[deltacharlie]

Just announced by the Dept for Transport: https://www.flyer.co.uk/mandatory-id-fo ... een-paper/

[patowalker]

Mandatory ID
This leads on to the GA section where the government is proposing mandatory identification of all aircraft in UK airspace.

This would be achieved by electronic conspicuity devices to allow an aircraft to determine its own position and then broadcast that information to other aircraft in its vicinity, and receiving stations on the ground, providing greater situational awareness.

“Mandating such technology would mitigate the significant risks of mid-air collisions, and increase the ability to regrade airspace to enable greater sharing of airspace,” said the paper.

In addition, the government proposes to introduce civil sanctions for Air Navigation Order offences to give the CAA options other than a warning letter on the one hand and court action or the removal of licenses and permissions on the other.

[James Chan]

2025 seems a better number than 2050.

2050 may be seen as kicking something into the indefinite long ground.

Glad some relevant stuff on GA is there though.

[cockney steve]

Dear government Please remind us, just how many MAC's DO NOT happen. GA has just spent a vast sum re-equipping with 8.33 radios, a totally pointless exercise as our friends across the Atlantic would happily advise you.

Instead of unravelling yet another roll of red tape, how about directing your surplus resources on eliminating the excesses of controlled-airspace ,particularly in the southern half of the country, Reducing choke-points and allowing Aviators to spread out more, would reduce the risks of a MAC far more cheaply and effectively.

The vagueness if the proposed "civil sanctions" disturbs me. The CAA appears to be a law unto itself, is understaffed as far as knowledge and understanding go, (misleading and totally wrong information is almost routine as is the total lack of accurate information concerning licence conversions, renewals and validations. Many pilots have been told that "the" route involves a full training-course for a conversion, costing several thousand pounds. The truth is a very simple route that costs at most a few hundred. When confronted with their misleading" guidance " there is no apology, just a glib "well, yes, you could do it that way"

Should I remind you of the extortionate "blackmail" charges from a monopoly who refuses to answer it's "customers" on the telephone and demands a ridiculous fee to make a personal visit.

Many GA pilots have voluntarily adopted EC , both regulated and unregulated.


I suggest you sort-out an efficient, practical and cost-effective Administration FIRST before you add yet another nail in the coffin of UK GA.

[tomshep]

Absolutely effing right!

[tomshep]

And do I see the CAA being given the power to make up and impose punishments?
Yes, I think I do.

[Dave Phillips]

Yawn. Cockney Whatsyername, do you ever read things in their entirety?

“Mandating such technology would mitigate the significant risks of mid-air collisions, and increase the ability to regrade airspace to enable greater sharing of airspace.”

Go and watch Blade Runner. That will give you an idea of where this is all going.

[Sooty25]

well I hope the grant towards transponders is a bigger percentage than it was for 8.33!

[tomshep]

Greater sharing of airspace means higher flight density, not more space for G A. It is just doubletalk.

[James Chan]

Greater sharing of airspace means higher flight density, not more space for G A. It is just doubletalk.

[Dave W]

The case for mandatory "ID" will be of great interest when I get around to reading it!

Skimming the website reveals some interestingly titled supporting documents also published today, such as:

General aviation strategic network recommendations

Research into a strategic network of general aviation aerodromes

Airspace report about and containing the NATS feasibility report

Impact assessment on enforcing the development of airspace changes

Aviation strategy: making best use of existing runways

[tomshep]

Research into a strategic network paragraph 0.3 " selling airfields for housing ultimately benefits society."

[Dave W]

The context in the paragraph is a bit more nuanced than that:

The network of GA airfields in the UK is an important asset for the UK economy and is associated
with significant economic benefits. However, the economic cost of the constraint in the UK
housing market is potentially an even greater economic driver. Hence, the current dynamic of
airfields being sold for housing is probably rational in many cases and will ultimately result in a
net gain to society. There is, however, some reason to believe that the market for GA services
in the UK does suffer from some market failures that suggest that changes to the network
should always be assessed carefully. The primary purpose of this research is to improve
understanding of the network and its value to enable society to make better decisions about
the allocation of the resources in the economy.

[flybymike]

Mandatory ID
This leads on to the GA section where the government is proposing mandatory identification of all aircraft in UK airspace.

This would be achieved by electronic conspicuity devices to allow an aircraft to determine its own position and then broadcast that information to other aircraft in its vicinity, and receiving stations on the ground, providing greater situational awareness.

“Mandating such technology would mitigate the significant risks of mid-air collisions, and increase the ability to regrade airspace to enable greater sharing of airspace,” said the paper.

In addition, the government proposes to introduce civil sanctions for Air Navigation Order offences to give the CAA options other than a warning letter on the one hand and court action or the removal of licenses and permissions on the other.

There is a subtle difference between determining the presence of an aircraft in the air, and the identification of an aircraft in the air.
The former will address the issue of MAC and the latter will address the issue of sanctions by big brother.

[ls8pilot]

Worth also reading CAP1711 Airspace Modernisation Strategy
http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/modalapplication.aspx?appid=11&mode=detail&id=8960

It says they are launching a consultation on EC in 2019 and:

The CAA is minded to move to a general UK mandate requiring all users to be fully electronically conspicuous at a future date. This date will be influenced by the pace of adoption, the availability and cost of equipment, the development of ground-based infrastructure and other technological developments. We are currently minded that the earliest date for such a general mandate would be in three to five years’ time (i.e. 2022–2024). (Page 74)

Elsewhere it makes clear that ADSB is the way forward

Given global market, commercial and regulatory developments, we see ADSB enabled and interoperable platforms as the most likely commonly adopted technology in the UK. While we do not rule out alternatives, we would expect them to be interoperable with ADS-B standards. The key point is that any technology used must be fully interoperable