CAA tcas mode S questionnaire

[david]

Just responded to this. Flipping heck, how complicated can they make
something?

David

[VinMan]

Post by david
Just responded to this. Flipping heck, how complicated can they make
something?

Hi David,
what is it, is it part of your recurrent training or some sort of poll
among pilots ?

[david]

Christophe, worse, far worse. The UK CAA want to make it manbdatory for all
aircraft to carry a modes S txpdr!

I was in Manchester ATC today and talking to Claire on Approach. I asked her
opinion of the proposal (and apart from the fact that she clearly hadn't
really considered it - suggesting a woeful lack of consultation of the part
of our CAA) she said "well I suppose it must make life better all round in
the long run". Initially I was devastated so I asked her to consider the
condition of her screen when ALL light aircraft were squarking. "Oh" she
said, " well I'll just filter them out".

Dear CAA,
What the hell is the point?!?!??!


I must say that Claire and her colleagues were very helpfull and
instructive. Thanks guys and gals.

D

D

Post by david
Just responded to this. Flipping heck, how complicated can they make
something?

Hi David,
what is it, is it part of your recurrent training or some sort of poll
among pilots ?

[Peter]

Post by david
Christophe, worse, far worse. The UK CAA want to make it manbdatory for all
aircraft to carry a modes S txpdr!
I was in Manchester ATC today and talking to Claire on Approach. I asked her
opinion of the proposal (and apart from the fact that she clearly hadn't
really considered it - suggesting a woeful lack of consultation of the part
of our CAA) she said "well I suppose it must make life better all round in
the long run". Initially I was devastated so I asked her to consider the
condition of her screen when ALL light aircraft were squarking. "Oh" she
said, " well I'll just filter them out".
Dear CAA,
What the hell is the point?!?!??!
I must say that Claire and her colleagues were very helpfull and
instructive. Thanks guys and gals.

I know from some recent ATC visits that, apparently, ATCOs (both IFR
sectors and LARS) are pretty keen on everybody having Mode S. There is
little doubt that Mode C (or S) would make their job easier in
managing situations where GA traffic is close to (or infringing) CAS.
However I don't think there is much awareness of the technical issues
in installing it at the lighter end of GA - or indeed much awareness
of GA generally as only a few present-day ATCOs are or ever have been
private pilots.

[Greg]

Post by Peter
There is
little doubt that Mode C (or S) would make their job easier in
managing situations where GA traffic is close to (or infringing) CAS.

And make it far easier for the CAA to prosecute infringements...

This is little different from black boxes for cars, there are lots of
convincing justifications but ultimately it's about taxation,
prosecution and big brother.

Greg

[VinMan]

Post by Peter
only a few present-day ATCOs are or ever have been
private pilots.

In France, the PPL is part of the ATCO's initial training.
A good thing IMHO !

[Andy_R]

Post by david
Christophe, worse, far worse. The UK CAA want to make it manbdatory for
all aircraft to carry a modes S txpdr!
I was in Manchester ATC today and talking to Claire on Approach. I asked
her opinion of the proposal (and apart from the fact that she clearly
hadn't really considered it - suggesting a woeful lack of consultation of
the part of our CAA) she said "well I suppose it must make life better all
round in the long run". Initially I was devastated so I asked her to
consider the condition of her screen when ALL light aircraft were
squarking. "Oh" she said, " well I'll just filter them out".
Dear CAA,
What the hell is the point?!?!??!

IMHO the point has nothing to do with air safety and everything to do with
yet more monitoring and control of the population. This government is hell
bent on controlling and monitoring everything we do, this is just another
aspect of it, this time bought in under the guise of air safety.

Rgds

Andy R

[Peter]

Post by Greg
And make it far easier for the CAA to prosecute infringements...

The CAA don't prosecute the vast majority of infringements (and the
pilot usually *is* traced anyway from owning up or from primary
radar).

