Farnborough LARS = Transponder Mandatory Zone?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Fareham
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Farnborough LARS = Transponder Mandatory Zone?
I'm surprised no one has mentioned this before, but am I just being cynical when wondering if the expansion of Farborough Radar is just a prelude to the first Transponder Mandatory Zone?
Anyone from our ATC friends care to comment?
Anyone from our ATC friends care to comment?
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Surrey, UK.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not ATC, but I doubt the two are related any more than any other RIS/RAS provider and TMZs.
TMZs are coming that's for sure: Long time overdue considering how congested it is in the SE.
TMZs are coming that's for sure: Long time overdue considering how congested it is in the SE.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course with all of those Mode C aircraft in the US their radars would be full of Fruit and Garble and need mandatory Mode S - except for the fact that American airspace has better performing aircraft and radars so they don't have this problem
.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Surrey, UK.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are also a good few track miles between various TMZs in the US, whereas were the climb-profile/"busyness" tests applied to various CTRs/CTAs/ATZs over here and TMZs were applied accordingly there wouldn't be.
Someone drew a map of what the UK would look like with these TMZs according to US spec once - ISTR it made the case for the whole FIR quite nicely
Someone drew a map of what the UK would look like with these TMZs according to US spec once - ISTR it made the case for the whole FIR quite nicely
Someone drew a map of what the UK would look like with these TMZs according to US spec once - ISTR it made the case for the whole FIR quite nicely
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,810
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
1 Post
If you make the whole of the sub-LTMA airspace a TMZ you will immediately get a massive rash of spurious TCAS alerts from all the GA aircraft climbing up to 2499ft. I'm sure NATS will already have done that risk assessment. It's instructive to take a look at some of the radar videos of infringements around the LTMA on flyontrack. Take a look at how many primary-only tracks there are crossing underneath the final approaches for Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted. At the moment they're ignored by controllers, as the regulations provide/require. If all of those are squawking, the controllers may well be more relaxed but the pilots of the airliners - who until now have been oblivious to all those movements underneath them - will be getting TCAS TAs/RAs at just the point where they're focusing on establishing on the localiser.
NS
NS
Professional Student
Someone drew a map of what the UK would look like with these TMZs according to US spec once - ISTR it made the case for the whole FIR quite nicely
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I doubt it. There were some tears in debating how the rules would apply. In the US it seems to be necessary but not sufficient to have 5m pax and 300,000 movements (of which 240,000 must be CAT) to have Class B airspace (which is what then gives rise to the veil). There are several UK airport's that make it on Pax, but I think only Heathrow makes it on all three requirements. However, you could argue that the whole London TMA should be considered- given the Pax volume at Luton, Stansted and Gatwick and also that Manchester and Birmingham Pax volumes would justify Class B. If you argue that 5m pax only would do it (which is definitely not true in the US) then you would get 'most of the FIR' covered.
So the map looks like a 30 mile circle around LHR, or 15 30 miles circles spread around the country, or something in between!
So the map looks like a 30 mile circle around LHR, or 15 30 miles circles spread around the country, or something in between!
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Surrey, UK.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by hobbit1983
I'm curious - does anyone have a link to this please?
There were tears before bedtime, dummies spat, Christmas card lists re-written... In a word, Bedlam.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you make the whole of the sub-LTMA airspace a TMZ you will immediately get a massive rash of spurious TCAS alerts from all the GA aircraft climbing up to 2499ft
Since most regular pilots already fly with Mode C/S everywhere, this must be happening already.
I am going to get jumped on over the above comment, but except for VFR-only aircraft and aircraft without electrics, and civil liberties diehards who make sure their transponder (if fitted) is OFF, the "transponder war" is now effectively over.
Since most regular pilots already fly with Mode C/S everywhere, this must be happening already.
I am going to get jumped on over the above comment, but except for VFR-only aircraft and aircraft without electrics, and civil liberties diehards who make sure their transponder (if fitted) is OFF, the "transponder war" is now effectively over.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: one dot low as usual
Age: 66
Posts: 537
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you make the whole of the sub-LTMA airspace a TMZ you will immediately get a massive rash of spurious TCAS alerts from all the GA aircraft climbing up to 2499ft
I doubt it very much. Take a look, for example, at the the EGLL SID's. Most have you above 3000' as you cross the CTR boundary, so there's already 500 separation. Don't imaging that a/c in controlled airspace are all flying around at 2501 feet with GA whizzing by at 2499. In most cases, departing (and arriving) traffic will have a much greater vertical spacing due to vectoring routes and better climb rates.
I doubt it very much. Take a look, for example, at the the EGLL SID's. Most have you above 3000' as you cross the CTR boundary, so there's already 500 separation. Don't imaging that a/c in controlled airspace are all flying around at 2501 feet with GA whizzing by at 2499. In most cases, departing (and arriving) traffic will have a much greater vertical spacing due to vectoring routes and better climb rates.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“I am going to get jumped on over the above comment, but except for VFR-only aircraft and aircraft without electrics, and civil liberties diehards who make sure their transponder (if fitted) is OFF, the "transponder war" is now effectively over.”
If you add up the micros, the gliders, the PFA aircraft etc etc then the total number of VFR aircraft is vastly bigger than the number which are IFR capable. So you have just said that if we ignore the majority of aircraft …
Agree Transponders should be on if possible.
Rod1
If you add up the micros, the gliders, the PFA aircraft etc etc then the total number of VFR aircraft is vastly bigger than the number which are IFR capable. So you have just said that if we ignore the majority of aircraft …
Agree Transponders should be on if possible.
Rod1
