Collision Avoidance
Formerly HWD
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
From: Indochina
VT1,
Depends if you feel the safety is gap is best filled with you being aware or others being aware of you. With a PCAS setup you don't need a transponder so you deal with significant amount of the first former. By fitting a transponder you deal with a minority of the latter.
If anything, without a transponder you don't suffer the nuisance alerts that I mentioned earlier.
Lights are questionable. In bright daylight strobes don't seem to be that visible. Not sure about the new LED ones.
Depends if you feel the safety is gap is best filled with you being aware or others being aware of you. With a PCAS setup you don't need a transponder so you deal with significant amount of the first former. By fitting a transponder you deal with a minority of the latter.
If anything, without a transponder you don't suffer the nuisance alerts that I mentioned earlier.
Lights are questionable. In bright daylight strobes don't seem to be that visible. Not sure about the new LED ones.
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
From: EuroGA.org
Depends if you feel the safety is gap is best filled with you being aware or others being aware of you. With a PCAS setup you don't need a transponder so you deal with significant amount of the first former. By fitting a transponder you deal with a minority of the latter.
If anything, without a transponder you don't suffer the nuisance alerts that I mentioned earlier.
If anything, without a transponder you don't suffer the nuisance alerts that I mentioned earlier.
Carrying a Mode C/S transponder also makes you visible to commercial traffic's TCAS systems which (should you make a navigation error and end up busting CAS) can then take avoiding action. Of course, none of the people who don't carry transponders ever make a navigation error so they can ignore this paragraph
Carrying a Mode C/S transponder also makes it easier to get CAS transits in many areas, especially abroad.
And finally carrying a Mode C/S transponder makes you visible to GA traffic carrying some kind of traffic warning device, either one of the cheapo transponder receivers, or the full £20k system.
It is obvious from the pattern of UK GA that pilots who fly without a transponder are statistically much more likely to be flying low down, and it is low down where they are much more likely to get hit. So the "only bimbling" anti-transponder argument is the wrong way round. These are the very people who have the biggest benefit from carrying one.
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
From: Midlands
IO540 makes some good points but thay are minority cases.
Most of the recreational flying community fly at weekends when VFR traffic, certainly in my area, are most unlikely to get granted a RIS outside controlled airspace. Result, this is of very little value in the real world.
“Carrying a Mode C/S transponder also makes you visible to commercial traffic's” true, but how many commercial movements are there a less than 1000 ft in class g airspace? For that mater how many at less than 2000 ft. Again, this is a very small advantage in the real world.
“Carrying a Mode C/S transponder also makes it easier to get CAS transits in many areas, especially abroad.”
Completely true, and the reason I have mode c, but most recreational flying stay in the uk and fly most of the time if not exclusively in class g. Again this is a minority advantage.
“And finally carrying a Mode C/S transponder makes you visible to GA traffic carrying some kind of traffic warning device, either one of the cheapo transponder receivers, or the full £20k system.”
Again completely true, but most flying machines do not have such a device. I did an estimate of the traffic in my local area following the recent collision (which was at 1400ft agl by the way) and came to the conclusion that 80 – 90% of the local flying machines did not have transponders. With this in mind I have modified my operating procedures and increased my lookout as much as possible.
“It is obvious from the pattern of UK GA that pilots who fly without a transponder are statistically much more likely to be flying low down, and it is low down where they are much more likely to get hit. So the "only bimbling" anti-transponder argument is”
I have nothing against transponders, I have a fully serviceable mode c unit and I use it. However we must face the fact that most uk flying machines cannot fit one, and unless the LASP finally arrives (which is very unlikely) they never will.
Please feel free to use traffic alert systems, but still work on the lookout. I recently had a ride in a top end IFR single doing 140kn with all the kit, and the owner made no attempt to keep a good lookout, he just engaged the autopilot and monitored the systems. When I asked him he was of the opinion that his equipment would warn him if there was an issue. This is a very bad idea, please do not do this.
The only option in town for spotting most of the traffic which is flying around at the weekend is lookout. We all need to give it more effort.
Rod1
Most of the recreational flying community fly at weekends when VFR traffic, certainly in my area, are most unlikely to get granted a RIS outside controlled airspace. Result, this is of very little value in the real world.
