Mode 'S' mandatory for gliders.
Thread Starter
Mode 'S' mandatory for gliders.
I'm dipping my toe into what might turn out to be hot water here, but here goes.
I would be interested to know the views of ATC professionals on the CAA's proposals for mandatory fitting of Mode 'S' transponders in gliders.
The new proposals can be summarised as:
1. The carriage and use of Mode S transponders will be mandated within all UK controlled airspace (A-E).
2. In addition, the consultation proposes the implementation of a formal process to create Transponder Mandatory Zones (TMZs) within uncontrolled (Class G) airspace.
3. Gliders will be fully included in these proposals – i.e. there will be no blanket exemption for gliders, irrespective of whether or not suitable equipment is available. This move would mean that no glider could enter any airspace above FL100 (whether controlled or not) unless equipped with a Mode S transponder.
The consultation document mentions that local letters of agreement might be put in place to enable non Mode S equipped aircraft to operate within controlled airspace and that specifically agreed non-transponder transit corridors/routes in controlled airspace and TMZs might be established. However, the consultation document provides no guarantees that this would happen.
The CAA's view seems to be that regulation is necessary on safety grounds. I hold no office within my club or the BGA. I am simply a glider pilot who sees his sport being threatened by regulation which thus far has not been necessary.
I would be interested to know the views of ATC professionals on the CAA's proposals for mandatory fitting of Mode 'S' transponders in gliders.
The new proposals can be summarised as:
1. The carriage and use of Mode S transponders will be mandated within all UK controlled airspace (A-E).
2. In addition, the consultation proposes the implementation of a formal process to create Transponder Mandatory Zones (TMZs) within uncontrolled (Class G) airspace.
3. Gliders will be fully included in these proposals – i.e. there will be no blanket exemption for gliders, irrespective of whether or not suitable equipment is available. This move would mean that no glider could enter any airspace above FL100 (whether controlled or not) unless equipped with a Mode S transponder.
The consultation document mentions that local letters of agreement might be put in place to enable non Mode S equipped aircraft to operate within controlled airspace and that specifically agreed non-transponder transit corridors/routes in controlled airspace and TMZs might be established. However, the consultation document provides no guarantees that this would happen.
The CAA's view seems to be that regulation is necessary on safety grounds. I hold no office within my club or the BGA. I am simply a glider pilot who sees his sport being threatened by regulation which thus far has not been necessary.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
*if* fitting Mode S to a glider was a £500 shot (it isn't) *and* there weren't problems in most gliders with the batteries being able to power it for long enough I don't think it would the issue it is. For a lot of low-value gliders fitting Mode S will cost as much as the glider is worth, or more. Even for a 15K glider, it's still going to cost 30% or so of the value.
Interested to see the replies from the ATC folks.
Interested to see the replies from the ATC folks.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: South of UK
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would ask what is it about gliders that make them different to other aircraft such that they shouldn't carry a transponder when powered aircraft must at FL100. A glider is just a much a collision risk as any other aircraft. If it had a transponder then there is a much better chance that an ACAS equipped aircraft would be able to avoid.
I do however share sympathy for cost - I have a number of family and friends who have spent time on gliders - a transponder is a little pricey compared to the cost of purchasing and running a glider. Having said that, there are a number of new boys on the scene - Trig, Filser(*) to name a couple who come to mind - who are making reasonably priced lightweight Mode S transponders. It could be possible to get a reasonable glider sized piece of kit not too far in the future.
RS
(*) other transponder manufacturers are available
I do however share sympathy for cost - I have a number of family and friends who have spent time on gliders - a transponder is a little pricey compared to the cost of purchasing and running a glider. Having said that, there are a number of new boys on the scene - Trig, Filser(*) to name a couple who come to mind - who are making reasonably priced lightweight Mode S transponders. It could be possible to get a reasonable glider sized piece of kit not too far in the future.
RS
(*) other transponder manufacturers are available
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't believe it will be too long before someone comes up with a solar panel to run the thing; maybe they have done already? Having acquired a few grey hairs over gliders infringing CAS I have to agree with Radarspod.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Germany
Age: 46
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Batteries aren´t the problem!
Take a standard 7,2Ah battery and it will be enough for a day of non-stop transponder usage. With solar cells you can even keep the capacity of the battery if the weather is reasonably well.
