UK Mode S. Our responce is required

See the BGA link below.

http://www.gliding.co.uk/bgainfo/air...ansponders.htm


-|-
-----===()===-----


gAiL

In the UK anything that flies anywhere in UK Airspace
will have to be fitted with Mode S transponders from
March 2008, if the Civil Aviation Authority gets its
way. This includes light aircraft, gliders, hang gliders,
balloons and probably even parascenders. There may,
at best be, a temporary exemption until suitable battery
powered equipment is available for non-powered aircraft.

For once we can't even blame Europe for this repressive
piece of legislation, as these requirements will only
apply for flying in the higher classes of controlled
airspace in the other EC Countries.

From a glider pilot's point of view, buying and fitting
this equipment is expensive - about £3000 (more than
many older and vintage gliders cost in total) , requires
a licence and regular skilled maintenance, will probably
require an extra dedicated battery to be fitted which
has to come out of our MAUW, and exposes us to fairly
continual 20 watt radio emissions that most glider
structures will not shield us from.

The justifications for this from the CAA include allowing
Airliners to detect us as they take short cuts through
Class G airspace to save fuel and make bigger profits
for their companies(although there is no suitable currently
available equipment beyond the Mark 1 eyeball for us
to detect them or any other aircraft), allowing them
to charge us for the use of airspace, separating out
false returns from windfarm turbines, and allowing
UAVs to roam around our countryside. As far as I know,
most of the latter are operated by the US Airforce,
so once again we are being screwed by the so-called
'special relationship' with the States, and our Prime
Minister Tony Blairs's refusal to say 'boo' to anything
George W asks for!

For the majority of glider pilots, these proposals
will mean the end of UK gliding. Please respond to
to CAA consultation document as per the link below
and write to politicians if you are in a position to
do so.

Derek Copeland


At 10:18 02 August 2006, Gail wrote:
See the BGA link below.

http://www.gliding.co.uk/bgainfo/air...ansponders.htm


-|-
-----===()===-----


gAiL

Derek Copeland wrote:
In the UK anything that flies anywhere in UK Airspace
will have to be fitted with Mode S transponders from
March 2008, if the Civil Aviation Authority gets its
way.

Excellent notion!

We will finally be able to protect our UAV's from the depredations
of the UK glider community. Peace in our time.


Jack

Derek Copeland wrote:

From a glider pilot's point of view, buying and fitting
this equipment is expensive - about £3000 (more than
many older and vintage gliders cost in total) , requires
a licence and regular skilled maintenance, will probably
require an extra dedicated battery to be fitted which
has to come out of our MAUW, and exposes us to fairly
continual 20 watt radio emissions that most glider
structures will not shield us from.

While you have much to fear from this proposal, 20 watts isn't one of
them. The current mode C transponder transmits between 0 and about 3
watts average power, depending on the interogation rate (peak power is
much higher, but very short duration). Mode S transmits even less power
on average, because it doesn't respond to every interrogation it receives.

The justifications for this from the CAA include allowing
Airliners to detect us as they take short cuts through
Class G airspace to save fuel and make bigger profits
for their companies(although there is no suitable currently
available equipment beyond the Mark 1 eyeball for us
to detect them or any other aircraft),

There are several transponder signal detectors on the market that will
allow you to detect airliner and general aviation transponders. They
vary in their ability to give you range and direction, and the cost
varies from ~$300US to ~$800US. Some glider pilots already use these.
What isn't clear to me is how useful they are if all transponders are
Mode S. I expect it to be the same as with the mode C transponders, but
I haven't read anything on the subject.
--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA

www.motorglider.org - Download "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane
Operation"

