Mode 'S' mandatory for gliders.
Thread Starter
PPRuNe Radar
Wow, you must feel a lot better having got all that off your chest.
I anticipated a certain level of emotional response when I began this thread but I didn't expect it to become a substitute for therapy! Perhaps you should lie down in a darkened room for a while.
If you could engage in the debate further, in your capacity as an ATCO, that would really be appreciated.
I anticipated a certain level of emotional response when I began this thread but I didn't expect it to become a substitute for therapy! Perhaps you should lie down in a darkened room for a while.
If you could engage in the debate further, in your capacity as an ATCO, that would really be appreciated.
Last edited by snapper1; 7th May 2008 at 08:48. Reason: heading
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Wilmslow and North Yorks
Age: 53
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well they don't win the emotive "200 pax are worth £5000 argument, do they?
The point is: GLIDERS WITHOUT ANY TYPE OF TRANSPONDER ARE MORE OF A DANGER THAN GLIDERS WITH ONE......you cannot possibly disagree with that, therefore they should all have them...it's a total "no brainer"
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And the relevence of this to Mode S is?
From the ATCO point of view, some form of identification device (whether that be Mode S or not) should be mandatory within Controlled Airspace, whether you are a glider or not. In specific areas, exceptions could be made, by creating Restricted Areas (Temporary) which function under a Letter of Agreement and ensure that only the non transponding traffic is within the area when activation is authorised. In addition, VFR routes where carraige is not required could also be considered, subject to conditions placed on the flight. In Class G, it should be mandatory above FL100 for carraige, since the 250Kts speed restriction put in place for 'see and be seen' is removed above that, making it more important for everyone to be visible electronically. Mandatory equipment carraige zones should also be investigated around major airfields or TMAs, with a proviso that the size of Controlled Airspace be reviewed with a view to reducing it since unknown traffic is now visible.
All that may impinge on gliding, but there is nothing to stop specific local agreements being put in place to provide compromise airspace management and solutions. You won't get unfettered access to all the airspace over the UK if you don't carry the required equipment, but then neither do a whole host of other pilots. What you will get is some airspace sharing, by agreement with everyone who operates in the airspace. Pragmatism works surprisingly well, even if some folks cause you to need a lie down in a darkened room.
Incidentally, the agreements I have worked on with the gliding fraternity seem to work OK from both sides of the house so one bad apple really does not spoil it for the majority. P600 delegation, P600 access, and the Upper Gliding areas were some of the ones I put together.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 433
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First of all thank you PPRUNE_Radar for the rant....made me grin somewhat! Fair point also that "The voice of pilots (whatever they fly) will be much louder if people work together rather than looking only after their own interests".
ComJam - "GLIDERS WITHOUT ANY TYPE OF TRANSPONDER ARE MORE OF A DANGER THAN GLIDERS WITH ONE......you cannot possibly disagree with that, therefore they should all have them...it's a total "no brainer".......Following that same logic, You can't possibly disagree that driving with a bloke walking in front of you with a red flag MUST be safer than not and so we should ban everybody from driving unless there's a man in front of each vehicle waving a red flag. Remember that over 3500 people are killed each year in road crashes, so it would make "sense" as lives are important aren't they?
ComJam - "Only one of the aircraft involved needs to have TCAS fitted".....Err, that kind of emphasises the point that the technology doesn't work to the benefit of everybody, only to the big airplanes (whose lives are presumably more important). How would two non-TCAS equipped aircraft be made aware of a conflict risk ?
I agree with many of the respondants that there is a need to ensure (and improve) flight safety but any 'improvements' need to be for the benefit of all AND proportionate - I think also that we all need to be realistic and that GA (not just gliders, but homebuilds, light aircraft, microlights, parascenders and balloonists) is being squeezed more and more by commercial operations. Perhaps, once oil reaches $2.20 a barrel in the not too distant future, this pressure will decrease as the low cost operators realise that the markup on a sandwich isn't sufficient to operate a jet for a tenner per ticket?
