[G-BLEW]

Here's a link to another forum where the issue was discussed. A flying club was given a notice of non compliance because they had one GNS430 and one KX155 fitted to an aircraft. The non compliance was because the second radio wasn't 8.33KHz capable. This wasn't an IFR capable aircraft either.

Part NCO kicked in on 25th August 2016, that thread predates that. I am hoping that the Dutch now comply.

Me too but it's not beyond the realms of possibility. I would prefer to ensure they don't by offering a carrot for switching it on rather than the pilot believing it will rat him out to the authorities, should he make a mistake.....

Given the amount of disinformation out there (some of it is now thanks to this thread) I doubt it would make much of a difference, but even if it did, your suggested 'no traffic info without Mode S' might be a small carrot, but wouldn't it be a big stick for these with only mode C?

Ian - it concerns everyone on this thread that people would even think about doing this. That doesn't alter the fact that a number of people WILL think about doing this and a smaller number will actually do this. Your concern is unlikely to have any impact on their thoughts or actions. And nor will the condemnation of the Forum from its majestic high horse.

So we need a Plan B. I think FMJ is on the right lines.

Given the endless excuses for not using a transponder, I am starting to believe that mandatory transponder (or preferably ADS-B out) is where we need to be if we are to continue to enjoy GA flying.

Ian

[Dave W]

Given the amount of disinformation out there (some of it is now thanks to this thread)...

If any of that is mine, even slightly, please would somebody let me know (PM is fine)? I'll go back and fix it since (like dogs) a forum thread is for life not just for Christmas. People refer back for years, as so they should IF the content is accurate.

Given the endless excuses for not using a transponder, I am starting to believe that mandatory transponder (or preferably ADS-B out) is where we need to be if we are to continue to enjoy GA flying.

I know you are unlikely to mean it, but if you did you'd be falling into the same trap that currently has MT in the bottom of the pit.

A vocal minority on t'internet is by no means representative of the majority view in the real world. I mean, they might be but I personally don't think so - and it is most definitely not a suitable source to be used when setting policy without proper verification.

[G-BLEW]

A vocal minority on t'internet is by no means representative of the majority view in the real world. I mean, they might be but I personally don't think so - and it is most definitely not a suitable source to be used when setting policy without proper verification.

You are of course correct, but between some of the views here, one or two on the microlight group on FB and Irv's reporting of the GA pilots he meets it is easy to jump to the wrong conclusion.

Ian

[leiafee]

So nobody would turn off or fake inop of their own transponder themselves but everyone thinks someone else would?

There's a logical disconnect there somewhere...

Either it's far less likely than people would do so than is being made out, or people are telling porky pies.

[Full Metal Jackass]

So nobody would turn off or fake inop of their own transponder themselves but everyone thinks someone else would?

There's a logical disconnect there somewhere...

Either it's far less likely than people would do so than is being made out, or people are telling porky pies.

Replace one word.

So nobody would turn off or fake inop of their own transponder themselves but everyone thinks someone else could?

Yes, I know of pilots who could turn off the transponder because - in their eyes

a) a transponder is not mandatory and

b) that wretched thing is there to spy on me and serve me up on a platter if I make a mistake.

I say could because I wouldn't be with them to see whether they do it or not. And if I was with them, I would make them switch it on

The only point I am raising is not that they definitely would turn it off, just that I can envisage certain pilots, especially after having been 'invited' to take part in such a course, deciding to turn it off. Curiously enough, of the pilots I know, the ones who I feel most likely to carry out such actions are generally older and more experienced, they extol the virtues of going 'NORDO', detest the Magenta line or anything like that as being for 'wusses'.

The fact that something could happen is reason enough to flag it up and look to avoid it's occurrence. It's similar to old age pensioners being screened by security at airports. Nobody has yet seen an OAP (with or without Zimmer frame) carrying out a terrorist attack but it could happen hence they are checked.

It's similar here. . The perception of a transponder by some is that it's not benefiting them. My thoughts are to change that perception away from a device that is likely to rat them out in case of the pilot making a mistake and ensure people value it being switched on.

[Irv Lee]

No think about it for me, I watch quietly. I don't think there are many at all that won't use transponders with all bits working if told in debrief why they should, but I do not see the industry 100% onside at grass roots level.
I have been convinced since I first flagged up the problem ten years ago now that if people hear it is a legal requirement, they will just do it with no big overall fuss.

[matthew_w100]

So nobody would turn off or fake inop of their own transponder themselves but everyone thinks someone else would?

There's a logical disconnect there somewhere...

Either it's far less likely than people would do so than is being made out, or people are telling porky pies.

