CAA scrapping VFR?
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 433
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shout a bit louder!
Now if I don't have a radio how is the nice controller at Bournemouth going to speak to me ? (with a very loud aldis lamp perhaps!).
Joking aside, I agree with other posts here - if it's controlled airspace then there's a need for sufficient equipment to operate in that environment. BUT I don't think that there should be more CAS then is absolutely necessary.
Joking aside, I agree with other posts here - if it's controlled airspace then there's a need for sufficient equipment to operate in that environment. BUT I don't think that there should be more CAS then is absolutely necessary.
.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Assuming the gilder is not a very new competition type, it will probably be impossible to fit a radio and a transponder (using current tec). The weight of the batteries to power such a set up for a typical soaring flight would put the thing over its max weight. It was in recognition of this that the CAA started the LAST transponder design. The same is true of some PFA and Micro types; with the very real possibility of aircraft being grounded if the original CAA mode s proposal had gone through.
Rod1
Rod1
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: SE England
Age: 70
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Someone has to stand up for the majority (and it is the majority) of aviators who would find the cost and difficulty of putting in £5k worth of kit into an a/c with no electrical system or where the value of the a/c is less than the cost of Mode S - esp as there is b*gg*r all benefit.
Keep it up Rod
Keep it up Rod
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: MAN
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'Beagle'-
Could I just clear something up
- did you produce this table yourself? Or am I missing some official statement recently covering the new transponder requirements?
'Fuji Abound' - please disappear up your own ****
'Captain Flash '- 'In reality these pilots will have had less formal training in many cases then a JAR PPL A and are therefore more likely to cause problems!'
I note from your profile that you only have a PPL. Nuff sed then. MOST glider pilots have better airmanship and handling abilities than your averge PPL.
Could I just clear something up
- did you produce this table yourself? Or am I missing some official statement recently covering the new transponder requirements?
'Fuji Abound' - please disappear up your own ****
'Captain Flash '- 'In reality these pilots will have had less formal training in many cases then a JAR PPL A and are therefore more likely to cause problems!'
I note from your profile that you only have a PPL. Nuff sed then. MOST glider pilots have better airmanship and handling abilities than your averge PPL.
Yes, that was my proposed alternative which was submitted to the CAA Mode C consultation process.
Transponder carriage appropriate to aircraft category and airspace category - not 'universal mandatory Mode S'...
Transponder carriage appropriate to aircraft category and airspace category - not 'universal mandatory Mode S'...
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 433
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CAA MODE-S Partial RIA
The CAA's summary of responses received was that only 7% indicated that it was felt that transponders would have a positive impact on safety. It's unclear to me whether that analysis was done just on the 1,549 responses that were entered directly on their website or whether it includes the 1,083 e-mailed responses. My guess is that they'll have used whichever figure is most supportive of their safety argument, so one can reasonably assume that of the 3,100 aviators who replied, fewer than 300 supported the provision of transponders for safety reasons.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Cloud Nine
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Incentive" to fit Mode S .. ?
I too read the Flight article - and it really pi$$ed me off.
The article glibly stated that there would be an "incentive" to fit Mode S ..
Ooh, bet that got you excited ... well, that "incentive" .. ? You wouldn't be able to fly VFR !!
Let me make this clear from the start - I have worked as a licensed controller at many units (area and airfield, military and civil) - I do not support the mandatory introduction of Mode S.
It seems to be a pet project of some people (ex military fighter controllers I hear) that want to make a name for themselves.
These seem to be people who have no concept, understanding or sympathy toward General Aviation.
In fact in my experience Fighter Controllers have no concept, understanding or sympathy toward Air Traffic Control either ! 
Mode S may be a great success in the London TMA, and credit to those who have worked on it there,
but as far as I see it ... if you fit transponders to ALL flying machines you will probably over clutter many of the other radar screens around the country .. for what ? If everyone that decides to get airborne then decides to call ATC for a service .. do you really think the system could cope ?
Free airspace outside CAS should remain just that. In fact you can currently operate in Class D airspace without a transponder (on standard entry/exit lanes) and it works very well.
The article glibly stated that there would be an "incentive" to fit Mode S ..
Ooh, bet that got you excited ... well, that "incentive" .. ? You wouldn't be able to fly VFR !!
Let me make this clear from the start - I have worked as a licensed controller at many units (area and airfield, military and civil) - I do not support the mandatory introduction of Mode S.
It seems to be a pet project of some people (ex military fighter controllers I hear) that want to make a name for themselves.