Post by Greg
This is little different from black boxes for cars, there are lots of
convincing justifications but ultimately it's about taxation,
prosecution and big brother.
IMHO the point has nothing to do with air safety and everything to do with
yet more monitoring and control of the population. This government is hell
bent on controlling and monitoring everything we do, this is just another
aspect of it, this time bought in under the guise of air safety.

If any objections to the proposal are based on the sentiments like the
above, widespread as they are throughout the UK GA scene, they will go
about as far as one objection which I got to a recent planning
application for a house extension: "he's already got broadband
internet, why does he want a bigger house as well".

The CAA is laughing all the way, hearing this kind of thing. Their
case, with numerous airspace busts and the need for more reliable TCAS
triggering is pretty strong but IMHO they have overcooked it in the
proposed aircraft type applicability.

The smart way to play this is to write to your MP, with sound
technical reasons describing the difficulty of installing a
transponder in an aircraft which does not have room for it, does not
have an adequate electrical system, Mode C (much cheaper to purchase
if not any cheaper to install) would provide most of the TCAS
advantages, there are some unknowns in the radiological exposure
arena, and (make this the last one; this is seen as a rich man's hobby
by most) the economic cost if implemented as proposed is something
well in excess of £ 10M.

The really smart thing would be to lobby for the mandatory
installation of a panel mounted GPS in every aircraft used for flight
training, and the integration of GPS in the PPL syllabus. The other
day I had a visit to D&D and heard some awful stories about pilots
getting hopelessly lost - so totally pointless and such a waste of the
license privileges. This would tackle the problem at source: the
limits of dead reckoning have been known for roughly 100 years. Of
course, such a proposal would go exactly nowhere and the outcry would
make Mode S look like a picnic.

[Greg]

Post by Peter

Post by Greg
And make it far easier for the CAA to prosecute infringements...

The CAA don't prosecute the vast majority of infringements (and the
pilot usually *is* traced anyway from owning up or from primary
radar).

I don't have figures for how many they prosecute, but the fact remains
it will make it so much easier for them to have the aircraft uniquely
identified.

Post by Peter
If any objections to the proposal are based on the sentiments like the
above, widespread as they are throughout the UK GA scene, they will go
about as far as one objection which I got to a recent planning
application for a house extension: "he's already got broadband
internet, why does he want a bigger house as well".

It wasn't a suggestion for how to object, frankly doing so is
completely pointless as the CAA takes virtually no notice of GA, their
program of massive price hikes makes that abundently clear.

Post by Peter
The CAA is laughing all the way, hearing this kind of thing.

The CAA couldn't care less what anyone outside the big commercial
operators and the government thinks.

Post by Peter
The really smart thing would be to lobby for the mandatory
installation of a panel mounted GPS in every aircraft used for flight
training, and the integration of GPS in the PPL syllabus.

Or even just to accept that we are in the 21st century and allow GPS
for primary navigation as I believe the FAA has done, but again the CAA
are totally deaf to sensible suggestions that might improve the health
of GA. A cynic might suspect that they want to kill it off...

Greg

[Peter]

Post by Greg
Or even just to accept that we are in the 21st century and allow GPS
for primary navigation

Always has been.

[Greg]

Post by Peter

Post by Greg
Or even just to accept that we are in the 21st century and allow GPS
for primary navigation

Always has been.

What?, I must have heard it said a hundred times that the CAA won't accept
it as primary navigation for GA, hence the rotary slide rule etc.
Greg

[Greg]

Post by Peter

Post by Greg
Or even just to accept that we are in the 21st century and allow GPS
for primary navigation

Always has been.

No, I'm afraid not, their own advice to GA pilots is here:

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/SRG_GAD_SSL25.PDF

"Fly and navigate manually, only use the GPS once you have verified its
accuracy against something else"

Greg

[Peter]

Post by Greg

Post by Peter

Post by Greg
Or even just to accept that we are in the 21st century and allow GPS
for primary navigation

Always has been.