“Carrying a Mode C/S transponder also makes you visible to commercial traffic's” true, but how many commercial movements are there a less than 1000 ft in class g airspace? For that mater how many at less than 2000 ft. Again, this is a very small advantage in the real world.
“Carrying a Mode C/S transponder also makes it easier to get CAS transits in many areas, especially abroad.”
Completely true, and the reason I have mode c, but most recreational flying stay in the uk and fly most of the time if not exclusively in class g. Again this is a minority advantage.
“And finally carrying a Mode C/S transponder makes you visible to GA traffic carrying some kind of traffic warning device, either one of the cheapo transponder receivers, or the full £20k system.”
Again completely true, but most flying machines do not have such a device. I did an estimate of the traffic in my local area following the recent collision (which was at 1400ft agl by the way) and came to the conclusion that 80 – 90% of the local flying machines did not have transponders. With this in mind I have modified my operating procedures and increased my lookout as much as possible.
“It is obvious from the pattern of UK GA that pilots who fly without a transponder are statistically much more likely to be flying low down, and it is low down where they are much more likely to get hit. So the "only bimbling" anti-transponder argument is”
I have nothing against transponders, I have a fully serviceable mode c unit and I use it. However we must face the fact that most uk flying machines cannot fit one, and unless the LASP finally arrives (which is very unlikely) they never will.
Please feel free to use traffic alert systems, but still work on the lookout. I recently had a ride in a top end IFR single doing 140kn with all the kit, and the owner made no attempt to keep a good lookout, he just engaged the autopilot and monitored the systems. When I asked him he was of the opinion that his equipment would warn him if there was an issue. This is a very bad idea, please do not do this.
The only option in town for spotting most of the traffic which is flying around at the weekend is lookout. We all need to give it more effort.
Rod1
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
From: EuroGA.org
Most of the recreational flying community fly at weekends when VFR traffic, certainly in my area, are most unlikely to get granted a RIS outside controlled airspace. Result, this is of very little value in the real world.
There are two issues here. If they fly low, they are much more likely to get hit, and presumably they accept that by flying low. Not having RIS is not really relevant - one needs to think of the other aircraft's safety too.
If they fly in a high density area and are non-transponding, ATC can't see them properly either and cannot provide a service to traffic flying higher up, where the traffic can get a service.
Maybe I am missing something but this sounds like a "I don't benefit, why should I help other GA pilots?".
“Carrying a Mode C/S transponder also makes you visible to commercial traffic's” true, but how many commercial movements are there a less than 1000 ft in class g airspace? For that mater how many at less than 2000 ft. Again, this is a very small advantage in the real world.
“Carrying a Mode C/S transponder also makes it easier to get CAS transits in many areas, especially abroad.”
Completely true, and the reason I have mode c, but most recreational flying stay in the uk and fly most of the time if not exclusively in class g. Again this is a minority advantage.
Completely true, and the reason I have mode c, but most recreational flying stay in the uk and fly most of the time if not exclusively in class g. Again this is a minority advantage.
“And finally carrying a Mode C/S transponder makes you visible to GA traffic carrying some kind of traffic warning device, either one of the cheapo transponder receivers, or the full £20k system.”
Again completely true, but most flying machines do not have such a device.
Again completely true, but most flying machines do not have such a device.
I did an estimate of the traffic in my local area following the recent collision (which was at 1400ft agl by the way) and came to the conclusion that 80 – 90% of the local flying machines did not have transponders. With this in mind I have modified my operating procedures and increased my lookout as much as possible.
However we must face the fact that most uk flying machines cannot fit one
, and unless the LASP finally arrives (which is very unlikely) they never will.
Please feel free to use traffic alert systems, but still work on the lookout. I recently had a ride in a top end IFR single doing 140kn with all the kit, and the owner made no attempt to keep a good lookout, he just engaged the autopilot and monitored the systems. When I asked him he was of the opinion that his equipment would warn him if there was an issue. This is a very bad idea, please do not do this.
The only option in town for spotting most of the traffic which is flying around at the weekend is lookout. We all need to give it more effort.
The best way to avoid a mid-air in the present Class G non-mandatory-transponder environment, is to fly well above 1000ft and in IMC (or better still above clouds). Being above clouds is the very best place - great view, sunshine, and virtually no traffic.