I know two people who *have* done it and one who has changed his mind about fitting a transponder. I have *thought* about it (rationally ) and having done so wouldn't *do* it.

Does that help?

[Paul_Sengupta]

So nobody would turn off or fake inop of their own transponder themselves but everyone thinks someone else would?

There's a logical disconnect there somewhere...

Is there? The person I'm thinking of who doesn't use his transponder isn't on the forum. I doubt if Irv's "doesn't use Mode C" crowd are on the forum either.

Either it's far less likely than people would do so than is being made out, or people are telling porky pies.

You can't make any assumptions as forumites are perhaps not the same as non-forumites. If you ask people on here, "Do you use a moving map GPS", I bet a very high number would say yes. Yet ask around your average LAA strut or microlight club and the answer will be lower.

[Irv Lee]

Is there? The person I'm thinking of who doesn't use his transponder isn't on the forum. I doubt if Irv's "doesn't use Mode C" crowd are on the forum either.

but "my" crowd do use alt. They didn't, but due to the "value add" that they get by flying with someone on rental checks and biennial who bothers to notice what they do, and explain how they could improve, I suspect almost all do now use alt!

[Shrek235]

After listening to an exchange between a Radar service and another pilot yesterday on my way to Beverley, I wonder if there is not a deeper issue amongst GA. Chap was using his transponder; but that was his only saving grace. He infringed Class A (reason, to avoid a cloud, ummmmmm....) and after being persuaded to leave said airspace, he goes and infringes Class D. ATC then gave him a clearance after the fact and said pilot then appeared to go non radio. He only spoke to ATC again when leaving the zone this despite ATC trying to call him umpteen times (reason, he did not receive the transmissions................ummmmm). This pilot was complete unapologetic. I take my hat off to ATC for keeping cool but from the tone of his voice, I am glad I was not on the receiving end of the phone call that was requested by ATC when pilot landed. I guess this pilot will be attending one of these courses at the very least.

[MercianMarcus]

...I wonder if there is not a deeper issue amongst GA. ...

The single example you give tells us very little about the bigger picture IMO. It sounds like some poor bugger caught out in bad weather and probably c@rping himself. If he's also low hours and one of the pilots who hates speaking to ATC it just sounds like ... the kind of thing that happens.

I am NOT saying the infringement is trivial or that there should be no consequences. All I'm saying is that with a bit of empathy the situation is conceivable and is certainly no indication of some sort of trend.

[GolfHotel]

So nobody would turn off or fake inop of their own transponder themselves but everyone thinks someone else would?

There's a logical disconnect there somewhere...

Either it's far less likely than people would do so than is being made out, or people are telling porky pies.

I always turn on mode C. Unless I forget, it has happened.

But I do know people who won't use it as they think it's there to catch them out. And I do remember people on here coming up with reasons not to use it. Maybe there is some reluctance to admit to not using it as the general consensus is it's a good idea.

Is it common for people not to use mode C? Has anyone got any real information? Or is it just a minority who do/don't ?

[PaulB]

We've seen it said that those who don't use a txpdr are as likely to be tracked and caught, but not seen any evidence. Maybe if that evidence (i.e. that switching your transponder off won't help) was out in the open it might change those attitudes.

However, we'll still have the thorny issue of vertical infringements which are undeniably harder to detect with a transponder either off or set to mode A.

The only time I've been in an aircraft that has infringed, it was vertical and with mode A only there would have been an assumption that were were under CAS.

[Shrek235]

Just for the record, there was no bad weather. I was sharing the same airspace as he was, well not the class A or D bit. A few odd clouds with a base of 2500 ft or higher and blue, blue skies for the remainder. Perhaps that is one of the problems. We are always trying to defend pilots instead of seeing the problem for what it is?

[MercianMarcus]

Just for the record, there was no bad weather. I was sharing the same airspace as he was, well not the class A or D bit. A few odd clouds with a base of 2500 ft or higher and blue, blue skies for the remainder. Perhaps that is one of the problems. We are always trying to defend pilots instead of seeing the problem for what it is?

We shouldn't defend pilots, but we should give them the benefit of the doubt until we have all the facts. The weather is one fact (you didn't mention previously), the experience and currency of the pilot is another and we are also unaware if he had any kind of equipment failure.

You actually said one thing which IMO is a real part of the problem.

I am glad I was not on the receiving end of the phone call that was requested by ATC

ATC should do nothing but professionally and politely obtain the facts. It is not their role to b0ll0ck pilots and the idea that they would does not help those who are reluctant to speak to them on the radio.