I do have a Mode-S transponder in my glider and switch it on from time to time when crossing an airspace-E-final of a busy military aerodrome or when entering C for a wave flight.
As an ATCO I would not recommend a mandatory utilisation of transponders in E for all gliders since conflict alerts would cover all our screens. It might be useful in certain areas where TMZs could be implemented (as they are in Germany, but only in controlled airspace). Also they don´t have to be Mode-S transponders, the old Mode A/Cs are just fine as well. I don´t mind the registrations of the glider, it´s just good to know that someone is there.
I do have a Mode-S transponder in my glider and switch it on from time to time when crossing an airspace-E-final of a busy military aerodrome or when entering C for a wave flight.
As an ATCO I would not recommend a mandatory utilisation of transponders in E for all gliders since conflict alerts would cover all our screens. It might be useful in certain areas where TMZs could be implemented (as they are in Germany, but only in controlled airspace). Also they don´t have to be Mode-S transponders, the old Mode A/Cs are just fine as well. I don´t mind the registrations of the glider, it´s just good to know that someone is there.
Guest
Posts: n/a
As has been alluded to already, it's not just an ATC thing but also to provide additional safety to other aircraft that are fitted with ACAS.
Of course, this might be less of an issue if we established controlled airspace to protect commercial passenger carrying aircraft as many other countries do (instead of, sometimes, forcing them to fly through class F or G airspace). But then, whenever additional controlled airspace is proposed one of the main opponents is the GA and sport flying lobby. The other main opponent to more airspace is usually the mil - and if I recall correctly many BritMil aircraft have recently been equipped (as some expense to the taxpayer) with ACAS compatible equipment....so the mil are probably in favour of the idea of mandatory carriage of tx'ders to provide additrional protection to their fleet.
This is not to try and say who is right or wrong but simply to illustrate that it's a complex topic.
But resistance is probably futile because I think the proposal is intended to harmonise tx'der carriage and operation across the European region (I stand to be corrected by those who've read the proposals and their justification).
If you simply want my personal ATC view, for those controllers working outside controlled airspace it's a very good idea, and for those that have the luxury of only having controlled airspace to worry about it is a useful improvement to awareness of infringements etc.
Of course, this might be less of an issue if we established controlled airspace to protect commercial passenger carrying aircraft as many other countries do (instead of, sometimes, forcing them to fly through class F or G airspace). But then, whenever additional controlled airspace is proposed one of the main opponents is the GA and sport flying lobby. The other main opponent to more airspace is usually the mil - and if I recall correctly many BritMil aircraft have recently been equipped (as some expense to the taxpayer) with ACAS compatible equipment....so the mil are probably in favour of the idea of mandatory carriage of tx'ders to provide additrional protection to their fleet.
This is not to try and say who is right or wrong but simply to illustrate that it's a complex topic.
But resistance is probably futile because I think the proposal is intended to harmonise tx'der carriage and operation across the European region (I stand to be corrected by those who've read the proposals and their justification).
If you simply want my personal ATC view, for those controllers working outside controlled airspace it's a very good idea, and for those that have the luxury of only having controlled airspace to worry about it is a useful improvement to awareness of infringements etc.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Wilmslow and North Yorks
Age: 53
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's a flight safety issue. If you guys want to operate gliders above FL100, where you ARE a hazard, then you must carry the appropriate kit.
Spitoon, you're quite correct, the RAF Tucanos have recently been fitted with a nice little TCAS system to enhance flight safety in the very busy Vale of York area.
It's not long ago that I came across a glider well above FL100 over Scotland in Uncontrolled Airspace, no transponder therefore no TCAS warning, not seen on radar...no warning...wasn't a close one, but, could easily have been.
What price safety?
Spitoon, you're quite correct, the RAF Tucanos have recently been fitted with a nice little TCAS system to enhance flight safety in the very busy Vale of York area.
It's not long ago that I came across a glider well above FL100 over Scotland in Uncontrolled Airspace, no transponder therefore no TCAS warning, not seen on radar...no warning...wasn't a close one, but, could easily have been.
What price safety?