These seem to be people who have no concept, understanding or sympathy toward General Aviation. In fact in my experience Fighter Controllers have no concept, understanding or sympathy toward Air Traffic Control either ! Mode S may be a great success in the London TMA, and credit to those who have worked on it there,
but as far as I see it ... if you fit transponders to ALL flying machines you will probably over clutter many of the other radar screens around the country .. for what ? If everyone that decides to get airborne then decides to call ATC for a service .. do you really think the system could cope ? Free airspace outside CAS should remain just that. In fact you can currently operate in Class D airspace without a transponder (on standard entry/exit lanes) and it works very well.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Surrey, UK.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by PH-UKU
but as far as I see it ... if you fit transponders to ALL flying machines you will probably over clutter many of the other radar screens around the country .. for what ? If everyone that decides to get airborne then decides to call ATC for a service .. do you really think the system could cope ?
The benefit of Mode C or S OCAS is not just from an ATC perspective, but from a TCAS perspective as well.
The benefit of Mode S over C is selective interrogation, more data, less clutter.
Old people on here like to bleat on about class G airspace grabbing, "chav air" lo-co class G 'abuse' etc., etc., but people from my generation and younger realise that air traffic density has increased since 1945 so the technology to maintain separation needs to keep up with that growth and not be stymied by 1940's see-and-avoid advocates.
CAT in class G is here to stay*, higher traffic density is here to stay, VLJs will be here next.
* Not quite true, as by 2010 it'll be "U" and not "G"
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: SE England
Age: 70
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rustle
>>>>The benefit of Mode C or S OCAS is not just from an ATC perspective, but from a TCAS perspective as well.<<<
For aircraft so equipped. It gives no benefit to gliders, microlights of simply-equipped aircraft, unless there is TCAS is carried or a radio is fitted.
>>>>Old people on here like to bleat on about class G airspace grabbing, "chav air" lo-co class G 'abuse' etc., etc., but people from my generation and younger realise that air traffic density has increased since 1945 so the technology to maintain separation needs to keep up with that growth and not be stymied by 1940's see-and-avoid advocates.<<<<
Some not so old people also bleat on about this as well. We are also aware that there is a growth in traffic, but the density of air traffic in Class G hasn't grown that much over recent years. There are the notorious 'honeypots' and Mig-Alleys where VFR is getting more risky - but this is due to a snatching of airspace, increasing separation of CAT but squeezing GA into narrow areas.
I have no real issue with ensuring airspace becomes known, and there are arguments for creating 'veils' near regional airports. What is unacceptable is the grabbing of huge areas of airspace, such as proposed for Coventry, which is a far greater area than exists for Gatwick, for many fewer movements.
As the Blessed David Gunston said, the odds of two aircraft being in the same bit of airspace is so remote as to be irrelevant. So we create airways (and other bits of airspace) to force aircraft into close proximity, thus creating the need for air traffic controllers to keep them apart
>>>>The benefit of Mode C or S OCAS is not just from an ATC perspective, but from a TCAS perspective as well.<<<
For aircraft so equipped. It gives no benefit to gliders, microlights of simply-equipped aircraft, unless there is TCAS is carried or a radio is fitted.
>>>>Old people on here like to bleat on about class G airspace grabbing, "chav air" lo-co class G 'abuse' etc., etc., but people from my generation and younger realise that air traffic density has increased since 1945 so the technology to maintain separation needs to keep up with that growth and not be stymied by 1940's see-and-avoid advocates.<<<<
Some not so old people also bleat on about this as well. We are also aware that there is a growth in traffic, but the density of air traffic in Class G hasn't grown that much over recent years. There are the notorious 'honeypots' and Mig-Alleys where VFR is getting more risky - but this is due to a snatching of airspace, increasing separation of CAT but squeezing GA into narrow areas.
I have no real issue with ensuring airspace becomes known, and there are arguments for creating 'veils' near regional airports. What is unacceptable is the grabbing of huge areas of airspace, such as proposed for Coventry, which is a far greater area than exists for Gatwick, for many fewer movements.
