CAA scrapping VFR?
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If there is no traffic around then it doesn't help, but often there is traffic around, and he needs a positive ID on you and not just an unmarked blip which could be anybody who suddenly climbed up into the radar coverage from down below.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Lucy Lastic
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".
Given that there are still incidents of lack of separation by fully-equipped aircraft, it isn't necessarily a fix to "the problem".
Within controlled airspace there are serious loss of separation instances associated with misunderstood clearances and busted altitudes. Almost everyone is Mode C/S equipped and this coupled with TCAS helps save the day. NATS hopes that downlinking autopilot data will help catch these problems earlier (a benefit of Mode S enhanced)
In the open FIR airproxs between equipped aircraft rarely would count as a serious loss of separation (mostly CAT stressing that IFR separation wasn't maintained - but that is a long way from a real risk of collision). Which implies (but I have not looked at the data for this particular case) that the high collision risk incidents outside controlled airspace are higher for Mode A/non-transponder aircraft than for Mode C/S. All of this paragraph is in the context of one aircraft being TCAS equipped or receiving a radar service. Obviously transponders do nothing to help reduce collisions between aircraft without TCAS or a radar service.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 433
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Controlled" airpsace
"Within controlled airspace there are serious loss of separation instances associated with misunderstood clearances and busted altitudes"
.....Wow sounds like a dangerous environment to fly in. Just as well it's restricted to "professional" aviators. Think I'll stick to uncontrolled airspace and keep a good lookout ;-)
.......Only kidding folks (takes cover and hides!).
.....Wow sounds like a dangerous environment to fly in. Just as well it's restricted to "professional" aviators. Think I'll stick to uncontrolled airspace and keep a good lookout ;-)
.......Only kidding folks (takes cover and hides!).
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: SE England
Age: 70
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Which implies (but I have not looked at the data for this particular case) that the high collision risk incidents outside controlled airspace are higher for Mode A/non-transponder aircraft than for Mode C/S.W
My understanding, and forgive me if I am wrong on this, is that there is little actual evidence of the level of risk outside CAS.
Given that many aircraft are non-radio/non-tx/non-TCAS in Class G, certainly in my neck of the woods, where do the reports come from?
My understanding, and forgive me if I am wrong on this, is that there is little actual evidence of the level of risk outside CAS.
Given that many aircraft are non-radio/non-tx/non-TCAS in Class G, certainly in my neck of the woods, where do the reports come from?
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The PFA did research into all the mid air collisions over recent years. The results ;
a) there were very few
b) Mode S would have made no difference. Interestingly, most of the aircraft involved had mode c.
Rod1
a) there were very few
b) Mode S would have made no difference. Interestingly, most of the aircraft involved had mode c.
Rod1
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Surrey, UK.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Clubs like the PFA and AOPA should be pushing technological frontiers, not holding everybody back to the lowest common denominator.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The PFA did research into all the mid air collisions over recent years. The results ;
a) there were very few
b) Mode S would have made no difference. Interestingly, most of the aircraft involved had mode c.
Rod1
a) there were very few
b) Mode S would have made no difference. Interestingly, most of the aircraft involved had mode c.
Rod1
Also, as the price of TPAS and ACAS systems comes down this will be less and less true.
The most valid argument for transponders in my mind is the worry that one of the dozen or so very near misses a year between CAT and infringing GA traffic (generally not Mode C/S) becomes a hit.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: South Norfolk, England
Age: 58
Posts: 1,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You're a bit of a lone voice on this Rustle. You mock Rod1 (not Rob 
) of banging his drum on the subject ... but what do you do?
You obviously think you're right and damn the rest of us! I'm not saying you're wrong (or right), but you just seem to brush off any anti aurguments with accusations of Ludditism. I'm not old, (what is your generation?) but I'm set enough in my ways to want to take responsibility for my own safety, not to fly under the illusion that someone or something will take that responsibility on and be my saviour in a risk free, if rather dull life.
SS
) of banging his drum on the subject ... but what do you do? You obviously think you're right and damn the rest of us! I'm not saying you're wrong (or right), but you just seem to brush off any anti aurguments with accusations of Ludditism. I'm not old, (what is your generation?) but I'm set enough in my ways to want to take responsibility for my own safety, not to fly under the illusion that someone or something will take that responsibility on and be my saviour in a risk free, if rather dull life.
