[matthew_w100]

1300 PilotAware units have now been sold. I don't know how many active sub-2500ft aircraft there are in this country, but 1300 must be a fairly large proportion of these.

Ours is still in Mike's boot

Incidentally, can ASD-B be configured to transmit the radio frequency the pilot is tuned to? With a link between xponder and radio, obviously. At least as useful as the call sign, I'd have thought.

[Mike Tango]

Didn't see anything there yesterday when I was loading up the groceries

[Full Metal Jackass]

Ruddy big stick?

Somewhat lacking in perspective it must be said.

Really? The potential loss of a licence due to an honest mistake caused by a pilot facing multiple issues is not a 'ruddy big stick'?

I will wait to be see whether the data shows that the flowchart works as was proposed but I sincerely doubt it. Once an organisation sees a chance of generating revenue by honest mistakes, chances are, they'll abuse it. And 24 x 200 quid is quite a large cost for a 'not for profit' session, huh?

Yes, my PilotAware will pick up your Mode C and alert me to your altitude and that you're somewhere in the vicinity.

the majority of GA aircraft don't have TCAS or a means of identifying the position of Mode C / S transmissions based on antenna diversity.

True, but just altitude and an alert that there's an aircraft there is useful. 1300 PilotAware units have now been sold. I don't know how many active sub-2500ft aircraft there are in this country, but 1300 must be a fairly large proportion of these.

According to the CAA, there are approx 20.000 aircraft registered in the UK at this moment in time (includes non EASA). Of these, approx 90% are GA. So 18.000. That means less than 10% have Pilotaware. Which is inline with my thoughts, that 90% of the aircraft out there will have no means of showing an aircraft's transponder signal.

FYI: I have two PilotAware, bought one of the earliest systems where I had to do the soldering and the later one. However the avoidance of Mode C / S traffic is still the trickiest thing to do.

One of my closest near misses was passing Bristol (remain clear OCAS due to controller workload); I was in receipt of a basic service (Basic service only due to controller workload) and was asked to perform a 360 to assist separation - which I did. As I straightened up to continue on track, my MRX was going haywire, warning me of an aircraft extremely close, descending onto me. I couldn't go any lower, to do so would have infringed the 500 feet rule. I was looking all other the place trying to spot this aircraft when a DA40 dropped over the top of me, separation maybe 30 feet. He was ducking below the level of CAS and hadn't seen me. Did the controller warn either him or me that the requested manoeuvre had put us into conflict? Did he hell as like.

With PilotAware it's much the same, Mode C / S is just a ring with a difference of altitude which is why I'd prefer if all aircraft were transmitting either PAW, Flarm or ADS-B - something which allows us to see the direction of conflict.

Additionally, you can (if you wish) fly around all day with no transponder and in no contact with any ATC unit. That is your call. When traffic I am working (even under a Basic Service/FIS) has a primary return routeing directly at it I will call the traffic and say "No height information". Generally, if there is a 7000squawk not speaking but with Mode C I will give this information as unverified. From my mere 30 years experience the talking traffic will (in this example) say "OK - I will climb 500ft to aid deconfliction"

So, any assertion that non speaking and non squawking flying contributes to the safety of all is wrong in my opinion. But hey, you don't know what you don't know, eh?

First things first, talk about twisting words around. I did NOT say any of that last paragraph. What I did say is that if two aircraft fly head on towards each other, unless they have a means of identifying each other's transponder - for example PAW, TCAS, Traffic service from LARS - the only sure fire means of avoiding each other will be the Eyeball Mk I. If neither of them have TCAS or similar, if neither are on a traffic service, then if they don't see and avoid, they WILL collide and the transponder has NOT made it safer for them. Proof? Two Grobs collided over Porthcawl. Both were squawking mode C. Didn't make them any safer because neither had the ability to see the squawks of the other aircraft.