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/SRG_GAD_SSL25.PDF
"Fly and navigate manually, only use the GPS once you have verified its
accuracy against something else"

You have picked a fine example. Yes it's "advice".

That leaflet is the standard CAA bullshit on the subject, written by
some ex RAF navigator who trained with a sextant and who (due to no
WW3 starting) was extremely fortunate to never have to actually
navigate anywhere for real. The CAA has a fair number of these and
they write a lot of stuff which is their personal opinion, carefully
couched as the law.

This stuff is spread around liberally in CAA "safety" evenings,
handouts, GA folklore, but is not supported by the *legislation* - the
Air Navigation Order, which merely specifies equipment to be
*carried*. The only time specific equipment must be *used* is under
commercial ops procedures, not applicable to private flying.

To reinforce what bullshit this is, BRNAV capability is required for
IFR above FL095 around Europe and in the GA context this can be done
only with an IFR GPS.

For VFR you can navigate any way you like.

Sorry if I have put it a bit forcefully but if I got a penny every
time some of this bullshit comes out I would have free flying :)

Practically, if you fly into a hill using dead reckoning, you are just
another accident. But if you do it with a GPS (pretty hard to do with
a decent moving map GPS, but possible if you did crap MSA planning)
then you will be made an example of in the press (as well as).

[Greg]

Post by Peter
You have picked a fine example. Yes it's "advice".
That leaflet is the standard CAA bullshit on the subject, written by
some ex RAF navigator who trained with a sextant and who (due to no
WW3 starting) was extremely fortunate to never have to actually
navigate anywhere for real. The CAA has a fair number of these and
they write a lot of stuff which is their personal opinion, carefully
couched as the law.
This stuff is spread around liberally in CAA "safety" evenings,
handouts, GA folklore, but is not supported by the *legislation* - the
Air Navigation Order, which merely specifies equipment to be
*carried*. The only time specific equipment must be *used* is under
commercial ops procedures, not applicable to private flying.

I'm not in a position to say what the letter of the law says on the matter,
but as you've agreed with me that the CAA use bully boy techniques to get
guilty please, and from the case I posted even intimidate witnesses to make
false statements, I would have to consider their 'advice' to be effectively
the law. I certainly couldn't afford to hire a barrister to argue the letter
of the law in the high court, which is where they prosecute people.

Then there's the little matter of having to study obsolete navigation
techniques to pass the exams which the CAA set, regardless of what you're
going to use afterwards. Even though, again from what I've read, most
countries are planning the phasing out of the old navaids.

Anyway, my point was that they need to get into the 21st century and
spreading such 'bullshit' isn't the way to do it 8-)

Greg

[Greg]

Post by Greg
I certainly couldn't afford to hire a barrister to argue the letter
of the law in the high court, which is where they prosecute people.

I'm wrong, they prosecute most in the magistrates court, but I still
couldn't afford to pay someone to stand up to their legal eagles 8-)
Greg

[Stefan]

Post by Greg
I don't have figures for how many they prosecute, but the fact remains
it will make it so much easier for them to have the aircraft uniquely
identified.

And what exactly is wrong in prosecuting a pilot who has busted an airspace?

Stefan

[Greg]

Post by Stefan

Post by Greg
I don't have figures for how many they prosecute, but the fact remains
it will make it so much easier for them to have the aircraft uniquely
identified.

And what exactly is wrong in prosecuting a pilot who has busted an airspace?

Nothing, if they apply their power fairly and sensibly, sadly that does not
seem to be their forte.
Greg

[Stefan]

Post by Greg

Post by Stefan
And what exactly is wrong in prosecuting a pilot who has busted an airspace?

Nothing, if they apply their power fairly and sensibly, sadly that does not
seem to be their forte.

Example?

Stefan

[Greg]

Post by Stefan

Post by Greg

Post by Stefan
And what exactly is wrong in prosecuting a pilot who has busted an airspace?

Nothing, if they apply their power fairly and sensibly, sadly that does not
seem to be their forte.

Example?

