If I need direction when outside of somebody else’s authority, I’d like to be free to ask for it, or not. There’s nothing paranoid about that, it’s basic common courtesy not to (attempt to) exceed your authority and presume other people will accept it.
People and organizations (including ATC) are given authority, and limits, as a combined package. You don’t get the authority without accepting the limits. I think that’s fairly basic. One of the things I do find in the UK is that some people and organizations have seemingly never grasped this. It’s a cultural thing I suppose, but in the UK I have found myself saying (or thinking 
) ‘mind your own business’ more than anywhere else I’ve been in the world.
The potential for automated government tracking of individual aircraft is a completely different issue, that I think in the long has the potential to kill GA through taxation. Cars will obviously be first, especially electric cars, but at least with cars it concerns just about everybody so there is more likely to be a healthy political debate. Maybe cars will in that way set a precedent. For aircraft in isolation, it would be about tapping an easy revenue stream without much chance of political consequence.
Silvaire wrote:
what benefit is there in ATC making unsolicited contact if they have no authority over you?
Provide valuable safety of flight information maybe ?
If you want to fly OCAS 1000 ft below a Boeing 777 dumping fuel, that’s your choice, but it’s my job to enhance your situational awareness.
Well I have no idea about the British as I am not British. So you don’t want a call if you are about to accidentally enter CTA? You are not prepared to tell a controller at what alt you are in case it helps him/her? Sounds like a very selfish attitude…
1. The unsolicited ATC contact under discussion was in the UK, hence my referenence to UK norms.
2. As posted before, I squawk Mode C 100% of the time I am flying my Mode C equipped aircraft so reporting altitude is not an issue.
3. No, I don’t want an unsolicited call from ATC if I am about to enter a Class D or up airspace without a clearance! I have the authority to manage that issue myself and have never failed to do so successfully. The system works based on making rules and obeying them, not continuous radio contact.
4. The above is in no way selfish, it is the expectation of normal behavior.
Aviathor wrote:
Irrelevant to on-board traffic avoidance equipment. An increasing number of light aircraft are fitted with stuff like the Avidyne TAS600/605/610 for example, which are active traffic systems and rely on the transponders being ON. This equipment does not rely on the transponder being interrogated by a SSR (passive) but sends out the query itself (active)
Had to read a bit on that WAM thing (Wide Area Multilateration). Avinor has already de-commissioned the primary radars at Sola, Flesland and Værnes. By 2018 only 8 of the 22 radars will be left. By 2035 there will be no air traffic radars left. At the same time they are building this WAM technology. I have never heard of it before, but it will take over completely in Norway, and already have many localized places, also in continental Europe. It requires transponders, mode A/C or S/ADS-B. Without a transponder, the ATC will have no way of seeing an aircraft, because they have no radars. WAM is much more accurate than both primary radar and MSSR, and is has a much better coverage, particularly with difficult geography. It will also be used to verify ADS-B.
Looks rather cool IMO, in an odd sort of way.
Silvaire wrote:
People and organizations (including ATC) are given authority, and limits, as a combined package
There is one more thing also, information. They have authority in controlled airspace, but give information in uncontrolled airspace. That’s how all AFIS airports work. The person in the tower give you information, but he has no authority, you will receive no clearances. You are required to talk to him though.
Silvaire wrote:
No, I don’t want an unsolicited call from ATC if I am about to enter a Class D or up airspace without a clearance! I have the authority to manage that issue myself and have never failed to do so successfully. The system works based on making rules and obeying them, not continuous radio contact.
You have a system in the UK which has been historically about always being in contact or you get no service or help at all. There is a structure which does not require contact but allows them to call you if they want. How is that bad?
By 2018 only 8 of the 22 radars will be left. By 2035 there will be no air traffic radars left
What about NATO obligations and air defence? I know this is not “fashionable” anymore (among the “enlightened classes” ) but times are probably changing…
Presumably air defence remains but ATC will not be [officially] getting a radar feed from it.
Sure radiation from an aircraft is more visible than a radar reflection from it, but it makes some assumptions… Maybe Norway is a highly compliant society? It would never work in most places.
JasonC wrote:
You have a system in the UK which has been historically about always being in contact. There is a structure which does not require that but allows them to call you if they want. How is that bad?
The discussion I was promoting was about involuntary contact by ATC, as made feasible by involuntarily broadcasting tail number. Voluntary contact is fine, if ATC workload allows, and I think it’s particularly useful for an inexperienced pilot, or one without local knowledge etc. One of the reasons VFR Flight Following works well in the US is that relatively few people do it, so the ATC system is (generally) not overwhelmed by a pointless theatre of no-value-added ATC communication.
Silvaire wrote:
The potential for automated government tracking of individual aircraft is a completely different issue, that I think in the long has the potential to kill GA through taxation.
Did Avgas taxation kill GA in the US?
Shorrick_Mk2 wrote:
Did Avgas taxation kill GA in the US?
Nope, but Avgas taxation is a single stream of revenue that can be controlled, and has been in the US. As discussed on EuroGA before, and I don’t think any need to rehash it off topic, I think any new, parallel stream of taxation (or regulation) will inevitably increase the total burden and result in reduced activity for no good reason. How many Italians do I know personally who can’t afford to drive on their Autostrade due to combined fuel taxation and road tolls? The answer is quite a few, because the combined cost is extreme relative to their income.