SS
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Surrey, UK.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You're a bit of a lone voice on this Rustle.
...
...but I'm set enough in my ways to want to take responsibility for my own safety, not to fly under the illusion that someone or something will take that responsibility on and be my saviour in a risk free, if rather dull life.
SS
...
...but I'm set enough in my ways to want to take responsibility for my own safety, not to fly under the illusion that someone or something will take that responsibility on and be my saviour in a risk free, if rather dull life.
SS
I, too, want to take responsibility for my safety in the air and people bimbling about not talking or squawking are far more of a risk to me than people who are.
BTW1 I know Rod from years ago when we were on the same team
BTW2 I don't start these stupid threads, but I do try and put forward an alternative view to "en route charging / Big Brother / Chav Air / LoCo Class G abuse / blah blah bloody blah" which is the only other offering.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
rustle
The fact is I admire you. You come on the BBS all guns blazing, outnumbered by 99 to 1 (according to the CAA), that takes real courage.
Just to set the record straight for any “misinformation” you may accidentally have posted, the PFA argument does not include;
“en route charging / Big Brother / Chav Air / LoCo Class G abuse”
But it is comprehensive, well researched, well thought out, and it is making a difference. If you want more real info go to;
http://www.pfa.org.uk/Copy%20of%20modeS.asp
(Want to meet up some time for a beer)
Rod1
The fact is I admire you. You come on the BBS all guns blazing, outnumbered by 99 to 1 (according to the CAA), that takes real courage.
Just to set the record straight for any “misinformation” you may accidentally have posted, the PFA argument does not include;
“en route charging / Big Brother / Chav Air / LoCo Class G abuse”
But it is comprehensive, well researched, well thought out, and it is making a difference. If you want more real info go to;
http://www.pfa.org.uk/Copy%20of%20modeS.asp
(Want to meet up some time for a beer)
Rod1
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: South Norfolk, England
Age: 58
Posts: 1,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rustle, you should be a politician ... you answer without answering! Come on, how old are you? What is your generation? Yes we could all comply with every cock and bull scheme that this government (or any other) comes up with ... but why the hell should we? Can we not challenge anymore? Maybe you will be a lonely (very safe) pilot in a very empty sky ... good for you 
I for one value my ability to walk, drive, fly about unchallenged and free (within sensible limits) to go about my business. ID cards, GPS road charging, Mode S all infringe on this right. I'm not into conspiracy theories, but I do see my freedoms being ever so gradually eroded away.
SS
I for one value my ability to walk, drive, fly about unchallenged and free (within sensible limits) to go about my business. ID cards, GPS road charging, Mode S all infringe on this right. I'm not into conspiracy theories, but I do see my freedoms being ever so gradually eroded away.SS
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: SE England
Age: 70
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CaptainFlash
"The fact you cannot fit or run a transponder should not give you a green card to exercise the rights of those that do . . ie transit class D airspace.
In my opinion if you don't have a transponder . . .you should not be in Class D. This irrespective of whether you can or can't have it fitted!"
Let's just look at this for a minute. There are a number of small airfields within Class D - some within Class A (almost) and they have functioned perfectly safely for some years with non-radio/non-tx aircraft.
All have approved exit/entry routes and arrangements with the local ATC service. None of the local ATCOs, as far as I am aware, have any concerns about this.
The same thing goes for transiting such airspace. If an aircraft, such as the D9 I used to fly, is radio-equipped (actually, an Icom), but has no transponder, I would call the local service and tell the ATCO where I was and where I was going. This would be relayed to other aircraft and I would expect these pilots to watch out, just as I would be looking out for them.
It happens in Class G all the time, so what is the issue with Class D?
"The fact you cannot fit or run a transponder should not give you a green card to exercise the rights of those that do . . ie transit class D airspace.
In my opinion if you don't have a transponder . . .you should not be in Class D. This irrespective of whether you can or can't have it fitted!"
Let's just look at this for a minute. There are a number of small airfields within Class D - some within Class A (almost) and they have functioned perfectly safely for some years with non-radio/non-tx aircraft.
