URGENT communication from BHPA to all members -
Responses to CAA Transponder Consultation document requested from BHPA membership.

Deadline for responses 17:00 on 29 August 2006

Objective of the BHPA response

How to respond

Your response

Guidance material

Your feedback to the BHPA

The issue

As you will no doubt now be aware the CAA is proposing that all aircraft operating in UK airspace be fitted with Mode S transponders in 2008. Details are outlined in the CAA's RIA (Regulatory Impact Assessment document) available on line.

This paper makes hard reading to the layman. Perhaps deliberately, in an attempt to deter reasoned responses from the sport flying community. In common with the BGA and PFA, the BHPA is highly critical of the proposals and the tone of the document which shows a gross lack of understanding of sport flying and soaring activities in unrestricted airspace, especially those undertaken without radio contact and from remote non airfield based sites.

The premise for the change in requirements is due to the expected increase in Civil Air Transport (CAT) traffic in the unrestricted airspace and the development of a UK Unmanned Air Vehicle industry (UAV). Wind farm development is also mentioned but is an irrelevant issue. With increasing oil prices and carbon taxation of air travel the increase in commercial traffic is unlikely to grow at the rate the CAA forecast but will instead be far more conservative.

Where there is increasing use class G airspace by low cost operators, which is often resulting the establishment of additional Class D airspace around regional airfields there is some argument that this will amount to an increase in risk to the public. The issues are whether the CAA proposal is a proportionate response to the perceived future problem, whether Mode S will actually solve the problem and whether the logic of the argument is fundamentally flawed because of ignorant assumptions made by the CAA preparing the proposal.

Objective of the BHPA response

If Mode S transponders do become a legal requirement it will see the end of cross country flying as we know it. There will be very few benefits for non radio aircraft and considerable expenditure will be required by BHPA members, totally out of proportion with the current costs of foot launch flying. It is immaterial whether or not you fly with an engine, the proposals encompass ALL foot launch flying.

Do not be lulled into a false sense of security by the seeming promise of a paraglider Exemption in Annex F. The devil is in the detail and the CAA have refused to consult upon the actual wording for the law changes and the exemptions. There is no current ANO or other UK legal definition of a paraglider, production of one might prove harder than expected. What if someone produces a "light weight transponder" that the CAA decides is safe and suitable for pg and at a cost they think is OK? As currently proposed they would just have to pull the Exemption without recourse to any form of consultation.

In common with other air sport associations the BHPA are contesting the proposal. The original consultation format was a two stage consultation with interested parties but the CAA have since changed the rules and not extended the deadline for reponses. The object of this information page is to give you guidance in compiling your own individual response and to provide factual data that you can draw on.

How to respond

The CAA wants you to fill in a response form with tick boxes to indicate your support or otherwise for a range of issues. Each section has a space for your further comments. Whilst you may elect to write a narrative response it is imperative that you also provide a response on the official RIA response Form. This can be printed out and a hand written response returned or can be filled out on line. You can also put narrative views in the last section of the response forms.

This is a complex matter and some members have said that it is difficult to properly express opposition to an issue because of the nature of the questions on the response form. We recommend you consider each response very carefully and recognise that the data from the tick boxes will probably be used separately from your narrative comments.

Where more than one family member flies please all fill out separate forms. If you have a young family member who is intending to be flying by 2008 (and is unlikely to be able to afford their own transponder) please ensure they fill out a form too.

If you operate a school or other business that will be affected by the proposal please fill out a separate form for the business in addition to your personal recreational response.

You can access the proposal, covering letter and 3 different response formats (one of which is an on line reponse)

If emailing a response form to the CAA at This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it please copy to This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it for our records.

We recommend you consider contacting your MP over the matter. You can contact your MP directly via http://www.writetothem.com/

All members in Montgomeryshire should be aware Lembit Öpik is a past paraglider pilot and is already aware of the CAA proposal.

Your response

The BHPA is formulating an official reply to the CAA on the RIA response form. A draft copy of our response is linked below for member guidance.

Please note some of our questionnaire returns have deliberate multiple responses where we believe there is insufficient data available to give a valid single response, or consider the question itself is not valid. Explanations are given in the associated narrative response box. Unless you have a different opinion we suggest you do the same, as we have been advised by market research experts this is a better tactical response than leaving the question unanswered.

With a copy of the consultation document to hand, you will see that the response form asks for your views starting at Paragraph 2.2. This omits the opportunity for you to comment on the Purpose, Intended Effect and Objective of the document, Paragraphs 1 to 2.1. These are discussed in the Official BHPA 'Response 10- additional comments and feedback', paragraph and will need to be covered in your narrative response to this section.

In addition, some very important issues are not addressed at all by the consultation. Examples are the radiation risk to occupants and the viability of low power portable transponders. These are listed towards the end.

It will be important to remember that expressions of general dissatisfaction with the proposal will be of no benefit. Specific, factual and well-argued comments will have to be dealt with by the CAA before they can make their recommendation to the government.

Please do not cut and paste the official BHPA response but use the material to form your own views. Past experience has shown duplicate responses are discounted. The RIA paragraph numbers relevant to counter arguments should be stated where possible.

Guidance material

First there is a list of links to other documents such as issues that have been raised by the BHPA Airspace Panel and to material and research produced by PFA & BGA members. We have been working closely with these associations over this matter as part of our mutual General Aviation Alliance response and thank them for allowing us to link to this material.

There is a lot of information to review. All of it is relevant. Your patience is appreciated!

Glossary doc from www.gliding.co.uk:

Issues relevant to foot launch operations:
bhpatxissues.pdf

DRAFT Official BHPA RAI response:

DRAFT Official BHPA 'Response 10- additional comments and feedback'.

BGA transponder web page:

Official BGA RAI response:

BGA discussion paper:

GA Alliance briefing notes (we are a member):

PFA comment on the RIA (much very relevant to our case) :

PFA paper on possible non-ionising radiation risks relating to Mode S: PDF

PFA consideration of low power transponder systems: PDF

PFA Notes on completing the RIA.
The PFA have excellent guidance to their members set out below. Again, reference to this material would be worthwhile.

RESPONSE 1 – PFA Comments on the Issues that the Proposals Seek to Address

RESPONSE 2 – PFA Comments on the Proposed Policy Options

RESPONSE 3 – PFA Comments on the Need for Regulation

RESPONSE 4 – PFA Comments on the Groups and Sectors Affected

RESPONSE 5 – PFA Comments on the Potential Benefits of the Proposed Policy Options

RESPONSE 6 – PFA Comments on the Estimated Costs of the Proposed Policy Options.

RESPONSE 7 – PFA Comments on the Means by Which the Costs of the Proposed Policy Options should be financed.

RESPONSE 10 – PFA Additional Comments and Feedback

The ASTRAEA Project site. UAV information, clearly a influence on CAA proposal:
http://www.astraeaproject.com/

Your feedback to the BHPA

The transponder issue is being dealt with by the BHPA Airspace panel, all volunteers with other jobs and commitments on their time. If you have pressing query which is not answered by the guidance material above please contact us and we will endeavour to respond. Contact the Airspace panel at This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it