Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

ANY installed transponder must be turned ON

OK… this is not saying that any installed transponder must be ON. That just says that certain airspace classes (etc) need one, which is the same in Europe.

This is not the case. Several N- regs based at my home airport. I know what the regs say, but it is not practiced. They seem to “forget” when you pay the bribe fee.

OK, but that’s just what I said. Norway has some reg (previous thread here) limiting long term parking. Obviously an N-reg can fly to Norway

So, is it right to summarise:

  • Norway probably has mandatory TXP=ON if installed
  • the USA has mandatory TXP=ON if installed, in Class E and higher which is de facto everywhere unless you fly below 1200ft and away from airports
Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

The exact wording is:

When an aircraft carries a serviceable transponder,
the pilot shall operate the transponder at all times,
regardless of whether the aircraft is within or outside
airspace where surveillance is used for ATS
purposes.
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

LeSving wrote:

The exact wording is:

You guys are going to love this. I googled the above quote and found that it is a copy/paste from COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2016/1185 of 20 July 2016

SERA.13001 Operation of an SSR transponder
(a) When an aircraft carries a serviceable SSR transponder, the pilot shall operate the transponder at all times
during flight, regardless of whether the aircraft is within or outside airspace where SSR is used for ATS
purposes.

In other words, this applies everywhere in EASA land.

Last Edited by Aviathor at 11 Jan 15:18
LFPT, LFPN

Well, that would be DYNAMITE.

There is a catch, surely??

If this is real, everybody who wants to be invisible will latch onto the word “serviceable”…

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

This will make everyone who has invested in a TIS (Traffic Information System) very happy

This also illustrates how quickly Norway, which is not a EU member state, implements EU regulations.

It also says (for good reason)

SERA.13010 Pressure-altitude-derived information
(a) When the aircraft carries serviceable Mode C equipment, the pilot shall continuously operate this mode unless otherwise dictated by ATC.

Last Edited by Aviathor at 11 Jan 16:19
LFPT, LFPN

Now you found damage done by EASA and FR24/ADSBExchange…. I guess there will be some more INOP transponders

Last Edited by mh at 11 Jan 16:45
mh
Aufwind GmbH
EKPB, Germany

mh wrote:

Now you found damage done by EASA…

You forgot to add a smiley.

Lack of altitude report is detrimental to TCAS.

LFPT, LFPN

OK… thread title changed again…

I guess there will be some more INOP transponders

IF a Mode C (only) transponder (e.g. a KT76C) can be used legally, then making it INOP makes the pilot a complete and total idiot. I guess he uses PGP for his emails, too…

The problem, probably, AIUI, is that if you have one of these you are not allowed to replace it except with the exact same model. At least, that is the UK situation.

This might create a boost in demand for old Mode C units from the USA, processed via an EASA approved outfit. The KT76C was especially nice…

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Nothing to smile about this. Basically I am required to serve as data-farm for some dickheads who regard their privacy more important than mine, and other guys making millions of the requirement to send out unencrypted data without being asked or having the possibility to deny the useage of my data. I find this highly problematic and I am not happy about me missing it when it popped up as an NPA. Anyway, some data security officials are getting some more mail in near future.

mh
Aufwind GmbH
EKPB, Germany

The thing with Mode-S and no anonymity kind of goes to show how the regulators were only thinking of commercial air traffic. It would have been better to have the system the US has, where essentially anonymous ADS-B broadcasts can be made. But I guess it’s too late now :-/

Personally I don’t really care about someone stalking my aircraft on FR24, notwithstanding I still think it’s been done wrong here in that respect: it’s entirely possible that my (or any other pilot’s) circumstances change and they have a real need not to be broadcasting their identifiable position. You don’t even need to think of things like famous people and papparazi, every pilot is just one obsessed stalker away from needing not to constantly broadcast their position.

Andreas IOM
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top