ADSB out creating more risk until 2020

JimNtexas said:
Thanks, that explains what happened. Your ADS-B in could see him, but since you were out of tower range and didn't have ads-b out the other pilot could not see you on his ADS-B display.

That's by design, and why ADS-B makes no sense without the mandate.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure that's what I said in my OP.
 
JimNtexas said:
. . . ADS-B makes no sense without the requirement.
Click to expand...
)
"Mandate" implies ground-up support; ADS-B is very much a top-down requirement. And the FAA is so strong about requiring both ADS-B and transponders that they are allowing--no, encouraging the use of uncertified electronics running uncertified software to provide the "benefits" to pilots. Although they do draw the line and are not permitting said unapproved electronics to actually be mounted in the aircraft . . . . .

I'll pass for now, since I don't need Charlie clearance and have never been cleared into Bravo. And I will not depend on uncertified electronics or software for anything that can be considered "flight critical," which is how many of you are treating this new requirement. The WAAS GPS I already have is fine, I'm not going to mount another antenna for this piece of bureaucratic "we know better than you" stuff . . .
 
Hank S said:
)
"Mandate" implies ground-up support; ADS-B is very much a top-down requirement. And the FAA is so strong about requiring both ADS-B and transponders that they are allowing--no, encouraging the use of uncertified electronics running uncertified software to provide the "benefits" to pilots. Although they do draw the line and are not permitting said unapproved electronics to actually be mounted in the aircraft . . . . .

I'll pass for now, since I don't need Charlie clearance and have never been cleared into Bravo. And I will not depend on uncertified electronics or software for anything that can be considered "flight critical," which is how many of you are treating this new requirement. The WAAS GPS I already have is fine, I'm not going to mount another antenna for this piece of bureaucratic "we know better than you" stuff . . .
Click to expand...
It's not just entering bravo, it's the entire mode c veil.
 
Salty said:
It's not just entering bravo, it's the entire mode c veil.
Click to expand...

Hank S said:
)
"Mandate" implies ground-up support; ADS-B is very much a top-down requirement. And the FAA is so strong about requiring both ADS-B and transponders that they are allowing--no, encouraging the use of uncertified electronics running uncertified software to provide the "benefits" to pilots. Although they do draw the line and are not permitting said unapproved electronics to actually be mounted in the aircraft . . . . .

I'll pass for now, since I don't need Charlie clearance and have never been cleared into Bravo. And I will not depend on uncertified electronics or software for anything that can be considered "flight critical," which is how many of you are treating this new requirement. The WAAS GPS I already have is fine, I'm not going to mount another antenna for this piece of bureaucratic "we know better than you" stuff . . .
Click to expand...

I made it easy for you to understand, and quoted myself, with the relevant part that you didn't read marked in red . . .
 
Philosophical question: If a pilot not relying on uncertified electronic devices for flight critical information but using them anyway is alerted of your position by uncertified electronic devices, 'sees' you(with said uncertified electronics), then sees you(with eyes) and avoids you, and you never saw them, did they exist?
 
exncsurfer said:
Philosophical question: If a pilot not relying on uncertified electronic devices for flight critical information but using them anyway is alerted of your position by uncertified electronic devices, 'sees' you(with said uncertified electronics), then sees you(with eyes) and avoids you, and you never saw them, did they exist?
Click to expand...

Nothing matters until after the crash. Then if you survive everything matters.
 
Guess we need review where ADS-B "out" is mandated.
  • Class A, B, and C airspace
  • Class E airspace areas at or above 10,000 ft MSL over the 48 states and DC, excluding airspace at and below 2,500 ft AGL
  • Airspace within 30 nautical miles (nm) at designated airports from the surface up to 10,000 feet MSL; airports listed in appendix D to part 91.
  • Above the ceiling and within the lateral boundaries of a Class B or Class C airspace area up to 10,000 feet MSL
  • Class E airspace over the Gulf of Mexico at and above 3,000 feet MSL within 12 nm of the coastline of the United States
Any airspace that requires the use of a Transponder today will on January 01, 2020 also require aircraft to be equipped with a Version 2 ADS-B Out system. This can be either a 1090ES (DO-260B) ADS-B system or a UAT (DO-282B) ADS-B system.

