He has plenty of work to do then.
If I come across anyone who intentionally switches off their SSR I’ll be giving them a good talking to.
Then please do talk to me (because two of my own aircraft have no transponder) and please explain in what way SSR is relevant to GA outside controlled airspace.
Unless your vintage aircraft is equipped with TCAS or TAS, how can you know where any SSR transponder is in relation to your flight path? Even if you are one of the perhaps 1% equipped with TAS, can you honestly say that it has prevented a collision?
In the absence of evidence that TAS-equipped aircraft have regularly collided with non-transponding miscreants, we have no more right to force a belief that SSR saves lives down people’s throats than a belief in God or Father Christmas.
Timothy wrote:
I did make the point to the Head of AAA, Jon Round, today that receiving a letter is not the same thing as “no action” as there is an implied threat of “two strikes and you are out.” He took the point and said that he would have another look at the phraseology.
So are you saying that the CAA policy isnt “two strikes and you’re out” as it appears from the stats given for 2019 that were sent on the GASCO course:
Repeat infringing pilot NOT previously attended AIAC (CAP1404 escalatory measure) (4)
I dont think anyone is saying that the CAA is evil, but I cant get my head around why the CAA has gone down the route of trying to go after every single pilot that has been deemed to have infringed all sorts of airspace, even momentarily by a very small margin, as if it is about to lead to armagedon even though the entire Airspace/ATC system in the UK has flaws many miles wider than any infringement (geddit 
) …yet the rest of Europe doesnt…
Regards, SD..
Yes, because I used TAS to turn away. Exactly my point to Jacko.
What about “Based on what he could see on TAS, he adjusted his course” ?
Timothy wrote:
see below the hundred ways in which I am told I am wrong
4 and counting
And yet the report states:
Angle of arrival information from TAS equipment is notoriously unreliable and GA members cautioned that pilots should be wary of trusting such information to generate lateral separation.
How could you be sure that you weren’t turning into the path of that PA28?
Are you sure that you would have collided in the absence of TAS?
Incidentally, you and Biggin ATC were clearly happy with traffic separation an order of magnitude less than that which would have been required if you had been flying just 200 feet higher. I know those are the rules, but it is interesting to note how radically they change either side of a non-plane surface defined by measuring atmospheric pressure with relatively cheap instruments.
Some while back I listed the reasons why I feel the present enforcement regime is inappropriate.
It wouldnt be difficult to deal with each of the points and present an alternative view.
Please can we take just one point.
It has been repeatedly said that NO discussion is permitted during the GASCo course. Please can someone simply explain to me how and why this is acceptable?
On the whole pilot’s are intelligent people, in fact possibly without exception. Everyone (on both sides of the argument) appear to accept that in the vast majoirty of cases they have made a mistake – it wasnt deliberate, or vexatious. The opportunity to talk and discuss is the Mother of taking the learning content from the course – an intrinsic element in course design, that is recognised throughout the industry – and yet it is not permitted.
How can this be justified? How is it that despite this point having been repeatedly made, there has been no change in the way the course is conducted?
These are simple matters that could be addressed. I am afraid listening is worth very little, if it doesnt result in doing, be that an acceptance that improvements are way overdue, or a justification of the way, in this case, the course is run.
I would be truly delighted to change my view. Unfortunately I see no reason to do so.
I see a complete unwillingness to engage. I see the CAA being literally forced to disclose information that should never have required a freedom of Information Application. I see the CAA being severely criticised as a consequence of the Freedom of Information Application. I see numerous official statements being withdrawn becasue they were demonstrably misleading and/or wrong. I see no expalantion adequate explantion for how the process works, or what practical recourse a pilot has. i see a CAA that say they have no confidence in their own instructors, who they say cannot be trusted.
Why should we have trust or confidence?
Please do tell me why we should have any confidence in the process?
