Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
#1704322
defcribed wrote:
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?


Yes, I often drive from home (near Turweston) to meetings at Abbey Wood or RAF Waddington (a journey of ~100 miles) - many start at 0900hrs and so I set off at 0645-0700hrs. Being late is not an option either (just as it was when I flew from Waddington too).

What would happen if you overslept in your hotel or the car wouldn’t start? You can over-worry about such things.
#1704324
Paul B 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?


Many serious cross country glider pilots now have Mode S transponders, as it significantly assists airspace access for us. In fact a transponder is almost essential for wave cross country flight in Scotland, where typical altitudes are in excess of FL150. Modern lithium batteries and lightweight transponders have made this practical and affordable
#1704402
Flyin'Dutch' wrote:Sweetie - I meant the course locations!

;)


:lol: :lol: :lol: Brilliant!

The courses have been run all over the UK and even a special one outside the UK (the chap found it easier as non-UK resident and the facilitator was an airline pilot with a very close destination so they could make it work). So I believe they are flexible within reason and where it works for both parties. That is why I personally don’t really accept the criticism of massive inconvenience of travelling the length/breadth of the country - unless the individual involved was too timid/embarrassed to ask. Now GASCo wouldn’t be able to, or want to, flex to every single request, but they have been pragmatic on locations/timings for really valid reasons - not ‘the cat ate my homework’ or ‘2 hours is a bit of a drive’! :thumright:
Flyin'Dutch' liked this
#1704484
G-BLEW wrote:
defcribed wrote:The fear is probably less of the course itself, more of the cost, the compulsory nature and fixed date.


It's not a fixed date, you have three months in which to attend a course.

Ian


Oh come on..... I know that as well as you do.

So they run one a month, meaning you have a choice of three. On a Saturday. So it essentially means clear your diary for the date that isn't at the other end of the country.

PS, still thinking about answer to your question.... less forum time at the weekend.
#1704521
defcribed wrote:
G-BLEW wrote:
defcribed wrote:The fear is probably less of the course itself, more of the cost, the compulsory nature and fixed date.


It's not a fixed date, you have three months in which to attend a course.

Ian


Oh come on..... I know that as well as you do.

So they run one a month, meaning you have a choice of three. On a Saturday. So it essentially means clear your diary for the date that isn't at the other end of the country.

PS, still thinking about answer to your question.... less forum time at the weekend.


They could run more courses but that would mean fewer on each course - let’s say you have 36 every quarter, and you run 3x courses that work out to be £200 a head (roughly). If you want 6x courses a month for the same number of people at similar venues then you will see that cost rise to £400 per head. Is that what you really want? Or would you rather comply, take the inconvenience and travel to one for £200? Also, don’t forget, you also pass that rise to £400 a head to all of the others who were quite willing to travel - it’s not all about the individual...

I do know for a fact, that the Authority have been reasonable with valid reasons not to make the 90 day deadline - serious illness (evidenced by a Dr’s note), Weddings, Bereavements, etc... But as I said before, ‘the cat ate my homework’ or ‘Arsenal are playing Chelsea’ would not be seen as valid! :thumleft:
#1704531
PaulB wrote:Can I ask a silly question.... GASCo do the courses for the CAA. They cost £x. Do attenders pay the £x to the CAA or directly to GASCo?


Who cares?
#1704534
People have quoted how much GASCo gets for running these courses basing it on the principal that GASCo retains all of the £x. I was wondering if this was the case... perhaps the £x is paid to the CAA and GASCo have some contract with the regulator for a different amount of money.

I don’t “care” but was curious.
#1704561
James Chan wrote:
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?

I lost count of the number of times a pilot reported to me he was responding to an RA and I then had to tell him he had non- squawking traffic to conflict with by responding.
A controller cannot say 'negative' to an RA climb/descend but the system doesn't take into account that response to a spurious one eg an aircraft climbing fast below and due to level off 1,000ft below the TCAS equipped aircraft with other traffic safely 1,000ft above the TCAS aircraft; all you can do is pass traffic information.
#1704568
chevvron wrote:I lost count of the number of times a pilot reported to me he was responding to an RA and I then had to tell him he had non- squawking traffic to conflict with by responding.
A controller cannot say 'negative' to an RA climb/descend but the system doesn't take into account that response to a spurious one eg an aircraft climbing fast below and due to level off 1,000ft below the TCAS equipped aircraft with other traffic safely 1,000ft above the TCAS aircraft; all you can do is pass traffic information.


Eh???!!!