Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
By Nick
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1512012
GolfHotel wrote:
Dave W wrote:
Nick wrote:So I will say again. If the CAA had pushed ahead with thier plans, for those able to carry it things would be safer now.


Most things can always be made some amount safer with more money and restrictions.

The important thing is proportionality, and whether the safety gain is worth the expense.

Where's the evidence that states that compulsory Mode S is justifiable? It wasn't available a few years ago, so what's changed, if anything?


I'm not at all sure there is much evidence of the benefit of these systems. And I am quite sure making it compulsory so we can get that evidence would not be proportionate.

As has been said on previous occasions it will only take one major incident involving an airliner and GA will be changed for ever.

Everyone then will be saying "why was it allowed to happen"

Compulsory Mode S will make it less likely. OK it still has to be turned on but if "on" was the default, then action could be taken against those not using it.

Nick.
#1512018
Nick wrote:
As has been said on previous occasions it will only take one major incident involving an airliner and GA will be changed for ever.
...
Nick.


I think you will realise that I am keen to see as many as possible using ADS-B out. But the scenario you mention is not one that lends itself to a response to data. Simply it should be prevented if possible.

There are two ways of preventing such an indecent, that spring to my mind. 1) You can ensure separation or 2) you can put collision avoidance based on information into practice.

Type 1 is airspace based.
Type 2 can be many things. See and avoid. PA picking up an Airbus and alerting the pilot to take avoiding action. One of the options is ADS-B out and that has a cost that is more than most other options, and of course you need ADSB in as well to be really effective.

I don't think you will ever get anything approaching a consensus on the best way to achieve the type 2 separation. For a start you will have to convince those regulating the man in the Airbus to even listen to us GA types without a certified GPS. At present they ignore output that is not certified, I understand. Then somehow you have to get us GA types to pay for and fit the kit.

The regulator could make a safety case for mandating ADS-B and introduce regulation on that basis. That would be sure, IMHO, to cause howls of protest from many. Unfortunately a knee jerk reaction to the event you foresee is a more likely senario, IMHO.
By Nick
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1512037
Golf,
I do agree with you, but as I said in an earlier post, if the cost could be subsidised as in the radio change for instance it could help.

The CAA keeps on about infringement and cost to airlines if they have to orbit. If all GA had ModeS, then ATCs job of keeping all in order would be a lot easier. Perhaps there may be some spare money in the airlines pot!

Nick.
User avatar
By Dave W
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1512058
Mike Tango wrote:Difficult to argue against given they are already employed in Nirvanaland.


There may be a reasonable argument either way, but a simplistic "Do it because somebody else already does" isn't a good argument by anybody's lights.

In my opinion, TMZs are a lazy sticking plaster. Either make a reasoned case for CAS, including funding it proportionatly and equitably, or don't. Making up local rules doesn't help anybody in the long run.
Talkdownman liked this
#1512062
Nick

I know we are both keen on the potential safety benefits. I'll have a word with Dermott o'Learly (or whoever is running Ryan Air) and see if he has spare money. :-) I only run a small business and probably seem like a philanthropic muppet to CEO's of airlines. But I have never understood the concept of spare money.

Golf
User avatar
By Irv Lee
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1512065
I think if anyone starts opening discussions on "who could pay?" for anything in relation to solving infringements, i wouldn't assume it would end well for G.A.....I would think it better to keep heads below the parapet on that side of things.
Sooty25, ChampChump liked this
#1512119
Dave W wrote:
Mike Tango wrote:
There may be a reasonable argument either way, but a simplistic "Do it because somebody else already does" isn't a good argument by anybody's lights.

In my opinion, TMZs are a lazy sticking plaster. Either make a reasoned case for CAS, including funding it proportionatly and equitably, or don't. Making up local rules doesn't help anybody in the long run.


But the argument we should do it like the FAA already does it is one of the most oft used in this forum on a wide ranging variety of topics. Some poster's input would pretty much dry up if it couldn't be used.

And Mode C veils are a lazy sticking plaster that seem to have been working quite well for decades in the States.
James Chan liked this
User avatar
By ChampChump
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1512126
30 mile veils would shut down* the south pdq. A result for some, but potentially massive overload for those having to make those mandatory reports perhaps.

I think the current system of CAS that allows me to be under 7 miles from Gatwick or City, non radio, even, is fine, thank you. FTAOD I do have mode C and it's on. I'll have mode S soon, disguised as the 1946 version...



* Not literally, but...
User avatar
By Paul_Sengupta
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1512166
In the US there's an exemption for gliders, balloons and any aircraft that "wasn't certified with an engine driven electrical system".

I don't believe TMZs have this exemption in the UK. Officially you can't even use a Mode C transponder to satisfy the TMZ requirements in the UK.
#1512214
But a Mode C veil is not a TMZ and vice versa. TMZ is rather ad hoc, Mode C veil is not.

So there is an assumption (I know, I know) that were ad hoc TMZs replaced buy the more consistent Mode C veil then suitable procedures as you mention would be put in place.

Still waiting for a reasonably good excuse...
Cub liked this
User avatar
By Wide-Body
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1512222
Mike,

In the U.K. There is no funding to provide the service level of the USA. Until there is money AND the will of the service providers we will always put,at risk CAT in some way. There is no excuse not to use the aircraft equipment to the max and to keep your skills to date. No excuse for instructors not to teach the correct procedures. However it has to be a huge team effort. That includes ATCO's facilitating GA to a higher level whenever they can. The "remain clear of CAS" and then switch to ignore must not be a default.

I could go on for hours but in summary it's quite a simple breakdown. We need pilots to have the highest possible integrity. We need to have and affordable electronic conspicuity system supported and if necessary subsidised by the authorities. This has to be across all platforms. We have to have a fully staffed and funded LARS system. Since you have brought up the USA the UK ATCO's have to have,the,same equipment, will and empowerment to fully integrate GA and CAT. In reality it all boils to one primary problem that is money. Until that is resolved all we are doing in sniping round the edges. To keep infringements down NATS have done an OK job so far, but the whole thing has its limits. Without a serious amount of investment we are not going get a system which will protect and allow the most freedoms of all users.
Nick liked this
User avatar
By Dave W
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1512224
An "excuse" (needlessly emotive phrase) NOT to do it is hardly the point.

A properly constituted safety case with a dispassionate supporting cost/benefit analysis TO do it IS the point.

"Well, it'll be safer, innit?" is not either of those things.

(Speaking of needlessly emotive phrases. ;) )
  • 1
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19