For aircraft operating above FL180 (18,000 ft.) or to comply with ADS-B mandates outside the United States, you must be equipped with a Mode-S transponder-based ADS-B transmitter. For aircraft operating below 18,000 ft. and within the United States ADS-B rule airspace, you must be equipped with either a Mode-S transponder-based ADS-B transmitter or with UAT equipment.

If you don't think you will be flying into Class A, B or C fine. But you no doubt will need to fly above 10,000 feet in Class E. Just get the upgrade.
 
citizen5000 said:
Guess we need review where ADS-B "out" is mandated.
  • Class A, B, and C airspace
  • Class E airspace areas at or above 10,000 ft MSL over the 48 states and DC, excluding airspace at and below 2,500 ft AGL
  • Airspace within 30 nautical miles (nm) at designated airports from the surface up to 10,000 feet MSL; airports listed in appendix D to part 91.
  • Above the ceiling and within the lateral boundaries of a Class B or Class C airspace area up to 10,000 feet MSL
  • Class E airspace over the Gulf of Mexico at and above 3,000 feet MSL within 12 nm of the coastline of the United States
Any airspace that requires the use of a Transponder today will on January 01, 2020 also require aircraft to be equipped with a Version 2 ADS-B Out system. This can be either a 1090ES (DO-260B) ADS-B system or a UAT (DO-282B) ADS-B system.

For aircraft operating above FL180 (18,000 ft.) or to comply with ADS-B mandates outside the United States, you must be equipped with a Mode-S transponder-based ADS-B transmitter. For aircraft operating below 18,000 ft. and within the United States ADS-B rule airspace, you must be equipped with either a Mode-S transponder-based ADS-B transmitter or with UAT equipment.

If you don't think you will be flying into Class A, B or C fine. But you no doubt will need to fly above 10,000 feet in Class E. Just get the upgrade.
Click to expand...
Again you missed the mode c veil. My plane lives under a bravo. I never enter it. I still must comply because I'm inside the veil.
 
Salty said:
Again you missed the mode c veil. My plane lives under a bravo. I never enter it. I still must comply because I'm inside the veil.
Click to expand...

Read it again. Mode C veil is covered under "Any airspace that requires the use of a Transponder today will on January 01, 2020 also require aircraft to be equipped with a Version 2 ADS-B Out system."
 
dmspilot said:
Why is that no doubt?
Click to expand...

If you restrict yourself below 10k MSL you will not be able to fly anywhere west of Iowa. And likely have problems along the Appalachian too. Or go any closer than 30nm of a long list of airports listed here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/appendix-D_to_part_91

You also can't fly in any controlled airspace under instrument conditions since a transponder and ADS-B are required.

May as well get rid of the plane and get a drone or take up glider/balloon flying.
Basically your plane is a VFR only, patch trainer without the ADS-B.
 
citizen5000 said:
If you restrict yourself below 10k MSL you will not be able to fly anywhere west of Iowa.
Click to expand...

Hyperbole and patently false. Do you even read your own posts? I'm not even going to write a counterargument because it would be a waste of time.
 
citizen5000 said:
Nothing matters until after the crash. Then if you survive everything matters.
Click to expand...

Here's how every NTSB report of a mid-air between two aircraft operating in VMC will read after the mandate is in place.

"Pilot failed to see and avoid."

Just like every NTSB report starts after a mid-air today.

Won't matter at all what gadgets are installed in the panel or sitting on the pilot's lap.
 
citizen5000 said:
If you restrict yourself below 10k MSL you will not be able to fly anywhere west of Iowa. And likely have problems along the Appalachian too. Or go any closer than 30nm of a long list of airports listed here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/appendix-D_to_part_91

You also can't fly in any controlled airspace under instrument conditions since a transponder and ADS-B are required.

May as well get rid of the plane and get a drone or take up glider/balloon flying.
Basically your plane is a VFR only, patch trainer without the ADS-B.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, so was I stupid and crazy when I flew VFR to Yellowstone, well west of Iowa where I spent the night outbound, and didn't go higher than 8500 MSL? May have reached 9500 on one leg coming home, but mostly either 5500 or 7500. I've flown all over the Appalachians, from northern WV and PA right down to the end in GA, including many trips over and to western NC and east TN, and was quite happy at 7500 msl. I did climb above 10,000 one time when the winds were strong out of the west, though; the rest of the many times I was well below 10K.

