Zone infringement today
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 430 Likes
on
227 Posts
Good Egg, I think you missed my point. I posted after someone spoke of "ATC separation" in Class D.
ATC will normally tell you in no uncertain terms that there is none provided by them. ATC inform pilots of other traffic and separation is the responsibility of the pilots. That's the rules.
Yes, in many circumstances I'd be reasonably OK to use my own discretion, take my own separation and land. I do so in Class G airspace quite often, without the benefit of ATC. I don't need runways though so it's unlikely that a PA28 would be aiming for the same place or even be able to follow my flightpath. 
ATC will normally tell you in no uncertain terms that there is none provided by them. ATC inform pilots of other traffic and separation is the responsibility of the pilots. That's the rules.
Would you honestly prefer if ATC told you "Unknown traffic, 1 o'clock, range 3nm, I think it's a PA28, possibly crossing right to left, maybe turning towards you, no height information available. Cleared to Land"??
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: East Midlands
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When people go flying, especially around Control Zones, or known areas of low faster traffic, surely you would employ all means possible to make your trip as safe as possible.Transponders are a pre requisite for this. Regardless of cost.
Don't get me wrong, I fly with a transponder and I always have it on. But it annoys me intensely that we have regulation from the CAA that makes it significantly more expensive than necessary to upgrade to the next level should our existing bit of kit fail. I don't need mode-s, the airport we fly from doesn't have a mode-s radar, and yet the CAA insists we have to fit a mode-s transponder should we need to change the transponder, and wants to charge us a hefty mod fee for the privilege, making the job more costly than it realy needs to be. Whilst I have no doubt we will fit a mode-s transponder when we need to and continue too use it on every occasion, it is very easy for me to understand why some in similar situations will elect to fit the proverbial blanking plate, especially when the transponder is not mandatory and the men from the ministry put financial road-blocks in the way.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Rapunzel's tower
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ShyTorque
While I accept that the minimum ATC could have done would be to pass traffic info to other VFR and watch what happens, I'd find it pretty hard to justify those actions in a court of law (should it come to that!) when we're talking about a "known unknown" inside CAS.
You argue that the responsibility for separation against the infringer (given pertinent traffic info - which may not be possible!) rests with the VFR pilots, and you are right 
- I'd argue that ATC still have a 'duty of care' to prevent collisions...and do indeed care about preventing them!
The OP held on right base for 15 minutes (presumably, unlike you, the OP did need/want a runway at some point). Given the quotes above (gloomy day, not visual with infringer who was low-level to runway, flying erratically, possibly making an approach) I'd be surprised if any traffic in the vicinity (GA or otherwise) didn't understand the need for caution.
If the OP was a transit then yes I'd say it was odd to be stuck out somewhere for 15 minutes...but if ATC suspect the infringer may attempt to land in an emergency situation then holding off other runway traffic surely seems eminently sensible? (And indeed no doubt prescribed in unit MATS 2.)
So no I don't miss your point ShyTorque. YOU are ultimately responsible. Just you, nobody else but you.
This really shouldn't be a p*ssing contest. We're talking about what is a reasonable action to take given the situation. If VFR traffic can't accept an ATC instruction inside controlled airspace they will report it surely(?) and ATC will do what's necessary to assist.
This situation, whilst inconvenient to EVERYONE involved - and probably a lot more than just "inconvenient" to the infringer (who I have sympathy for) sounds like it was well handled to me. You, obviously, have a different opinion.
I, for one, enjoy the variation/challenge that integrating VFR flights creates. Working life would be dull without it. I am a great proponent of Class D airspace and would much rather there wasn't a proliferation of Class C in its place. A sentiment that maybe we can agree on?
This aircraft was inside the zone, not on top of the zone. This aircraft was flying erratically and mute and was seen low level close to the runway.
ATC concerns at one point that an approach might be being attempted, hence the removal of the one lined up ready to go. And not a word spoken. Scarey stuff.
It was clear from listening, that due to lack of comms, intentions were unknown.
That was a great deal of surprise from us, when they re-appeared for the second time.
A lost solo student who panicked, a wanderer who got lost or a nutter with barking intentions.
The cloud base was variable around 2000 feet over the airfield and we never saw him. I suspect, given the gloomy day, they got lost.....big time.
That was a great deal of surprise from us, when they re-appeared for the second time.
A lost solo student who panicked, a wanderer who got lost or a nutter with barking intentions.
The cloud base was variable around 2000 feet over the airfield and we never saw him. I suspect, given the gloomy day, they got lost.....big time.
