Transponder = Despondant

[Guest]

What possible advantage is there to me, flying in uncontrolled airspace, of carrying a transponder?

I will be emitting a signal taht identifies me, my altitude and my position. ATC dont care I'm not in their space, they simply switch off my dot, I no longer exist to them, I'm irrelevant. No change there then.

Other GA aircraft carrying similar equipment will not see me as they dont have a display, just like me, they have the cheapest they can get, a simple squawker that has also been switched off by ATC.

Aircraft carrying reception and display equipment? Commercial aircraft fly in controlled space, not on my turf. If they do come play with me they must fly at less than 200kts like the rest of us and they are quite big. I see them from miles away. they dont see me at all cos I'm not moving (to a pilot at 200kts I'm stationary), until they are already nearly past me (I've already descended well below their path when they spot me - if they do at all.

So carrying a transponder is of absolutely no benefit to me. Well who does benefit from me carrying a transponder?

The people who make transponders make another sale.

The DTI make another license fee.

The DTI licensed transponders checkers make another anual inspaection and validation fee.

The CAA who will need my craft to have a CofA and a registration get another registartion fee and their approved inspectors get another craft to inspect every year.

What changes?

the number of airproxes involving paramotors goes down from zero last year and zero so far this year to what shall we say next year? another big fat zero? So no improvement there then.

The number or airspace infringements by paramotors goes from zero to another zero?

The number of infrigement detections goes up? maybe but as a tiny tiny fraction of the infringements by GA and microlight, already detected and investigated perfectly adequately.

what then? to be able to utilise F & G class space by uncontrolled commercial and unmanned aircraft? I say resist the imposition of mode s on paramotors and keep the damn expansionists firmly inside controlled space. the air does not belong to you it is a gift of God. Dont be so damn greedy, you already control the use. Leave some for us. Or use F&G and carry your transponders but leave us out of the imposition. We are not a problem so we dont need your Final Solution.

Mode S transponders are of absolutely no benefit to paramotor pilots and present no benefit to the rest of the flying community if we do carry them so WHAT IS THE POINT?

For us it is just another expense for no gain to anyone but the list above.

then lets look at the practicalities? Mode S requires a radio set license and an annual "MOT", an airframe to be registered and to mount it on and requires a CofA to be present for the airframe. Our machines are exempt from all that so what next we have to have a registration on the wing and a CofA every year? and a CofA fee and a registration fee? Dont imagine they will make exemptions for us, we will have to fit the general model. There is no module that will be developed for our use the market is too tiny; simply not commercially viable. So what we will have to mount the same unit they make for Gliders and GA? In the dashboard panel I suppose? powered by the main instrument battery?

Cuckoo. Cuckoo. Cuckoo.

[pete_b]

Im with Francis

A load of rules regs red tape and MONEY

Pete b

[norman]

I can certainly see the point of view being projected above and have some sympathy with it.

The military occupy large tracts of UK airspace and often do very little within it. The civil system administered by NATS likewise has huge areas under its direct control and much of it is simply not available to us all without expensive equipment and training. It sometimes feels like the vested interests are gobbling up what communal space we have on the back of their increasing demand or territory grabbing tendencies. It has seemed this way for the last thirty years at least - the reality is a little different. Airspace in the open FIR has got busier, but there has been very little loss of access as far as I am aware.

It is the Class G spaces between the busy/closed areas that we use within GA, that is the sky under pressure as increasing numbers of us take to the air. From what I can gather it's not that we are under imminent danger of over-congestion, the military are out of town at the moment and the pressure they exert has been eased considerably. It is projected usage that will create the conditions where over congestion can occur and action needs to be taken soon to ensure that this airspace remains useable and manageable. What we are seeing is NATS and CAA managers producing a response to a perceived future need and putting systems in place that will facilitate that future management.

NATS and the CAA have issued proposals for the extended use of Mode S transponders and issued consultation documents for all parties to comment upon.

