Mode S meeting with CAA
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Dunno ... what day is it?
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That is my point. There is still a need to campaign against this idiocy, despite a victory in the UK, at least for those that care about the health of aviation overall rather than just their little bit. Doesn't affect me, my employer has fitted all our aircraft with Mode S and it is already required for public transport. That doesn't mean I don't back other people's case.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: kent
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
His touring looks like it will be limited to the UK unless he installs mode S.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a huge amount of airspace in France where you do not need a transponder.
What about Class D? One can do a lot in Class E but one gets only so far.
Beech - I disregard personal attacks, you can take them to the other forum. If you want to make a point, put your inteligence to a better use. Do a VFR flight plan from your UK airfield to, say, LFMD, and base your comments on that. Look at different routing options, and discuss them.
What about Class D? One can do a lot in Class E but one gets only so far.
Beech - I disregard personal attacks, you can take them to the other forum. If you want to make a point, put your inteligence to a better use. Do a VFR flight plan from your UK airfield to, say, LFMD, and base your comments on that. Look at different routing options, and discuss them.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Dunno ... what day is it?
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What personal attack? The point I was making was entirely the opposite, that this is not personal, and that your personal flying preferences are not the basis of aviation regulations! Don't be so sensitive when someone corrects you. I admit I looked up the Garmin 330. Although we have them fitted there is no need for me to know the power required, and I wouldn't expect you to know.
If someone can fly VFR to Turkey in an Islander or from Denmark to Italy in a Cessna 152 then I don't see why VFR to Cannes should be out of the ordinary in a PA28! The style of flying might not be your preference, and it might not be the safest way to fly there, but that doesn't mean that no-one should be able to do it as cheaply as is safely possible and within reasonable regulations.
I wouldn't do it (although some of our competitors would) because I think it would be unprofessional for a public-transport flight. If I was positioning, not worrying about fatigue, it was nice weather and I had time to plan it? I would. If I was flying only for my own enjoyment? Again, yes I would.
If someone can fly VFR to Turkey in an Islander or from Denmark to Italy in a Cessna 152 then I don't see why VFR to Cannes should be out of the ordinary in a PA28! The style of flying might not be your preference, and it might not be the safest way to fly there, but that doesn't mean that no-one should be able to do it as cheaply as is safely possible and within reasonable regulations.
I wouldn't do it (although some of our competitors would) because I think it would be unprofessional for a public-transport flight. If I was positioning, not worrying about fatigue, it was nice weather and I had time to plan it? I would. If I was flying only for my own enjoyment? Again, yes I would.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Lightwater, Surrey
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mode S Touring in Germany,Netherlands & Belgium
The latest Pilot Mag has a letter from someone who was told by official at Texel that as from 31st March 2008 all a/c must have Mode S to fly in those countries.
Does anyone have any firm info?.
Does anyone have any firm info?.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 2,547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The latest Pilot Mag has a letter from someone who was told by official at Texel that as from 31st March 2008 all a/c must have Mode S to fly in those countries.
Does anyone have any firm info?.
Does anyone have any firm info?.
The notes above are from a meeting with the CAA, how firm do you want it?
Rod,
Texel is in Holland....the official was say that you will need mode S to fly in Dutch airspace.
I'm not sure if you missed that point, or are you suggesting that your notes mean that the CAA was saying these provisions and timescales apply across all JAA countries?
p
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The way I prefer to fly (how do you know, Beech, have we ever met?) is irrelevant. There are easy ways to do a flight and there are more difficult ways.
One can scud run (OCAS) from anywhere to anywhere.
However, if the suggestion that Mode S is not required for VFR European touring is based on that, then good luck to you, enjoy the flight.
One can scud run (OCAS) from anywhere to anywhere.
However, if the suggestion that Mode S is not required for VFR European touring is based on that, then good luck to you, enjoy the flight.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Dunno ... what day is it?
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
??????????
You are making no sense.
Scud running is not related to airspace. I have scud run INCAS and OUTCAS.
I make no judgement as to whether S is required for VFR touring - I don't know, and as a pilot who crosses Europe IFR with mode S fitted I have no need to know. I am saying that mode S should not be required. There is no practical need for it.
The idea that mode S makes flight easier for a pilot of a PA28-140 is absurd.
I have no need to meet you to know the sort of flying you like. You make no secret of it. You have some hot single with all the gadgets, and seem to dislike the idea of aviation without all the kit. That's fine for you, but not everyone's idea of fun. It is relevant because you seem to have little sympathy with people who like other types of flying.
You are making no sense.
Scud running is not related to airspace. I have scud run INCAS and OUTCAS.
I make no judgement as to whether S is required for VFR touring - I don't know, and as a pilot who crosses Europe IFR with mode S fitted I have no need to know. I am saying that mode S should not be required. There is no practical need for it.
