Mode S petition at No 10

[stickandrudderman]

I did a search and got too many hits to decipher, so forgive me if someone has already posted this but,
A petition to Downing street about Mode S can be found here:
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/transpondermodeS/

It was started by Nick Bloom.

[tangovictor]

i know all the big brother arguements, but lets face it, every high street is infested with cctv now, isn't mode S, susposed to be a safety device ?
if it saved me getting "involved" with a fast moving military jet, i'd think it money well spent, or am I being misinformed about mode s ?

[javelin]

The concept of Mode S to help air safety is fine, what isn't fine is the fact that there are no cheap, battery operated versions available for non electric aeroplanes - gliders etc.

Also it starts us down the road of airspace charges for every single flight, VFR or IFR and also the potential restriction of airspace due to the increased use of UAV's proposed in the UK

This has far more to do with finance and control rather than air safety.

[rustle]

Originally Posted by javelin

Also it starts us down the road of airspace charges for every single flight, VFR or IFR and also the potential restriction of airspace due to the increased use of UAV's proposed in the UK

Charging for VFR flight by reference to Mode S is a myth, presumably started because facts are too hard to come by.

Sharing airspace with other users (CAT/UAVs) is surely preferable to more R/P or CAS, is it not?

[A and C]

Safety advantage..... not from the CAA !

As some one who has Mode S in one of my aircraft I can tell you that it provides no safety advantage what so ever at the moment there are only two radar heads that can use Mode S, in short if a low powered Mode S transponder is not within 30 miles or so of these radar heads it can't be "seen".
The safety advantage of mode would be WX and traffic data link this system would give light aircraft a a WX radar picture and a TCAS like system but have NATS/CAA mandated the instalation of the ground based equipment for these systems ? like hell have they.
Untill the authoritys start to install the data linking of these safety systems the argument that Mode S is a safety mandate is bankrupt.
So far the mode S thing seems to be driven by a need for some parts of the CAA to to keep them selfs in a job, once they have the Mode S thing in the bag they will form another commitee to spend two years "consulting" to force another bit of usless kit on light aviation to protect CAA jobs.

Tangovictor you are sadly mis informed the CAA won't be installing the kit to keep you clear of the military fast movers!

[rustle]

Originally Posted by A and C

Tangovictor you are sadly mis informed the CAA won't be installing the kit to keep you clear of the military fast movers!

Just as well, as I'd expect the RAF/RN to be paying for it - which they are.

[Rod1]

There has never been a mid air collision involving GA which would have been prevented by Mode S.

Rod1

[A and C]

Rustle

I don't see any one installing traffic data link........... Do you ?

[rustle]

Originally Posted by A and C

I don't see any one installing traffic data link........... Do you ?

RAF types are fitting Mode S / TCAS.

Them avoiding hitting you (because they see you on TCAS) saves as much pain as you avoiding hitting them

TCAS would enable them to see (AND AVOID) Mode S targets.

Originally Posted by Rod1

There has never been a mid air collision involving GA which would have been prevented by Mode S.

Catchy, but untrue.

The Tornado/Cessna crash (killing 4) would have been avoided if the FJ had TCAS and the Cessna had Mode S.

[robin]

Originally Posted by rustle

RAF types are fitting Mode S / TCAS.

Them avoiding hitting you (because they see you on TCAS) saves as much pain as you avoiding hitting them

TCAS would enable them to see (AND AVOID) Mode S targets.



Catchy, but untrue.

The Tornado/Cessna crash (killing 4) would have been avoided if the FJ had TCAS and the Cessna had Mode S.

Or if the fast jet had had TCAS, and the Cessna had been squawking Mode C.

Mode S gives no improvement over Mode C for that purpose.

[rustle]

Originally Posted by robin

Or if the fast jet had had TCAS, and the Cessna had been squawking Mode C.

Mode S gives no improvement over Mode C for that purpose.

Of course that is correct, and highlights one of the dangers of discussing these things in isolation.

[dublinpilot]

Catchy, but untrue.
The Tornado/Cessna crash (killing 4) would have been avoided if the FJ had TCAS and the Cessna had Mode S.

