Mode S (again)
 

My engineer likes me to get the oil temperature in my old Lycoming up to speed once a week so despite the cold morning I pulled the plane out and had a very pleasant 30 minute local flight. I saw a Cherokee on the reciprocal course about a mile away and a 737 going in to Stansted in the far distance and that was it. I had the radio on to listen to Duxford's traffic but it was quiet so I switched it off again. All very safe and even the landing in a slight crosswind on to a wet grass runway went well.
Now the point is that this, I would guess, is typical of a lot of the private flying that went on this weekend. I'm not a Luddite but there was no need for a transponder (who would have given me a squawk?) and only a marginal requirement for a radio. Just what would Mode S have done to improve the shining hour? Not much. However rather than just complaining about it I would be happy to subscribe to AOPA, PFA (maybe), or GAPAN if somebody would tell me what they are doing to have this daft idea stopped. Anybody got an update?

ozplane

Unfortunately, you are at the bottom of the tree in terms of what the regulators care about. You carrying Mode S has little to do with protecting you...it is about protecting other, more important, airspace users from you.

It has to do with TCAS alerts, decreasing both false positives and false negatives, and being able to offer transport pilots advisory action to avoid you.

The trouble is, according to the regulators, you just cannot be trusted to remain clear of controlled airspace, either laterally or horizontally.

Unfortunately, on this latter point the regulators are proved right far to often for comfort.

The best thing that light aircraft pilots can do to protect their rights to free flight outside controlled airspace unhampered by what they see as unnecessary equipment is to do everything they can to stop themselves and others penetrating CA without a clearances.

Timothy

Not familiar with Mode S but assuming that it is altitude encoding the same as Mode C. A transponder gives ATC a clear view of your altitude and makes you a brighter blip on their screens thirdly and more importantly it allerts big jets TCAS systems so that you don't get sucked into their fans. Certainly whilst flying in busy airspace it is my experience that it is useful for ATC to be able to give you the altitude of possibly conflicting aircraft. A little more peace of mind.

You (and your wallet) will be before long. :(

“Not much. However rather than just complaining about it I would be happy to subscribe to AOPA, PFA (maybe), or GAPAN if somebody would tell me what they are doing to have this daft idea stopped. Anybody got an update?”

OK

The PFA is working hard to get an exemption for permit aircraft. It has had very little success so far, but the BMAA has managed to get some flying machines exempted, so there is some hope. I know AOPA are fighting that it is totally unnecessary, but I am no longer a member so am not up to date.

My personal view is that if you want to fly a CofA aircraft after 2008 you will have to have a Mode S transponder. I think there is a very slight chance the PFA will get an exemption, in UK airspace only, for permit types. You are also quite right in that you will get no benefit from this technology. Mode S sends out a unique serial number. I fear it will not be many years before the fully computerised system will bill you for every flight where you are seen on radar.

Rod1

So what's next? Implanted transponders in each of us so Tony's control-freak goons can know where each of us is at any time?

CCTV covers most aspects of our lives today in towns and on the roads. One of the last great feedoms in this country is a VFR non-radio bimble outside CAS, with no-one even knowing you're doing it.

Still, I suppose if they felt they couldn't control it, they'd ban it. Timothy is correct to say we don't have much of a voice here, but his advice to 'be good and keep our house in order', while wise in that it should be followed, will not make this go away. The control freaks have us in their sights:(

At the very least, if the air transport industry wants to protect themselves from us, they should foot the bill. Imagine the outcry if every motorist had shell out thousands of pounds to ease the lives of bus and truck operators?

SSD

looking forward to mode "S"
 

Having just a moment ago compleated the metalwork for the mode S radio rack I am now reading the interconect part of the install manual.

Its good stuff this mode S , soon well in about four years the CAA will have got around to upgrading the ground radar stations to data link both trafic information and weather radar pictures to us in the air.

The flight safety benifits are huge and the cost of the mode S is much lower than buying TCAS and WX radar.

Prices are at the moment quite high but they will come down and the install cost for those of you with King transponders should be practicly nill as most of the King units are "slide in" replacments with minimal changes behind the panel.

Narco have yet to anounce there mode S unit but as I have a number of aircraft with the Narco AT150 transponders fitted I have exchanged emails with the factory and it is the intention of Narco to build a "slide" in mode S unit to replace the AT 50 , AT150 and AT155 transponders.