ComJam - "GLIDERS WITHOUT ANY TYPE OF TRANSPONDER ARE MORE OF A DANGER THAN GLIDERS WITH ONE......you cannot possibly disagree with that, therefore they should all have them...it's a total "no brainer".......Following that same logic, You can't possibly disagree that driving with a bloke walking in front of you with a red flag MUST be safer than not and so we should ban everybody from driving unless there's a man in front of each vehicle waving a red flag. Remember that over 3500 people are killed each year in road crashes, so it would make "sense" as lives are important aren't they?
ComJam - "Only one of the aircraft involved needs to have TCAS fitted".....Err, that kind of emphasises the point that the technology doesn't work to the benefit of everybody, only to the big airplanes (whose lives are presumably more important). How would two non-TCAS equipped aircraft be made aware of a conflict risk ?
I agree with many of the respondants that there is a need to ensure (and improve) flight safety but any 'improvements' need to be for the benefit of all AND proportionate - I think also that we all need to be realistic and that GA (not just gliders, but homebuilds, light aircraft, microlights, parascenders and balloonists) is being squeezed more and more by commercial operations. Perhaps, once oil reaches $2.20 a barrel in the not too distant future, this pressure will decrease as the low cost operators realise that the markup on a sandwich isn't sufficient to operate a jet for a tenner per ticket?
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Wilmslow and North Yorks
Age: 53
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
only to the big airplanes (whose lives are presumably more important). How would two non-TCAS equipped aircraft be made aware of a conflict risk ?
As for seeing conflict risk, one of the types I operate does not have TCAS, therefore we like to use a radar service particularly above FL100. Below that, i regularly transit VFR, see and be seen applies, it's a choice and i don't expect everything to be squwaking or recieving a service. But in controlled airspace and above FL100 (where the speed restriction is lifted) it should be mandatory to carry a Mode S transponder.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 433
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't disagree with your last point - I accept that electronic alerting and avoidance does offer a benefit in controlled airspace. I suppose with increased technology it'll lead to a decreased need for controllers too (which I don't support, as I think nothing beats the human touch).
Oh right, i see. So as long as it's a smaller commercial aircraft and less people are killed in a mid-air that's acceptable is it??
As for seeing conflict risk, one of the types I operate does not have TCAS,
i regularly transit VFR,
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem is that many gliders use a collision avoidance system that is very good indeed. Sadly it is also completely incompatible with the industry standard of transponders (mode c/s) and TCAS which in turn is only mandatory for bigger airplanes (something like 19 passenger seats, 5.6t?).
I know that some operators of small commercial planes install FLARM in addition to normal transponders, especially those operating in areas with high glider traffic density.
The problem i see with FLARM is the incompatibily problem with the existing system used in most powered aircrafts. Two coexisting incompatible products are not a good idea at all, especially if it leads to a false sense of safety in both communities. The one thing to take into account is that commercial aviation allways has the bigger lobby and more power inside the legislation system to change the system to accomodate its needs. That doesn't mean that GA has just to roll over and take it as it comes, but a less heated discussion is often a better way to achieve results.
I know that some operators of small commercial planes install FLARM in addition to normal transponders, especially those operating in areas with high glider traffic density.
The problem i see with FLARM is the incompatibily problem with the existing system used in most powered aircrafts. Two coexisting incompatible products are not a good idea at all, especially if it leads to a false sense of safety in both communities. The one thing to take into account is that commercial aviation allways has the bigger lobby and more power inside the legislation system to change the system to accomodate its needs. That doesn't mean that GA has just to roll over and take it as it comes, but a less heated discussion is often a better way to achieve results.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 433
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Does that mean you still don't accept that it's beneficial in uncontrolled airspace as well?"
I believe that there is value in having appropriate mechanisms for the relevant airspace. If Mode-S is the most technologically and cost effective solution within controlled airspace then that's fine. A bit like taking the train really - as a passenger I find some comfort in the idea of signalling equipment, a professionally qualified and trained driver and control/monitoring systems. Rather like in a commercial aeroplane really.
