Firstly, there are other tracking sites – example – which don’t offer that option.
Secondly, we have the panel photo, from c. 2015, showing an old Mode C. It doesn’t make sense for such a capable aircraft to have had no Mode S as of 2015. I’ve had Mode S since 2005. The only planes which are ever used for any sort of distances and which don’t have Mode S yet are some syndicate planes where the members cannot agree to spend the money, so those who want to e.g. fly to Friedrichshafen (I mean just VFR) are getting really frustrated and are jumping off the ship and looking for other shares. I know of several like that.
Thirdly, the AAIB report says A+C only, yet I would think that of all the radar units covering the area, at least one would have Mode S
Only circumstantial, I agree…
I believe it’s possible to not appear on the site by simply telling them to hide you.
Yes, you can opt out of FR24 relatively easily. It is much harder on other sites. At least one of them requires you to register with the FAA (even if you are not N reg).
I think that trying to remain invisible is a fool’s errand, particularly in light of the fact that many spotters record every movement from the airfield where they are standing.
Exactly. This plane lived in a hangar in Gamston.
The only way to hide from spotters is to live in a hangar and take it out sporadically for a quick local, or avoiding the known spotter watering holes.
Spotters are not active in every country, but googling for the reg and some airport name is a useful tool for prebuy due diligence (for verifying what the seller says he was doing with it).
Would the 25% sharing rule only apply to aircraft registered there (4 seats maximum)?
Quite a subtle way to put a stop to things.
Would the 25% sharing rule only apply to aircraft registered thereShould you flightshare, a better rule to apply is to divide the total cost by the number of people rather than seats. Even if some CAAs accept that the pilot has to bear some of the cost, however arbitrarily little (somebody argued 1 symbolic € being a cost in this context), it was not the original intention and will be frowned upon.
It may be frowned upon but if EASA made it legal (which they have, to many peoples’ surprise, although I believe they only largely mirrored the age-old German system) then it is legal, and lots of people will do it.
Qalupalik’s references look quite close to the old UK ANO, with some small wording changes and additions for clarity. So in an N-reg you have an even more interesting situation
Should you flightshare, a better rule to apply is to divide the total cost by the number of people rather than seats.
My post was meant differently.
Under EASA, it is maximum 6 occupants and no „pro rata“ requirement.
In the article, a share of 25% is named, which would mean maximum 4 people (or 4 seats?).
If an airplane is EASA reg and flies from/to the channel islands, which rule would be binding? I’d say the EASA rule, not sure though.
Just pointing out that the measures in question (and named in that article) are pointless, because the PA46 was N-reg (so the flight was illegal anyway) and many other planes that are EASA registered wouldn’t be bound to the 25% rule.