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,509
Likes: 14
From: Australia
NTSB Identification: LAX04FA095A
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Friday, January 16, 2004 in Tehachapi, CA
Probable Cause Approval Date: 5/30/2006
Aircraft: Cessna 180K, registration: N61691
Injuries: 1 Fatal, 1 Minor.
A Cessna 180K and a Beech 95-B55 collided head-on during cruise flight over a valley, between 1,500 and 2,000 feet above ground level. The Cessna's right wing separated, and the airplane descended to ground impact. The Beech, which had been in a cruise climb, experienced a punctured windscreen and fuselage. The pilot made a precautionary landing without further mishap. The collision occurred on a clear day about 6 miles west of the Tehachapi Airport, from where the Beech pilot had departed. Neither pilot was receiving services from the Federal Aviation Administration. Radar track data indicated that the Cessna had flown in a southeasterly direction after departing the Bakersfield area. Minutes prior to the collision, the pilot changed to a northerly course. Seconds prior to the collision the pilot initiated a northeasterly turn. The Beech pilot had just configured his airplane for a cruise climb, and was flying in a westerly direction toward Bakersfield. The Cessna was flying about 135 knots, and the Beech was flying about 140 knots. The closing speed was about 275 knots, or just over 4 miles per minute. The Cessna was equipped with a Mode S transponder, and its signal was detected by Traffic Collision Alerting Device (TCAD) installed in the Beech. Seconds prior to the collision, the Beech pilot heard the audible "traffic" alert warning in his headset, and he observed an illuminated target in close proximity on the annunicator. The target was within 200 feet of his airplane's altitude, and in his 1 to 2 o'clock position. The Beech pilot reported that although he looked for the target, none was seen. The collision angle between the airplanes was documented. The impact was ascertained by fitting the Cessna's right main landing gear wheel in the punctured right side front windscreen of the Beech. As the Cessna's landing gear passed through the upper portion of the Beech's fuselage, the right wing's lift strut was lacerated upon impacting the leading edge of the Beech's vertical stabilizer. Thereafter, the Cessna's right wing separated. An evaluation of the pilots' visual angles revealed the airplanes were within each pilot's field of vision.
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:
The pilot's inadequate visual lookout during cruise, and the pilot of the other airplane's inadequate visual lookout during climb.
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Friday, January 16, 2004 in Tehachapi, CA
Probable Cause Approval Date: 5/30/2006
Aircraft: Cessna 180K, registration: N61691
Injuries: 1 Fatal, 1 Minor.
A Cessna 180K and a Beech 95-B55 collided head-on during cruise flight over a valley, between 1,500 and 2,000 feet above ground level. The Cessna's right wing separated, and the airplane descended to ground impact. The Beech, which had been in a cruise climb, experienced a punctured windscreen and fuselage. The pilot made a precautionary landing without further mishap. The collision occurred on a clear day about 6 miles west of the Tehachapi Airport, from where the Beech pilot had departed. Neither pilot was receiving services from the Federal Aviation Administration. Radar track data indicated that the Cessna had flown in a southeasterly direction after departing the Bakersfield area. Minutes prior to the collision, the pilot changed to a northerly course. Seconds prior to the collision the pilot initiated a northeasterly turn. The Beech pilot had just configured his airplane for a cruise climb, and was flying in a westerly direction toward Bakersfield. The Cessna was flying about 135 knots, and the Beech was flying about 140 knots. The closing speed was about 275 knots, or just over 4 miles per minute. The Cessna was equipped with a Mode S transponder, and its signal was detected by Traffic Collision Alerting Device (TCAD) installed in the Beech. Seconds prior to the collision, the Beech pilot heard the audible "traffic" alert warning in his headset, and he observed an illuminated target in close proximity on the annunicator. The target was within 200 feet of his airplane's altitude, and in his 1 to 2 o'clock position. The Beech pilot reported that although he looked for the target, none was seen. The collision angle between the airplanes was documented. The impact was ascertained by fitting the Cessna's right main landing gear wheel in the punctured right side front windscreen of the Beech. As the Cessna's landing gear passed through the upper portion of the Beech's fuselage, the right wing's lift strut was lacerated upon impacting the leading edge of the Beech's vertical stabilizer. Thereafter, the Cessna's right wing separated. An evaluation of the pilots' visual angles revealed the airplanes were within each pilot's field of vision.
