End of squawk codes?

[Fry]

In Europe, we unfortunately do not require ADS-B but instead Mode S. Mode S is much less capable than ADS-B, but both systems have in common that the controller see your complete tailnumber no matter what you are squawking.

Still, controllers assign you a squawk code, and to make the confusion complete, under VFR, many aircraft get the same squawk. And why?

The answer is, controllers use the squawk code to mark who is talking to whom. So all VFR airplanes that talk to one controller get the same squawk code, so by looking at the squawk and the position of an aircraft, all controllers know which frequency that pilot is listening on.

[cliffy]

Did any of you ever "push shrimp boats" across the screen? 

I can remember going into OAK ATC back when and watching that show. 

ADSB was designed to increase the accuracy of displayed data on the location of aircraft for the purpose of using tighter spacing into airports (some spacing of enroute but mostly arrival) to increase throughput ( Pushing Tin?). The main benefactor was in large Class B airports. To make the system work (or so they said) everyone had to be onboard (in the high density areas). Thus GA was pulled in. The system was designed from the top down with 121 at the top and all below had to follow.

Why WAAS with 2 digit accuracy as opposed to non-WAAS with 3 digit accuracy? Another aspect is that ALL ground vehicles on the affected airports have to have ADSB locators on each vehicle so the tower can see encroachment issues with moving traffic and runways and taxiways. . uAvionix just had a ground vehicle based transmitter approved. Do you think that 2 wingspan accuracy (non-WAAS) wouldn't be accurate enough airborne compared to the normal 1,000s of feet prior to ADSB or that 20 feet accuracy is really required airborne?  That close accuracy is required for all the ground vehicles on the major airports and for taxiing large aircraft on major airports (think of the antenna offsets when ADSB is set up for your airplane-why?). JMO

The GAO (IIRC) actually came out and said that ADSB was not cost effective for GA  and at that point they had to go with the ancillary services (weather, METARs, etc) as an incentive to get GA involved (and find a way to do it as the bandwidth of the transponder wouldn't allow all the data flow required hence the UAT), The IN portion was not considered until the GAO report, as there was no real benefit to GA in the original design yet they had to have GA on board (and pay for the pleasure) to make the system work in the high density areas. 

For all the IN traffic info being used right now it will turn out to be much like TCAS in large airplanes- that being, after a while we'll find out that too much time was spent looking at the fish finder for traffic that really was of no consequence to us and we will gradually ignore it  more and more as time goes on. Its a new shiny object right now in the cockpit (just like TCAS was) garnering our attention. Traffic SEEMS  really close on that small screen but after a while we'll realize that the vast majority of what we see is of no consequence and interest will wane to some extent.   Again, JMO       Shields up!

 

[Seth]

18 hours ago, jlunseth said:

So, how are you going to tell ATC - discretely - that you have been hijacked.  Granted, it is something you want to think about doing anyway, because knowing you are hijacked “they” might be more willing to shoot you down. But how are you going to tell them?

You tell ATC that "ABC Approach, FlightXYZ, as advised changing squawk code to 7500."   And the controller says, "FlightXYZ, we copy, you are now squaking 7500."  And then they take a deep breath, say some curse words, and hit the alarm bell/pick up the red phone/get a supervisor.

 

-Seth

[Seth]

14 hours ago, GeeBee said:

Every time you are handed off to Milan control they tell you (and everyone else) to squak 1000. The Italians have no problem with everyone on the same code!

 

1226 is what everyone squawks when departing or entering JYO, Leesburg, on the NW corner of the SFRA in Virginia outside DC.  This way they don't have to be in touch with ATC once airborne to get out of the SFRA.  They enter code 1226 into the transponder, and it's like flying VFR out of the airport as long as they head out to the NW.  Same when coming back.  Wish they had a code for GAI - but instead for VFR flights we have to get a discrete code prior to takeoff and be in touch with ATC until clear of the SFRA.  That said, on busy days, I like having the controller's set of eyes looking for conflicts.  

I'm used to it, I have not problem with it, I just sweat when squawking 1200 - and shouldn't.

 

-Seth

[bradp]

So with ADSB / ERAM will controllers still report “altitude unverified” for non-participating ADSB equipped  VFR targets or can they actually tell us the altitude now?  

[dmevans]

42 minutes ago, bradp said:

So with ADSB / ERAM will controllers still report “altitude unverified” for non-participating ADSB equipped  VFR targets or can they actually tell us the altitude now?  

Unless we speak with that aircraft and validate whether their Mode C on the radar scope is within 300' of the reported altitude, it will still be unverified. 

[carusoam]

Thank you to the ATC folks on MS...

I always appreciate knowing more about that side of the flying...

Best regards,

-a-