![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I dont understand why anonymous is such a point of contention. You have
to have a license plate on your car, dont you? and an N number on your plane? A mode S transponder is the electronic equivalent of a license plate. Even if it DOES seem big brother-like. Flying is a priveledge, which can be granted or disallowed. I am of the mindset that positive ID while excercising that priveledge is perfectly acceptable. Ok.. if they want to charge fee's for service.. then let them charge.. they do in europe, dont they? Of course, if it costs 100 bux to file a flight plan, I would expect everyone to stop filing flight plans.. (I'm sure a more reasonable (for GA) solution would be a fee based on seats or gross weight). And the "stop the noise" zealots already CAN get your N-Number. With a Mark 1 Mod A optical sensor (Eyeball) and pair of binoculars. While I am a member of AOPA and I do pay my dues, I really dont see how GA/AOPA fighting mode S tooth and nail is really doing us any benefit. There are other issues that are more important in my mind (controller shortages, inconsistent enforcement and PFR's) and that need to be addressed. Dave Scott Moore wrote: Bob Noel wrote: In article yjstc.9901$Ly.7087@attbi_s01, Scott Moore wrote: o Allow "anonymous mode-s", and so remove the light pilot/AOPA objection to mode-s ? This has been proposed many times in many places. Apparently the FAA would rather die than this, but why are they (apparently) going to allow UAT to so do, but not mode-s ? Mode-S doesn't have a provision for "anonymous." And changing the specs for Mode-S would be, ahem, challenging. It's not actually an FAA issue. Well, I do understand the issue, but not why anonymous is so hard. The shop programs the N number, right ? What is to prevent them from declaring a "universal" N number (the equivalent of 1200) and just programming all "protestants" with that on request ? o Require UAT on airlines, so that everyone speaks the same language, and UAT eventually replaces mode-s as a more advanced method ? I could hardly blame the airlines for fighting that one. The FAA just got through requiring them to buy into mode-s. It would put the airlines into the position of buying the "black box of the month" as the FAA changes with the wind. bingo. The airlines had to install expensive tcas systems and have to have Mode-S for that and other systems (for flight in Europe and other areas). The airlines will fight tooth-n-nail requirements to install duplicative systems. In any case, it appears that the FAA, the AOPA and the airlines have all already come to the solution: not much of a solution... |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|