The CAA’s recently introduced “100% bust” policy has hardly helped with getting people to fit or use transponders…
Flying in this area, close to the LTMA and close to various ATZs, and with 100% radar coverage and thus the ability for any airfield to get a pilot busted for a suspected ATZ bust (corroborated by the CAA man getting the radar data), people are hardly going to want to be visible. Especially vertically.
Interestingly it appears that you can install a Mode C transponder as a fresh installation. Most people thought it had to be a Mode S.
Cobalt wrote:
The aviation equivalent is “because most of you don’t fit this £2k box, nobody can now use the motorway except for lorries or you if the controller feels like it, even IF you carry the £2k box”
Not quite. The current situation is more:
There are some motorways you can use only if you have top notch car and super-driving license. There are some motorway we let you use if convenient to us. And we don’t think there is enough motorways, so we’d like to transform so A road into motorways.
As an aside, I don’t refuse to carry a transponder. It is not affordable compared to my flying budget.
The problem from the POV of the bizjet crowd is that when in one of these, you can’t see a bloody thing out of the window. You are bombing along at 150-200kt, working like a one armed bandit to get the IFR clearance from London Control before busting CAS (yes I know Oxford can provisionally clear you into CAS but the first guy I bumped into on the gasco “course” was a CAA IR examiner who got done for exactly this, in a jet) and you can’t look out for other planes.
It is similar to a bizjet landing at “GA” airfields. ATC just have to get local traffic to get out of the way, orbit, or whatever. The IFR traffic has to have priority because it isn’t in a position to see and avoid, or do rapid avoidance maneuvers. They all have TCAS1 but that’s no good if there is non-txp traffic around, and 99% of the “velcro ADS-B OUT / other EC boxes”, which are pushed so hard (and iMHO so often cynically/disingenuously, playing on ignorance) on UK social media, will not be visible on the jet’s ADS-B IN traffic display – even if it has one.
There is no good solution to this. We all have to coexist somehow. In the UK the ATC situation is deeply political due to the way ATC is funded. Try this discussion on FB and you will get stoned to death by dozens of (mostly but not entirely NATS) ATCOs.
arj1 wrote:
@Airborne_Again, how is it done in Sweden?
How the traffic is separated? TMZ? Class E? Or just nothing and you can only rely on your eyes?
For one thing we have no controlled airports in class G. All airports with ATC have class C CTR+TMA.
There is no class E. Below FL95 all airspace is class G (unless there is a CTR or TMA). Uncontrolled airports with IAPs always have AFIS and RMZ up to 5000 ft. Between 5000 ft and FL95 in principle you have to rely on your eyes but we have good enroute FIS (by the controller for the controlled airspace above) and for IFR radio contact is mandatory.
It is true in Sweden just like in the UK that in most (but not all) cases approach control is provided by the airport and not by the national ATS provider. But I’ve never experienced discrimination against transiting traffic — VFR or IFR.
It’s not a reasonable ask. The cost would be 10%+ of the value of the aircraft. The other aircraft I fly has Mode S and I wouldn’t dream of flying without it on. People flying with then switched off isn’t a philosophical civil liberties thing, it’s because they’re afraid of what will happen if they infringe CAS.
Even if Mode S with ADSB-out were suddenly mandatory and everything that flew carried it, do you think the attitude to airspace and GA would change?
The purpose is not to see you. The purpose is to exclude you, check that you remain excluded, and enforcement if you don’t.
It all comes down to the fact that there’s no funding for a joined-up national airspace structure, but rather a series of private fiefdoms.
Xtophe wrote:
Ibra, the only challenge with pure RMZ in the UK is that unlike TMZ (RMZ if unable), ATSU will in effect turn it into Class D by refusing the entry.@arj1, so you agree with me.
Xtophe, partially – as I said here, if it is a TMZ and you are equipped, then you don’t need to do anything at all…
Just an RMZ is going to be worse, as in this case you can’t enter some areas without in effect getting permission (flights operating in RMZ shall maintain continuous air-ground voice communication watch and establish two-way communication, as necessary). If it is a TMZ and you are equipped, then you just fly. If you are not equipped, then you treat it as an RMZ (on a good day! or Class D on a bad day).
The alternative scenario is brilliantly described by MattL with us ending with lots of Class D.
My personal preference would be TMZ at lower levels around licensed airfields, and Class E+TMZ starting from, say, FL40 or MSA+1000ft (or +2000ft?), whichever is higher.
Airborne_Again wrote:
For one thing we have no controlled airports in class G. All airports with ATC have class C CTR+TMA.There is no class E. Below FL95 all airspace is class G (unless there is a CTR or TMA). Uncontrolled airports with IAPs always have AFIS and RMZ up to 5000 ft. Between 5000 ft and FL95 in principle you have to rely on your eyes but we have good enroute FIS (by the controller for the controlled airspace above) and for IFR radio contact is mandatory.
It is true in Sweden just like in the UK that in most (but not all) cases approach control is provided by the airport and not by the national ATS provider. But I’ve never experienced discrimination against transiting traffic — VFR or IFR.
That is another mystery to me – why is it that in other countries Class C is used at lower levels but not in the UK?