So it would have been avoided by TCAS and mode C then? Where does the mode S bit come into that Rustle?



opps....crossed posts

[Rod1]

There are very few GA mid air collisions. All would have been less likely if TCAS was fitted to one or both aircraft; Mode s (instead of mode c) would have made no difference. The Tornado / C152 incident would have been avoided if the Tornado had had TCAS.

The CAA proposal makes mode S compulsory, not radio or TCAS, and our most likely mid air is with other GA traffic.

The RAF are fitting TCAS to some of its fleet, but the time frame if many years and it is starting with the large transport types. Stay above 2000 ft AGL and your chances of meeting the RAF in the open FIR are insignificant.

Rod1

[A and C]

Yes the RAF have fited TCAS and this is a big improvement in safety but the whole point of this thread is about the mandating of Mode S and the supposed safety improvments that the CAA is using as a reason for pushing this along.

So far the CAA has failed spectacularly to prove it's safety case for Mode S above Mode C, the safety issue is just a smoke screen to cover the issue that this implimentation is just jobs for the boys at the CAA.

If the safety was the real issue at the CAA then we would have the WX & traffic data link installed, this would bring TCAS like indications within the reach of most light aircraft.

The mode S issue would be a lot less of a hot potato if the issue was one of safety and it was being introduced with some improvement to GA safety but it is not of any improvment what so ever over Mode C.

[Fuji Abound]

"The Tornado/Cessna crash (killing 4) would have been avoided if the FJ had TCAS and the Cessna had Mode S."

Clearly you dont understand the difference between mode S and mode C.

[PPRuNe Radar]

have NATS/CAA mandated the instalation of the ground based equipment for these systems ? like hell have they.

NATS is a service provider, totally divorced from the CAA, and not the regulator. So it's not up to them to mandate the ground based equipment.

NATS would only fit the ground based kit you talk of for one of two reasons. Either they see a benefit to their service provision (and have the users pay for it through navigation charges), in which case they would have to convince the CAA that the kit they were putting in met safety and regulatory standards, or the CAA decide that providers like NATS must have such equipment as part of their 'licence' to provide ATC services and provide the system specifications.

Neither has happened to date and the former is unlikely to happen with NATS under pressure from the CAA to reduce costs and not increase them. You'll need to lobby ICAO, the European Commission, or the CAA, if you want to push through such a requirement for compulsory ground based equipment. Good luck !!!

[shortstripper]

Check out the PFA's response letter http://www.pfanet.co.uk/Consultation...er%20Final.pdf It explains the objections far better than I can.

SS

[Single Spey]

Originally Posted by A and C

Yes the RAF have fited TCAS and this is a big improvement in safety but the whole point of this thread is about the mandating of Mode S and the supposed safety improvments that the CAA is using as a reason for pushing this along.

As far as I am aware the RAF/MOD are only fitting TCAS to transport types. Fast Jets will get a Collision Warning System. They cannot be given TCAS because the TCAS logic can't cope with fast high performance pointy-things.

Originally Posted by PPRuNe Radar

NATS would only fit the ground based kit you talk of for one of two reasons. Either ... or the CAA decide that providers like NATS must have such equipment as part of their 'licence' to provide ATC services and provide the system specifications.

So why aren't the CAA getting NATS to fully equip before insisting on mandatory equippage?

[rustle]

Originally Posted by A and C

Yes the RAF have fited TCAS and this is a big improvement in safety but the whole point of this thread is about the mandating of Mode S and the supposed safety improvments that the CAA is using as a reason for pushing this along.

The mode S issue would be a lot less of a hot potato if the issue was one of safety and it was being introduced with some improvement to GA safety but it is not of any improvment what so ever over Mode C.

There is an improvement to GA safety. "GA" becomes visible on TCAS so is less likely to be involved in a collision.

Mode S has been talked about for YEARS. If, instead of carrying out ridiculous RIAs the CAA had simply mandated it WEF 03/2005 for IFR and WEF 03/2008 for everything else, the absurd situation of people fitting mode A only transponders (just in case) would never have arisen.

Someone would have spent their R&D budget making a small battery operated transponder that no-electrics-aircraft could use. A market would exist, and necessity is the mother of invention.

Regarding the RAF TCAS/Mode S - they are fitting the Tucanos currently, and the Tornados shortly, neither of which is "transport category" AFAIK.

[Fuji Abound]

What advantages does mode S have over mode C so far as TCAS is concerned?