SSD

I can see the freedom bit, and very much agree, but what is the benefit to YOU in being able to do "it" without anyone knowing you are doing it?

The reality is that lots of people know you are doing "it" (they can see you on radar) but they can't see how high you are doing "it", so they are compelled to assume that you are doing "it" at the same altitude as they are, and they are trying hard to see you (to avoid a possible colission) when in reality you are say 3000ft below them. I can be flying at FL050 under a RIS and gets stacks of traffic reports which I can't see any trace of even if VMC on top, because they aren't transponding.

I think Mode C should have been mandatory years ago, on all planes which are normally powered etc. Controversial, yes of course.

So, IO540, if you want a bit of kit fitted to my VFR-only aeroplane in order to make your life easier, are you going to pay for it?

To some guys, the cost of this ridiculous overhead will be more than the value of their aeroplane. So they'll probably have to give up flying for your convenience. Happy about that? I refer you again to the motoring analogy in my previous post.

And you appear to have completely missed my point about control freakery - yes, my aeroplane will appear on radars, but it will be anonomous, and that's fine since if I'm not talking to a controller then I'm outside CAS and nobody needs to know who I am. Your argument seems to support the 'if you've nothing to hide why be concerned about being identified and monitored' approach.

Over half a century ago a lot of people died to save us from loss of freedoms like that. Would you give them up so easily?

SSD

A and C

Who, using your very best guess, do you think will pay for all of those secondary radar installations plus the hardware and software networks required to make them work and the training of everyone involved?

Lets not even get started on the cost of NATS monitoring your flights.

And would you have us believe that when an ATCO sits down at his screen, on a lovely Sunday morning, and sees a snow of numbers creeping around it, that he will not turn you off so that he can actually see the commercials that he is trying to get into Gatwick/Luton/Stansted/Heatrow/etc?

I have very mixed views on the whole Mode S debate. For starters I do believe that it will improve safety and situational awareness using the weather uplink services and traffic information. I have a GNS430 and in my aircraft that is capable of receiving traffic and weather data via the Garmin 330 Mode S unit. For my Instrument flying this is a positive benefit.

I don't think that there is any implication on the civil liberties and the right to fly unseen. What it comes down to at the end of the day is money. Pure and simply most people can not afford the current cost of the mode S equipment. These are people that are flying old aircraft with neither the space and often the electrical system to drive them. Most people can't afford to fly and make great sacrifices to be able to get into the air. These are the people that mode S will hurt.

I have mode S about to be linked to my GNS430 and think the potential is huge for my type of flying. I experianced the benefits of Mode S equipment while instrument training in the USA and believe that the benefits outweigh the costs. But I also firmly believe that it should not be forced on the aviation community en-masse.

There is nothing wrong with the mode C system for those casual flyers who once in awhile pass through CAS, for those using the services of controllers and flying IFR then Mode S makes sense allong with the promised "extra" facililites it provides. But in the open FIR for flyers who never enter CAS I question the need.

For a moment, I thought we were talking about transponders, but it all seems to have become a lot more melodramatic now.

Transponders in general, and Mode C transponders in particular are a great way of allowing essentially uncontrolled traffic to co-exist with bigger controlled stuff.

Realistically, this need for co-existence is at its peak in the various class D zones where the big traffic is at its most vulnerable. So it doesn't seem unreasonable to me for all aircraft that wish to use that kind of airspace to squawk mode C.

If the density of traffic in those zones is such that more refined monitoring is required, it is possible to see why mode S might be desirable too. If you don't want to pay, then stay out of those zones. Simple enough.

In the UK, because of our highly engineered blocks of controlled airspace, that could almost be an end to it, however things change when you cast your eyes over the Channel. There airspace tends to me much freer. Lower level airways are class E and airspace is substantially unrestricted all the way up to (typically) FL195. For this reason, the French and the Germans can't talk in terms of the risk of collision purely in the control zones surrounding large airports. There is a significant risk even to "proper" IFR flights in airways. As a result, to preserve that freedom, and to avoid creating the sort of airspace structure we have in the UK that restricts our freedom to fly VFR wherever we like, Mode S is being mandated.

We in the UK are at the wrong end of this one. Not only do we have the restrictive airspace structure that keeps us apart, but we are likely to have the wholly unnecessary Mode S mandated to small planes when the need is less than abroad.