Likewise, considering an uncontrolled airspace analogy, I accept that driving along an autobahn at 200km/h, surrounded by other drivers who may not be awake as me and who could pull out at any moment is an acceptable "risk" which 'could' be overcome through the introduction of technology but which would dramatically increase the cost of car ownership (e.g. every car could be fitted with a simple form of Mode-S/TCAS connected to the accelerator/brake).
If there was a simple, low cost, feasible, reliable, fully interoperable system that could be used autonomously in uncontrolled airspace, then yes that would be a great idea. Unfortunately, the options seem to be Mode-S (expensive and unsuitable for all GA), ADS-B (more advanced than Mode-S but not supported by CAA) and FLARM (being trialled by some glider pilots but incompatible with CAA/NATS kit).
I believe that there is value in having appropriate mechanisms for the relevant airspace. If Mode-S is the most technologically and cost effective solution within controlled airspace then that's fine. A bit like taking the train really - as a passenger I find some comfort in the idea of signalling equipment, a professionally qualified and trained driver and control/monitoring systems. Rather like in a commercial aeroplane really.
Likewise, considering an uncontrolled airspace analogy, I accept that driving along an autobahn at 200km/h, surrounded by other drivers who may not be awake as me and who could pull out at any moment is an acceptable "risk" which 'could' be overcome through the introduction of technology but which would dramatically increase the cost of car ownership (e.g. every car could be fitted with a simple form of Mode-S/TCAS connected to the accelerator/brake).
If there was a simple, low cost, feasible, reliable, fully interoperable system that could be used autonomously in uncontrolled airspace, then yes that would be a great idea. Unfortunately, the options seem to be Mode-S (expensive and unsuitable for all GA), ADS-B (more advanced than Mode-S but not supported by CAA) and FLARM (being trialled by some glider pilots but incompatible with CAA/NATS kit).
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Cloud Nine
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PPruneRadar wrote ....
Well I would disagree, Mr Radar.
I know of someone who has successfully completed a return trip to the south of France from Scotland "sans transpondeur" - VFR all the way, but helpful controllers in CTRs and a bit of prior notice and a lunch emergency .... and it was perfectly feasible.
No reason why you can't have VFR routes in Class D airspace - such as the entry/exit lanes at Glasgow. Or in SVFR routes in Jersey/Guernsey CTAs.
Mandatory is overkill.
What happens to the radar clutter on your tiny radar screens at Scottish ACC if everyone squawks ?
A bigger problem is fastjets hammering around at low level highspeed without ACAS.
Why should I have to spend £3k to fit a transponder, just because Easyjet, Ryanair and Eastflight want to maximise profits ? If they profit, then they should pay. I was there first.
From the ATCO point of view, some form of identification device (whether that be Mode S or not) should be mandatory within Controlled Airspace, whether you are a glider or not.
I know of someone who has successfully completed a return trip to the south of France from Scotland "sans transpondeur" - VFR all the way, but helpful controllers in CTRs and a bit of prior notice and a lunch emergency .... and it was perfectly feasible.
No reason why you can't have VFR routes in Class D airspace - such as the entry/exit lanes at Glasgow. Or in SVFR routes in Jersey/Guernsey CTAs.
Mandatory is overkill.
What happens to the radar clutter on your tiny radar screens at Scottish ACC if everyone squawks ?
A bigger problem is fastjets hammering around at low level highspeed without ACAS.
Why should I have to spend £3k to fit a transponder, just because Easyjet, Ryanair and Eastflight want to maximise profits ? If they profit, then they should pay. I was there first.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Wilmslow and North Yorks
Age: 53
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
gpn01: we seem to be singing off the same hymn sheet now, good stuff 
ZeBedie:
How many people would have to be killed for it to become unacceptable?