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:
The pilot's inadequate visual lookout during cruise, and the pilot of the other airplane's inadequate visual lookout during climb.
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
From: Midlands
“Why not get RIS?”
There are almost no LARS units working at weekends. Trying to get a RIS from local regional airports (when VMC) gets “service not available due to controller workload” 99% prob.
"I don't benefit, why should I help other GA pilots?".
Not at all!
“Unfortunately you will need to fit Mode S fairly soon.”
They have been saying that for many years. At this moment in time there is no regulation which is defiantly coming in which will stop me touring. This may change, but remember I do have mode C, without which the above would be untrue. I will be attending the LAA / CAA meting in March and am involved in the LAA response to the second consultation.
“That's a catch-22. Most people won't get one because most other traffic is non transponding. If most traffic was transponding, the value of a "traffic receiver" would go up massively. The argument would then be just down to money.”
If the traffic in my local area was mostly transponder equipped then I would very seriously look at a device, but I do not think this will ever happen.
“Lookout can make one feel better, and I do plenty of it, but it doesn't actually work, because a target on a genuine collision course will be a totally stationary point in the sky.”
Spoken like a true IFR man who flies in straight lines. My most likely collision risk is with a Glider, and Gliders spend most of the time going round in circles and are not transponder equipped. You constant angle point is therefore of little real world value unless you are flying along at FL XX above cloud.
“An existing Mode S can be easily battery powered if necessary, already.”
Most flying machines cannot fit a current tec transponder under existing rules. I would be happy to debate this with you for hours as I have spent many many hours on this but I will give you one example. There are 4000 uk Microlights. Micros have a max empty weight beyond which you cannot fly the aircraft. A Eurostar (very popular micro selling in volume) is so close to this limit that it cannot be painted. There is no way you could fit a transponder, wiring and an aerial without making the aircraft illegal. I could give you many more examples, both micro, unregulated, gliders, LAA fleet etc etc, and if you want to contact me off line I am very happy to have the debate.
“The best way to avoid a mid-air in the present Class G non-mandatory-transponder environment, is to fly well above 1000ft and in IMC (or better still above clouds). Being above clouds is the very best place - great view, sunshine, and virtually no traffic.”
No argument from me, I spend lots of time up there. My problem is getting out of an unmarked grass strip in a busy bit of class g. Max risk is the first 70 sec from takeoff, after that I am above 2000 ft AGL and less likely to bump into anything. I would however be a pop up to anybody receiving a RIS at say 1400 ft, and unless ATC were really quick there would be no time to make a radio warning.
Rod1
There are almost no LARS units working at weekends. Trying to get a RIS from local regional airports (when VMC) gets “service not available due to controller workload” 99% prob.
"I don't benefit, why should I help other GA pilots?".
Not at all!
“Unfortunately you will need to fit Mode S fairly soon.”
They have been saying that for many years. At this moment in time there is no regulation which is defiantly coming in which will stop me touring. This may change, but remember I do have mode C, without which the above would be untrue. I will be attending the LAA / CAA meting in March and am involved in the LAA response to the second consultation.
“That's a catch-22. Most people won't get one because most other traffic is non transponding. If most traffic was transponding, the value of a "traffic receiver" would go up massively. The argument would then be just down to money.”
If the traffic in my local area was mostly transponder equipped then I would very seriously look at a device, but I do not think this will ever happen.
“Lookout can make one feel better, and I do plenty of it, but it doesn't actually work, because a target on a genuine collision course will be a totally stationary point in the sky.”
Spoken like a true IFR man who flies in straight lines. My most likely collision risk is with a Glider, and Gliders spend most of the time going round in circles and are not transponder equipped. You constant angle point is therefore of little real world value unless you are flying along at FL XX above cloud.
“An existing Mode S can be easily battery powered if necessary, already.”
Most flying machines cannot fit a current tec transponder under existing rules. I would be happy to debate this with you for hours as I have spent many many hours on this but I will give you one example. There are 4000 uk Microlights. Micros have a max empty weight beyond which you cannot fly the aircraft. A Eurostar (very popular micro selling in volume) is so close to this limit that it cannot be painted. There is no way you could fit a transponder, wiring and an aerial without making the aircraft illegal. I could give you many more examples, both micro, unregulated, gliders, LAA fleet etc etc, and if you want to contact me off line I am very happy to have the debate.