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<<Of course, this might be less of an issue if we established controlled airspace to protect commercial passenger carrying aircraft>>
My opinion for the last 40 years. I corresponded with GATCO from overseas about the UK situation. In those days Control Zones only existed at airfields with Min of Av ATC, but then various "fixes" (SRzs, etc) were introduced. I'm a great believer in total control - Class A if you like - around airfields operating commercial traffic.
My opinion for the last 40 years. I corresponded with GATCO from overseas about the UK situation. In those days Control Zones only existed at airfields with Min of Av ATC, but then various "fixes" (SRzs, etc) were introduced. I'm a great believer in total control - Class A if you like - around airfields operating commercial traffic.
What's to say that these transponders will be kept serviceable and their batteries will be kept charged? Who would ever know?
Didn't they do something similar in Australia years ago and decide that it was a failure because there were so many gliders concentrated in certain small areas?
Didn't they do something similar in Australia years ago and decide that it was a failure because there were so many gliders concentrated in certain small areas?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Chesterfield
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ref Comjam's remarks
We're the hazard? Outside of controlled airspace and we're the hazard while you're not?
Smacks of school-yard tactics - I'm bigger than you so...
Can you justify your premise?
Smacks of school-yard tactics - I'm bigger than you so...
Can you justify your premise?
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: South of UK
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
re: zebedies remark on the Australia trials with transponders - Good point, but I believe (and am happy to be proved wrong 
) that these were Mode A/C only transponders and as a result gaggles of gliders in one area caused lots of garbling and hassle for ATC to negate any benefit.
As any new fit transponder must be Mode S in the UK, and all non-Mode S SSR radars will not get approval to operate from 2012 (unless credible replacement plan in place) in UK, in the future there should be no reason why a group of gliders could not be tracked quite happily by any unit with a Mode S radar.
In saying tracked I mean from a system level, having a whole bunch of overlapping lables presented to a controller is a different issue, and one I don't have to deal with
Of course, ADS-B could be the way forward. You don't need a fully capable Mode S transponder to broadcast ADS-B squitters.
) that these were Mode A/C only transponders and as a result gaggles of gliders in one area caused lots of garbling and hassle for ATC to negate any benefit.As any new fit transponder must be Mode S in the UK, and all non-Mode S SSR radars will not get approval to operate from 2012 (unless credible replacement plan in place) in UK, in the future there should be no reason why a group of gliders could not be tracked quite happily by any unit with a Mode S radar.
In saying tracked I mean from a system level, having a whole bunch of overlapping lables presented to a controller is a different issue, and one I don't have to deal with
Of course, ADS-B could be the way forward. You don't need a fully capable Mode S transponder to broadcast ADS-B squitters.
The proposals go way beyond just gliders which are currently exempt from the requirement to carry a transponder above FL100. The current proposals will require ANY aircraft operating in controlled airspace (crossing a class D zone for instance) to have a mode S transponder.
The new rules also allow for the creation of transponder mandatory zones (TMZs) which can be put around as well as below current controlled airspace to act as a buffer, any aircraft operating in these zones will also require a mode S transponder. If these zones are applied for (and they surely will be) we could find that any aircraft, glider, or microlight (many of which do not have electric systems at all) will need to carry a mode S transponder to operate near or underneath any controlled airspace, think about the area the London TMA covers. The cost, including installation, is going to run into thousands of pounds for each aircraft and having seen the CAA presentation on the subject I am far from convinced that they have a valid case.
Everyone involved in light aviation in the UK needs to fight tooth and nail to shoot down these proposals and make the CAA think again. You can read the proposals here:
http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?ca...90&pageid=9307
and lodge your response here:
http://www.caa.co.uk/application.asp...pe=65&appid=37
The British Gliding Association are not surprisingly very vocal about it and have an excellent web page on the subject:
http://www.gliding.co.uk/bgainfo/airspace/modes2008.htm
If you operate any sort of light aircraft a little time spent looking at this lot and coming up with a reasonable response could save you a great deal of money, go to it.
The new rules also allow for the creation of transponder mandatory zones (TMZs) which can be put around as well as below current controlled airspace to act as a buffer, any aircraft operating in these zones will also require a mode S transponder. If these zones are applied for (and they surely will be) we could find that any aircraft, glider, or microlight (many of which do not have electric systems at all) will need to carry a mode S transponder to operate near or underneath any controlled airspace, think about the area the London TMA covers. The cost, including installation, is going to run into thousands of pounds for each aircraft and having seen the CAA presentation on the subject I am far from convinced that they have a valid case.