The idea that mode S makes flight easier for a pilot of a PA28-140 is absurd.
I have no need to meet you to know the sort of flying you like. You make no secret of it. You have some hot single with all the gadgets, and seem to dislike the idea of aviation without all the kit. That's fine for you, but not everyone's idea of fun. It is relevant because you seem to have little sympathy with people who like other types of flying.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: kent
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a huge amount of airspace in France where you do not need a transponder.
What about Class D? One can do a lot in Class E but one gets only so far.
What about Class D? One can do a lot in Class E but one gets only so far.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Too close to EASA
Posts: 408
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mode S vs ADS B
For those worried about a future transition to ADS-B from Mode S, some of the current Mode S units are already ADS-B compatible - certainly the Honeywell KT73 (KT76A/C plug-in replacement) with a sofware upgrade
and also, I believe, the Garmin GTX330. Therefore complying now if you need Mode S shouldn't have another big cost impact in the future.
Incidentally, an earlier thread mentioned over £4K for a Mode S installation. Currently many avionic shops are quoting around £2.5K.
and also, I believe, the Garmin GTX330. Therefore complying now if you need Mode S shouldn't have another big cost impact in the future.
Incidentally, an earlier thread mentioned over £4K for a Mode S installation. Currently many avionic shops are quoting around £2.5K.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wigglyamp
“Therefore complying now if you need Mode S shouldn't have another big cost impact in the future.”
Some of the units can be upgraded so you may not need a new box, but what about fitting a Certified GPS? Anybody know what the cheapest certified GPS is?
“Incidentally, an earlier thread mentioned over £4K for a Mode S installation. Currently many avionic shops are quoting around £2.5K.”
The CAA’s own research says it can be anything from £1700 ish for a plug replacement up to infinity. It is very hard to generalize.
Option 1 my MCR. I have a KT76a installed. I can buy a plug compatible Mode S, install it myself and pay the PFA £22.50 for a mod and get the installation signed off by my inspector for the cost of his fuel to drive over to look at it. Likely cost about £1500, which I think is the least cost possible.
Option 2, a C of A wooden aircraft with no existing transponder. Such an aircraft is likely to suffer from a CAA major mod charge, plus a lot of panel work, plus the cost of the kit. I would have thought £4500 ish would be bottom end, I know of at least one case where the work, excluding the CAA fee, was quoted at £5000.
Option 3, a brand new C42 micro (the owner was at the meeting). Impossible to fit a transponder as it takes the aircraft out of the empty weight limit for a micro. Cost, sell aircraft and buy another ££££££!
CherrytreePilot
The CAA has a meeting with our European friends in December, and the policy of our European friends to Mode S is on the agenda. Unofficial indications are that the Dutch are likely to implement the letter of the law, but France may be very laid back. My opinion is that the individual states will have to work it out between themselves. Those offering a transition period will have to look at how compatible the approaches are and then come to an agreement. This is not far from the negotiations which allow PFA aircraft to tour most of Europe with little hassle when a permit is only valid in UK airspace. We will have to sit on our hands for a few weeks.
Rod1
“Therefore complying now if you need Mode S shouldn't have another big cost impact in the future.”
Some of the units can be upgraded so you may not need a new box, but what about fitting a Certified GPS? Anybody know what the cheapest certified GPS is?
“Incidentally, an earlier thread mentioned over £4K for a Mode S installation. Currently many avionic shops are quoting around £2.5K.”
The CAA’s own research says it can be anything from £1700 ish for a plug replacement up to infinity. It is very hard to generalize.
Option 1 my MCR. I have a KT76a installed. I can buy a plug compatible Mode S, install it myself and pay the PFA £22.50 for a mod and get the installation signed off by my inspector for the cost of his fuel to drive over to look at it. Likely cost about £1500, which I think is the least cost possible.
Option 2, a C of A wooden aircraft with no existing transponder. Such an aircraft is likely to suffer from a CAA major mod charge, plus a lot of panel work, plus the cost of the kit. I would have thought £4500 ish would be bottom end, I know of at least one case where the work, excluding the CAA fee, was quoted at £5000.
Option 3, a brand new C42 micro (the owner was at the meeting). Impossible to fit a transponder as it takes the aircraft out of the empty weight limit for a micro. Cost, sell aircraft and buy another ££££££!
CherrytreePilot
The CAA has a meeting with our European friends in December, and the policy of our European friends to Mode S is on the agenda. Unofficial indications are that the Dutch are likely to implement the letter of the law, but France may be very laid back. My opinion is that the individual states will have to work it out between themselves. Those offering a transition period will have to look at how compatible the approaches are and then come to an agreement. This is not far from the negotiations which allow PFA aircraft to tour most of Europe with little hassle when a permit is only valid in UK airspace. We will have to sit on our hands for a few weeks.
