Apologies – that link doesnt seem to be active.
Great video.
It looks like lots and lots of UK pilots are reading this thread, because despite the discussion having been squashed (under CAA pressure, I am rather sure) on the main UK flying chat site, lots of people I talk to know all about the new CAA policy, Gasco, etc.
And, on a flight today around the south coast, at least 50% of aircraft had their transponders firmly turned OFF. So the policy is clearly working…
Is there any point filing a MOR on the basis that the CAA’s policy is causing a safety issue?
I can’t see how. The whole system is stuck up its own backside and almost everybody is looking after their mates.
I recently spoke to someone “in the system” and he said they did a study in the Manchester area and only a tiny % were non-TXP. Well, the southern UK is a long way from Manchester because we have always had a high % of non-txp traffic here, and it seems to be rising rapidly.
To prove it I would need a camera with a long lens but that would drop in the sh*t a load of flying school rentals. Actually one can do this by taking pics at the runway holding point.
And it would be pointless because anybody sitting at a radar desk around here can see it with their own eyes (unless their software removes primary-only returns OCAS).
I cannot blame anybody flying non-txp in the current environment.
How about a survey on here to ask how many people turn off their transponder in the current enviroment?
Diffcult, as that would mean admitting breaking the SERA.
The UK “loss of separation add-on”, previously 3000ft, is now 5000ft
Even for ALT verified transponder traffic!!??
Did anyone ever prove that 1,000ft, 2,000ft or 3,000ft was unsuitable, or is the regulator just plucking numbers out of their rear end?
They may as well have set it to 50,000ft then… after all, I could be a rocket about to blast off.
Of course, the best case scenario is that there is already reduced approved minima in all MatsPart2….
Peter wrote:
at least 50% of aircraft had their transponders firmly turned OFF
Is this verifiable? If so we have a very strong safety argument. But if it just seems that way the argument is weaker. Maybe we need a proper study?