The obvious solution would be to create an airspace structure that is rather more aligned with the rest of Europe (and indeed the US). At least we would then enjoy some of the freedoms that Mode S is designed to protect.

I think we can safely say though, that this kind of airspace redesign is highly unlikely prior to to Class A-G being abandoned in a few years time and being replaced with the new 3-class system currently being worked through.

SSD

In reality everybody with a radar can see exactly who you are, because there is enough radar cover around the UK (most of it unknown to you and not available as a service) to track you from the moment you get airborne at airfield X to the moment you land at airfield Y, and unless X or Y are farm strips with many aircraft movementsand nobody keeping records, they (whoever "they" are) can usually find out who that radar blip was. Unless you fly pretty low down.

I can see your point about cost to a degree*, but equally this is a debate that will go on until GA is reduced to a few old planes operating from farm strips. And make no mistake about it, this WILL happen. Just look at the falling new PPL numbers, the ageing pilot population and the ageing GA fleet.

* Unless you fly from your very own farm strip, your flying is very probably made possible by the PPL students who spend a small fortune on landing and T&G fees and who keep your local airfield open. So you (and I) are already receiving a big subsidy from others.

IO540 said:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

I can see your point about cost to a degree*, but equally this is a debate that will go on until GA is reduced to a few old planes operating from farm strips. And make no mistake about it, this WILL happen. Just look at the falling new PPL numbers, the ageing pilot population and the ageing GA fleet.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's a depressing picture, if true. However, I have hopes that we won't be the last generation to be able to enjoy flying just for fun. The activities of the PFA, microlighting, and some very innovative kit designs point to a lively future for fun flying. But the threat comes from such impositions as Mode 'S', which I feel we should be fighting with every weapon we have.

SSD

There is probably no cost/benefit of Mode S to GA which is why I would not support it as mandatory for GA VFR.

But as 2D suggests the argument becomes more complex if a PPL is to be allowed into CAS, which he is, and I don't think many PPLs would support a tradeoff of that sort (i.e. no transponder and Class G only). This is before you get onto the poor nav skills (unsuprising given the PPL syllabus) of many PPLs and any CAS infringements just give the powers to be more ammunition.

I don't believe asking every G-reg owner/operator to spend say £2k max (which is what it will be by the time it is a requirement) is by far the biggest threat to GA; it is a relatively miniscule amount on the scale of what it costs to operate a certified aircraft.

And the chances are the cost will fall substantially further because if mandatory the market will be big enough to be worth looking at by a lot of smaller players. At present the GA avionics market is tiny because most of the stuff is purely optional and appears only in new £150k+ planes, the sales of which are miniscule. Also most avionics comes from very big firms who have to recover their ludicrous fixed costs from very small sales, but in reality the market would be much better served by smaller firms. It costs about £200 in parts and direct labour to make a Mode S transponder (I work in electronics) so I am optimistic.

If you believe the future of GA is in PFA and microlights (which I know many do) then look at where the income of the average GA airfield comes from - you are talking of a large scale collapse, with perhaps 75% of GA airfields closing.

The French DGAC has publicly said that GA in France is facing collapse, but unlike the CAA they are doing something about it.

Picture this -

1985, the CAA anounce that there is a new system coming on line called GPS and every powered aircraft will be required to have one from 1/1/1990.

I can picture the outcry.....how dare the CAA restrict our freedom to navigate as we wish.....aren't there enough VORs and NDBs for those who want sometning to back up visual navigation? Our freedoms are being stripped away.

Here we are some years later and those pilots who have never used GPS are very small in number and most operators have not only purchased a GPS (yes even those who have no electrical systems in the aircraft) but they have in many cases upgraded the model several times. Total costs in many cases well over £1000 and that is before we consider database revisions!!!

It's a funny world isn't it!! :D

------

2Donkeys has hit the nail on the head.

Most people (unfortunately including AOPA at the moment) do not understand the rationalle behind or the benifits of the introduction of mode S.

Perhaps people would better spend their time by pressing for more suitable airspace classifications to be introduced at the same time as mandatory mode S.

How would the pilot seeking freedom, who in the area arround duxford can be restricted by very low class A airspace levels, like a UK airspace map similar to France where most airspace outside the London TMA was class E up to FL115.