Rod1
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do not accept see and avoid works. I do accept there is a very low risk of a mid air collision, but never the less the risk can be reduced significantly.
For me I feel the sole purpose of aircraft carrying mode S is to enable the risk of a collision to be largely eliminated - at least for those with some form of traffic awareness as well.
In an ideal world I therefore found myself in favour of the adoption of mode S.
However, I also find myself asking is it fair that I should compel others to spend a significant sum of money to reduce my chances of a mid air collision by a insignificant amount?
On balance I have to conclude it would not be fair.
However, advances in safety require a commitment by all participants.
I recall the case for fitting seat belts.
Older cars were and have remained exempt, but gradually the number of those remaining on the roads has reduced. In the same way, the “authorities” should require all new aircraft be fitted with a transponder. (In the event ADS-B wins at least in that way the hole is already in the panel, the wiring behind and the kit in the weight and balance).
What is to be done with the existing fleet?
Firstly, I think the “authorities” have a part to play.
It is plain daft that a transponder cannot be fitted simply because it would take the aircraft out of what is after all an artificial weight category. How simple would it be to say the weight allowance is increased by X lbs if required for the sole purpose of fitting a transponder and if approved by the manufacturers.
Secondly, I recognise that as much as we all complain about what is perceived as the unjustified cost of minor mod fees, in fact in some cases, there is a reasonable amount of work required in order that a proper assessment can be made that the modification is safe. However, a mod of this nature applies across a type of aircraft and is “advantageous” to all operators. It is unfair that the first operator to undertake the mod should pay the cost, to the benefit of everyone else. The CAA should therefore play their part and reduce or waive the fee but recover their costs (note costs, not cost plus profit) by charging a license fee to each aircraft that takes advantage of the mod.
In that way the cost of implementing mode S would at least be reduced for those users who would fall under the exemption, but might otherwise be persuaded to fit a transponder. All new aircraft would be fitted and as aircraft naturally fell out of circulation the number not “able” to carry would gradually fall.
For me I feel the sole purpose of aircraft carrying mode S is to enable the risk of a collision to be largely eliminated - at least for those with some form of traffic awareness as well.
In an ideal world I therefore found myself in favour of the adoption of mode S.
However, I also find myself asking is it fair that I should compel others to spend a significant sum of money to reduce my chances of a mid air collision by a insignificant amount?
On balance I have to conclude it would not be fair.
However, advances in safety require a commitment by all participants.
I recall the case for fitting seat belts.
Older cars were and have remained exempt, but gradually the number of those remaining on the roads has reduced. In the same way, the “authorities” should require all new aircraft be fitted with a transponder. (In the event ADS-B wins at least in that way the hole is already in the panel, the wiring behind and the kit in the weight and balance).
What is to be done with the existing fleet?
Firstly, I think the “authorities” have a part to play.
It is plain daft that a transponder cannot be fitted simply because it would take the aircraft out of what is after all an artificial weight category. How simple would it be to say the weight allowance is increased by X lbs if required for the sole purpose of fitting a transponder and if approved by the manufacturers.
Secondly, I recognise that as much as we all complain about what is perceived as the unjustified cost of minor mod fees, in fact in some cases, there is a reasonable amount of work required in order that a proper assessment can be made that the modification is safe. However, a mod of this nature applies across a type of aircraft and is “advantageous” to all operators. It is unfair that the first operator to undertake the mod should pay the cost, to the benefit of everyone else. The CAA should therefore play their part and reduce or waive the fee but recover their costs (note costs, not cost plus profit) by charging a license fee to each aircraft that takes advantage of the mod.
In that way the cost of implementing mode S would at least be reduced for those users who would fall under the exemption, but might otherwise be persuaded to fit a transponder. All new aircraft would be fitted and as aircraft naturally fell out of circulation the number not “able” to carry would gradually fall.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Not a million miles from EGTF
Age: 68
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FujiAbound
All good points, and very reasonably put.
In my optimistic moods (not very often these days), I would like to think that the CAA and EASA and NATS et al would take such a reasonable line. After all it is in their interests for this to happen.
The trouble is, and this was mentioned on Saturday, the Govt & CAA tends to roll over when big business moans about having costs put on to them. Remember the 2006 hike in CAA costs to reduce 'cross-subsidy'?
GA is still considered by many to be a bunch of rich playboys well able to fund their anti-social activity. The CAA spokesman at the meeting tried to dispel myths, such as Mode S isn't about making GA pay so that the airlines can make more money. I'm afraid he didn't convince many.
The CAA is not about to recommend airlines, NATS, the military and wind turbine companies should pay something to help us out. They have treid this, and got nowhere.
Instead of the principle 'the beneficiary pays', the CAA's line is that the regulated pay. They are not about to change that.