As the Blessed David Gunston said, the odds of two aircraft being in the same bit of airspace is so remote as to be irrelevant. So we create airways (and other bits of airspace) to force aircraft into close proximity, thus creating the need for air traffic controllers to keep them apart
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Surrey, UK.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Lucy Lastic
For aircraft so equipped. It gives no benefit to gliders, microlights of simply-equipped aircraft, unless there is TCAS is carried or a radio is fitted.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: SE England
Age: 70
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Surrey, UK.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CAT has TCAS, CAT shares the airspace with other GAT. (i.e. non-Mil)
You bleat on about transponders at our peril, IMO.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Cloud Nine
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rustle - I ain't an old codger , but I DO know how TCAS and SSR works. (cheeky young scamp) PS Glass cockpits are not ALL good news BTW too many people don't look out as it is !!
The CAAs premise is built on a false prospectus. They say it will improve the 'interoperability' between aircraft. They then quote very selective statistics to try and show the number of GA aircraft involved in Airproxes, while ignoring the greater military v civil risk. It is this duplicitous stance that really gets my goat.
1 - Unless you are fitted with TCAS (which all CAT is) you will not be warned of traffic. AT the moment there are some 25,000 flying machines registered in the UK .. I believe about 7000 have transponders. The CAA wallahs that have these grand plans live in offices - they do not work in a radar room, and certainly do not seem to understand that the rules for the congested airspace round London TMA are not necessarily suitable for the Celtic Fringes.
2- The only way therefore to be warned on traffic if you don't have TCAS fitted is to call for a radar service, (unless we went for a TIS type service as found on the USA eastcoast). To call for a radar service you must have a radio (not compulsory). I think that is a reasonable demand (to ask for a radar service) given that it is the CAA that is demanding the fitment. Now just imagine .... all 86 aircraft that visited Strathallan last July's fly-in .... all calling for a service with their shiny new Mode S transponders .... do you know how cluttered 3 or 4 responses look like overlapping at the same airfield ? ... do you know that on some sectors (the big 200 mile sectors) because of the screen size the smallest size SSR label can take up almost 15 miles of airspace ? Do you how tricky it is to hook and rotate even one of these ? Explain how we filter them out ? By height (is it correct)? By destination (how do we know) ? Or do we jsut drop them entirely ... how do we then avoid them if we can't see them ... I really want to know.
3- There is no requirement to have your Mode C verified on every VFR flight - how do I as a radar controller, or the Easyjets TCAS know that that 7000 squawks Mode C is actually correct ? Duff Mode C does happen, and TCAS only calculates avoidance based on Mode C info and climb/descent instrcutions. It does not provide turn or vector info.
4- the highest risk to CAT and GA in class F+G is actually with military maneouvring and ignoring Advisory routes - if you don't believe me, come for a visit to Scottish Centre on a busy mil day and see for yourself.
5- There is no plan to make TCAS or CWS (collision warning system) compulsory in military jets. I would fit Mode S in an instant if there was - my modus operandi is low level in and out of lochs ... (well below radar cover by the way) .. what benefit is mode S to me ?
6- This is all about appeasing the airline lobby (again) and facilitatiing low-cost 737s and A320s flying outside CAS and "opening up new routes" - so what happens when the planned for growth doesn't happen - or shock horror we reach the traffic peak and start a gentle readjustment .. ?
Imagine the principle of insisting that because more trucks wanted to use the road .. YOU, little man in your little car would have to fit an electronic device so that er.... someone else could watch you .. and err... maybe charge you for the privilege ... and er .... try not to hit you .... .. no silly idea our over-controlling Orwellian government would never think of that one ....
7- if there is an established risk of a mid-air with an easyjet or ryanair flying into Inverness (for example) ... some bean counter will have worked this out ... there must then be an equal cost benefit to someone from the lack of a mid-air ... £150 million plus ? .. so if that risk is perceived by the airlines and their bean-counters, I think the airlines and the insurers should be prepared to pay for overall installation. Say £5000 per fitting times 18,000 aircraft = ... about £90 million.
Fantastic !! At a stroke I've just saved £60 million - saved the airlines a lot of bad publicity - saved 100 children from being orphans - saved insurance companies a huge loss (and obviously reduced the risk which will obviously be passed on to all aircraft insurance premiums)- and I've made 17000 aircraft owners safer and happier ....
If someone benefits from this imposition, then it seems reasonable that rather than pass the cost of this onto everyone else, THEY should stump up for it.
, but I DO know how TCAS and SSR works. (cheeky young scamp) PS Glass cockpits are not ALL good news BTW too many people don't look out as it is !!The CAAs premise is built on a false prospectus. They say it will improve the 'interoperability' between aircraft. They then quote very selective statistics to try and show the number of GA aircraft involved in Airproxes, while ignoring the greater military v civil risk. It is this duplicitous stance that really gets my goat.