I operate both VFR and IFR in the UK, both in and outside controlled airspace. While the cost is a pain in the but, what I would like to see is all enroute airspace from FL55/1000ftAGL up to FL115 made class E. Yes that restricts the class G flyers, but if VFR then there is no significant difference. For the IFR flyers, it affords some protection while at the same time providing more direct routings thus removing many bottlenecks in the system.

Regards,

DFC

PS, those European people who gave their lives to protect freedom over the past centuries when Empire building was taking place did so looking to the future not for self gratification!

So, it looks as though SSD and myself are the only 2 aviators that enjoy a Sunday afternoon bimble, for which the cost of entry from 2008 will be £2000 for a piece of kit that is of no use to me. Those of you who believe in a £500 transponder probably believe in WMD and that Tony Blair is the patron saint of students. The reality is that it will reduce the number of private owners and their style of flying quite significantly. I don't buy the reduction in risk either. How many GA/airliner mid-air accidents have there been in the UK? The real danger is the low-level RAF aircraft whose TCAS programme is delayed, so by the same token they should be restricted to their designated low-level areas until it is up and running.
I'm quite happy to stick to Fenland, Old Buckenham, Wellesbourne etc for my £120 cup of coffee and I'm quite happy to fly in uncontrolled airspace so that Air Ruritania Tu-154s don't bang in to me. I'm not in favour of Mode S .

I'm going to cycle home in an hour or so. In order to do that legally, I'm going to have to use a set of lights whose cost is at least 20% of the market value of my bicycle. They bring me no direct benefit (well, perhaps the front light helps me avoid potholes but I can't even see the rear light from my cycling position). Why should I have to shell out on the purchase and running costs of such things purely to help other road users? Shouldn't it just be my choice to take the risk?

BTW, my cycle doesn't even have an electrical system fitted.

Bar Shaker
 

It would help if you had the first idea of what you were talking about before you posted here !.

The the traffic imformation and WX radar pictures are data linked to you mode S unit from the ground radar station so I cant see how an ATCO would want to turn off this function as it would increase his workload insted of decrease it , yes ATC can switch you off there screens the S in mode "S" is for selective this will remove the clutter from the screen as it will eliminate from the controlers screen traffic that is below controled airspace but climb into that airspace and you can be sure that you will be on the guys radar screen with the aircraft ident .

As to the cost you cant value you life very highly , this is very cheap TCAS/ WX radar system that will fit most light aircraft those who have fitted the Garmin 430 already have the means to display the imformation so I cant see the problem if it costs me a few quid to have traffic/wx data that at the moment is the preserve of the airliners and biz jets.

Bar Shaker the first time that you have to work your way around an active WX front with this equipment you will see just how good it is and wonder how you ever did without it.

Quote:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm going to cycle home in an hour or so. In order to do that legally, I'm going to have to use a set of lights whose cost is at least 20% of the market value of my bicycle. They bring me no direct benefit (well, perhaps the front light helps me avoid potholes but I can't even see the rear light from my cycling position). Why should I have to shell out on the purchase and running costs of such things purely to help other road users? Shouldn't it just be my choice to take the risk?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bookworm, your analogy is flawed. Even if the only other road traffic was bicycles, you would still need those lights to cycle at night if you wanted to avoid running into them and being run into by them.

Now, if bus and truck companies insisted that your puny bike lights cannot be readily seen amid the ligfhts of cars and other motorised traffic, and you therefore constitute a collision risk to them and must take approriate action by fitting a bit of kit that costs twice as much as your bike and consumes power your bike doesn't have, you might have a point.

"But I only ride in cycle lanes", you protest, "never on the road" (let us assume this is in an enlightened country like Denmark which provides real cycle lanes segregated from road traffic).

"Doesn't matter", say the bus and truck companies. "We can't guarantee that you will stick to bike lanes, so you have to have the kit".

Even if we accept your flawed analogy, the cost of your (self-powered, small, and lightweight) bike lights will not be so prohibitive as to prevent you from cycling - in fact the cost is so tiny you probably don't even need to consider it.

Not even remotely the same thing as the threat to recreational GA by the imposition of Mode 'S'.

SSD

bookworm

What's the latest on the weather/traffic uplink on Mode S in Europe? Pretty recently it looked like this would never come.