“The best way to avoid a mid-air in the present Class G non-mandatory-transponder environment, is to fly well above 1000ft and in IMC (or better still above clouds). Being above clouds is the very best place - great view, sunshine, and virtually no traffic.”
No argument from me, I spend lots of time up there. My problem is getting out of an unmarked grass strip in a busy bit of class g. Max risk is the first 70 sec from takeoff, after that I am above 2000 ft AGL and less likely to bump into anything. I would however be a pop up to anybody receiving a RIS at say 1400 ft, and unless ATC were really quick there would be no time to make a radio warning.
Rod1
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
From: EuroGA.org
Micros have a max empty weight beyond which you cannot fly the aircraft. A Eurostar (very popular micro selling in volume) is so close to this limit that it cannot be painted. There is no way you could fit a transponder, wiring and an aerial without making the aircraft illegal.
A GTX330 with the antenna and wiring is probably about 3kg.
It would be an utterly bizzare regulation. Why doesn't somebody press the (obviously stupid) manufacturer to increase the empty weight? Or replace a few bits with lighter ones - should be easy to fit titanium/magnesium parts on a homebuilt. Then, the issue will become a MTOW limit and be entirely in the hands of the pilots and how many £100 burgers they consume
More basically, why do people buy these machines when they are so obviously a regulatory trap / dead-end? Are the buyers unaware of these issues? Even if Mode S remains for ever non mandatory for certain bits of airspace, not being able to fit it makes the machine hugely restricted. Does the UK dealer for these spell out that in the near future, large chunks of European airspace will be closed to them? If he doesn't, he is likely to get sued. I know I could not sell a plane which on the basis of empty weight will be illegal to fly in a lot of perfectly OK VFR airspace, unless I spelt this out in the sale contract.
Whatever one thinks of Mode S, the writing has been on the wall for years and nobody can pretend they didn't know. The European Mode S war has been lost; all that remains is some haggling over which bits of low level airspace will remain open in which countries.
Presumably if somebody wants to fit a GPS, it has to be a handheld, on a clip-on bracket, so they can pretend it is portable and does not add to the empty weight.
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
From: Pembrokeshire UK
Thanks for sort of answering my question.
It seems:- when I fly at weekends no RIS is available. Below 2000 ft a non transponder a/c may hit me, or a transponder equipped a/c not looking out may hit me. A microlight may hit me anywhere, and a glider could hit me at high altitude, even above the cloud. And even if I look out all the time I will miss an a/c on a direct collision course. Unless I disorientate myself by flying in circles.
If I fit a mode C/S transponder the risk to myself & others is reduced, but a Zaon unit could only give warning of the relatively small number of transponder equipped a/c in my vicinity.
Back to strobes and the new LEDs.. are they useless, or could they give just enough extra visibility to make a life or death difference?
It seems:- when I fly at weekends no RIS is available. Below 2000 ft a non transponder a/c may hit me, or a transponder equipped a/c not looking out may hit me. A microlight may hit me anywhere, and a glider could hit me at high altitude, even above the cloud. And even if I look out all the time I will miss an a/c on a direct collision course. Unless I disorientate myself by flying in circles.
If I fit a mode C/S transponder the risk to myself & others is reduced, but a Zaon unit could only give warning of the relatively small number of transponder equipped a/c in my vicinity.
Back to strobes and the new LEDs.. are they useless, or could they give just enough extra visibility to make a life or death difference?
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
From: Midlands
The argument is true, trust me. The CAA have said it will see if the extra weight can be “allowed” by a change in the rules, but no plan for doing this has been put forward. If you want the full tec regs have a look at the section s rules on the LAA site.
The Eurostar is only one of a large number of machines which have this problem. I completely agree the rules are mad, that is why I spend time trying to improve them! The empty weight limit only applies to installed kit, so a GPS and an Icom can be clipped in and then removed. I avoided the problem by going VLA which does not have the silly rule.
Gliders are often operated at close to MAUW. My old MC100 was 2lb under its extended MTOW with me in it in standard gliding gear. There was no panel space and no weight to fit any extra kit at all.