The Facts Link

From the graphic above - Transponders, Mode A,C or S are not required nor will they be for flight within Class G airspace outside Control Zones, Transponder Madatory Zones (TMZ's) or TMA's. Nothing is going to change with regard to our basic privileges. What may/will change is the location and extent of TMZs as time moves on, which I think is where the hazard may lie for GA. Exclusion by discrimination on the basis of equipment levels.

Transponders for Paragliders and paramotors

I believe that one day we may be required to have them, the good news is that by then they should be very small and relatively inexpensive. They will operate invisibly allowing the ATC units that administer the areas outside controlled airspace to resolve possible conflicts and manage airspace. It is unlikely that you will be asked to do anything other than switch them on before flight, and off afterwards. They will probably pass a standard code (ie: 'paramotor/paraglider' or your identity) and altitude. Additional information will require sensors/inputs and therefore complexity so is unlikely even though Mode 'S' could pass the make of your knickers if you encoded it and sent it to the box.

Am I interested? Yes, in way. If I could pass the limited information above NOW I would do so because I believe that it would enhance my safety. I have had a number of very close calls over the years against military traffic. These encounters ALL occurred outside controlled airspace and would have been avoidable had the aircraft concerned been aware of my presence. On each occasion I was minding my own business (instructing) and operating properly and legally in a flying machine that is a darned sight more visible than a paramotor.

Secondary radar returns (from transponders) massively increases the clarity of radar returns and provide hard information of value to a controller who can use it to ensure you never see or hear the guy who might have killed you. AIRPROX incidents are rising in the UK and paramotoring we are told, is the fastest growing airsport in the UK. We are all responsible for the consequences of our presence on this planet - or above it. Perhaps one day we will need to make a contribution to enhance everyones flight safety. Tick-Tock, Tick-Tock.

Just another point of view......

[Guest]

The notion that just because THEY want class G to "get busier" means it has to be so is the fundamental question of our time. WHY? why should we permit more and more heavier gas guzzling giants? On the roads its the lighter smaller craft that are being encouraged. If people want to fly then let them get their own paramotor.

Reducto Absurdium I know, but my point is the "air transport" lobby are making assumptions that air travel and air freight MUST go on expanding. WHY? we can, as a society, make rules to say "actually its causing more problems than it is solving so thanks guys, but no thanks".

Yes air usage is expanding and yes there are increasing numbers of paramotors and yes there are increasing numbers of airproxes and infringements BUT NOT BY PARAMOTORS! conclusion? if you want to allow air travel to expand and you want to limit proxes and fringements? Insist that every pilot fly a paramotor.

If THEY want to know where I am then THEY need to supply, fit and maintain their transponder and pay me to carry it for them.

Humph.

Safety? a paramotor pilot will increase his/her safety by huge margins if they continue training beyond the basic "now I can fly" stage. This can just as easily be within a voluntary club coaching scheme as by paid instruction, but there is much to learn. The safety margin increase offered by transplonders is arguable and minimal at best by comparison.

anyone want to do an SIV course?

[norman]

Francis,

My point doesn't concern controlled airspace and commercial traffic, they tend not to use the open FIR which is where this focus of attention is. Anyway, expansion in that quarter is being curtailed by the introduction of high fuel prices as customer preference for discretionary travel is causing low cost travel to die on its feet. The carriers that are providing it are going bust quite quickly - the growth in low cost travel is no longer expanding exponentially, it is slowing to nothing if not starting to contract.

The problem is OUTSIDE controlled airspace where traffic is rising year on year. Recreational aviation IS increasing and pressurizing the open FIR. Not an immediate problem but one which is now up over the horizon and on its way here. That is why NATS and the CAA are looking into greater use of transponders to help the management of traffic. Not talking to you as you soar to cloudbase, but informing military and other civil traffic that are using the open FIR where you are and what you seem to be doing. Identifying the hazard!

