Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
#1704129
Is there any reliable data (or even a reasonable estimate of the numbers of aircraft out there that are:

- non-transponder
- Mode A txpdr only
- Mode A/C
- Mode A/C/S

I guess gliders might skew the first of those.

I'm merely curious but the infringement thread and Bossman's suggestion that an outcome may be more TMZs (esp in the SE) has spurred this Q.

In a similar vein, what proportion of light GA is non-radio?
#1704152
@PaulB There was a survey result on here somewhere about the numbers of PAw, FLARM, Mode S, ADSB etc. from the CAA 2017 I think. Maybe a better thread searcher than me can find it (I looked). It is of course horrendously complex to then decide how many are flying / how often / where.
Especially the non-emitting, 'speak up if you're not here!'
#1704157
TMZ are the work of the devil


But it’s also not helpful if people choose to remove their transponders to avoid detection under a CAS base?

How will any traffic information system alert me and you to see/avoid oncoming traffic that is not squawking?
Flyin'Dutch' liked this
#1704160
James Chan wrote:But it’s also not helpful if people choose to remove their transponders to avoid detection under a CAS base?

How will any traffic information system alert me and you to see/avoid oncoming traffic that is not squawking?

Simple explanation is that despite the EC frenzy referred elsewhere many fear a GASCO visit more than they do bumping in to something else.
flybymike liked this
#1704255
PaulB wrote:Is there any reliable data (or even a reasonable estimate of the numbers of aircraft out there that are:

- non-transponder
- Mode A txpdr only
- Mode A/C
- Mode A/C/S

I guess gliders might skew the first of those.

I'm merely curious but the infringement thread and Bossman's suggestion that an outcome may be more TMZs (esp in the SE) has spurred this Q.

In a similar vein, what proportion of light GA is non-radio?


FASVIG, the forerunner to Airspace4All, did some analysis in 2014 on this. Here is a link to their findings: http://docs.fasvig.info/Info/Analysis-o ... e-2014.pdf

Image
davef77 liked this
#1704257
defcribed wrote:The fear is probably less of the course itself, more of the cost, the compulsory nature and fixed date.


The cost is not crazy - probably less than 1.5hrs flying for most aviators? I guess it isn’t compulsory as you can refuse to do it and then accept a different course of action like a suspension of licence prior to taking a flight test with an examiner? Not sure you could call ‘90 days to complete’ (ie. a quarter of a year) a fixed date (singular)? (I’m also pretty sure that a short extension outside that timescale could be be made for reasonable extenuating circumstances).

I’m also reasonably sure that the Authority want some element of deterrence within their proposed CAP1404 plan? If there isn’t some consequence to breaking the UK Air Navigation Order, which is UK Law, then it also won’t deter individuals from doing it again or being more cautious in the future. The course, I would suggest, is a light-touch measure with an education (or even rehabilitation for some) element built in. If I was in the CAA’s position I am not sure I would do it much differently?
James Chan, kanga liked this
#1704286
gaznav wrote:
defcribed wrote:The fear is probably less of the course itself, more of the cost, the compulsory nature and fixed date.


The cost is not crazy - probably less than 1.5hrs flying for most aviators? I guess it isn’t compulsory as you can refuse to do it and then accept a different course of action like a suspension of licence prior to taking a flight test with an examiner? Not sure you could call ‘90 days to complete’ (ie. a quarter of a year) a fixed date (singular)? (I’m also pretty sure that a short extension outside that timescale could be be made for reasonable extenuating circumstances).

I’m also reasonably sure that the Authority want some element of deterrence within their proposed CAP1404 plan? If there isn’t some consequence to breaking the UK Air Navigation Order, which is UK Law, then it also won’t deter individuals from doing it again or being more cautious in the future. The course, I would suggest, is a light-touch measure with an education (or even rehabilitation for some) element built in. If I was in the CAA’s position I am not sure I would do it much differently?


It's £200. In reality, with travel costs, no-one is getting away with less than £250. For many, a hotel stay will be essential and then the whole exercise will be well above £300.

Now I can well afford that. In fact, given the chance, I might even pay £200 to attend voluntarily - just to see what all the fuss is about.

But £200 is not small change to everyone. For a pilot on a small budget that could easily represent 4hrs flying (it does for one of the aircraft shares I own) and those 4hrs could be all they can afford to fly in 3-4 months or even longer. Do you really think the course is a better use of that money than the currency it would bring if spent on flying?

We're always telling ourselves that flying isn't just for the wealthy, but the reality is that most of us who fly any significant amount are quite comfortably off. I know someone for whom £200 represents more than a month's disposable income. We sometimes need to get a grip and appreciate that we are not representative of society as a whole.
AndyR liked this
#1704289
Do you really think the course is a better use of that money than the currency it would bring if spent on flying?


Yes, if the course corrects an ill-judged or forgotten process that causes infringements. Or would you rather they flew again to make the same error?

If you can afford an aircraft, or even a share in one, to fly at £50/hr then you should be able to afford £200. I also think that staying overnight in a hotel is excessive - what is wrong with driving even a couple of hours to a course? I find myself often driving a couple of hours for a day of meetings followed by a 2 hour return.
Flyin'Dutch' liked this
#1704290
defcribed wrote:We're always telling ourselves that flying isn't just for the wealthy, but the reality is that most of us who fly any significant amount are quite comfortably off. I know someone for whom £200 represents more than a month's disposable income. We sometimes need to get a grip and appreciate that we are not representative of society as a whole.


It is unlikely that those who's disposable income is less than £200 are at risk of having to do the course.

For most of us it is a non-trivial amount which, if a course has to be paid for, means that flying may have to be postponed for a bit.

So what?
gaznav liked this
#1704316
gaznav wrote:
Do you really think the course is a better use of that money than the currency it would bring if spent on flying?


Yes, if the course corrects an ill-judged or forgotten process that causes infringements. Or would you rather they flew again to make the same error?

If you can afford an aircraft, or even a share in one, to fly at £50/hr then you should be able to afford £200. I also think that staying overnight in a hotel is excessive - what is wrong with driving even a couple of hours to a course? I find myself often driving a couple of hours for a day of meetings followed by a 2 hour return.


It's an 0930 start isn't it, and it's made clear that being late will be regarded as failure to participate.

Would people take the risk with traffic, driving a couple of hours?