I notice you did not comment on the constant angle issue.
Rod1
Edited to add, the French have no planes to mandate Mode S for VFR flight in any airspace. You may use Mode C as per the old rules and no date has been set to change this. Again just one example, the Mode S “war” is going to drag on for many many years. Eventually the tec will be replaced by phase three, ADSB, and a new war will start. Some people will avoid Mode s altogether, some will end up fitting it for a quiet life. I may eventually fall into the second group, but not this side of 2012 unless the Europeans change their minds.
Just to be clear, the French example above is taken from a formal question asked by the CAA a few weeks ago and the responce receved by the DGLC.
The Eurostar is only one of a large number of machines which have this problem. I completely agree the rules are mad, that is why I spend time trying to improve them! The empty weight limit only applies to installed kit, so a GPS and an Icom can be clipped in and then removed. I avoided the problem by going VLA which does not have the silly rule.
Gliders are often operated at close to MAUW. My old MC100 was 2lb under its extended MTOW with me in it in standard gliding gear. There was no panel space and no weight to fit any extra kit at all.
I notice you did not comment on the constant angle issue.
Rod1
Edited to add, the French have no planes to mandate Mode S for VFR flight in any airspace. You may use Mode C as per the old rules and no date has been set to change this. Again just one example, the Mode S “war” is going to drag on for many many years. Eventually the tec will be replaced by phase three, ADSB, and a new war will start. Some people will avoid Mode s altogether, some will end up fitting it for a quiet life. I may eventually fall into the second group, but not this side of 2012 unless the Europeans change their minds.
Just to be clear, the French example above is taken from a formal question asked by the CAA a few weeks ago and the responce receved by the DGLC.
Last edited by Rod1; 20th February 2008 at 13:58.
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
From: EuroGA.org
Rod1
Like most pilots going somewhere, I do fly straight tracks between waypoints - unless taking photos etc, and I agree that gliders are the remaining issue which is probably un-solvable but they should be visible because they are usually flying random tracks.
Well, one can solve it by flying in or above the clouds; preferably above since gliders sometimes go into cloud.
BGA is the best organised lobby in GA, with solid support among the partly ex air force staffed regulatory bodies around Europe. They may get away from Mode S for a long time.
vee-tail-1
I think lights are a good idea but they need to be really bright. The U.S.-made gas discharge lights are great (very bright, lower power usage, almost indefinite life) but appear to be difficult or impossible to fit to a G-reg other than a homebuilt.
Like most pilots going somewhere, I do fly straight tracks between waypoints - unless taking photos etc, and I agree that gliders are the remaining issue which is probably un-solvable but they should be visible because they are usually flying random tracks.
Well, one can solve it by flying in or above the clouds; preferably above since gliders sometimes go into cloud.
BGA is the best organised lobby in GA, with solid support among the partly ex air force staffed regulatory bodies around Europe. They may get away from Mode S for a long time.
vee-tail-1
I think lights are a good idea but they need to be really bright. The U.S.-made gas discharge lights are great (very bright, lower power usage, almost indefinite life) but appear to be difficult or impossible to fit to a G-reg other than a homebuilt.
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
From: Midlands
VT1
I sometimes have the honour to fly with an ex member of the ROC. He spent many years training to spot other aircraft and he is vastly better at it than me. I have always seen this as a challenge. If he is so good, then I can get better. See and avoid can and does work but you have to work at it and it is not perfect. The biggest problem with it is that most old spam cans have so many blind spots that it is hard to keep a good lookout.
Rod1
I sometimes have the honour to fly with an ex member of the ROC. He spent many years training to spot other aircraft and he is vastly better at it than me. I have always seen this as a challenge. If he is so good, then I can get better. See and avoid can and does work but you have to work at it and it is not perfect. The biggest problem with it is that most old spam cans have so many blind spots that it is hard to keep a good lookout.
Rod1
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
From: Midlands
Irresponsible???
The CAA has made it clear they have no planes to make Transponders compulsory in all UK airspace. If a qualified pilot chooses to fly a non-electric aircraft the length of the UK with no radio and no transponder he is allowed to do so. I know several people who flew from the south coast to Wick is such aircraft least summer. This is not irresponsible at all. There are far more flying machines with no transponders in the UK then with.
