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.

*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.

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 :ok:

...... and a lightweight battery with adequate capacity to go with it?

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.

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.

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.

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?

<<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.

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?

ADSB is the answer

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?

Greasey Pete... Somebody riding a bicycle on a country lane is a "hazard" - much more so on a busy A road. End of lecture.

re: zebedies remark on the Australia trials with transponders - Good point, but I believe (and am happy to be proved wrong :confused:) 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 :ok:

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.

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.

Max Angle... so the price of the lives of a couple of hundred passengers is not worth five thousand Pounds?

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. :ugh:

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.:ugh:

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?

Define society. What most people do. Deeply unoriginal.

I like to think society is largely governed by primitive instinct.

Get wealth and power, acquire BMW and four bedroom house, have ability to travel, all with purpose to attract mate and breed.

I have brain University career, Mondeo, three bedoomed house glider and am content to belive I think rather than act instinctively. BTW also happily single!

There is no evidenced base reason to extend Mode S to gliders, only the will of the above types to attempt to be super safe and dominate by way of their sheer number.

These guys will take the world to the grave via Gobal Warming and war for diminishing resources.

Personally I see no reason why gliders (and older aircraft with little/nothing in the way of electrical systems) should, generally, need transponders. Especially when operating OCAS. However...

It's a whole different story when they start flying in cloud. If I'm flying along in IMC in receipt of a radar service I do NOT want something invisible to SSR anywhere near me. At the very least a charlie-capable transponder squawking a discrete "I'm a glider in cloud" code that can be switched on before they enter IMC would be a good idea, surely?

<<attempt to be super safe>>

One can never, ever be "super safe". Having spent a life time as a professional air traffic controller (5-bedroomed house, Reliant Robin, Austin Allegro and other trappings of wealth... and also an avid aviation enthusiast) I have seen enough dangerous incidents for me not to change my attitude about control of airspace and the need for aircraft using that airspace to be properly equipped. Of course I appreciate the desire of people to enjoy their flying but SAFETY is of paramount importance to me, far and above Fred Bloggs enjoying his gliding.

Air traffic controllers are far better equipped than pilots to see exactly what goes on. During the competitions at Wycombe I experienced on more than one occasion reports from commercial pilots of gliders "at the same level", "we have a glider above us", etc. Unlike the old primary radar, modern radars do not see flimsy aeroplanes too well so it is only sensible to have those aeroplanes properly equipped so that they can be seen.

Personally, I wouldn't set foot in an aeroplane which was about to be flown anywhere near CAS unless I knew that it had a fully serviceable transponder and somebody with a modicum of commonsense driving it. I'm NOT anti-light aircraft or gliders but I AM pro-safety at all cost.

Indeed one cannot, but the guys who 1) flew over our gliding field upwind at circuit height (more or less along the line of the winch cable), and 2) flew across the business end of the winch at less thatn 2,000'agl could certainly have been a whole lot safer. It's not as if the field is unmarked on the chart, or difficult to make out from the air.

IMHO this sort of thing is a much, much bigger threat to safety than a collection of gliders without transponders ever would be, partly because pilots displaying such a lack of awareness of where they are and what the specific hazards of a gliding site are are probably just as unaware about many other hazards.

Heathrow Director
However you are more than content to provide a safety service with a system that :

So why doesn't the CAA insist that these modern radars are removed from service and revert to 'old radars' until such time as all airspace users are equipped with the new systems?

More likely to be the materials used in the making of the gliders to reduce weight that don't reflect the radar waves as well as they would have in the past.

We still have primary radar, its just more computer processed than it used to be. Any return that isn't moving above a specified speed gets filtered out by the computer before being put on the screen, ie weather, static returns from buildings etc...

A couple of thoughts...

The willingness for safety "at any cost" - this simply isn't realistic. Everybody, whether that be a GA pilot or an airline business, makes a tradeoff between relative risk and the associated cost. Airline manufacturers could make aircraft safer by, for example, improving crash survivability (such as on board water sprays). They don't because this increases the weight of the aircraft, decreases the available load and increases the cost. IF we REALLY supported the principle that CAT must at all costs be made as safe as possible then a starting point would be to be ban ALL GA and military traffic (thereby decreasing the probability of collision) and insisting on considerable investment in ATC facilties (and passing the charge on to the airlines who'd build it into the price of a ticket).