Not Bookworm by I can answer your question IO540.

A couple of organisations are currently investigating the provision of weather data via uplink to Garmin 530/430 and similar systems. Announcements likely later this year.

TIS (the TCAS-like traffic information seen in US terminal areas) is not currently planned for the UK at all.

Will it be specific to the Garmin, or will it work on e.g. a KMD550? The next big question will be the cost. Isn't traffic info free in the USA? And without traffic info, we are back to the £25000 TCAS...

I know nothing about TIS or TCAS (and little about anything else, many would say) but there is another anti-collison unit which depends on conflicting aircraft having transponders. See:

http://www.avionix.com/collis.html

While I am not an advocate of making transponders mandatory, I think we may have to get them by 2005-8 whether we like it or not. If so, then this 6-800 dollar kit may be a sensible add-on - if only we have the room and weight capacity to install it and batteries to run it, which I don't.

Chris N.

TIS is free in the US, and was promoted, amongst other things, to incentivise pilots to take-up Mode S transponders.

Even if TIS were to be installed on a few radar heads here, it is difficult to see that it could be charged for on a pay-per-use basis, because of the nature of the technology.

TIS does display on certain other high-end EFIS style displays in addition to GARMIN. I am not aware of it displaying on Bendix/King GA hardware, but I am sure somebody can step in and correct me.

A and C

So there is a chance that you may get weather radar info, although I suspect it costing "a few quid" may be a tad optimistic. But with regard to collision avoidance it looks like you will have to carry on to looking out of the window.

The point being made here is that some people want to fly IFR, fly through CAS and fly around weather fronts, whilst the vast majority of recreational pilots do not.

It will be physically impossible to fit these units to the majority of microlight and permit aircraft. Under the current proposal even balloons will have to have them fitted! Whilst Permit to Fly aircraft are not the bulk of the UK private flying fleet, they are a significant part of it. When you look at hours flown, I suspect that they are the bulk.

These aircraft will not be any safer with Mode S fitted. They will, however, be ripe for taxation.

The cycling analogy misses a couple of points... You only need lights on your bike if you ride on the road and you ride at night. For the lights on your bike to be effective, you do not require the installation of hundreds of millions of pounds worth of infrastructure, which you are likely to pay for everytime you go for a bike ride, on the road or off of it, in the dead of night or the middle of the day.

I don't want to get into semantics about this issue, but there are a lot of non-permit aircraft that will be caught out by this nonsense. Typically Austers, Airtourers Luscombes and a raft of early Cessnas and Pipers which are now owned and cared for by people who can't afford/don't want £100,000 a/c. It strikes me that it doesn't make a ha'porth of difference to a radar operator whether it's a permit or C of A a/c that's making a 90 knot blip on his screen.
However I've just seen on the AOPA website (well done AOPA) that the consultation process for the Elementary use of Mode S from 31/8/2008 will follow the current final discussions on the IFR stuff being introduced in 2005. Get your pens sharpened all those who want to see some mods to the proposals.

ChrisN

That product doesn't give you direction info, so you have no idea where to look, where to turn, so it is basically impossible to act on the info especially if in IMC.

But more fundamentally, so many people fly with no transponders (sometimes intentionally OFF) that the present value of TCAS (outside CAS) is minimal. You still have to keep the same lookout.

Baloons often don't show on radar, BTW (I discovered this recently with Farnborough RIS).

It strikes me that in the absence of traffic information /weather upload, the pro-modeS argument is basically a pro-ModeC argument. And how far has Mode C got? After god knows how many years there are still INSTRUCTORS who teach it should be OFF outside CAS, etc. I am not saying Mode S is justifiable for GA but it's hardly suprising that a transponder will become compulsory eventually.

Bar Shaker
 

The time that traffic is the most danger to me is on a summers day late in the afternoon flying back from Le Touquet around the north of the Heathrow zone NOT when I am in class A airspace.

And just who do you think the collision threat is from ?. Yes it is you the VFR pilot who as you point out are the vast majority of private pilots.

By 2008 a low cost low power mode S unit should be with us as these will also be caried by skydivers ! if the mandate stays as writen , the thing should be so light that fitting the mode S to an aircraft without an electrical system should not be to much of a problem.

