exemptions, so the question then is ... why make mode S compulsory for the rest? If not all aircraft are equipped, there is no safety benefit for us as TCAS is useless. Also, airlines would be on very dodgy ground operating outside of controlled airspace with passegers, as safety would be much reduced. So, are they offering to allow transponder equipped aircraft into previously forbidden airspace? ... Nope! So I see no benefits to us at all, and dubious benefits to the airlines ... unless?
There's either a future plan to increase the areas of controlled airspace and squeeze non transponder equipped aircraft into smaller and smaller areas (advantage to airlines), or, plans are afoot to maybe introduce airspace usage charges for GA ... or at least, introduce the framework to make this possible at some point (advantage to the CAA as it will be able to justify its otherwise dwindleing existance to goverment and protect its future).
Who knows?
SS
So, for TCAS to be of any real use, we will have to not grant exemptions and accept that many of our lovely older and more interesting types will never again grace our skies, and that the gliding and microlighting fraternity will be greatly reduced (and may even be forced to pack up due to fewer members).
I doubt this will happen, and I doubt the CAA really think it will either. They are bound to have to grant exemptions, so the question then is ... why make mode S compulsory for the rest? If not all aircraft are equipped, there is no safety benefit for us as TCAS is useless. Also, airlines would be on very dodgy ground operating outside of controlled airspace with passegers, as safety would be much reduced. So, are they offering to allow transponder equipped aircraft into previously forbidden airspace? ... Nope! So I see no benefits to us at all, and dubious benefits to the airlines ... unless?
There's either a future plan to increase the areas of controlled airspace and squeeze non transponder equipped aircraft into smaller and smaller areas (advantage to airlines), or, plans are afoot to maybe introduce airspace usage charges for GA ... or at least, introduce the framework to make this possible at some point (advantage to the CAA as it will be able to justify its otherwise dwindleing existance to goverment and protect its future).
Who knows?
SS
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Not a million miles from EGTF
Age: 68
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Robin, yes, my proposal is regrettably based on a 'give a little - or lose the lot' compromise principle.
But surely it would be possible to reclassify the entry and exit corridors which you describe as Class E routes? VFR only and no transponder required in such corridors?
But surely it would be possible to reclassify the entry and exit corridors which you describe as Class E routes? VFR only and no transponder required in such corridors?
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let me declare at the outset that I was not in favour of the mandatory introduction of mode S.
However, whilst I am “happy” to rely on existing services and my own eyes to hopefully spot traffic in VMC outside of CAS I am conscious that with new and more capable aircraft becoming available it is possible there will be more pilots operating in IMC outside of CAS. It is in this respect I have a problem.
Aircraft operating in IMC are required to be equipped with at least mode C and presumably the majority will convert to mode S. However it has become increasingly apparent to me that there are a good many pilots who are prepared to operate in conditions that are either IMC or very close to, who are either not instrument rated or are not operating suitably equipped aircraft or both. This will include those who decide to nip through a gap in the clouds to get on top, but find themselves in IMC for short periods, those that fly very close beneath or above a cloud layer and those that fly when conditions whilst not IMC are as near as you can get. The fact that these pilots are not instrument rated, not flying in suitable equipped aircraft and breaking the law is all irrelevant for those that are on an IFR flight and come into conflict with them.
I suppose in the same way that many certified aircraft are fitted with far better avionics it is also the case that so are many home builts, and non certified or non IFR compliant aircraft. Of course this in turn gives the “operators” the confidence to fly in more marginal conditions.
However, whilst I am “happy” to rely on existing services and my own eyes to hopefully spot traffic in VMC outside of CAS I am conscious that with new and more capable aircraft becoming available it is possible there will be more pilots operating in IMC outside of CAS. It is in this respect I have a problem.
Aircraft operating in IMC are required to be equipped with at least mode C and presumably the majority will convert to mode S. However it has become increasingly apparent to me that there are a good many pilots who are prepared to operate in conditions that are either IMC or very close to, who are either not instrument rated or are not operating suitably equipped aircraft or both. This will include those who decide to nip through a gap in the clouds to get on top, but find themselves in IMC for short periods, those that fly very close beneath or above a cloud layer and those that fly when conditions whilst not IMC are as near as you can get. The fact that these pilots are not instrument rated, not flying in suitable equipped aircraft and breaking the law is all irrelevant for those that are on an IFR flight and come into conflict with them.
I suppose in the same way that many certified aircraft are fitted with far better avionics it is also the case that so are many home builts, and non certified or non IFR compliant aircraft. Of course this in turn gives the “operators” the confidence to fly in more marginal conditions.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1 - Encourage all airspace users who can (i.e. have generators) to install or upgrade to at least Mode C (because it makes everyone's life easier and this is probably the majority of the aircraft flying on any given day)
2 - Regulate to require any replacement transponder to be Mode S (as Bookworm said the cost difference between a new Mode C and new Mode S isn't worth getting worked up about. (possibly allow the installation of used Mode C units as replacements or new fit in currently un-equipped aircraft)
3 - Acknowledge that there is currently no practical option for aircraft without generators and stop trying to legislate a product development into existence!
4 - Most important - given all of the value that ATC, CAT, the military, the government (UAVs for the police etc) and the Treasury (through auctioning off the released spectrum from less primary radar to the mobile phone operators) will get from Mode S - give something back to GA for spending their money - like traffic data. In the US they got half the fleet over to Mode S with just the offer of traffic data!