Improving safety through additional controlled airspace - The latest set of airprox data (jan-Jun 2007 - http://www.airproxboard.org.uk/docs/423/ukabbk18.pdf) states that:
"Airprox where controllers did not seperate CAT aircraft or exercised poor judgement.... featured 11 times, an increase of 37% over the same period in 2006". Overall, GA airproxes remain pretty much unchanged year on year, whilst controlled airspace ones have increased. Would this not suggest that the area that needs to be improved is INSIDE controlled airspace, not outside ?

Hmm

From the guys at the Belgrano, ADSB isn't the clever solution that many believe. Although who trusts the Belgrano.....:=

We were told that ADSB would be a future option, but would depend on 'an approved GPS', so that rules out Garmin196 etc/Skymap IIIc etc, so will mean even more expense - a Mode S + an approved GPS

UK airspace, living in the past ?
 

Radarspod

Quote:

---

The airspace of the UK is developing for the future, not to meet the needs of the past

---

sadly this is what is definitely not happening
RNP 5 nav and controllers giving vector belongs to WW2 era. If we were even in the 1990's we would be on PRNAV and hardly talking to ATC at all. The way things are done inside CAS is well past its sell by date.

e.g.
To require an airway 22nm wide for aircraft to operate autonomously is ridiculous in modern times (N862/4)
or
Having the BNN holding pattern over the Heathrow out bounds is insane, and the current TC North plan does nothing to relieve this bizarre bottleneck in the sky

So why not sort the problems of big aeroplanes against big aeroplanes inside controlled airspace first, that is where the real problems are.

Does recreational flying fit in to your vision of the future?

attempt to be super sensible
 

HEATHROW DIRECTOR

This clearly shows that look out works and even airline pilots can actually see gliders on the very rare occasion that they use the windows for their intended purpose. There is a common misunderstanding amongst pilots that anything they see on or slightly above the horizon is above them, when the trafic is actually below them. NW of Henley you should expect that gliders will be above the inbounds as the base of CAS (5,500') allows this as there is lateral separation and not all airline pilots have got the hang of CDAs.

But if you are you will have known that and reassured them.

If you want to be pro-safety at all cost... get NATS to give you radar that does see all the traffic and not just some of it. Don't think you can just pass the cost on to someone else's budget, or are NATS going to pay for all the transponders?

Quoting Heathrow Director: "Unlike the old primary radar, modern radars do not see flimsy aeroplanes too well so it is only sensible to have those aeroplanes properly equipped so that they can be seen."

So, what you're saying is that the new equipment is less able to do the job and so the "solution" is to force the flimsy aeroplanes to be kitted out with expensive equipment to overcome the shortfalls of the new radar ? H'mmm, sounds a bit like treating the symptom (GA trafic doesn't always appear on the radar) instead of the cause (inadequate radar).

Part of the problem with the newer radars is that they don't "see" gliders made from newer composite materials. ATC has already been equipped with radar that does see ALL traffic, it's called SSR, unfortunately (for you glider types) it requires ALL traffic to have a Transponder.

I can't understand your problem with fitting the kit. Surely it enhances flight safety for everyone, not just your commercial pilots (who apparently don't look out of the window :ugh:) What possible objection can you have to be being visible on radar and visible on TCAS?? Is it just the cost??

I spend a lot of time transiting and operating outside CAS, lookout is very important, unfortunately gliders are not the easiest thing to spot even at a TAS of 250kts...so for guys going considerably faster the problem is even greater. The danger of mid-air collision is considerably reduced by the use of TCAS / Mode S / SSR and a radar service.

It would be interesting to hear the views of any military guys operating the fast metal over the highlands outside CAS.