The CAA position is that if a VFR pilot chooses to fit mode s they will have more straightforward access to some airspace. Do not try to demonise the majority of pilots, a Transponder is not ever going to be fitted to an unregulated 115kg machine, but sales of such are likely to be an order of magnitude more than traditional GA. The traditional single engine C of A fleet is about 7000 strong. 12000 paramotors were sold in the UK in 2006. In total there are about 4000 micros, 1000 LAA machines (without transponders) 4000 gliders, etc etc etc.
Rod1
The CAA has made it clear they have no planes to make Transponders compulsory in all UK airspace. If a qualified pilot chooses to fly a non-electric aircraft the length of the UK with no radio and no transponder he is allowed to do so. I know several people who flew from the south coast to Wick is such aircraft least summer. This is not irresponsible at all. There are far more flying machines with no transponders in the UK then with.
The CAA position is that if a VFR pilot chooses to fit mode s they will have more straightforward access to some airspace. Do not try to demonise the majority of pilots, a Transponder is not ever going to be fitted to an unregulated 115kg machine, but sales of such are likely to be an order of magnitude more than traditional GA. The traditional single engine C of A fleet is about 7000 strong. 12000 paramotors were sold in the UK in 2006. In total there are about 4000 micros, 1000 LAA machines (without transponders) 4000 gliders, etc etc etc.
Rod1
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
From: EuroGA.org
12000 paramotors were sold in the UK in 2006.
You will be quoting lawn mower sales next. I am sure they are even higher. And they probably cover more distance (seriously)
I have no problem with people flying without transponders in so far as they are legal doing so (ok, it renders an RIS useless much of the time, causing the £millions spent on LARS to go to waste) but they have exactly zero moral high ground to stand on if something goes wrong.
We all share the same airspace, and each of us ought to be chucking something into the common pot.
Fortunately, the statistics are firmly on the side of the pilot who gets airborne, puts the autopilot on, and never looks outside the window. All he has to do is keep above 1000ft AGL and enter IMC as soon as possible.
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 434
Likes: 0
From: UK
<quote>
and they are used to travel.... how far on average from the launch point???
</quote>
Doesn't matter how far they travel. You can still hit them even if they're over their launch point.
<quote>
each of us ought to be chucking something into the common pot
</quote>
Agree....it's called LOOKING OUT. It's not a guarantee but it is the one thing that paramotors, LAA's, microlights, gliders and powered aircraft are ALL equipped to do. If the power jockeys want to carry additional whiz-bang electric boxes that help them from hitting similarly equipped aircraft, or allows them to fly in controlled airspace, then that's fine by me BUT it shouldn't be done at the expense of reducing look out.
and they are used to travel.... how far on average from the launch point???
</quote>
Doesn't matter how far they travel. You can still hit them even if they're over their launch point.
<quote>
each of us ought to be chucking something into the common pot
</quote>
Agree....it's called LOOKING OUT. It's not a guarantee but it is the one thing that paramotors, LAA's, microlights, gliders and powered aircraft are ALL equipped to do. If the power jockeys want to carry additional whiz-bang electric boxes that help them from hitting similarly equipped aircraft, or allows them to fly in controlled airspace, then that's fine by me BUT it shouldn't be done at the expense of reducing look out.
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
From: England
Originally Posted by gpn01
Agree....it's called LOOKING OUT. It's not a guarantee but it is the one thing that paramotors, LAA's, microlights, gliders and powered aircraft are ALL equipped to do. If the power jockeys want to carry additional whiz-bang electric boxes that help them from hitting similarly equipped aircraft, or allows them to fly in controlled airspace, then that's fine by me BUT it shouldn't be done at the expense of reducing look out.
Perhaps a compromise could be transponders not required below 1000ft AGL, where the microlights could fight it out with the RAF.
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 307
Likes: 0
From: London
Originally Posted by IO540
I have no problem with people flying without transponders in so far as they are legal doing so (ok, it renders an RIS useless much of the time, causing the £millions spent on LARS to go to waste)
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
From: Midlands
“I'm inclined to support compulsory mode C or S in everything with an engine”
Support it all you want it will never come to pass. It would ground 1000’s of aircraft and the CAA have realised it cannot do this.
“and they are used to travel.... how far on average from the launch point???”