As a side note: Your comment above about offering traffic to those on a basic service just adds to the total confusion, where people think - that nice controller AlanM gave me a heads up on traffic whilst I was on a basic service so the next controller who gives me a basic service will also be watching over me. That's wrong. Consistancy is what people need. If basic service = no traffic, pilots need to fly accordingly.

But here we're getting away from the topic which is that transponders must be switched on to it's highest level of performance but the method of getting people to do it differs. I'd prefer to give GA a carrot. Switch your transponder on and you'll be rewarded with traffic information.

Whereas others seem to think that if they tell GA pilots by switching their transponder on they will receive absolutely no benefit at all but be punished if they accidentally infringe CAS, ratted out by their transponder, then obviously the consideration will be different..

[AlanM]

As a side note: Your comment above about offering traffic to those on a basic service just adds to the total confusion, where people think - that nice controller AlanM gave me a heads up on traffic whilst I was on a basic service so the next controller who gives me a basic service will also be watching over me. That's wrong. Consistency is what people need. If basic service = no traffic, pilots need to fly accordingly.

Thank you for updating me as a licensed air traffic controller with how I should do my job. I am truly blessed......

Whilst I agree that routine/not worthy traffic information under a Basic Service is unhelpful and confusing, sadly for you, you are wrong; Have a look at the CAP493

2E. Traffic Information
2E.1 Given that the provider of Basic Service is not required to monitor the flight, pilots should not expect any form of traffic information from a controller. A pilot who considers that he requires a regular flow of specific traffic information will request Traffic Service. Subject to the availability of surveillance, controllers shall make all reasonable endeavours to accommodate such requests.
2E.2 However, where a controller has information that indicates that there is aerial activity in a particular location that may affect a flight, they should provide information in general terms to assist with the pilot’s situational awareness. This will not normally be updated by the controller unless the situation has changed markedly, or requested by the pilot.
2E.3 Controllers with access to surveillance-derived information shall avoid the routine provision of traffic information on specific aircraft but may use that information to provide a more detailed warning to the pilot if they perceive a significant proximity hazard.
2E.4 If a controller notices that a definite risk of collision exists, a warning shall be issued to the pilot. ((EU) 923/2012 SERA.9001 and SERA.9005(b)(2))

[Full Metal Jackass]

As a side note: Your comment above about offering traffic to those on a basic service just adds to the total confusion, where people think - that nice controller AlanM gave me a heads up on traffic whilst I was on a basic service so the next controller who gives me a basic service will also be watching over me. That's wrong. Consistency is what people need. If basic service = no traffic, pilots need to fly accordingly.

Thank you for updating me as a licensed air traffic controller with how I should do my job. I am truly blessed......

Whilst I agree that routine/not worthy traffic information under a Basic Service is unhelpful and confusing, sadly for you, you are wrong; Have a look at the CAP493

2E. Traffic Information
2E.1 Given that the provider of Basic Service is not required to monitor the flight, pilots should not expect any form of traffic information from a controller. A pilot who considers that he requires a regular flow of specific traffic information will request Traffic Service. Subject to the availability of surveillance, controllers shall make all reasonable endeavours to accommodate such requests.
2E.2 However, where a controller has information that indicates that there is aerial activity in a particular location that may affect a flight, they should provide information in general terms to assist with the pilot’s situational awareness. This will not normally be updated by the controller unless the situation has changed markedly, or requested by the pilot.
2E.3 Controllers with access to surveillance-derived information shall avoid the routine provision of traffic information on specific aircraft but may use that information to provide a more detailed warning to the pilot if they perceive a significant proximity hazard.
2E.4 If a controller notices that a definite risk of collision exists, a warning shall be issued to the pilot. ((EU) 923/2012 SERA.9001 and SERA.9005(b)(2))

I am aware of the change, IIRC it switched April 2015, just after my issue with Bristol. However I've occasionally heard - whilst in receipt of a basic service - 'traffic 3 miles, 300 feet lower, crossing right to left'. This is neither a risk of collision nor a hazard as there is no way you'll spot GA traffic 3 miles away.....

That is the consistency I am referring to, it makes pilots lazy with their airspace observation if they believe controllers are taking more care over them.