Wish it were so simple. Capital and recurrent cost is undoubtedly a factor. Recreational flyers don't have the resource of CAT so if the expense is deemed unaffordable then ipso facto they are barred from their 'country lanes' and being forced out causes deep and often irrational resentment. Especially when the 'aggressor' is perceived as little more than unabashed commercialism.

OK, many of the guys flying well above FL 100 are likely to be of the ilk that will fit a transponder for all the sensible reason that you espouse but the lower down you come the more likely you are to find those who wouldn't (given the choice) and FL 100 is the sort of level where you learn your wave flying. Lower than that then cross country flights become potentially hazardous because of the areas of sink you have to cross. If you can't make it to the next area of lift you are likely out of the sky and in a field.
The lower performance gliders are the ones more likely to have tight budgets and they are the ones that won't succeed at the upwind jump in 10kts sink.
Believe us when we say that a 9-10,000ft ceiling on wave flying is a disaster for gliding.

But it doesn't stop there. TMZs. I fly in the Peak district where we are boxed in by airways overhead, East Midlands to the South, Manchester to the West, Leeds/Bradford to the North and soon Finningley to the East. (What pc committee of little drips decided to call it Robin Hood? Yuk. End rant). .
If TMZs were wrapped around all that lot our airfield would be in them! So then its transponders in everything -right down to the £500.00 Ka8 that we use for early solos. Which incidentally is quite capable of floating above FL100.
The mainstay of gliding clubs is those members who are quite happy flying local without ambitions to be heroes but who nurture the new bloods and and keep the infrastructure going. If they give up because its all too complicated or expensive the the whole movement is threatened. UK gliding, by he way, produces world champions and a steady stream of ATPLs and many of the wave flights in Scotland are held in awe by more than just we Brits.
A bit like school playing fields, municipal parks, musical education and excellence in anything you care to name we ARE of benefit to society but trying to be heard is an uphill struggle.

So, no - its not just the cost. It the threat of extinction as well.

I can see all of the points you make Pete but:

I take it by that you mean CAT operators flying outside CAS on direct tracks because it's more economical and more "green"? That is something that is unavoidably going to increase and with it the "hand-over" of airspace to growing airfields, (RHIDS :yuk:) for one and busier en-route sectors, the "part-time" airway between NCL and ABZ as an example, deemed necessary to protect transiting aircraft from Military operations over Northumberland.

Regardless of what you feel your sport does for society, the fact is that the sky is getting busier, there will be a need for more controlled airspace and therefore the appropriate equipment will be necessary for flight safety.

Nobody minds you flying your aircraft, known gliding areas are easy enough to avoid, but long cross country transits in gliders at any level just doesn't seem sensible if you're invisible to the technology that keeps us safe.

What effect do you think a mid-air between a non-squwaking glider and a commercial aircraft is going to have on your sport? A lot more damaging than having to fit Mode S i'd imagine.

Oh, disastrous, no doubt about it. You did ask if there was more than mere cost behind the gliding movement's angst....

The CAA's round 2 consultation is in effect the negotiation to formulate new rules to avoid such a grim event and any negotiation is facilitated by understanding all aspects of each others problems. Hence the rather emotional level of my last post.
which brings me back to .
Not just above FL100 but everywhere.

Renaming RHIDS would be a start - we'd be inclined to take them seriously then!

Originally Posted by Comjam: "What effect do you think a mid-air between a non-squwaking glider and a commercial aircraft is going to have on your sport? A lot more damaging than having to fit Mode S i'd imagine".

Let's try the situation from a different perspective:
"What effect do you think a mid-air with a commercial aircraft flying in uncontrolled airspace, where it is well known that not all traffic cannot be seen, is going to have on commercial operations?"