A and C, Im glad you think its going to be no problem to fit mode S even to aircraft with no electrical system. I hope you and your friends who want everyone to have mode S will solve the biggest problem then, to pay for the unit and the installation.
It might not be that high a cost compared to the value of the aircraft, but it is a significant cost compared to what people pay to fly each year. If instead of waasting £1000s on this equipment they flew a bit more and got more current, then perhaps the few controlled airspace infringements would be reduced as people would remember how to navigate!
If I only want to fly outside of controlled airspace from small airfields and farm strips, I do not see any justification for fittting Mode S. If I want to fly into Class D and above then maybe.
Im not particularly bothered about people being able to see what I am doing- if Im away from controlled airspace, Im sure the controllers have better things to do than watch me. I would be very much against anyone else having the information though, other than ATC or other aircraft TCAS.
Some people think its great for weather info etc, well if they want that, then they can pay for it, just as they can pay for their GNS 430 and I can buy a map. It may well also be a good idea for IFR aircraft and they can pay for it too. But dont force it onto us VFR day only aircraft.
Ive got no complaints about the UK airspace arrangements either, although perhaps the base of some airways is a little low in places and there are some large control zones that could be smaller- seems a lot are based on the climb rate of an overloaded DC-6 with an engine out, rather than a modern airliner. Having lived and flown a lot in France too, I didnt really see a much better system there- yes the population is more spread out, so big towns with big airports further apart, but there are a lot of military zones that you sometimes cant cross and some of the Class D zones are more helpful than others- just like comparing the friendly East Midlands, to the less helpful Stansted.
Surprising that IO-540 says that the pilot population is falling. Might be true I dont know, but the number of aircraft on the register is increasing and the fact that kit/homebuilts are completed much quicker means less non airworthy aircraft on the register. Maybe its just Group A PPLs that are reducing, whereas Group D PPLs and NPPLs are increasing. It is true that we need to attract more young people into aviaiton, the Microlight organisations seem to have success in this area, perhaps we can learn from them.
Lets hope we can get an exemption from these rules after 2008. Even if it is a European rule, I cant see why we couldnt have a national rule for aircraft that only fly in the UK outside controlled airspace. PFA, BMAA and BGA are all active on this subject, so I hope everyone shows there support by joining at least one of these organisations.

Cubflyer

I don’t think anybody here really wants mode S compulsory; the point being made by some is that it should not be such a big deal. You say the cost is too much for infrequent pilots but infrequent pilots with no money are usually self fly hiring so won’t be paying that money. If you are an owner then the XP cost will be a small part of the ownership costs, and if you are an owner and fly say 10 hrs/year then you can’t claim you are particularly concerned about value for money.

If anyone is backing an XP for VFR it would be Mode C; Mode S brings no additional benefits because mode C is just as good for telling the local radar how high you are (which really IS pretty important) and for activating other peoples’ TCAS.

The # of aircraft on the register may be increasing but that’s to be expected, with the average age of the GA fleet increasing almost a year for every calendar year. The planes aren’t the future problem; it’s the operators. There is another 10-15 years to go...

You are dead on about better navigation being needed but that opens a much bigger can of worms. There really isn’t any way, or a will, to teach better navigation within a “45-hour” PPL than the traditional dead reckoning, flying a wind corrected heading by reference to a dodgy DI which drifts a few degrees every few minutes, a dodgy ASI, and having used rarely accurate winds aloft data off Form 214, even if you do a super accurate calculation using that ridiculous circular slide rule. What is needed is a wholesale intro of GPS into the PPL; perhaps you can mention it at the next CAA safety seminar and see the reaction from the audience there… :O

When I had a transponder equipped aircraft I upgraded it to Mode C and it was always on when I flew. That was a while ago and I've since flown non-transponder equipped aircraft and not seen a difference in terms of traffic avoidance. I agree with IO540 that if there is to be compulsory use of transponders, why not use existing, proven and relatively cheap Mode C for day only VFR aircraft as it gives ATC all the info required from a VFR pilot. Unless the Mode S is going to provide me with a basic TCAS system cheaply then it is of absolutely no advantage to me compared to Mode C but I'm the poor Joe who has to pay for the installation.......


I will never have a need for weather updates to a Garmin 430 cos I'll never fit one to my aeroplane. TAF's and METAR's are quite sufficient to keep me on the ground if required. A chart and uploads from NavPro to my Pilot III keep me out of areas where I shouldn't be.


