Talking on same frequency, position reporting and so on works well close to airports or abeam common vfr/ifr points. However it is not going to help much anywhere else as nobody is going to report every change in flight projectory in uncontrolled airspace. This would certainly overload the freq.. e.g. a heli will not report ‘starting left turn and descending towards restaurant, now passing 800agl, 1nm from restaurant’ -this won’t work
We need active situational awareness improvement and use of todays technology. Even the velcro type of adsb or flarm is better than nothing. All this technology as mentioned before isn’t as expensive as tcas and does not provide resolution advisory like tcas does, but it gives you an idea where to look for the target! That’s most important.
Even flying with tcas, the pilot is supposed to look out for traffic during traffic advisory -same principle. See and avoid.
If you have no idea about the position of the other target (eg low wing aircraft approaching high wing aircrat from above) you won’t even start looking for that traffic.
That’s why I am a strong supporter of adsb/flarm on board. It helps to save lives and it’s affordable!
I thought of something like this :
Jujupilote wrote:
And if spanish CAA could assign air to air frequencies in sectors over Mallorca, it would be super cool.
Don’t many people use 123.45 already ?
Well, there are accidents that remain mysteries, like Sala’s plane and our friend in the Simplon. But this one is no mystery at all !! We (community+authorities) can do something to prevent any other collision. We know the different solutions that exists.
For me, the best one (the least bad one) would be a unique standard of EC for all GA (UL included). ATC will never invest in receiving those signals and that should reassure our privacy sensitive UL friends 
Then, certified avionics should show uncertified targets on their screens. Maybe in a different color or symbology, but it is dangerous not to do it. The 10m probable position error is irrelevant in preventing collisions.
If, in addition to that, the UL community could understand that their massive growth implies they are not always alone in the sky, it would be great. And if spanish CAA could assign air to air frequencies in sectors over Mallorca, it would be super cool.
which can‘t have TCAS
Actually they could.
The other way to look at this is that if the ULs are willing to be invisible and accept the risk to themselves, at least others could get the protection.
It isn’t going to happen, of course, not least because a huge attraction of UL is being metaphorically below the radar, so I am just countering the assertion that EC is not feasible
OTOH if almost all GA in a particular country is UL, they could all just buy one of the “gadgets” and velcro them in. Simple… I mean, with close to zero airworthiness supervision, the UL community can do anything it wants If I was flying one of these I would go all the way. Well, except in the UK where under the new bust-them-all CAA policy I would fly non-TXP but that’s another story
Yes, but 90 percent of GA in these countries is ULs, which can‘t have TCAS. And in the rest 10% (certified GA) only say 10% (the upper end) have TCAS. So about 1% of GA aircraft…
Not wishing to start yeeeet anoooother EC thread but TAS/TCAS1 works really well. I’ve had mine for 6 years. Most modern IFR tourers have it. Most new ones have it factory installed.
There is just one drawback: the cost. And of course it sees only Mode C/S targets. Mode A ones are visible but much less useful especially if you are messing about low level.
The “fuzzy concept” bit is the huge number of gadgets which you can “velcro attach” and which make the owner feel he can see everybody around him, but in reality he can see almost nobody. I don’t believe this situation is ever going to improve, either…
It has little to do with culture in this case though.
Spain (like the UK) has no functioning radar ATSOCAS. Hence, no „ATC“ that would be able or willing to give radar-derived traffic information to GA in class G. So aart is right, a transponder on the UL wouldn‘t have changed anything.
And EC, so far, is only a fuzzy „concept“ at the low end of GA, not a working product.
Indeed, most GA planes can manage well enough without a transponder, especially in southern Europe where the Mode S / 8.33 madness has not really been an issue.
The problem is that, as most people know, the eyeball doesn’t really work, and electronic conspicuity is the only defence we have left.
And a transponder is by far the most commonly used device for that. It enables ATC to report your position to others meaningfully, and enables those with a bit of cash (which really should be every commercial operation, especially a sightseeing turbine heli) to spend money on TAS/TCAS1.
Mid-airs are still relatively rare but I bet those who got killed in them would have wished they had spent the money.
Of course GA “culture” will not change
The UL would likely not have its transponder
Sounds pretty insane given the location of the UL airfield right at the corner of the CTR, the tight airspace and Son Bonet traffic potentially passing close by.
Hmm. The UL would be on a local bimble, outside of the CTR and not in touch with ATC, and rather be on the UL frequency and hopefully monitoring Son Bonet. 99% of all local Son Bonet traffic and all other UL traffic do not have TCAS. So what does it add? Besides, UL’s are not legally required to carry XPDR, and there are also other UL craft (first gen UL’s, trikes, powered parachutes) who use that airspace that don’t even have a radio.
I think it’s more a matter of making sure that everybody is ‘on the same wavelength’ or at least monitors ’the other’ frequency and acts appropriately when needed.
Having everybody talk to Palma Approach for just local bimbling is surely not going to work as one can imagine.
