This lot represent most of us;

INDEX

The Alliance includes all except AOPA.

Rod1

I have still not read anything that says a transponder is MANDATORY. So instead of slinging insults please point me at where it says a transponder is MANDATORY. It is not my understanding that it is MANDATORY.

As I understand tithe glider guys who don't have transponders have already established transponder is not required. Two way radio does appear to be the only way you are going to get an approval number. However as I said for a two month period what's up with carrying a handheld and actually talking-to someone?

As I have said a number of times now, I a just trying to provoke some discussion rather pure negativity. I realise that the restrictions are a pain in the ass for those of us flying basic aircraft and I am included in this in my bimbling flying but at the moment I am not seeing anything that can't be worked around with a bit of effort.

Bose

My arguement is all about negativity but maybe not in the same way as yours.

My idea of negativity is the huge security industry which has grown up around aviation. Its now mostly about money and far removed from its purpose of security and safety.

Sadly i think it will take a major hit against the train travel network to make government realise that terrorism doesnt equal aviation. Secure aviation and terrorism has gone is not I am afraid the case.

Ie get off our backs and put the attention towards the other security holes that exist unplugged in oither modes of transport because the terrorist threat is unlikely to be from the air.

Pace

Bose,

I thought something similar to you, so contacted them. The answer is that to enter the restricted zone, aircraft must comply with the requirements, one of which is to squawk the allocated code.

This is a requirement for microlights, even if only doing circuit practice (at which point, we don't have to file a flight plan). When I asked them what I was meant to do since there is no requirement for a microlight flying in unrestricted airspace to have a transponder, and so the one I was learning in didnt have one, their suggestion was to tell my school they should fit transponders to all the microlights....good eh!

Funnily enough, I haven't suggested this to the school, as I don't want to get shot! Our CFI attitude is that if there is no way round it, then he will try and come to an arrangement with an airstrip just outside the zone. I think there will be some home counties airstrips that will be VERY busy for 2 months!

Purely on the basis of the quoted guidelines above, my reading would be that the requirement for powered aircraft to "Squawk and maintain discrete transponder code as allocated by the appropriate control authority." implies that a transponder is mandatory. The guidelines note that the requirement for a discrete transponder code for aircraft remaining in the circuit is lifted, but implies that a local airfield-specific code will be issued - but doesn't clarify if circuit traffic are exempt from transponder operation completely (and this lack of clarity is typical of the whole slip-shod, incompetent and heavy-handed approach being taken by the authorities).

If you can point to a formal statement confirming that gliders are exempt from the transponder requirement (at odds with the quoted guidelines) then so much the better.....but if you can, why haven't you?

SoCal,

You are perhaps located too far away from this 60 miles around London grounding to have followed its intricacies on our more local if vociferous forums.

It's been discussed by the principal flying organisations and their members since early March when the bombshell dropped. Measured & more formal steps have and continue to be taken to try to get the DfT of HMG to permit a fairer but still secure middle path resolution.

NATS/CAA understand this and are also doing their best, being, till this surprise event, the Government's appointed & competent air usage representatives.


mikehallam

Whats with the personal insults? I am trying to have a discussion on a subject that clearly effects us all. I am not seeing the end of the world that some are claiming and have asked for some clarification as clearly I am interpreting things differently.

I contacted NATS through the contact page and asked what would happen with aircraft that are not transponder equipped and the reply was that they would be dealt with on a case by case basis.

So going back to my original comment, looking at the restriction, if you file a flightr plan, have a radio and if no transponder make appropriate arrangements you are going to be able to operate. In the case of my flying an aircraft with no transponder or radio I will have to take along the handheld to get two way contact and make arrangements in advance for no transponder. I will have to follow the flight planning requirements and I am good to go.

I realise this is a pain in the ass for those whose idea of flying is just doing as they please but it is not like this is a permanent arrangement, its a limited time for a pretty monumental occassion.

As I have said a number of times, if I am interpreting this incorrectly please cut and paste the evidence rather than just insulting me. I have nothing to gain either way, just interestied in discussion rather than mud slinging.

I'm with bose-x on this one.

There is a bunch of selfish pilots who have no radio, no transponder and insist on flying everywhere they like, whenever they like. They also belong to the 'civil liberties' group, and don't like controlled airspace and filing flight plans.

They consequently pay no regard to the safety of other airspace users.

I think there are two aspects to this.