As has been said, they only have to get airborne to be a threat
“We all share the same airspace, and each of us ought to be chucking something into the common pot..”
I have no problem with this. I have mode c, which is entirely adequate, in fact overkill for my long distance VFR touring. What I object to are people who know nothing about the light end of aviation making sweeping statements when they have no idea of the impact.
I am sure almost all high-end micros would fit transponders tomorrow, if the rules on empty weight were changed. I have no expectation that the rules will change this side of EASA taking over completely, which is a long way off.
I am sure the gilders would fit them if it was technically possible, but in most cases it is not.
I am sure the Lutons and Turbulents will not fit them as the technical challenge is too great on an aircraft worth £3000 all in.
Do we really want to ground all this because some rich guys with all the toys cannot be bothered to work on lookout. If you all feel that without a transponder you are in too much danger to carry on flying then give up and let the rest of us have a bit more room to play with. I have always believed in the brotherhood of aviation, but perhaps I am just incredibly stupid.
Rod1
Support it all you want it will never come to pass. It would ground 1000’s of aircraft and the CAA have realised it cannot do this.
“and they are used to travel.... how far on average from the launch point???”
As has been said, they only have to get airborne to be a threat
“We all share the same airspace, and each of us ought to be chucking something into the common pot..”
I have no problem with this. I have mode c, which is entirely adequate, in fact overkill for my long distance VFR touring. What I object to are people who know nothing about the light end of aviation making sweeping statements when they have no idea of the impact.
I am sure almost all high-end micros would fit transponders tomorrow, if the rules on empty weight were changed. I have no expectation that the rules will change this side of EASA taking over completely, which is a long way off.
I am sure the gilders would fit them if it was technically possible, but in most cases it is not.
I am sure the Lutons and Turbulents will not fit them as the technical challenge is too great on an aircraft worth £3000 all in.
Do we really want to ground all this because some rich guys with all the toys cannot be bothered to work on lookout. If you all feel that without a transponder you are in too much danger to carry on flying then give up and let the rest of us have a bit more room to play with. I have always believed in the brotherhood of aviation, but perhaps I am just incredibly stupid.
Rod1
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
From: Not a million miles from EGTF
>>>Perhaps a compromise could be transponders not required below 1000ft AGL, where the microlights could fight it out with the RAF. <<<
Forgive my ignorance, but doesn't that fall foul of Rule 5....
Rod has been a lone voice of common sense here. Reliance on technical solutions, as I have also seen flying with well-equipped a/c, is scary.
Fly in the Class G area around Popham on an event day using your 'glass cockpit' instrumentation. In the event of a collision, who would be at fault - the non-tx microlight or the totally-equipped pilot who sets up his autopilot and TCAS?
I've watched my (very experience) pilt friend, and he is spending so much time looking at the screens and fine-tuning his flight profile, he almost never looks out.
Unless and until a technical solution appears at a cost that is proportionate (£3-4k for an Evans VP1 is not that), then the CAA have guaranteed (grin, grin) that Mode S will not be mandated, so TCAS will never find all the potential targets.
Effectively those who fly on instruments/autopilot will prefer to fly high, and that will bring in a degree of separation. My issue is with those pilots who plan to fly lower and mix it with us 'indians' then blame us for getting in their way - quoting safety as a rationale.
Forgive my ignorance, but doesn't that fall foul of Rule 5....
Rod has been a lone voice of common sense here. Reliance on technical solutions, as I have also seen flying with well-equipped a/c, is scary.
Fly in the Class G area around Popham on an event day using your 'glass cockpit' instrumentation. In the event of a collision, who would be at fault - the non-tx microlight or the totally-equipped pilot who sets up his autopilot and TCAS?
I've watched my (very experience) pilt friend, and he is spending so much time looking at the screens and fine-tuning his flight profile, he almost never looks out.
Unless and until a technical solution appears at a cost that is proportionate (£3-4k for an Evans VP1 is not that), then the CAA have guaranteed (grin, grin) that Mode S will not be mandated, so TCAS will never find all the potential targets.
Effectively those who fly on instruments/autopilot will prefer to fly high, and that will bring in a degree of separation. My issue is with those pilots who plan to fly lower and mix it with us 'indians' then blame us for getting in their way - quoting safety as a rationale.