David Wood wrote:Very useful one-pager, Irv. Thank you.
If I make one small politely suggested amendment it would be to the line in the Transponder section that suggests that someone wearing a listening squawk should not expect to be contacted by ATC unless they infringe.
I dion't think that that's correct.
I do! It was worded on advice from controllers, and the reason why Manchester first trialled the scheme after I persuaded them at an internal N.I.G. meeting in Swanwick (with all other units opposed.) They were introduced to speed up contact after Infringement. Pleased to say it spread fast after a few weeks and has now reached Eire and Germany.
A few infringers have complained after infringing that they were not warned and they expected to be! This contrasts with the precious ones who felt so insulted when Farnborough had that spell of warnings to pilots looking like they were going into Gatwick or Farnborough.
If a controller is v busy at with some traffic at one end of a cta, is he/she really going to be able to predict the infringement at the other end until CAIT goes off especially with the pilots flying 100' -200' below the cta ? If they have Cait of course...
I myself have been called quite a few times when wearing listening squawks, and it's always been for matters other any potential or actual infringement.
It's mostly been about other traffic...
Then they were not busy! But do you now EXPECT to be called every time on those matters? Many would, and might be disappointed the hard way....
This is beginning to parallel the move to UK basic, traffic, deconf, etc from FIS, radar info, radar advisory in the early noughties. The initial meeting at the CAA for invited reps across the range, run by Sqn Ldr Lou (forget surname), was told many pilots were clearly expecting a full radar service when they had only asked for FIS not Radar. One given was students learning in (say) Lincs where trainee controllers were practising on them, then as qualified pilots, fly in a different part of the country with a FIS and complain bitterly when not warned of some non event traffic a mile away. This "problem" eventually led to the services we have today, so if you don't like them, you can choose who to blame... the clubs not teaching the services properly, the pilots assuming what they got from some controllers was ubiquitous, or controllers not upgrading them to radar info when practising, or perm 2 or all 3.
Irv Lee - (R/T & Flight Examiner)
Deconfusion & Preflight Aide-Memoire: http://tinyurl.com/pilotpal
UK GA Twittering not Tw@ering: @irvleeuk