All have approved exit/entry routes and arrangements with the local ATC service. None of the local ATCOs, as far as I am aware, have any concerns about this.
The same thing goes for transiting such airspace. If an aircraft, such as the D9 I used to fly, is radio-equipped (actually, an Icom), but has no transponder, I would call the local service and tell the ATCO where I was and where I was going. This would be relayed to other aircraft and I would expect these pilots to watch out, just as I would be looking out for them.
It happens in Class G all the time, so what is the issue with Class D?
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Cloud Nine
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
flying isn't a computer game - u need to look out the window sometimes! VFR and proud
IO540
No I don't. I do not need to identify VFR traffic in Class D. I do not separate IFR from VFR in Class D - I only need to pass traffic information. (Have a read of the Class D airspace rules). A position report from a VFR aircraft, say at a known VRP usually suffices. Quite sensibly the VRPs and inbound/outbound VFR routes are kept away from the IFR final approach and climbout (have a look at the AIP for Glasgow and you will see it operates perfectly well). There are times when it can be handy to put on a squawk I agree (eg. traffic patrol or low-level police helicopter operating near the final approach), but the last thing I really would want to do is over control VFR aircraft...
Now I can't speak for the ex-RAF non-ATCO control freaks in the CAA who don't even appreciate the civil ATC task, who don't fly, who have not passed any licence, or have never studied or applied the ANO or Rules of the Air.... yet feel qualified to tell us all what we should be doing ....
Captainflash
Why?
Rustle
Scaremongering sensationalism.
There have been several mid-airs Rustle. The majority have been collisions between military/military, military/GA and glider/glider. None, to my knowledge, have been in a radar environment where one aircraft was under radar control, RAS or RIS from ATC. (Do you know what these terms are by the way?) Unless you mandate the fitting of TCAS or CWS (Collision Warning System), these previous mid-airs would still have happened.
The issue of mid-airs is actually a red herring - the REAL thing that would improve safety would be fitting CWS to military, and perhaps THEN, I concede, some form of transpomnder would be a REAL benefit. But that is not being proposed.
Which is a good reason to install it/mandate it in commercial aircraft in TMA environments. But the Mode S which will be installed in gliders, microlights etc..etc.. will not be coupled to an autopilot, so ATC will be the none the wiser about what levels you are going to. Just a small point, that Mode S is not the be all end all.
TCAS does also cause problems. I have lost count of the number of TCAS resolution advisories caused by rapid climb/descent rates in a TMA environment ....
=paperwork=30 minutes less for my dinner ...
Do a Google search for "Dallas Bump" and see what comes up
If there is no traffic around then it doesn't help, but often there is traffic around, and he needs a positive ID on you and not just an unmarked blip which could be anybody who suddenly climbed up into the radar coverage from down below.
I do not need to identify VFR traffic in Class D. I do not separate IFR from VFR in Class D - I only need to pass traffic information. (Have a read of the Class D airspace rules). A position report from a VFR aircraft, say at a known VRP usually suffices. Quite sensibly the VRPs and inbound/outbound VFR routes are kept away from the IFR final approach and climbout (have a look at the AIP for Glasgow and you will see it operates perfectly well). There are times when it can be handy to put on a squawk I agree (eg. traffic patrol or low-level police helicopter operating near the final approach), but the last thing I really would want to do is over control VFR aircraft... Now I can't speak for the ex-RAF non-ATCO control freaks in the CAA who don't even appreciate the civil ATC task, who don't fly, who have not passed any licence, or have never studied or applied the ANO or Rules of the Air.... yet feel qualified to tell us all what we should be doing ....
Captainflash
In my opinion if you don't have a transponder . . .you should not be in Class D.
Rustle
Should we wait for a Cerritos in the UK before we do anything?
There have been several mid-airs Rustle. The majority have been collisions between military/military, military/GA and glider/glider. None, to my knowledge, have been in a radar environment where one aircraft was under radar control, RAS or RIS from ATC. (Do you know what these terms are by the way?) Unless you mandate the fitting of TCAS or CWS (Collision Warning System), these previous mid-airs would still have happened.