I have recently purchased a SparrowHawk glider which here in the US.
Since it weighs less than 155lbs operates under part 103 of the FARS as
an ultralight vehicle not requiring registration, a pilot license and
is transparent to County Tax authorities as are hangliders etc. I
operate close to Reno International Airport and very close to the
southern approach to that airport and have had airliners approach
within one half a mile of me apparently without knowledge of my
presence. This is unacceptabe and a collision must be avoided period.
So I stay clear the airspace where it is most probable to find an
airliner. That having been said I have on order a Becker Transponder
and will install in the SparrowHawk asap with a substantial battery so
that airliner's TAS can see me and take collision avoidance if
necessary.
I have followed the arguments and complaints against the use of
transponders in gliders and small planes and am not sympathetic! We are
all flying in crowded airspaces where there are the possibilities of
collisions and the deaths of many people say between an airliner and a
glider. This can be mostly prevented by the use of transponders, a
vigilant ATC and TAS. The cost - about $2000. How can any intelligent
person argue against that. Are some people so illiterate that they have
no appreciation about cost benefit analysis to not understand that this
is one of the best deals ever? What do you think is going to happen to
glider privileges after the first airliner is brought down? Remember
gliders are virtually invisible except when turning if at your
altitude!!
As to mode S. I am neutral to it. It does not increase safety. It
does allow near instant indentification of an aircraft which may be
useful to ATC - maybe? How will it affect me with the SparrowHawk? I
will probably have to be assigned a special ID.
Dave

wrote:
The cost - about $2000. How can any intelligent
person argue against that. Are some people so illiterate that they have
no appreciation about cost benefit analysis to not understand that this
is one of the best deals ever?

The Becker 4401 alone costs roughly US$2000, you still need an encoder,
antenna, and wiring harness, which adds at least another $500. Add
typical shop rates, and the actual installed cost in a certified glider
will be a minimum of $4000 (I know, I've paid for it). The operating
limitations on most experimental gliders would require an IA sign off,
so even in that case, most will be paying a shop for the install.

I fly in the Reno area, too, so most of the gliders I've owned over the
years have had transponders (seeing a Southwest 737 up close and
personal tends to encourage one to pay the price). But, there are a lot
of us who can barely afford what we already have invested in our
gliders. So, it's not quite the slam dunk you think it is...

Marc

" wrote:

I have recently purchased a SparrowHawk glider which here in the US.
Since it weighs less than 155lbs operates under part 103 of the FARS as
an ultralight vehicle not requiring registration, a pilot license and
is transparent to County Tax authorities as are hangliders etc. I
operate close to Reno International Airport and very close to the
southern approach to that airport and have had airliners approach
within one half a mile of me apparently without knowledge of my
presence. This is unacceptabe and a collision must be avoided period.
So I stay clear the airspace where it is most probable to find an
airliner. That having been said I have on order a Becker Transponder
and will install in the SparrowHawk asap with a substantial battery so
that airliner's TAS can see me and take collision avoidance if
necessary.
I have followed the arguments and complaints against the use of
transponders in gliders and small planes and am not sympathetic! We are
all flying in crowded airspaces where there are the possibilities of
collisions and the deaths of many people say between an airliner and a
glider. This can be mostly prevented by the use of transponders, a
vigilant ATC and TAS. The cost - about $2000. How can any intelligent
person argue against that. Are some people so illiterate that they have
no appreciation about cost benefit analysis to not understand that this
is one of the best deals ever? What do you think is going to happen to
glider privileges after the first airliner is brought down? Remember
gliders are virtually invisible except when turning if at your
altitude!!
As to mode S. I am neutral to it. It does not increase safety. It
does allow near instant indentification of an aircraft which may be
useful to ATC - maybe? How will it affect me with the SparrowHawk? I
will probably have to be assigned a special ID.
Dave

I manage an airstrip close to a CTR and close to the final approach
path to the international airport inside the CTR. We have an agreement
with the airspace authority which confines our flight paths to a safe
area.

A visiting pilot was given a transponder code and told to keep it
selected on his departure scheduled for 15 minutes after landing,
which he duly did. This caused a TCAS alert on a landing passenger
jet. Our agreement now specifies transponders switched off (not even
squawking standby) within 5 miles of our strip.

