Peter wrote:
I guess the sky is big
Luckily. For that reason, the three larger airports in that list above get a TMZ all the way up to FL100. And for the others, whose TMZ only reaches up to 3500/5000ft the VFR weather minima at those altitudes should provide some kind of protection (provided they are respected by everybody and the reduced visibility out of an airliner/bizjet cockpit traveling at 250kt permits the pilots to see each other in time).
Has anybody seen the map data to identify and squawk code required to comply with this new requirement in Garmin Pilot or Foreflight?
The Notam mentions data is available in the ICAO 1:500000 charts, but no one brings those on board anymore.
spirit49 wrote:
Has anybody seen the map data to identify and squawk code required to comply with this new requirement in Garmin Pilot or Foreflight?The Notam mentions data is available in the ICAO 1:500000 charts, but no one brings those on board anymore.
No, but if those have a ’what’s here’ function as per Sky Demon, click on it and it should (hopefully) show the frequency and squawk.
Alternately, just make contact with Langen / Bremen / Munich Information, then all’s well – I was flying last Saturday / Sunday and the number of aircraft asking the same question – do we have to set the squawk to XXXX as we are passing through that TMZ and monitor 1xx.xxx – was incredible. Answer: No, from your current squawk any controller wishing to contact you can reach you easily enough…..
Skymap / Flightplanner have this info in their latest updates.
In Germany the use of transponders is compulsory above 5000ft MSL (or 3500ft AGL, whichever is higher) for aircraft operating under power….airplanes, microlights, powered gliders, airships. That means the only aircraft that should be operating above a TMZ without a transponder are gliders. This however is almost impossible in reality, you would always be running the risk of dropping into the TMZ.
However, the TMZs are usually not large enough to provide protection for the usual shortest-way, optimum descend flightpaths of jets flying under IFR. That´s why there are regular incidents between transport class airplanes and especially gliders in airspace E. One could argue that things would be safer if everybody was using a transponder all the time, but I´m not so sure about this. On a good soaring day there can be 1000+ cross country glider flights in Germany alone (only the ones published), sometimes with 10h+ flighttime, plus uncounted local flights. If everybody and their dog would be squawking a controller would most certainly enable a code or level filter because otherwise you could not find your IFR traffic anymore. Amsterdam TMA is a good example for this. IIRC use of transponders is mandatory, but forbidden at the same time if you are operating under the TMA below 1200ft.
Caba wrote:
If everybody and their dog would be squawking a controller would most certainly enable a code or level filter because otherwise you could not find your IFR traffic anymore. Amsterdam TMA is a good example for this. IIRC use of transponders is mandatory, but forbidden at the same time if you are operating under the TMA below 1200ft.
Thanks for the info, I’ve frequently flown to Texel and, when R4B or R4C are active, I’ve usually routed via PAM VOR and then north towards Hoorn, usually flying around 1400 feet, which takes me directly under TMA 1; at the time, I’ve always been talking to Dutch Mil and they’ve never said ‘turn your transponder off’ nor was I aware of the supplement in 2009 which introduced this rule – is that still active, I’ve yet to find it direct online via dutch AIPs – not that you are referring a rule which was introduced and has since then been scrapped….
The reason I ask – firstly banning VFR from 1200 – 1500 feet, leaving them effectively with only 1000 – 1200 feet to fly in (assuming flying over built up areas), then telling pilots to turn off their transponders and ‘hope for the best’ in that limited airspace is – IMHO – reckless hence it wouldn’t surprise me if the supplement was withdrawn; in any case, with transponders on, at least I have a chance of getting a warning of traffic from my MRX, if the transponders are off, realistically you are flying blind along a corridor with a maximum 200 feet limit between all aircraft, hoping that lateral separation is sufficient….
Caba wrote:
Amsterdam TMA is a good example for this. IIRC use of transponders is mandatory, but forbidden at the same time if you are operating under the TMA below 1200ft
This rule was scrapped years ago after an upgrade of ATC equipment
spirit49 wrote:
The Notam mentions data is available in the ICAO 1:500000 charts, but no one brings those on board anymore.
I read the AIP SUP about this. It is very strange that they publish a list of the affected TMZ’s but can’t bother to include the squawk codes and listening frequencies.
They probably got stuck in a time where the official ICAO charts were the only means of VFR navigation….