Why should we pay to equip ourselves? The environment is changing, the CAA isn't causing this, airspace users (us) are - all of us. If we want to carry on using it we need to change with it. An AIRHIT causes debris to scatter from the sky, most of it lethal to bystanders - there will be questions in the house if people on the ground and the air are killed because the root cause was not identified and steps taken to deal with it before it happened.

We can argue that transponders have a small contribution to make if we will, but the solution to the growing problem relies on either managing traffic or restricting it. To manage it you at least need to know where the hazards are so that you can help others avoid them. Airspace designers use recordings of radar displays to build a picture of current usage. By watching what we are doing today, they can design away problems before they arrive. Transponders make us (currently we throw back a very poor radar signature) visible 'synthetically' and help establish our patterns of activity. That is a large part of why NATS want aircraft 'transpondered up' I think.

I would love them to leave our simple world alone and let us get on with our flying, but he world is not simple any more, it is changing and we need to at least consider how we might change with it.

Edited September 1, 2008 by Guest

[Guest]

Francis,

That is why NATS and the CAA are looking into greater use of transponders to help the management of traffic. Not talking to you as you soar to cloudbase, but informing military and other civil traffic that are using the open FIR where you are and what you seem to be doing. Identifying the hazard!

Bless their darling little cotoon socks!

Forgive my wry, cynical snort; I simply do not beleive that NUTS, The CIA or the Militario give a twopenny damn about me and my silly little flutterings.

BUT in order to present a balanced niew to our readers I have started a new thread that should be used for the posting of Facts, and we can keep this one for the drunken brawl!

My first posting on it is the web address of the "story so far" as seen by the BHPA who have campaigned furvently against mandatory introduction of Mode S for para and hang (including SPHG) gliders, in conjunction with the BGA.

We should all be aware, whether or not we aree in either of these organisations that they are camapigning "against" on our behalf. If individuals or a consensus from this club feel differently it would be well for them (us) to enter the debate at a much more formal level by contributing to the BHPA consultation. As we know they represent our views to the CAA whether we want them to or not and there are more PPG pilots outside the BHPA than in it.

Dear Norman, I am actually ambivalent to the issue and leave it to the eloquent and the impassioned to sort it all out. My view is that THEY have cart blanche to do as they please and this WILL happen, and sooner rather than later. Just another reason to leave cap-doffing Blighty, move to the Ardeche and fly the Massif into my dotage. Yes of course France will introduce the law too but, like le lamb and le beouf, "en va descendez dans la rue", if they try to enforce it over there!

[Guest]

Francis,

The problem is OUTSIDE controlled airspace where traffic is rising year on year. Recreational aviation IS increasing and pressurizing the open FIR. Not an immediate problem but one which is now up over the horizon and on its way here. That is why NATS and the CAA are looking into greater use of transponders to help the management of traffic. Not talking to you as you soar to cloudbase, but informing military and other civil traffic that are using the open FIR where you are and what you seem to be doing. Identifying the hazard!

you have beleived their prpaganda? it is simply the extention of the surveilance mentality that sees cctv on every street corner that contribute less than nothing to crime detection.

traffic over the isle of wight is much as it ever was, no military, a few GA a few MicroLight and lots of us! Mode S = irrelevant now as ever.

Why should we pay to equip ourselves? The environment is changing, the CAA isn't causing this, airspace users (us) are - all of us. If we want to carry on using it we need to change with it. An AIRHIT causes debris to scatter from the sky, most of it lethal to bystanders - there will be questions in the house if people on the ground and the air are killed because the root cause was not identified and steps taken to deal with it before it happened.

The environment is changing by virtue of forces way more powerful even than the CIA. It is Sunspots, orbit perterbations an Galactic shenanegins. A scare story to sneak more taxes and require more registrations and fees.