The issue of mid-airs is actually a red herring - the REAL thing that would improve safety would be fitting CWS to military, and perhaps THEN, I concede, some form of transpomnder would be a REAL benefit. But that is not being proposed.
mm_flynn - Within controlled airspace there are serious loss of separation instances associated with misunderstood clearances and busted altitudes. Almost everyone is Mode C/S equipped and this coupled with TCAS helps save the day. NATS hopes that downlinking autopilot data will help catch these problems earlier (a benefit of Mode S enhanced)
TCAS does also cause problems. I have lost count of the number of TCAS resolution advisories caused by rapid climb/descent rates in a TMA environment ....
=paperwork=30 minutes less for my dinner ...Do a Google search for "Dallas Bump" and see what comes up
Last edited by PH-UKU; 2nd Mar 2007 at 22:14.
It must also be remembered that the CAS airspace grab proposals by CoventryThomasCook and Robindncasterfinningleyhood would deny the use of airspace for those who currently use it for more than just 'transiting' under a RIS or RAS......
The main advantages of Mode S over Mode C are reduced susceptibility to 'FRUIT' and 'co-ordinated' RAs for TCAS equipped aircraft. But TCAS will give RAs against Mode C, of course - but only TAs against Mode A which are a definite hazard as they could be masking a real RA requirement or generating a TA when neither TA nor RA are genuine....
The 'selective' nature and unique identification features confer no benefits to TCAS-equipped aircraft. Nor do they constitute any valid reason for mandatory replacement of serviceable Mode C equipment.
So yes, when the regulations change, let's make the transponder proposals appropriate to the aircraft and airspace categories, require all transponders to include altitude information and require any new trasnponder installations to be Mode S - leading to a gradual phasing in as older Mode C units reach their end of life point.
And Lo-Co Chavair drivers should remember that IFR separation from VFR traffic is not required to be provided in Class D airspace in VMC. All you are entitled to is traffic information on request.
Also, 250KIAS below FL100 is mandatory outside Class A airspace
!!
The main advantages of Mode S over Mode C are reduced susceptibility to 'FRUIT' and 'co-ordinated' RAs for TCAS equipped aircraft. But TCAS will give RAs against Mode C, of course - but only TAs against Mode A which are a definite hazard as they could be masking a real RA requirement or generating a TA when neither TA nor RA are genuine....
The 'selective' nature and unique identification features confer no benefits to TCAS-equipped aircraft. Nor do they constitute any valid reason for mandatory replacement of serviceable Mode C equipment.
So yes, when the regulations change, let's make the transponder proposals appropriate to the aircraft and airspace categories, require all transponders to include altitude information and require any new trasnponder installations to be Mode S - leading to a gradual phasing in as older Mode C units reach their end of life point.
And Lo-Co Chavair drivers should remember that IFR separation from VFR traffic is not required to be provided in Class D airspace in VMC. All you are entitled to is traffic information on request.
Also, 250KIAS below FL100 is mandatory outside Class A airspace
!!
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PH-UKU
You appear to be an ATCO for a Class D airport. Let's say you allow a transit to some VFR traffic, and you have a dozen 737s inbound. Aren't you interested in positively knowing where this VFR traffic is?
There is also possible confusion with other traffic in the area, which happens to be lost. Let's say this is Gatwick. You could have non-XP traffic heading straight for your runways which, for the initial bit, is below Class D (below 1500ft QNH) and so you must assume it is OCAS. You might get worried about it, but you must still assume it is OCAS. A 100kt it will take that traffic about 1 minute to be overhead your runway.
If you do clear somebody for an overhead transit it helps to know their Mode C altitude together with their squawk.
I don't know how ATC handles this but I am sure they would rather know who is who.
You appear to be an ATCO for a Class D airport. Let's say you allow a transit to some VFR traffic, and you have a dozen 737s inbound. Aren't you interested in positively knowing where this VFR traffic is?
There is also possible confusion with other traffic in the area, which happens to be lost. Let's say this is Gatwick. You could have non-XP traffic heading straight for your runways which, for the initial bit, is below Class D (below 1500ft QNH) and so you must assume it is OCAS. You might get worried about it, but you must still assume it is OCAS. A 100kt it will take that traffic about 1 minute to be overhead your runway.
If you do clear somebody for an overhead transit it helps to know their Mode C altitude together with their squawk.
I don't know how ATC handles this but I am sure they would rather know who is who.