Sorry, i wasn't totally clear there, one type I fly (Falcon 20) has full TCAS II (ACAS) the other has TCAD (light weight version of TCAS enhancing SA, but without the TA/RA's of the full system), they are Beech 200's which are below the weight limit for full TCAS requirement, but ARE Mode S equipped.
And you should read an entire thread before you post, I already explained that in the operations we fly we are UNABLE to remain IFR within controlled airspace at all times. Incidently, I DO think I need the highest standard of flight safety and do my best to adhere to it at all times.
Here's hoping the CAA introduce mandatory Mode S transponders for all light aircraft and gliders flying anywhere in UK airspace. I genuinely can't understand why you guys don't want to be electronically visible to the rest of us. Luddites
ZeBedie:
err, yes, more acceptable
You should be grounded until you have TCAS. My aeroplane has TCAS and I don't want to share the sky with you. Don't you care about my passengers?
If you think you need the highest possible standard of safety, you should stay IFR, inside CAS.
Here's hoping the CAA introduce mandatory Mode S transponders for all light aircraft and gliders flying anywhere in UK airspace. I genuinely can't understand why you guys don't want to be electronically visible to the rest of us. Luddites
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Chesterfield
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Comjam
Here's hoping the CAA introduce mandatory Mode S transponders for all light aircraft and gliders flying anywhere in UK airspace. I genuinely can't understand why you guys don't want to be electronically visible to the rest of us. Luddites
Methinks the laddie protest too much. Even Hell hath not the fury of a vested interest masquerading as a moral principle.
"Two hundred Lanzaroti bound lager-louts mow down defenceless glider pilot" probably isn't the headline we would read but in the event it would be quite appropriate.
What do you reckon to the notion that the beneficiary pays? In that nobody needed transponders until CAT got so big (and our precious government sold half NATS to CAT) that they muscled in on the open FIR the beneficiaries ain't GA for sure.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: UK
Age: 62
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This reminds me of a recent conversation over wearing hi-viz airside at a quiet airfield! A bloke intercepts said pilot at the perimeter. "You're supposed to wear hi-viz airside!"
Pilot: "Who said I wasn't?"
Jobsworth: "The tower! They saw you!"
Pilot: "Well if they have seen me, why do I need a hi-viz jacket?"
The same reasoning applies to transponders. Keep the big boys in controlled airspace and leave us others alone outside!
I have had a few close calls in my microlight with GA pilots, but mode-S won't change that, as neither they nor I will fit TCAS until that becomes mandatory in a few more years to come.
Uncontrolled airspace is just that - uncontrolled, and those of us who freely fly in it accept the risks that without a good lookout, there is a chance of hitting or being hit by something. Mode-S won't change that.
I accept that if I want to transit controlled airspace, I should have a means of making my aircraft clearly 'visible' to ATCOs and other aircraft. I am fitting a Mode-C for that purpose of this summer's excursion. It's surprising how cheap they are now!
When all controllers have the benefit of using Mode-S surveillance capabilities, there may be some argument only if they can improve services outside controlled airspace. Until then, it's just the 'nanny' state spoiling peoples fun!
And as for the 'majority' of the population wanting to fly abroad in the big cans, I can think of more who will fight controlled airspace expansion using the 'green' argument!
Pilot: "Who said I wasn't?"
Jobsworth: "The tower! They saw you!"
Pilot: "Well if they have seen me, why do I need a hi-viz jacket?"
The same reasoning applies to transponders. Keep the big boys in controlled airspace and leave us others alone outside!
I have had a few close calls in my microlight with GA pilots, but mode-S won't change that, as neither they nor I will fit TCAS until that becomes mandatory in a few more years to come.
Uncontrolled airspace is just that - uncontrolled, and those of us who freely fly in it accept the risks that without a good lookout, there is a chance of hitting or being hit by something. Mode-S won't change that.
I accept that if I want to transit controlled airspace, I should have a means of making my aircraft clearly 'visible' to ATCOs and other aircraft. I am fitting a Mode-C for that purpose of this summer's excursion. It's surprising how cheap they are now!