Resident pilots already knew the danger, so this was the first
instance of this problem, and ATC had to accept the blame.

Gilbert Smith wrote:

I manage an airstrip close to a CTR and close to the final approach
path to the international airport inside the CTR. We have an agreement
with the airspace authority which confines our flight paths to a safe
area.

A visiting pilot was given a transponder code and told to keep it
selected on his departure scheduled for 15 minutes after landing,
which he duly did. This caused a TCAS alert on a landing passenger
jet. Our agreement now specifies transponders switched off (not even
squawking standby) within 5 miles of our strip.

Gilbert, could you give some more details. Particularly, is your
strip in the UK? Is your agreement a local one with the airport, or is
it with (or known to) the National Air Traffic or Regulatory body?

On the general matter of aircraft location and proximity warning
systems, radar is essentially a product of World War II technology
whereas ADS-B is the future. ADS-B will provide air traffic
controllers and pilots with much more accurate information that will
help keep aircraft safely separated.

Those words come not from me, but from the US FAA.

As I understand it, ADS-B (Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast)
is a system based on Satellite Navigation that automatically transmits
GPS (or GLONASS or Galileo) position and other data from an aircraft to
other receivers in ATC units and/or other aircraft. It is being tested
by the USA FAA and also in Australia and certainly seems to be the
system of the future. Here is an extract from the FAA Fact Sheet dated
2 May 2006

"ADS-B is the future of air traffic control. Instead of using radar
data to keep aircraft at safe distances from one another, in the
future, signals from Global Positioning Satellites will provide air
traffic controllers and pilots with much more accurate information that
will help keep aircraft safely separated in the sky and on runways.

Although radar technology has advanced, it is essentially a product of
1940s World War II technology. Radar occasionally has problems
discriminating airplanes from migratory birds and rain “clutter.�
Secondary surveillance systems can determine what objects are because
they interrogate transponders; however, both primary and secondary
radars are very large structures that are expensive to deploy, need
lots of maintenance, and require the agency to lease real estate to
situate them.

ADS-B, on the other hand, receives data directly rather than passively
scanning for input like radars, so does not have a problem with
clutter. ADS-B ground stations are inexpensive compared to radar, and
are the size of mini refrigerators that essentially can go anywhere, so
they minimize the required real estate. In addition, ADS-B updates once
a second and locates aircraft with much more precision.

ADS-B also provides greater coverage, since ADS-B ground stations are
so much easier to place than radar. Remote areas where there is no
radar can now have precise surveillance coverage."

--------- end of FAA quote ---------

So why are some Authorities trying to impose expensive and power-hungry
transponders on people who fly mostly in unregulated airspace? Also,
there are many types of aircraft that do not have electrical
generators, such as gliders, hang gliders, para gliders and many motor
gliders (turbos for instance).

Surely, a future system based on Satellite Navigation would be much
better all round. GPS is now being carried in most GA and many sport
aircraft worldwide. A smart avionics engineer should be able to design
a special low-powered transmitter that would take an NMEA or other
output from existing GPS equipment and automatically transmit the data
on (electronic) request. This could be a practical step towards the
full ADS-B system of the future and would not involve the fitting of
transponders to such classes of aircraft, Mode S or otherwise. It
seems very similar to what is already part of ADS-B link technology,
the Universal Access Transceiver (UAT), for which development
(according to the FAA web site) started in the mid-1990s.

Ian Strachan
Lasham Gliding Centre, UK

The US FAA has a long history of requiring certain avionics and then
declaring it obsolete in a few years. The long history of slowly reducing
VHF comm radio channel separation is an example.

Ian is right that a GPS based ATC system is the best way to go. I fear it's
just too simple an answer for the bureaucrats to get their minds around.
There's an old joke that says the most terrifying words in the English
Language are, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

Bill Daniels

"Ian Strachan" wrote in message
oups.com...
Gilbert Smith wrote:

I manage an airstrip close to a CTR and close to the final approach
path to the international airport inside the CTR. We have an agreement
with the airspace authority which confines our flight paths to a safe
area.