- I'd argue that ATC still have a 'duty of care' to prevent collisions...and do indeed care about preventing them!The OP held on right base for 15 minutes (presumably, unlike you, the OP did need/want a runway at some point). Given the quotes above (gloomy day, not visual with infringer who was low-level to runway, flying erratically, possibly making an approach) I'd be surprised if any traffic in the vicinity (GA or otherwise) didn't understand the need for caution.
If the OP was a transit then yes I'd say it was odd to be stuck out somewhere for 15 minutes...but if ATC suspect the infringer may attempt to land in an emergency situation then holding off other runway traffic surely seems eminently sensible? (And indeed no doubt prescribed in unit MATS 2.)
So no I don't miss your point ShyTorque. YOU are ultimately responsible. Just you, nobody else but you.
This really shouldn't be a p*ssing contest. We're talking about what is a reasonable action to take given the situation. If VFR traffic can't accept an ATC instruction inside controlled airspace they will report it surely(?) and ATC will do what's necessary to assist.
This situation, whilst inconvenient to EVERYONE involved - and probably a lot more than just "inconvenient" to the infringer (who I have sympathy for) sounds like it was well handled to me. You, obviously, have a different opinion.
I, for one, enjoy the variation/challenge that integrating VFR flights creates. Working life would be dull without it. I am a great proponent of Class D airspace and would much rather there wasn't a proliferation of Class C in its place. A sentiment that maybe we can agree on?
events had a big impact. A few years ago a Red Arrows display was ruined by 4 infringing aircraft. The “Daily Mail readers” were outraged and we were told that the culprits would be brought to book. Of the 4, only one was ever traced – the only one squawking – and he was prosecuted. This event has entered pilot folklore. Common belief is that if you do not squawk and you just make a small mistake, Big Bad Wolf will not see you and if he does, he will not see you well and will not trace you. I am not saying the above is technically correct, but it did happen once and people believe it.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Rapunzel's tower
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For info: CAA prosecutions & squawking
Excerpt from http://www.iaopa.eu/mediaServlet/sto...GA_pp20-24.pdf
For pity’s sake, squawk!
The man from the Airprox Board, the air traffic controller, the CAA safety expert, the military men all said the same thing – if you’ve got a transponder, turn it on, altitude mode if you have it. You can make few greater contributions to your own safety than having a working transponder, preferably Mode-C.
There is a widespread and unfortunate perception in GA that the transponder is an instrument of CAA retribution, more likely to get you into trouble than out of it. This has its roots in the notorious Elvington case in 2003 when four aircraft infringed a Red Arrows display, but the CAA prosecuted only one pilot – the least culpable – because he had his transponder on and was thus the only one they could catch. AOPA warned then that throwing the book at him would have serious safety implications, and we have been proved right. At a recent seminar on infringements, well-known examiner Irv Lee said that 50 percent of the instructors and even examiners he flew with failed to turn on their transponders.
But at the same seminar, the CAA’s head of enforcement Ian Weston pointed out that a pilot who had his transponder turned on would be considered by the CAA to be a more responsible aviator than one who did not. In case of infringement, having a working transponder would militate against prosecution, rather than facilitate it.
It is true that since the Elvington case, no pilot has been prosecuted for an infringement in similar circumstances, and the advice to pilots from all quarters is to turn on your transponder, Mode-C if you have it. Airprox Board Director Peter Hunt said: “A transponder that is not switched on is like fuel in the bowser, runway behind and altitude above. Wherever you are, you’re better off squawking.”
TCAS systems need transponders to operate, and that in itself is enough reason for you to turn yours on. Why not add a ‘T’ to the end of your FREDA check and make sure your transponder is on, and that you have changed codes if necessary when changing radio frequencies? With the increasing use of local area codes like 1177 for London Information, 0013 for Luton/Stansted and 7366 for Manchester, leaving the old code up after you’ve changed frequency is going to become an increasing problem.
________________________________________________________
Oh, and I noticed these quotes in press relating to more recent prosecutions (2005 & 2009) relating to infringement of restricted airspace around other Red Arrows events:
"XXXX's plane was later traced from several photographs taken by shocked spectators at the event."
"YYYY's single engine aircraft was spotted by police in an exclusion zone just minutes before the RAF's flying aces were due to start a display above...
(Names removed as they are of no relevance to this)
For pity’s sake, squawk!
The man from the Airprox Board, the air traffic controller, the CAA safety expert, the military men all said the same thing – if you’ve got a transponder, turn it on, altitude mode if you have it. You can make few greater contributions to your own safety than having a working transponder, preferably Mode-C.
There is a widespread and unfortunate perception in GA that the transponder is an instrument of CAA retribution, more likely to get you into trouble than out of it. This has its roots in the notorious Elvington case in 2003 when four aircraft infringed a Red Arrows display, but the CAA prosecuted only one pilot – the least culpable – because he had his transponder on and was thus the only one they could catch. AOPA warned then that throwing the book at him would have serious safety implications, and we have been proved right. At a recent seminar on infringements, well-known examiner Irv Lee said that 50 percent of the instructors and even examiners he flew with failed to turn on their transponders.