Finally, as the airfield I operate from is slap bang under LTN approach, my transponder probably would not be turned on until clear of the zone as it would be setting off easyJet and Monarch TCAS's left right and centre. Bit of a waste of money there then........

Worth a bit of historical background here.

In 1997 ICAO (note not JAA or CAA) passed an amendment to SARPs to require all aeroplanes and helicopters to carry pressure-altitude reporting (Mode A/C) transponders from 1 Jan 2002. It was passed in conjunction with ACAS/TCAS requirements for commercial transport aircraft, the idea being that there's not much point in mandating ACAS if the object they are trying to avoid can't be detected by the ACAS.

There's also a European push towards Mode S rather than Mode A/C. There are two underlying reasons for this: a lack of sufficient Mode A codes for airways flights, and a crowding of the radio spectrum which means that Mode A/C starts to get unreliable. Mode S has many more codes and is selective, so it doesn't suffer from the crowding issue.

We are two years past that ICAO deadline, and it hasn't been implemented in the UK -- it has in most other states. It was delayed because the CAA believed that it was an unreasonable burden on operators of aircraft without a transponder to require a Mode A/C transponder that would only be replaced a few years later by Mode S.

Trivial, baseless requirements don't get through ICAO. The requirement for transponders was a recognition that see-and-avoid just doesn't work well enough for modern aircraft travelling at modern speeds, and that an automated system is vital. UK airspace is as complex as it is because it is set up to separate most of the fast moving traffic from the bimblers, though that's precious little comfort for pilots trying to reach regional airports outside the airways structure.


BTW, the US is always held up as a champion of the freedom of the air. The requirement for Mode A/C transponders within 30 miles of major airports have been in place for more than 15 years. If they were implemented here they would affect most of the southern UK, as well as significant parts of the rest of the country -- for example, you wouldn't take-off from Barton without a transponder.

Whether you like my cycling analogy or not, equipping to allow your aircraft to be detected by others is going to be the price of entry into any airspace in the 21st century. Wake up and smell the coffee.

Commercial traffic pays an ATC fee for every flight.

Once the secondary radars have been built and wired up, we will be monitored for every flight we make. The coffee that I'm smelling is that we will pay for this "service" every time we fly.

I must take issue with the statement that modern speeds and aircraft have negated the "see and be seen" principle outside controlled airspace. I don't want to do "touch and goes" at Heathrow but I will take responsibility for looking out for other traffic in uncontrolled airspace. As I said in an earlier post there have not been any GA/Transport mid-airs to my knowledge so the system ain't bust. By the way are modern single-engined piston GA aircraft much quicker than a 1930's Percival Gull or Miles Falcon? I don't think so and those guys managed without radio.

Once the secondary radars have been built and wired up, we will be monitored for every flight we make. The coffee that I'm smelling is that we will pay for this "service" every time we fly.

Absolutely right - charged for a service we neither want nor need because someone far more powerful than us would have their lifes made a tad easier and make a buck or two out of us as well.

Bookworm may be happy to just to relinquish our rights and rollover and let recreational fun flying be trampled on and then ripped off by commercial aviation, but a few of us think that is completely unreasonable.

SSD

Too right SSD, They will charge us to install the equipment we dont need, charge us to certify that it works every year and then track us and charge us for using their ATC services that we dont need!

IO-540, the cost of the equipment is significant. There are lots of cheap one or two seaters owned by groups, where people even flying as little as 10 hours a year are saving compared to hiring club aircraft. some of these aircraft cost as little as £5000, so a mode S transponder is going to be 50% of the cost of the aircraft!!

There is no reason people couldnt be taught reasonable navigation in the 45 hr ppl, or even a 35 hr ppl, if it wasnt done at a large airfield with giant circuits. Then people might not take 20+ hours to go solo, but might go solo in 7 or 8, thus a lot more time left for Navigation! Hopefully if the NPPL gets more popular and can be done in permit/private cat aircraft from unlicenced airfields, then the rate of learning will be much quicker, just as it is in the microlight world.

The US does have a few places where Transponders are mandatory below the TCA, not sure if they are all 30 mile diameter though. However, there is an exemption for aircraft without electrical systems flying underneath the controlled airspace. The vast majority of US airspace can still be flown in without radio or transponder.