When all controllers have the benefit of using Mode-S surveillance capabilities, there may be some argument only if they can improve services outside controlled airspace. Until then, it's just the 'nanny' state spoiling peoples fun!
And as for the 'majority' of the population wanting to fly abroad in the big cans, I can think of more who will fight controlled airspace expansion using the 'green' argument!
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Wilmslow and North Yorks
Age: 53
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only moral principle I have here is enhancing flight safety for ALL. It's unusual that large civilian transport aircraft transit outside CAS below FL100, they may have to sometimes in order to reach certain airfields without CAS, Doncaster, Inverness etc. The solutions are (1) require everyone to fit the equipment or (2) establish more CAS. Which is better?
As for keeping the "big boys" in CAS, fine. But, as i've stated before, not all commecial operations can take place in CAS.
Then there's the question of the Military, they DO operate in the open FIR and do have to mix it with the rest of us...surely the fitting of Mode S helps them out as well.
It's not bullying it's common sense.
As for keeping the "big boys" in CAS, fine. But, as i've stated before, not all commecial operations can take place in CAS.
Then there's the question of the Military, they DO operate in the open FIR and do have to mix it with the rest of us...surely the fitting of Mode S helps them out as well.
It's not bullying it's common sense.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: UK
Age: 62
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do the military have TCAS fitted to all aircraft? The number of airprox reports with miltary aircraft leads me to believe Mode-S won't change that!
As for more CAS - going north or south from the Midlands already requires considerable detours and the art of limbo dancing!
It just seems to me that the big boys can take away the freedom of the minority! Perhaps that is the basis of a civil action to defend the human rights of the 'poor' (relatively speaking).
I don't mind fitting Mode-S if the price is reasonable and I am getting benefit, but to spend almost a 3rd of the cost of my aircraft so other people can get rich in the name of safety is not my idea of fairness!
As for more CAS - going north or south from the Midlands already requires considerable detours and the art of limbo dancing!
It just seems to me that the big boys can take away the freedom of the minority! Perhaps that is the basis of a civil action to defend the human rights of the 'poor' (relatively speaking).
I don't mind fitting Mode-S if the price is reasonable and I am getting benefit, but to spend almost a 3rd of the cost of my aircraft so other people can get rich in the name of safety is not my idea of fairness!
Last edited by pbrookes; 8th May 2008 at 11:42.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 433
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another point that isn't being considered is that making more airspace controlled increases the traffic density in the remaining uncontrolled airspace. Adding additional Class-D or TMZ's will work like a funnel effect - GA will be operating in ever narrower corridors. Just hope that a proper risk evaluation of this aspect is being carried out as part of the CAA's Mode-S proposal.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, CAT use class G, but can't see us because they are fast and have small windows.... they want US (i.e. light aircraft/gliders etc) to pay for equipment so they can see us! Well this is a fair deal isn't it? I mean, what benefit does this give us?.. What are they doing there in the first place?
Can't really imagine how fitting a mode S transponder and using Farnborough LARS on a sunny day (where you're lucky to even to get in for a FIS let alone a RIS!) is going to help me whatsoever.
If the CATs want more space, they should be paying for it... The rest of us can work perfectly adequately in class G, thankyou very much!
So, we are forced to fit mode-S... Cool... so that means you can see us all, as 1million dots on your screen... so we should be able to reduce the amount of CAS then?... afterall the world is at your fingertips, right?
Can't really imagine how fitting a mode S transponder and using Farnborough LARS on a sunny day (where you're lucky to even to get in for a FIS let alone a RIS!) is going to help me whatsoever.
If the CATs want more space, they should be paying for it... The rest of us can work perfectly adequately in class G, thankyou very much!
So, we are forced to fit mode-S... Cool... so that means you can see us all, as 1million dots on your screen... so we should be able to reduce the amount of CAS then?... afterall the world is at your fingertips, right?