Timothy – out of interest why did you decline reporting the Airprox?
Fuji_Abound wrote:
i see a CAA that say they have no confidence in their own instructors, who they say cannot be trusted.
The CAA doesn’t employ any instructor except a few staff examiners. What do you mean by “their own instructors”? Instructors with a UK license?
I would have thought it was fairly clear to me that he was talking about instructors approved by the CAA by the grant of their licence.
VintageFlyer wrote:
If I come across anyone who intentionally switches off their SSR I’ll be giving them a good talking to. I do not want share the sky with anyone who applies that mentality to flying.
With whom exactly do you currently “share the sky” in a mutually agreed upon love fest while driving your plane from A to B?
I’m sure if any pilot were faced with the prospect of a “good talking to” for conducting a legal operation, his inclination is going to be to convince the perpetrator to go away. Some might do it in a quite forthright manner 
It might be fun to watch.
Silvaire wrote:
a legal operation
Under SERA, it is illegal to turn off your transponder unless it is unserviceable or you don’t have a proper electrical system or have been asked by ATC.
It is legal to fly without a transponder.
Having done quite a bit of flying in an aircraft without an engine driven electrical system, I’m familiar with many of the issues that cause a pilot to save battery power, and with the legality of flying negative transponder when required. So are the regulators in most countries and neither they nor anybody else needs aviation law enforcement help from self appointed social policemen.
It is very heart-warming to see a couple of new members appear together, both very focused on this one topic, and see that they put in the effort to read the whole 1600+ post thread and form the informed opinion that it is garbage 
Peter wrote:
It is very heart-warming to see a couple of new members appear together, both very focused on this one topic, and see that they put in the effort to read the whole 1600+ post thread and form the informed opinion that it is garbage
Indeed excellent.
I think there is more than a little frustration that comes across in this thread – which is inevitably a shame, and results in a lot of repetition, but in the nature of these things, I think this is understandable.
Peter, you’re a very cynical boy……..,.but I like you.
I’m beginning to lose track of who is arguing in favour of what…
The UK CAA has implemented a perfectly logical policy of reducing reported airspace infringements by punishing people who carry and use transponders outside controlled airspace.
Anecdotally, this policy has been somewhat successful. Fewer Mode C/S squawks near controlled airspace means fewer “serious” infringements showing up on radar.
NATS shareholders also benefit because GA pilots with no SSR transmission won’t bother asking for a radar or information service, so the company can cut that cost.
So it’s win-win for everyone.
But now some people who support the UK CAA’s policy seem to be saying that it’s a bad idea to deter people from flying OCAS without a transponder…