Edited to add: The caveat in 2E.4 is "if a controller notices" - what happens if he's dealing with other issues? I'd prefer that GA spend more time looking out than falsely believing a basic service is protecting them from other traffic.....

[AlanM]

Edited to add: The caveat in 2E.4 is "if a controller notices" - what happens if he's dealing with other issues?.....

Well, spookily enough, he/she won't warn of the impending collision! (but then, he/she doesn't have to watch which is what that line is telling the world.)

Anyway, back to the topic.....

[G-BLEW]

I will wait to be see whether the data shows that the flowchart works as was proposed but I sincerely doubt it. Once an organisation sees a chance of generating revenue by honest mistakes, chances are, they'll abuse it. And 24 x 200 quid is quite a large cost for a 'not for profit' session, huh?

The organisation you are referring to (CAA) does not get the revenue, that goes to GASCo, a non-profit charitable limited company. Can we get away from the idea that this is being done to generate course revenue?

Ian

[matthew_w100]

I don't think we're saying it is to generate revenue. We're saying it seems expensive enough to constitute "punishment" rather than "training". That fear would be allayed if someone would describe the costs of putting on such a course (2 trainers fees, trainer expenses, room booking, materials etc) and how that might get close to the potential £4,800 income from 24 participants. Incidentally, what is the average attendance so far?

[G-BLEW]

How much would it have to be or you not to think it was a punishment? £200 seems on the low side for a one day course, particularly one that includes lunch and a free book.

Ian

[leiafee]

I don't think we're saying it is to generate revenue. We're saying it seems expensive enough to constitute "punishment" rather than "training". That fear would be allayed if someone would describe the costs of putting on such a course (2 trainers fees, trainer expenses, room booking, materials etc) and how that might get close to the potential £4,800 income from 24 participants. Incidentally, what is the average attendance so far?

£200/day is at or below the going rate for bought-in off-site specialist training.

First Aid at Work by Red Cross £269
Digital practitioner CPD refresh £192
STEM in the curriculum £250

Those are the last few I looked into for work - one by Red Cross, a charity, and two by Welsh Gov education quangos so none making a howling profit I shouldn't think and it seems a comparable level of specialist skills/knowledge.

[Cub]

FMJ I doubt you had any intention of being offensive to anyone but, for those people that have been involved in procuring and delivering a remedial course which is interesting and informative as well as being educational, your suggestion that the eventual product is a profit making exercise does really touch a nerve.

GASCo thought long and hard via it's Board, as to whether they could take on and deliver a demonstrable safety benefit to the GA community by applying to be a provider of the CAA prescribed course. They felt they could and the provision was audited and approved by the CAA ahead of the first 'live' course.

GASCo is working on a financial model that works by utilising volunteer Safety Officers providing courses to a varying number of participants, at a variety of locations around the country in an environment and with facilities that make you feel like a valued responsible member of the GA community rather than a criminal hobbiest.

[matthew_w100]

Why do they start at 9:30 and finish at 3:30, thereby necessitating a hotel stay? Rather than 11:30 to 5:30, which would make it a day trip for most?

[Dave W]

Because life isn't perfect?

This is quite evidently not a conspiracy.

[Irv Lee]

Time:
Suggest it to Gasco before yours

[Mike Tango]

Ten or fifteen years to get to the point of possibly having to attend an awareness course after an infringement event and this is touted as a punishment? A cost of £200 is a punishment? Accusations of it being a revenue earner despite all the evidence to the contrary?

Oft citing the threat of prosecution yet the stats showing in black and white the fallacy of that argument?

Ten or fifteen years to get to where we are now and this is GA being hit by a ruddy great stick?

GA is in some sort of deluded alternate reality, and the fact that this alternate reality seems to be being fostered and promoted... Well, don't know what to say, aside from that saying anything at all now is probably pointless.

Unbelievable, but do carry on amongst yourselves on this particular topic as my reality for it is stretched past breaking point now.