Firstly I suspect there is some sceptism whether the arrangements will work as headlined. Government departments have become very good at leaving themselves plenty of wriggle room and there seems enough in the wording as it currently stands for the number of flights plans that are approved to be restricted.

Secondly there is the more general concern as to whether there is a proven case that these measures achieve the objective intended. It is right and proper that we continue to challenge (in every walk of life) measures that curtail our personal freedom unless and until it is demonstrated that there is a justified case for doing so.

While I dont entirely disagree with Bose equally I also beleive it is very easy for us as a community to accept ever more restrictions on what we do, until the point is reached when most of us cant be bothered to engage in flying any more.

I believe flights to the CIs remain a good case in point. We have legislation left over from NI days that is no longer relevant and cant be justified. Flying to the CIs is a pain, and in theory no longer possible at the drop of a hat and yet it is a tiny group of islands of little concern to anyone less than 40 minutes away for some of us on the south coast. The paperwork hoops to get their are nonesense, we know they are, doubtles so do the authorities, but it would seem no one can be bothered to do anything about it.

“There is a bunch of selfish pilots who have no radio, no transponder”

That shows a remarkable lack of understanding of the situation. I know a significant number of pilots who are prepared to fit a transponder, but the regulations will not let them. In order to fit such a device to a glider for example there has to be an approved installation, in many gliders this does not exist. Some pilots have been trying to overcome this for 3 years with no success.

Another example is the max empty weight rule. Many “new generation” micros are very close to this limit – 1lb being common. This is the reason aircraft like the Eurostar are unpainted. Under CAA regs if the aircraft is over this weight, even by a small amount, it is a garden ornament. When we were involved in the mode s consultation we asked for an exception to allow the devices to be fitted as has been done in other parts of Europe, but this has not happened. Well over 1000 micros cannot fit the device legally because of this rule.

As for radios, I take it you think any fool can take a hh radio up and just use it? I owned a Nipper with a VW and 2 L4 mags (originally designed for tractors in the 1920’s). This was a factory built aircraft which had transitioned to an LAA permit. I spent over a year trying to suppress the ignition so I could use my hand held. I could get the radio to work at the cost of a misfire, or the engine to work but blanket the radio. I never solved the issue.

It might be worth understanding the subject before grouping pilots as selfish.

Rod1

Fuji

I tend to go with your sentiments. After 9/11 there were big words and speeches about protecting our freedoms that many had fought to protect in the past.
Yet we are less free now than ever with more and more governemnt intervention in everything and anything we do.
Sadly for us aviation appears to be regarded as the only target for terrorists and a huge security industry built around it with dire consequences to our freedoms.
Hence why in my posts I have pointed out the total lack of security in an equal target the rail networks.
That makes me bitter as it is double standards by the authorities! Hit aviation because they can ignore the rest because hitting those areas would not be practical. Oh well lets hope for all our sakes the terrorists dont do what they claim they will with the rail networks?
Is This justified? I would think not! If its a matter of security then based aircraft at the airfields in question can easely be identified as can be their owners with no restrictions on those other than specific areas close to the games.
Aircraft that arrive from outside the airfields could pre register their intentions with security so they too can be checked.
If this is more about the huge demand that will be made on the airspace then thats another matter.

Pace

For those who can't respond without casting personal insults, better re-assess your posts before hitting 'Send'. Those who do so in future will be thread banned. Simples.

Debate the issues and don't attack the posters.

We are having 2 parallel conversations here.

One is around the percieved threat to our civil liberties and the other is around how we actually operate during the restriction period. As far as the restriction period is concerned I am not seeing any insurmountable issues that 99% of the GA population can't work around with a little effort. As with anything so draconian there are going to be a few people who are just unable to comply but I think the reality is that it will be a tiny tiny minority who are affected and while I have the greatest sympathy I am also pragmatic enough to acknowledge that all the people cant be kept happy all of the time.

I would also argue that even that minority have options open to them if they are really keen to keep flying an prepared to bend a little to the majority situation?

Regarding civil liberties that is a completely different issue and one that I need to dig my soapbox out for......

Bosx-x
 

Lets just see the flying club problems.

I File a FP and the student is 5 min late because of traffic.....Flight Canx

I take a new student on first or second flight.....he is very sick, cant get back as I would be ahead of the return part of the FP to base so divert..... aircraft now stuck for at least 2 hours awaiting new FP...............the 2 following flights Canx due aircraft stuck away from base.