The 30 nm thing won't bother me much, ATL already won't let me into the Bravo at any altitude IFR or VFR, even when requesting T Routes. So I'm used to staying away . . .

Similarly, IFR flight without the magic tracking box will not pose a problem either.
 
denverpilot said:
Here's how every NTSB report of a mid-air between two aircraft operating in VMC will read after the mandate is in place.

"Pilot failed to see and avoid."

Just like every NTSB report starts after a mid-air today.

Won't matter at all what gadgets are installed in the panel or sitting on the pilot's lap.
Click to expand...

Plane fact, since ADS-B I now visually see much more of the traffic than I used to. I am much more likely to end up in an NTSB report without the benefit of ADS-B. Try flying in congested Florida airspace without ADS-B and I bet you will miss more than half the potential targets near you, but ignorance is bliss.....


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Perezhr said:
Plane fact, since ADS-B I now visually see much more of the traffic than I used to. I am much more likely to end up in an NTSB report without the benefit of ADS-B. Try flying in congested Florida airspace without ADS-B and I bet you will miss more than half the potential targets near you, but ignorance is bliss.....
Click to expand...

Nope. I'd see 'em. With a $100 device. No problem. No mandate required. Especially in congested airspace since I'd be inside someone else's "hockey puck".

And there never was any technical reason for the "hockey puck" other than the system, as originally designed, couldn't handle all the traffic on Mode-S in a truly congested area anyway. Awful design. Like negligently awful if tech had any real standards.

Designing a surveillance system for less than the KNOWN traffic load, in a growing traffic environment is something only government engineering could possibly accomplish with a straight face.

UAT saved their butt on that one.

Doesn't matter. There will still be midairs after ADS-B is fully deployed.

Want to bet $20 on it?

Ignorance technically is bliss, if the two aircraft didn't collide.

There never has been a significant number of collisions even in congested airspace, and ADS-B was never truly about real safety.

Imagine, a totally utopian world, where all the billions spent on ADS-B were spent on flight training for things like runway loss of control events. Which one would you think would lower the fatal accident rate more?

If you want to stay with tech instead of spending money on brainpower. How about a mandate for terrain avoidance displays in cockpits vs ADS-B? Which one of those would save more lives per year? CFIT avoidance or mid-air collision avoidance?

And... even with it on board, the FAA and NTSB are going to say, "Pilot's did not see and avoid" in any VMC mid-air.

Count on it. Guaranteed.
 
Banking on the big sky theory that the odds are good you will not collide is not my idea of a plan. More times than I can count now I've been flying along scanning the horizon for traffic only to hear a little voice in my headset "Traffic 12 O'clock". A quick look at the iPad shows the traffic just above my altitude and a couple of miles closing in fast. Only after focusing in that direction do I see the aircraft and take action to provide more clearance. This has happened both while VFR and a few times while IFR. For me ADS-B is the farthest from a distraction and in fact it's a second set of eyes to help me spot all the traffic. No doubt eventually two aircraft equipped with ADS-B will have a mid air, but that does not mean it's not a useful tool. I don't need an autopilot either but find it extremely useful and it enhances safety at times.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Perezhr said:
Banking on the big sky theory that the odds are good you will not collide is not my idea of a plan. More times than I can count now I've been flying along scanning the horizon for traffic only to hear a little voice in my headset "Traffic 12 O'clock". A quick look at the iPad shows the traffic just above my altitude and a couple of miles closing in fast. Only after focusing in that direction do I see the aircraft and take action to provide more clearance. This has happened both while VFR and a few times while IFR. For me ADS-B is the farthest from a distraction and in fact it's a second set of eyes to help me spot all the traffic. No doubt eventually two aircraft equipped with ADS-B will have a mid air, but that does not mean it's not a useful tool. I don't need an autopilot either but find it extremely useful and it enhances safety at times.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

That's spiffy. We should therefore have an autopilot mandate then, too.
 