Everyone involved in light aviation in the UK needs to fight tooth and nail to shoot down these proposals and make the CAA think again. You can read the proposals here:
http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?ca...90&pageid=9307
and lodge your response here:
http://www.caa.co.uk/application.asp...pe=65&appid=37
The British Gliding Association are not surprisingly very vocal about it and have an excellent web page on the subject:
http://www.gliding.co.uk/bgainfo/airspace/modes2008.htm
If you operate any sort of light aircraft a little time spent looking at this lot and coming up with a reasonable response could save you a great deal of money, go to it.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: California
Age: 64
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well while I understand the reasons the gliders dont want to have a transponder on it makes no sense whe you look at modern avionic power requirements. South of Reno many gliders work out of Minden in the summer with no transponder at up to FL180. We have many near hits every year. There is a lot of high speed jet traffic decending and climbing through the area. About 18 months ago we had a mid air between a Hawker and glider. The glider even had a transponder but did not have it turned on.
http://jeremy.zawodny.com/blog/archives/007288.html
There is no way a jet at 350mph is going to see a white glider visually everytime.
http://jeremy.zawodny.com/blog/archives/007288.html
There is no way a jet at 350mph is going to see a white glider visually everytime.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Wilmslow and North Yorks
Age: 53
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Greasy Pete
Operating outside controlled airspace with TCAS and a Mode S transponder WE are much less of a hazard to each other than you are...by virtue of the fact that YOU don't have such equipment, i thought that was obvious.
Operating outside controlled airspace with TCAS and a Mode S transponder WE are much less of a hazard to each other than you are...by virtue of the fact that YOU don't have such equipment, i thought that was obvious.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: South of UK
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It still amazes me, IMHO, the blinkered view of the GA and Glider forum. How about some acceptance of the times we live in. Airspace is busy and getting busier, people want to fly more, bigger aircraft carrying more people are using airspace alongside smaller, faster aircraft with clever avionics flying in places they've previously been excluded. We all need to keep safe.
The airspace of the UK is developing for the future, not to meet the needs of the past, and I believe the CAA are addressing that the best way they can. GA and the Gliding fraternity need to keep up, or lose out.
The airspace of the UK is developing for the future, not to meet the needs of the past, and I believe the CAA are addressing that the best way they can. GA and the Gliding fraternity need to keep up, or lose out.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Chesterfield
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who hazards who, Heathrow Director?
This may be more philosophical than practical but the hazard on the country road is not, a priori, the cyclist, its the motorist driving in such a fashion as to de-rate the cyclist from his status of rightful user.
Class A equates to Heathrow Director's busy main road. Class G is the country lane.
Surely HD and Comjam can manage a more reasoned response? So far "end of lecture" and head butting smileys smacks more of PMT than discourse.
Historically CAT has inexorably curtailed VFR sporting aviation and I welcome the CAA's attempts to find a way of ameliorating the next expansion but its all in terms of "if you install all this gear we MAY let you back on your country lane if we feel like it". I do have a mode S in the glider but with no guarantee it'll facilitate my passage.
Maybe the intellectual analysis of school-yard tactics is tangential to the topic so how about another sprat?
In what way do all you IFR flyers think CAT and the use of airspace could be reorganised to preserve the open FIR for VFR sporting aviation?
Does sporting aviation have any value to society?
Class A equates to Heathrow Director's busy main road. Class G is the country lane.
Surely HD and Comjam can manage a more reasoned response? So far "end of lecture" and head butting smileys smacks more of PMT than discourse.
Historically CAT has inexorably curtailed VFR sporting aviation and I welcome the CAA's attempts to find a way of ameliorating the next expansion but its all in terms of "if you install all this gear we MAY let you back on your country lane if we feel like it". I do have a mode S in the glider but with no guarantee it'll facilitate my passage.
Maybe the intellectual analysis of school-yard tactics is tangential to the topic so how about another sprat?
In what way do all you IFR flyers think CAT and the use of airspace could be reorganised to preserve the open FIR for VFR sporting aviation?
Does sporting aviation have any value to society?
Last edited by Greasey Pete; 2nd May 2008 at 01:41. Reason: syntactical error