1 - Unless you are fitted with TCAS (which all CAT is) you will not be warned of traffic. AT the moment there are some 25,000 flying machines registered in the UK .. I believe about 7000 have transponders. The CAA wallahs that have these grand plans live in offices - they do not work in a radar room, and certainly do not seem to understand that the rules for the congested airspace round London TMA are not necessarily suitable for the Celtic Fringes.
2- The only way therefore to be warned on traffic if you don't have TCAS fitted is to call for a radar service, (unless we went for a TIS type service as found on the USA eastcoast). To call for a radar service you must have a radio (not compulsory). I think that is a reasonable demand (to ask for a radar service) given that it is the CAA that is demanding the fitment. Now just imagine .... all 86 aircraft that visited Strathallan last July's fly-in .... all calling for a service with their shiny new Mode S transponders .... do you know how cluttered 3 or 4 responses look like overlapping at the same airfield ? ... do you know that on some sectors (the big 200 mile sectors) because of the screen size the smallest size SSR label can take up almost 15 miles of airspace ? Do you how tricky it is to hook and rotate even one of these ? Explain how we filter them out ? By height (is it correct)? By destination (how do we know) ? Or do we jsut drop them entirely ... how do we then avoid them if we can't see them ... I really want to know.
3- There is no requirement to have your Mode C verified on every VFR flight - how do I as a radar controller, or the Easyjets TCAS know that that 7000 squawks Mode C is actually correct ? Duff Mode C does happen, and TCAS only calculates avoidance based on Mode C info and climb/descent instrcutions. It does not provide turn or vector info.
4- the highest risk to CAT and GA in class F+G is actually with military maneouvring and ignoring Advisory routes - if you don't believe me, come for a visit to Scottish Centre on a busy mil day and see for yourself.
5- There is no plan to make TCAS or CWS (collision warning system) compulsory in military jets. I would fit Mode S in an instant if there was - my modus operandi is low level in and out of lochs ... (well below radar cover by the way) .. what benefit is mode S to me ?
6- This is all about appeasing the airline lobby (again) and facilitatiing low-cost 737s and A320s flying outside CAS and "opening up new routes" - so what happens when the planned for growth doesn't happen - or shock horror we reach the traffic peak and start a gentle readjustment .. ?
Imagine the principle of insisting that because more trucks wanted to use the road .. YOU, little man in your little car would have to fit an electronic device so that er.... someone else could watch you .. and err... maybe charge you for the privilege ... and er .... try not to hit you .... .. no silly idea our over-controlling Orwellian government would never think of that one ....
7- if there is an established risk of a mid-air with an easyjet or ryanair flying into Inverness (for example) ... some bean counter will have worked this out ... there must then be an equal cost benefit to someone from the lack of a mid-air ... £150 million plus ? .. so if that risk is perceived by the airlines and their bean-counters, I think the airlines and the insurers should be prepared to pay for overall installation. Say £5000 per fitting times 18,000 aircraft = ... about £90 million.
Fantastic !! At a stroke I've just saved £60 million - saved the airlines a lot of bad publicity - saved 100 children from being orphans - saved insurance companies a huge loss (and obviously reduced the risk which will obviously be passed on to all aircraft insurance premiums)- and I've made 17000 aircraft owners safer and happier ....
If someone benefits from this imposition, then it seems reasonable that rather than pass the cost of this onto everyone else, THEY should stump up for it.
Last edited by PH-UKU; 28th Feb 2007 at 20:49.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: SE England
Age: 70
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
>>Inability to be safe is no an excuse to be unsafe! <<
Yes, but No, but... Nice soundbite
Is there actually any real evidence that flying non-TX is inherently unsafe, or is this just an assumption?
Given that there are still incidents of lack of separation by fully-equipped aircraft, it isn't necessarily a fix to "the problem".
<<Yes, but No, but... Nice soundbite
Is there actually any real evidence that flying non-TX is inherently unsafe, or is this just an assumption?
Given that there are still incidents of lack of separation by fully-equipped aircraft, it isn't necessarily a fix to "the problem".
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 433
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't have an engine . . . so I can be unsafe ..err no!
If I have a radio and I speak to the nice Air Traffic CONTROLLER to request a routing which crosses Class-D and there's no other traffic around, how does a transponder make the situation safer ? It doesn't. If it's busy and I'm refused entry then that's no problem as I appreciate that airspace can get busy.