The Mode S issue should never be seen as a single isolated GA problem, as it is often portrayed. It needs to be considered alongside other developments, such as airspace design, where controlled airspace is being set up piecemeal without any over-arching strategic viewpoint.
GA is reduced to responding late on in the day to try to mitigate badly drawn-up proposals. Hopefully with recent changes we will at least have a chance to influence these at a much earlier stage.
All good points, and very reasonably put.
In my optimistic moods (not very often these days), I would like to think that the CAA and EASA and NATS et al would take such a reasonable line. After all it is in their interests for this to happen.
The trouble is, and this was mentioned on Saturday, the Govt & CAA tends to roll over when big business moans about having costs put on to them. Remember the 2006 hike in CAA costs to reduce 'cross-subsidy'?
GA is still considered by many to be a bunch of rich playboys well able to fund their anti-social activity. The CAA spokesman at the meeting tried to dispel myths, such as Mode S isn't about making GA pay so that the airlines can make more money. I'm afraid he didn't convince many.
The CAA is not about to recommend airlines, NATS, the military and wind turbine companies should pay something to help us out. They have treid this, and got nowhere.
Instead of the principle 'the beneficiary pays', the CAA's line is that the regulated pay. They are not about to change that.
The Mode S issue should never be seen as a single isolated GA problem, as it is often portrayed. It needs to be considered alongside other developments, such as airspace design, where controlled airspace is being set up piecemeal without any over-arching strategic viewpoint.
GA is reduced to responding late on in the day to try to mitigate badly drawn-up proposals. Hopefully with recent changes we will at least have a chance to influence these at a much earlier stage.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GA is reduced to responding late on in the day to try to mitigate badly drawn-up proposals.
FujiAbound
All good points, and very reasonably put.
All good points, and very reasonably put.
Reductio ad adsurdum - the safest aircraft is the one that doesnt fly.
I believe we 'require a commitment by all participants', not to fly their aircraft, so 'risk can be reduced significantly'
Of course the other way to achieve a reduction in flying, is to increase the costs so much, that nobody but the wealthy can afford to fly.
I believe we 'require a commitment by all participants', not to fly their aircraft, so 'risk can be reduced significantly'
Of course the other way to achieve a reduction in flying, is to increase the costs so much, that nobody but the wealthy can afford to fly.
Last edited by Flying Binghi; 19th Nov 2007 at 11:14. Reason: Spelling
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: London
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As someone who flies an aircraft worth £6-7K and flies overseas, the cost of Mode S is significant. On the basis that I want to continue my hobby and by installing a Mode S transponder that this means I will no longer need to go scud running across Europe, is a bit of a joke. The cruise altitudes suggested by others are not attainable and flying above cloud is not possible or safe in this kind of aircraft. What works for one, does not work for all!
Last edited by Jerico; 19th Nov 2007 at 12:00.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: scotland
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only valid reason for Mode S was the need to reducing garbling of returns in the LHR stacks. However having every aircraft identifiable is very useful for airspace charging and prosecution of airspace infringers.
Currrent TCAS only needs to see Mode A/C data to do a good job of reducing collision risk and indeed having all aircraft transponding A/C around major airports is the US model.
Mode S is being sold there on the basis that additional Traffic Information can be uploaded from the ground and the result is small aircraft can receive useful information on surrounding traffic.
Such a system is not being considered here and to reduce the GA to GA collision risk we need to proceed towards something else which is air based rather than ground based.
This is where Extended Squitter comes in which is basically ADS out. The transponder is hooked up to a GPS and regularly transmits its position for all in the area to copy. Garmin have now released an upgrade of the 330 to incorporate ES and other manufacturers are doing likewise.
With an ES environment, suitable traffic information and collision avoidance can be made available using air based solutions.
This is what should be used to make the cost of mode S to GA provide some benefit for those that pay for the fitment, and remove the suspicion that this is all about the content of the second sentence above.
Currrent TCAS only needs to see Mode A/C data to do a good job of reducing collision risk and indeed having all aircraft transponding A/C around major airports is the US model.
Mode S is being sold there on the basis that additional Traffic Information can be uploaded from the ground and the result is small aircraft can receive useful information on surrounding traffic.
Such a system is not being considered here and to reduce the GA to GA collision risk we need to proceed towards something else which is air based rather than ground based.
This is where Extended Squitter comes in which is basically ADS out. The transponder is hooked up to a GPS and regularly transmits its position for all in the area to copy. Garmin have now released an upgrade of the 330 to incorporate ES and other manufacturers are doing likewise.
With an ES environment, suitable traffic information and collision avoidance can be made available using air based solutions.
This is what should be used to make the cost of mode S to GA provide some benefit for those that pay for the fitment, and remove the suspicion that this is all about the content of the second sentence above.