Google it yourself, or read the GA press, I haven't time to do it for you!.
There are plenty of examples of their power mad approach to prosecutions and
their bully boy tactics. They have a virtually unlimited legal budget so
threaten that if you plead innocent it will end up costing you ten times
what it would if you pleaded guilty, surprise surprise that almost all plead
guilty whether they are or not, very fair.

Greg

[Stefan]

Post by Greg

Post by Stefan
Example?

Google it yourself, or read the GA press, I haven't time to do it for you!.

So you don't have an example. Just as I thought.

Stefan

[Greg]

Post by Stefan
So you don't have an example. Just as I thought.

So you won't look for yourself in case you find something that doesn't suit
you, just as I thought.

Greg

[Stefan]

Post by Greg
So you won't look for yourself in case you find something that doesn't suit
you, just as I thought.
... if they apply their power fairly and sensibly, sadly that
does not seem to be their forte.

I asked you to back up this claim with facts which illustrate that

Post by Greg
There are plenty of examples of their power mad approach to
prosecutions and their bully boy tactics.

I ask you to provide examples of their bully boy tactics. But you can't.
It's cheap to shout and yell and bash, but when being asked for facts,
to have no better answer than point to Google.

Stefan

[Greg]

Post by Stefan
I ask you to provide examples of their bully boy tactics. But you can't.
It's cheap to shout and yell and bash, but when being asked for facts,
to have no better answer than point to Google.

So the fact that I have better things to do than go through back issues of
the aviation press to find the articles I've read means that those articles
don't exist does it?, a funny sort of logic there...

Greg

[Greg]

Well picking a Pilot magazine off the shelf at random I found the
following in the AOPA page:

"The CAA is being unyielding and inflexible on infringements of
Temporary Restricted Airspace and pilots are warned that while other
infringements might be dealt with by way of a formal caution, busting a
TRA will land you in the dock"

and from the same page:

"AOPA has been successful in fighting off a case the CAA seemed
determined to prosecute. They repeatedly asked two air traffic
controllers to file complaints against a pilot, even after the
controllers had refused to do so"

and a third case:

"AOPA is supporting a member who has been accused by the CAA of illegal
aerial work, but who has effectively fallen victim to labyrinthine
bereaucracy and muddled law...AOPA's position is that this pilot has
fallen foul of one of the most complex and unreasoning aspect os CAA
licensing and should not be prosecuted"

Three cases of them being unreasonable in one magazine alone, nah, I
must be imagining it 8-)
Greg

[Peter]

Post by Stefan

Post by Greg
Google it yourself, or read the GA press, I haven't time to do it for you!.

So you don't have an example. Just as I thought.

The CAA don't prosecute the vast majority of airspace infringements. I
don't have the figures handy but only a few percent of those who get
an "interview" get prosecuted.

The sort of thing which they tend to prosecute is somebody busting an
active TRA (say an air show) or busting CAS and causing big holdups
for the airport operations, especially if there is an "attitude"
issue.

They will do this *especially* if the person in question has a "bit of
a history". The CAA do remember people with a "history" and in a quite
personal manner they will try to "get them" when they can. Just like
the police actually, as I remember well from my fast driving days in
the 1980s :)

Perhaps the most controversial thing is that when the CAA do prosecute
they use a nasty tactic of saying to the pilot that if he pleads not
guilty but loses the case, the CAA will apply for much higher court
costs. The costs which might be mentioned could be GBP 5,000 or so
which is a lot of money for most people. Since most UK pilots have
next to no money, they take the hint and plead guilty. I used to do
the same with motoring offences in days long gone, but would never do
it again today.

[VinMan]

Post by david
Christophe, worse, far worse. The UK CAA want to make it manbdatory for all
aircraft to carry a modes S txpdr!

Ok, same dreadful perspectives down here, to be fought every day though.
Such an expense would virtually kill most of GA here, with no gain since
providing a mode S transponder would be useless to most light aircraft.
A C+A mode one is enough !