Some of the challenges that light aviation (not just glidng) is facing with the feasibility of Mode-S include:

(1) There often isn't the space to install a transponder in glider or microlight (panel space on some gliders is very limited). Where will a parascender fit their kit?
(2) Mode-S requires power. Not all gliders have batteries, let alone ones that'll operate continously for twelve hours or more.
(3) Mode-S doen't provide autonomous interoperability as it requires either TCAS to be also fitted or to be in contact with ATC (and not all gliders have radios). Trials have taken place in Europe with gliders using FLARM, which is a GPS-based collision avoidance system which gives you warning of all potential collision risks with other suitably equipped aircraft and overcomes the need for a controller to be monitoring traffic.
(4) No research seems to have been done to show what degradation in performance having an external antenna fitted has. If you have a nice big engine dragging you through the sky then this isn't a problem. Take a look at how finely polished glider wings are and you'll see that a 'small' decrease in performance actually makes a big difference.
(5) Does anybody have proof that having a transmitter constantly broadcasting within a few feet of you doesn't have any effect on your body ? The effect of long term exposure to magnetic/radio transmissions still isn't fully understood. And before anybody says "oh but we all use mobiles and they're ok", I'd suggest doing some proper research1
(6) Cost is an issue - A vintage glider is probably worth about £1000. A Mode-S transponder, once a low consumption version is available, is likely to cost several thousand pounds. That's aside from the annual tests, maintenance, calibration, approval, etc. Cost is an issue that could actually be overcome by charging commercial users a small premium for the ability to use Open airspace. This premium could then be used to pay for the development, hardware and installation in every GA aircraft, glider, microlight and parascender.

Just look around europe for your answer. For example in germany IFR traffic is not allowed to fly in uncontrolled airspace (except approaches in Class F, but only one IFR traffic at a time). Result, the controlled airspace gets changed so that all IFR traffic can safely fly within its boundary and further protected so that it is all transponder mandatory (which means since march this year mode s mandatory) airspace.

That leads to many nasty problems especially for glider pilots as the airspace available to them gets reduced every single year.

Denti: Spot on.

gpn01: if all traffic was required was to have a Mode 3 or a Mode S transponder then they WOULD be visible thereby increasing visibility and enhancing Flight Safety....isn't that what we'd ALL like....an increase in flight safety?

Only one of the aircraft involved needs to have TCAS fitted, it's clever enough to give Traffic Advisories and Resolution Alerts against all Mode 3 squwakers be they mode S equipped or not. The controller isn't even necessary in that.

Straws....clutching at............?

Not all "commerial" aircraft are passenger carrying air transport operations. In my job (on both types that I fly) we have GOT to operate outside CAS at all levels in order to get the task done. We are a civilian company with an AOC and therefore technically a "commercial" operation.

Sorry glider guys, there are no arguments that will stand up against the Flight Safety issue. The only other option will be to increase the amount of CAS around airfields, lower the base level of en-route sectors and make it illegal for you to operate above a certain level.....without a Transponder i'd suggest 2000 feet would be a good altitude cap.

Well they don't win the emotive "200 pax are worth £5000 argument, do they?

If 757's etc stopped taking needless short-cuts outside CAS, with the compliance of ATC, this would be far less of an issue.

If all gliding folks were like the patronising obnoxious condescending bluntie woman behind the desk at Lasham, I'd support anything to ground gliders immediately in all airspace.

Fortunately all the other folks I met on the site (apart from the club bore) were aviation minded and supportive of a 'mere fixed wing' pilot being there.

I am glad I am professionlly involved with proper professionals such as those on the BGA committee and the clubs who we have negotiated access procedures to Controlled Airspace for, rather than old witches who think they know more about aviation than qualified pilots do.

Having obtained a briefing from a pleasant and accomodating lady at Lasham for a fixed wing landing, and complying with the briefing and RT advice from the tug pilot as we arrived, we were a bit dismayed to have a diatribe from some menopausal mare the next day when simply trying to track down the CFI to say thank you for allowing us to share the airspace and the airfield.

It seems the very helpful lady who gave us a briefing was ''only new here and she will soon learn'' to quote the witch. Preventing our local pilot who had obtained permission for our landing earlier in the week from the CFI from decking the ground nazi was a major effort. Perhaps we shouldn't have ;)

In a time where GA (including gliding) are under threat from all sides, narrow minded selfish pompous gits are a blight on us all. Time they were kicked out of the industry.