A visiting pilot was given a transponder code and told to keep it
selected on his departure scheduled for 15 minutes after landing,
which he duly did. This caused a TCAS alert on a landing passenger
jet. Our agreement now specifies transponders switched off (not even
squawking standby) within 5 miles of our strip.

?Gilbert, could you give some more details. Particularly, is your
strip in the UK? Is your agreement a local one with the airport, or is
it with (or known to) the National Air Traffic or Regulatory body?

On the general matter of aircraft location and proximity warning
systems, radar is essentially a product of World War II technology
whereas ADS-B is the future. ADS-B will provide air traffic
controllers and pilots with much more accurate information that will
help keep aircraft safely separated.

Those words come not from me, but from the US FAA.

As I understand it, ADS-B (Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast)
is a system based on Satellite Navigation that automatically transmits
GPS (or GLONASS or Galileo) position and other data from an aircraft to
other receivers in ATC units and/or other aircraft. It is being tested
by the USA FAA and also in Australia and certainly seems to be the
system of the future. Here is an extract from the FAA Fact Sheet dated
2 May 2006

"ADS-B is the future of air traffic control. Instead of using radar
data to keep aircraft at safe distances from one another, in the
future, signals from Global Positioning Satellites will provide air
traffic controllers and pilots with much more accurate information that
will help keep aircraft safely separated in the sky and on runways.

Although radar technology has advanced, it is essentially a product of
1940s World War II technology. Radar occasionally has problems
discriminating airplanes from migratory birds and rain "clutter."
Secondary surveillance systems can determine what objects are because
they interrogate transponders; however, both primary and secondary
radars are very large structures that are expensive to deploy, need
lots of maintenance, and require the agency to lease real estate to
situate them.

ADS-B, on the other hand, receives data directly rather than passively
scanning for input like radars, so does not have a problem with
clutter. ADS-B ground stations are inexpensive compared to radar, and
are the size of mini refrigerators that essentially can go anywhere, so
they minimize the required real estate. In addition, ADS-B updates once
a second and locates aircraft with much more precision.

ADS-B also provides greater coverage, since ADS-B ground stations are
so much easier to place than radar. Remote areas where there is no
radar can now have precise surveillance coverage."

--------- end of FAA quote ---------

So why are some Authorities trying to impose expensive and power-hungry
transponders on people who fly mostly in unregulated airspace? Also,
there are many types of aircraft that do not have electrical
generators, such as gliders, hang gliders, para gliders and many motor
gliders (turbos for instance).

Surely, a future system based on Satellite Navigation would be much
better all round. GPS is now being carried in most GA and many sport
aircraft worldwide. A smart avionics engineer should be able to design
a special low-powered transmitter that would take an NMEA or other
output from existing GPS equipment and automatically transmit the data
on (electronic) request. This could be a practical step towards the
full ADS-B system of the future and would not involve the fitting of
transponders to such classes of aircraft, Mode S or otherwise. It
seems very similar to what is already part of ADS-B link technology,
the Universal Access Transceiver (UAT), for which development
(according to the FAA web site) started in the mid-1990s.

Ian Strachan
Lasham Gliding Centre, UK

Ian Strachan wrote:
aircraft worldwide. A smart avionics engineer should be able to design
a special low-powered transmitter that would take an NMEA or other
output from existing GPS equipment and automatically transmit the data
on (electronic) request. This could be a practical step towards the

I'm sure most here know FLARM http://www.flarm.com/index_en.html .

While I'd not suggest it to the CAA for ATC because of it's limited
range, it is actually a step in this direction.

Regards
-Gerhard
--
http://gwesp.tx0.org/
Gerhard Wesp / Holderenweg 2 / CH-8134 Adliswil
+41 (0)76 505 1149 / +43 699 815 987 70 (mobile)
+41 (0)44 668 1878 (office)
+41 (0)44 200 1818 (office fax)