But at the same seminar, the CAA’s head of enforcement Ian Weston pointed out that a pilot who had his transponder turned on would be considered by the CAA to be a more responsible aviator than one who did not. In case of infringement, having a working transponder would militate against prosecution, rather than facilitate it.
It is true that since the Elvington case, no pilot has been prosecuted for an infringement in similar circumstances, and the advice to pilots from all quarters is to turn on your transponder, Mode-C if you have it. Airprox Board Director Peter Hunt said: “A transponder that is not switched on is like fuel in the bowser, runway behind and altitude above. Wherever you are, you’re better off squawking.”
TCAS systems need transponders to operate, and that in itself is enough reason for you to turn yours on. Why not add a ‘T’ to the end of your FREDA check and make sure your transponder is on, and that you have changed codes if necessary when changing radio frequencies? With the increasing use of local area codes like 1177 for London Information, 0013 for Luton/Stansted and 7366 for Manchester, leaving the old code up after you’ve changed frequency is going to become an increasing problem.
________________________________________________________
Oh, and I noticed these quotes in press relating to more recent prosecutions (2005 & 2009) relating to infringement of restricted airspace around other Red Arrows events:
"XXXX's plane was later traced from several photographs taken by shocked spectators at the event."
"YYYY's single engine aircraft was spotted by police in an exclusion zone just minutes before the RAF's flying aces were due to start a display above...
(Names removed as they are of no relevance to this)
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Manchester
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
During my PPL training, one flight I turned on mode c on the transponder only for the instructor to turn it back to mode a only i.e. no altitude information.
When I quizzed him why, he simply stated 'you wouldn't tell the police how fast you a driving at would you'.
Fair point I thought, and at least he left it switched on but since completing my PPL I use, when available, mode c all the time.
When I quizzed him why, he simply stated 'you wouldn't tell the police how fast you a driving at would you'.
Fair point I thought, and at least he left it switched on but since completing my PPL I use, when available, mode c all the time.
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mode A or Mode C ?
Mistakes apart, I would always turn on a transponder as part
of pre-Take Off checks.
However, contrary to NATS/ATC advice, on older transponders I would only
select Mode A unless/until I had been given a Squawk by a radar unit.
I've heard of too many erroneous altitude outputs (6,000', 20,000') when
aircraft are actually flying around 2,000'.
Not a problem with Mode S transponders as these show you what FL you
are reporting.
of pre-Take Off checks.
However, contrary to NATS/ATC advice, on older transponders I would only
select Mode A unless/until I had been given a Squawk by a radar unit.
I've heard of too many erroneous altitude outputs (6,000', 20,000') when
aircraft are actually flying around 2,000'.
Not a problem with Mode S transponders as these show you what FL you
are reporting.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The older style encoders took time to literally warm up and stabilize. The manual I have seen says 10 – 15 min from power up. Almost all old style mode A/C units will have a similar issue. Some new mode S units have been installed using the old encoder and will also have the same issue.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
These were transponders that used valves. Surely there can't be many of them left in service?
Operation
Place the aircraft transponder in altitude reporting mode (MODE C).
Place the aircraft transponder in the standby mode, unless power to the
encoder is supplied directly from the aircraft bus. In this case, follow the
power-up procedure recommended by the transponder manufacturer.
A warm-up time of approximately 10 minutes is necessary after power is
applied to the encoder. If power to the encoder is interrupted
momentarily after the unit has warmed up, a period of approximately one
minute after power is restored is required for the unit to stabilize
Or if you want an AK350 example which takes 15 min;
http://www.ameri-king.com/pdf/01%20A...n%20Manual.pdf
Rod1
Last edited by Rod1; 7th Aug 2013 at 15:46.
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A bit of a misunderstanding, Level, I think. All mode C transponders report level
assuming ISA, that is, as a flight level.
assuming ISA, that is, as a flight level.
However my point was that, as far as I am aware, all Mode S transponders
in GA aircraft have an LCD display which will/can show the FL being transmitted.
So a pilot could see if their their transponder is sending out an incorrect
value (especially if way out).
The older, twiddle a knob, transponders do not have this facility and
the pilot would therefore have to assume/hope that it is functioning
correctly. Once in contact with an SSR unit if the transponder is
misreading then they are likely to tell you smartish.
If you read the Incident Reports there are quite a few cases of pilots
flying perfectly legally below controlled airspace, but their transponder telling
ATC that they were up, without clearance, in their controlled airspace.