Flight with student going well............transponder fails........... unable to return to base..........have to divert............aircraft stuck away from base were the engineering support is.

So Bose-x all the above are normal club happenings that could normaly be resolved without extra expence but these stupid restrictions put the operating cost up by a huge %. would you like it if it was your business that was being forced towards insolvency?

I would think that something like a transponder failure during a flight could be dealt with by sensible collaboration between the controller you are talking to and yourself.

I have been teaching and examining for quite a few years now and don't recall flights due to sick student being aborted as a common occurance. However again as you are in 2 way contact with the controller why do you think they would not be happy to let you abort the flight and return to base?

I don't see anythin the restrictions that preclude the aborting of a flight and return to a base. Again if you can show me something that supports your assumption then I would be glad to read and digest it.

I think there is a lot of assuming and doomsaying going on based on what i think is incorrect interpretation of the restrictions. A very typical British thing to create problems where non exist?

Bose -x you just don't get it, the rules say that you have to keep to a route & timings so you can't teach the basic flying inside the restricted area.

So you have to leave the restricted area so carry out this instructional flight, once outside you will have to be on time to made the inbound flight plan, any thing that stops you meeting inbound FP slot will result in you not being given clearance into the restricted zone.

Yes I do get it and would appreciate if you would refrain from talking to me like a child.

The situations you are describing are abnormal termination of the flight and I can't imagine for one minute that having described the situation to the controller they are going to force you to land somewhere else. No one is denying that you won't be able to teach the basic stuff inside the area but looking at it the edges are only 10 minutes away and you can teach outside and return. When I have taught in Cyprus and Spain both have required me to transit tom training areas to conduct lessons.

If you are in possession of information that states otherwise then please share it. Otherwise if we are reading the same information I don't know where your assumption is coming from.

However I will write to NATS and ask them to clarify the situation.

bose you are presuming the controller has any choice in the matter. I would think there will be some numbnut with a cheap shiny suit deciding what should be done.

And I don't think NATS will have a clue with what will happen and even if they do they won't be allowed to tell you pre event.

MJ, there is the rub. People are assuming the worst rather than reading the document as it stands. If they need clarification then surely writing to NATS and asking for it rather than assuming the worst is the better option?

To be honest I would presume the worse as well.

They don't want light aircraft in the sky full stop for not only security reasons.

They have to be seen to not completely shut everything down or they would have to compensate companys. They have to have to open the door a crack to pretend you can still continue with your business but in reality you will be grounded for all intents and purposes.

Bose-X
 

You are assuming that this is being driven by NATS & the CAA it is not, it is being driven by people who could write all they know about GA flying on a postage stamp but with total power in the name of so called security so you can expect the same amount of common sense as you get when you check for a flight at an airport.

If we don't get a workable system in place by October we never will because I am told that is when all the charts are to be printed.

Southend
 

I'm currently a student at Southend Flying Club which is just within the restricted zone. I was asking the instructors there how they were planning on running the club over the period and I think they're really struggling.

There was talk that they were going to move all the a/c to a small strip in Norwich so their students could still fly but it's a long way from Southend.

They quite often end up behind time by lunchtime, and as S-end ATC are requiring a flight plan to be filed at least 4 hours before the flight with a specific brakes-off time, it isn't going to work for them.

I think they're just going to have to shut up shop for a few months and just ride it out, but it's going to be a struggle for them.

KieranBal

Bose-x
 

Just for you I have copied the "how the airspace will work" part of the NATS website.

1.File a Flight Plan on AFPEx or AFTN between 24 hrs and 2 hours before take-off and follow it - no airborne or faxed flight plans will be permitted.
2.Receive an acceptance message and approval number to flight plan.
3.Establish and maintain 2 way RT with appropriate control agency quoting approval number.
4.Squawk and maintain discrete transponder code as allocated by the appropriate control authority.
5.Receive an ATC service and comply with ATC instructions.
6.Circuit flying is permitted at airfields within the Restricted Zone without the need for a flight plan provided ac squawk a discrete transponder code. Airfield managers must contact the appropriate control agency daily at commencement and cessation of flying for allocation and return of a daily changing code, and aircraft may not leave the visual circuit except on landing or in accordance with the rules at 1-5 above


* As defined by the ANO. ** Position reporting can be by OS Grid,

You will see from the first line that the flight plan must be followed and that no airborne flight plan can be filed, this seems to indicate that a change of intentions is likely to not be approved.

A and C,

I already posted that in total earlier.