We can argue that transponders have a small contribution to make if we will, but the solution to the growing problem relies on either managing traffic or restricting it. To manage it you at least need to know where the hazards are so that you can help others avoid them. Airspace designers use recordings of radar displays to build a picture of current usage. By watching what we are doing today, they can design away problems before they arrive. Transponders make us (currently we throw back a very poor radar signature) visible 'synthetically' and help establish our patterns of activity. That is a large part of why NATS want aircraft 'transpondered up' I think.

In my view the propsed solution dooes nothing to improve piloting. It is piloting that causes the problems that mode S (you argue) is designed to solve. A fraction of the cost of mode S spent on mandatory pilot training and revalidation would go much further to solve these problems in my view. It would also limit the number of GA (including ppg) aircraft in the sky by removing the numpties who cant navigate and wander into controlled space!

I would love them to leave our simple world alone and let us get on with our flying, but he world is not simple any more, it is changing and we need to at least consider how we might change with it.

You need to learn to paraglide! it may free you from notions you currently hold dear! heh heh

Edited September 1, 2008 by Guest

[norman]

I can't say I am impassioned by all this Francis. What I am trying to do is understand what they are at and see how we will be affected. I can see the problem and how they are trying to solve it.

This ain't anything to do with piloting imho, airspace incursions are a hazard but people seem reasonably good at staying clear. The system sees the problem as congestion based, piloting is down to the individuals and if incursions become a problem watch for large fines and equipment confiscations. Wallet damage focusses minds.

I have no time for dogma either, I have too much to do despite spending so much time here. See you en-France over a glass of wine and a fromage and jambon baguet.

[Guest]

It has seemed this way for the last thirty years at least - the reality is a little different. Airspace in the open FIR has got busier, but there has been very little loss of access as far as I am aware.

OMG !!!! I cant beleive I missed that one!

Bristol CTA? Solent CTA? expanded with ceilings reduced. Thats just in my neck of the woods.

We used to fly Coombe Gibbet to the Isle of Wight on PG and HG. Or IoW to Gloucester. Or Iow to winchester and beyond or the sea breeze to Brighton. Now Impossible because of the "Territory Grabbing Tendencies" fed by the increase in low cost flights. Why? Money for the exchequer in taxes. Money for the administrators budgets. Air travel is in high demand cos train travel is ludicrously expensive and the roads are conjested.

"Lets use class G for commercial traffic" is the "lets build more roads argument". So lets build more roads in the sky and start to "control" the uncontrolled space to ease the congestion = "lets build a bypass through your valley for the greater good and sorry about the wild flowers".

You said it yourself "to make traffiic in uncontrolled space more manageable" = control the big stuff through at present uncontrolled (uncontrollable?) airspace.

Just imagine the conclusion to your argument...... more and more traffic into class G, more and more paramotors to divert around, unpredicatble movements, difficult to see VMC and radar invisible, ATC giving positions over trhe radio? eventually it will be "sorry PPG you are just 'in the way' and have to go .....for the greater good".

Thin end af a very big wedge.

Bastille day was the 14th July, just after the end of June when Mode S consultation officially closed and the proleteriat decided that THEY simply had to go. Citizens not Subjects! Madamme La G polishes her tooth.

heh heh

[norman]

It was worth inserting that one to watch you spin on your top Francis! LOL

Come on now, you surely don't expect anything to remain stationary in the 21st Century do you? Airspace is expanded to meet a social and economic need, the traveling public decide they want to use commercial offerings, they use them and demand rises. You want the South West to HAVE an economy and employment - it needs facilities. If the loss to to the minority is the need to avoid a bit of airspace then... WTF! More hysteria about the rampant developers of the sky! LOL

There is plenty more out there in the open FIR in the wild and windy places....... at the moment.

In baiting jest...

[Guest]

I can't say I am impassioned by all this Francis. What I am trying to do is understand what they are at and see how we will be affected. I can see the problem and how they are trying to solve it.

This ain't anything to do with piloting imho, airspace incursions are a hazard but people seem reasonably good at staying clear. The system sees the problem as congestion based, piloting is down to the individuals and if incursions become a problem watch for large fines and equipment confiscations. Wallet damage focusses minds.

