jeff64 wrote:
In the french military, there is a huge part of initial training dedicated to the lookout training.
Also, from an actuarial point of view, when you increase look out is important.
In the circuit at a busy London GA airfield a mid air is much more likely than at FL115 over Southern France, for example.
I would not have my head in changing tanks when turning final at Stapleford.
This picture seems innocuous enough but it should be noted that less than 10 seconds later, the Bucker BiPlane was hit by the tail rotor of the helicopter as it ascended, causing the biplane to crash, killing the pilot. If anything, this picture pretty much makes the case for EC and consigns ‘see and avoid’ to the scrapheap where it belongs because neither knew the other was there, nor did they have the chance of spotting each other
Once more, lives are needlessly lost because people refuse to fit transponders / believe that data protection trumps air safety. Angry doesn’t describe how I feel when I see such a waste.
Timothy wrote:
I would not have my head in changing tanks when turning final at Stapleford.
PS: Changing tanks on final? Isn’t that part of your downwind checks…. BUMP F FAILDH where the first F is for Fuel – fullest tank, pump on?
That is an excellent example, Steve. The helicopter could easily have had TCAS (the cost would be irrelevant) and the biplane is a good representation of the community that insists on flying without transponders at all costs. You could actually drop a whole lot of other planes into the photo, in place of the biplane, and we all know what they would be. Their pilots know it too but they prefer to risk it.
It was rhetorical, rather than a checklist item. My point is that I would rather have changed to the fuller tank (indeed doing the whole approach checklist) ten miles out than scrabbling around head-in when navigating a busy circuit.
But your main point I thoroughly agree with. Electronic conspicuity works far better than the eye.
Peter wrote:
The helicopter could easily have had TCAS (the cost would be irrelevant) and the biplane is a good representation of the community that insists on flying without transponders at all costs. You could actually drop a whole lot of other planes into the photo, in place of the biplane, and we all know what they would be. Their pilots know it too but they prefer to risk it.
In quite a lot of instances, these type of aircraft don’t have electrical systems or ancient electrical systems powered by a dynamo. I don’t know when this photo was taken or in what country, but it’s only a recently that portable EC devices have been available and they are only approved at the moment in the UK.
It’s only a minority of operators of these aircraft that are actually against transponders. You would obviously include my aircraft in this category, yet I have mode-C at present and am planning an upgrade (at considerable expense, probably about 15-20% of airframe value once said and done, without actually increasing the airframe value when finished) to put in an upgrade to Mode-S and ADS-B out, even though it’s of limited direct utility to me (the main utility will be that I can tell friends or family when on a trip they can see my progress on flightradar24). Fortunately I do have an electrical system with a modern alternator. My transponder is always set to ALT before takeoff (and it’s actually very useful to do so now, since Ronaldsway got their MLAT secondary radar system finally commissioned which can see the whole island, previously the northern plain had been blocked from radar by high ground).
If it was me (without an electrical system) I would buy a KT76C on Ebay, an altitude encoder, and wire it up to a battery.
To hell with the legality; this will trigger any TCAS system and make me visible to various other gadgets (even those not providing azimuth). I would be amazed if anyone got busted for flying with an “illegally installed” Mode C TXP. Any lawyer with half a brain would make the CAA the laughing stock in a court.
A Mode S TXP will do nothing more for you or anybody else, except reveal your tail number to ATC 
The prohibition on new installs of Mode C boxes had done a huge dis-service to electronic conspicuity (EC). It feeds the “civil liberties” crowd, feeds the various communities who want to be invisible for other reasons, and feeds the market for all the half-baked EC devices which collectively almost nobody is actually using.
Peter wrote:
I would buy a KT76C on Ebay, an altitude encoder, and wire it up to a battery.
Couldn’t you just use a potentiometer in place of the KT76C and dial in your altitude?
It would have to be a gray code encoding pot 
But actually you can buy a working encoder on, ahem, US Ebay, also. I have several at home. They are easy enough to test on the ground and for low level pottering about they are easy to test in flight by climbing to say 2000ft and calling up ATC for a TXP check.
Or you could replace the altimeter with an encoding one – I have a KEA130A. More expensive…
Peter wrote:
It would have to be a gray code encoding pot
Really, I didn’t know that. Sorry for the thread drift, but how does an encoder inform the transponder of the altitude then – is it digital? Has it always been digital? I assumed that in the early days of Mode C it would have been a simple voltage.
And are all encoders cross compatible, or do you need the right one for your transponder?