So where do you get the impression that not being able to file a flight plan in the air restricts you from being able to terminate an existing plan?

LAT/LONG STAY1/0100 LAT/LONG inserted at the appropriate point in Field 15 and STAYINFO1/VFR MANOUVERS OVER LAT/LONG FOR FLT TRNG in Field 18

.....is part of a correct and valid flight plan ;)

Yes quite true but I wonder if the people driving this will understand that flight plan?, these are the things that need sorting before this is all set in stone.

I take the attitude that this is being driven by people who dont understand or give a damm about GA and Bose-X is taking the attitude that we will be dealing with people who will be fair and reasonable.

It is strange but I have found my passage through life has often been easier when I have started off with the approach that people are fair and reasonable rather than hanging them from a lamppost in case they may not be......

I can use a whole load of other euphemisms such as don't judge a book by it's cover etc but I hopefully you get the point?

I might treat people as if they are going to be fair and reasonable but to actualy think that is the truth of the matter is unwise to say the least.

Well the proof will be in the pudding......

To be pedantic I would call that more of a metaphorical platitude than a euphemism. ;)

I politely concede Bose X is (always) right, NATs are the authorising body, not Dft/HMG. The LAA/BMAA etc. can relax.

mikehallam

Why the sarcasm Mike?

NATS are the controlling authority and responsible for managing the airspace. They are also responsible for answering any questions we as users may actually bother to ask.

Feel free to bury your head in the sand and sit out two months of flying to prove you were right.

Personally I intend on flying by following the guidelines.

I would have thought that fair and reasonable would be the way to go.
Sadly we pilots have been so attacked in very unfair and unreasonable ways that I am afraid i have become very sceptical of any fair and reasonable with anything to do with aviation regulations.
Just look at the charade from EASA. False promises, smiles,tea and biscuits but with empty promises.
Our IMCR rating a proven safety rating shafted!
The N reg debacle?
Sorry fair and reasonable is not in the dictionary when it comes to aviation nowadays.
Scepticism false promises and doubt yes.

Pace

What ever gave you the idea that NATS are controlling never mind an authority?

They are an Air traffic service provider.

They just do what they get told to do.

As part of the contact they have provisions which they must provide in relation to information distribution. But if they don't have the information they can't distribute it.

They advise and provide technical consultancy to the relevent goverment deptments before policy is made but have no right of veto or for that matter ability to dictate a change in policy.

Sorry, nothing personal. Timothy and I have been having a bit of a rant about abuse of the English language on Pprune lately (due to some horrendous posts on the Skyferry thread.) I have just been over excited and winding down, but have now reverted to keeping quiet again.

Members of & LAA/BMAA and other leading UK pilots' organisations have been working together via NATS to negotiate with HMGov. (if allowed) easements in the Ban covering not only London, but surrounding counties & beyond for the main summer flying period next year.

Summary, copied from HMG Issued Ruling (Not NATS !) for mid July to mid Sept. 2012 for the greater Restricted zone.

Microlight... All powered fixed-wing aircraft.

Flight is prohibited, except by adhering to the regulations, limited by ATC capacity.

File a Flight Plan 24 hrs to 2 hours before take-off and follow it. Receive an acceptance message ... use RT quoting approval number.
Squawk allocated discrete transponder code. Receive and comply with ATC instructions.
Circuit flying is permitted at airfields within the Restricted Zone without the need for a flight plan provided a/c squawk a discrete transponder code.

mike hallam

At last..... And comments on exemptions for non transponder aircraft?

'At Last' was simply taken from your own long post.

mikehallam

Ah right so we are back at square one. I thought you were posted something from the LAA/BMAA when in fact you were just adding bold to try and make me believe that if you but it in bold it changes the interpretation?

What I am trying to establish is where it says absolutely that an aircraft without a transponder will be unable to operate in the restricted zone.

If there is a part that concerns me it is "limited by ATC capacity".

I alluded to this earlier with reference to the authorities allowing themselves plenty of wriggle room.

What exactly does it mean?

Well it seems clear it could mean that if it suites ATC to have 10 aircraft in the zone at any one time, 10 it will be. In other words we are all trusting NATS to ensure they have the capacity to handle ALL the traffic that will want to operate within the zone during this period of time, or, if they dont have that capacity to enable the vast majority to do so. If they dont, from a practical point of view, we could see restrictions that amount to the zone becoming an exclusion zone other than in name only.