I have no time for dogma either, I have too much to do despite spending so much time here. See you en-France over a glass of wine and a fromage and jambon baguet.

What they are at? hmmm.

As I said before I am actually ambivalent and just enjoy a good rant.

What I actually really think is much darker.

I see the consultation as a sham and a mockery. I see the impassioned opposition and the arguments for and against as often misguided, full of enthusiastic misinformation and utterly futile.

the two words at the end of option 3 "and TMZs" are the devil in the detail.

For many years THEY have had the powers necessary to expand and extend TMZs. This legistlation is simply to replace mode a/c with mode s and require all aircraft oprating in TMZs to carry mode s instead of mode a/c. No big deal.

Except for the preexisting powers to impose TMZ status on any and every area THEY like.

It was a done deal from before mode s was thought of. Dont sweat it just take what comes and live with it, aint nothing we can do. Only when the power to decide what we (all of society) want not just what the people that run everything want will we have a say and that will be never or at the muzzle of a gun.

[Guest]

Hi guys. Unfortunately due to pressures of trying to sell my house, etc I haven't had time to read this thread in full but I did see reference to the unlikelihood of commercial traffic in the open FIR. While I have never taken an A340 outside controlled airspace (when in the UK FIR) I used to routinely fly Saab 340 turboprops in the open FIR whenever a serious airways slot delay existed in my regional flying days. We would fairly often fly at 250kts at low level (typically 4-6000 feet) the entire length of the country rather than waiting hours for the airways to decongest. I also used to occasionally operate charters in 125 Tonne 757's (heavy wake category) out of places like Newcastle where there was (maybe still is) no controlled airspace connection between their CTA and the airways network and you had to spend a period of time in the open FIR. On top of that I have taken a 757-200 down to 200' and go around on runway 21 at Shoreham(!!!) with the police having closed off the A27 to avoid road accidents and also flown a 757 out of a gliding site (Lasham). Commercial ops in Class G is perhaps not as uncommon as many people think. Still don't want this legislation though!

[norman]

Ian,

Charter and Air Taxi have flown public transport flights outside CAS for years, 'done it myself the length and breadth of the country. 'Not what the punter is paying for is what I thought at the time, but it was and is a competitive game with narrow margins. Yes, the links to Newcastle down the ATS system - but mostly at high level and radar to radar but never the less, in the big bad FIR - Indian Country as we used to call it. LOL

[Guest]

just trying to highlight how commercial traffic does fly in Class G more than people think. Anyone familiar with flying from Barry Gardiners place in Guildford will be well familiar with large-ish exec jets going downwind lefthand for the south westerly runway over the flying field at approx 1500' in Class G.

[norman]

Ian,

Sorry if that seemed a bit brief above - yes indeed there is are increasing amounts of commercial traffic in 'G' airpace these days and likely to be more. Strangely Mode 'S' might proliferate that as the quality of radar service will improve and everyone may feel a little safer than they do now. The drak character in the pile oof logs is the military of course. They are the guys rushing around in the back garden at relatively silly speeds aren't they?

To return to the thread name, Transponder-Despondent, I am not at all despondent.

Yes, I appreciate that the TMZ proliferation angle smacks of the way that corporate entities operate, leave an open door then drive a JCB through it. But really! Having looked around at todays developments in the transponder field I can see a time approaching where there will be a moment in your pre-flight regime where you switch on your (the size of a mobile phone) transponder and forget about it until you land and switch it off. These devices will never be cheap, mobile phones have massive production runs and are subsidized, in other ways but we will see affordable units.

Airspace development is a complex issue, progress has always been faltering. Trials have been part of the process for even the most elementary changes and we should expect mush the same at our end of the business here with PM/PPG/GA. Perhaps we should be pushing for trial led change rather than what is being proposed?

This is what we are all trying to stop isn't it?