Perezhr said:
Banking on the big sky theory that the odds are good you will not collide is not my idea of a plan. More times than I can count now I've been flying along scanning the horizon for traffic only to hear a little voice in my headset "Traffic 12 O'clock". A quick look at the iPad shows the traffic just above my altitude and a couple of miles closing in fast. Only after focusing in that direction do I see the aircraft and take action to provide more clearance. This has happened both while VFR and a few times while IFR. For me ADS-B is the farthest from a distraction and in fact it's a second set of eyes to help me spot all the traffic. No doubt eventually two aircraft equipped with ADS-B will have a mid air, but that does not mean it's not a useful tool. I don't need an autopilot either but find it extremely useful and it enhances safety at times.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Which system do you have? The little voice in your ear announcing direction (it's be nice if it also said difference in altitude) is the best UI design of such a system I can think of. No eyes in the cockpit required.
 
jsstevens said:
Which system do you have? The little voice in your ear announcing direction (it's be nice if it also said difference in altitude) is the best UI design of such a system I can think of. No eyes in the cockpit required.
Click to expand...

The ADS-B in part is being handled through ForeFlight in my iPad mini attached to the yoke. The iPad is connected via Bluetooth to my headset so I can hear all the warning/cautions. Works really nice. I can keep my eyes outside but I'll hear if there is a potential conflict and a quick look at the iPad will show location and difference in altitude. I would like to think I'm pretty good with my visual scans. When flying with others I usually spot traffic before other folks, however, since ADS-B I have determined that I'm not as good as I thought. A lot of traffic near me is now caught and announced by ForeFlight before I actually have eyeballs on it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I just don't agree. People that are complacent about their traffic scan with ADS-B were pretty certainly complacent before they had it. You have good habits or you don't.
 
denverpilot said:
Nope. I'd see 'em. With a $100 device. No problem. No mandate required. Especially in congested airspace since I'd be inside someone else's "hockey puck".

And there never was any technical reason for the "hockey puck" other than the system, as originally designed, couldn't handle all the traffic on Mode-S in a truly congested area anyway. Awful design. Like negligently awful if tech had any real standards.

Designing a surveillance system for less than the KNOWN traffic load, in a growing traffic environment is something only government engineering could possibly accomplish with a straight face.

UAT saved their butt on that one.

Doesn't matter. There will still be midairs after ADS-B is fully deployed.

Want to bet $20 on it?

Ignorance technically is bliss, if the two aircraft didn't collide.

There never has been a significant number of collisions even in congested airspace, and ADS-B was never truly about real safety.

Imagine, a totally utopian world, where all the billions spent on ADS-B were spent on flight training for things like runway loss of control events. Which one would you think would lower the fatal accident rate more?

If you want to stay with tech instead of spending money on brainpower. How about a mandate for terrain avoidance displays in cockpits vs ADS-B? Which one of those would save more lives per year? CFIT avoidance or mid-air collision avoidance?

And... even with it on board, the FAA and NTSB are going to say, "Pilot's did not see and avoid" in any VMC mid-air.

Count on it. Guaranteed.
Click to expand...
It's not about "safety". Say the unabbreviated name, slowly, then you will understand.
 
Imagine if fighter pilots shared the inability to visually spot traffic belief of modern GA pilots? Peace in the skies, neither side would ever take off.
 
George Mohr said:
I just don't agree. People that are complacent about their traffic scan with ADS-B were pretty certainly complacent before they had it. You have good habits or you don't.
Click to expand...
George....many of us think the "see and avoid" concept was just that a concept. ADS-B really does let us see what we've been missing.

I don't care how sharp you are....you will miss it. Thankfully it's a big sky out there.
 
I'm amazed at how much traffic I wouldn't have seen prior to having ADS-B. And I consider myself pretty darn vigilant.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
It is amazing to me how often ATC points out traffic to me and I can't see it even when I know where to look.
Click to expand...

Which contributes to the theory that scan only may not be enough. Pilots should welcome enhancements to situational awareness like ADS-B.
 
Last edited:
I have in and out. When I see another plane is going to come close I watch very closely but don't change directions at all unless we are on a collision course. Anything less than 5 miles I really start looking and less than 2 and 500 feet or less I am changing course unless the plane is in sight. Since having adsb I have flown pretty darn close to a few planes but have yet to have an oh $&@& moment. To the other guy, if he doesn't have have in and sees me, he might view it as a close one.
It is very hard to ignore the "traffic traffic" alerts and not look.
Yes there are people flying around without transponders still, but hitting one of those guys on accident would take some significant luck. Not saying it's impossible but it's highly unlikely.
 
luvflyin said:
https://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief.aspx?ev_id=20150816X60452&key=2
Click to expand...

Yes, there are scenarios where when a controller is attempting to kill you, a traffic system may help avoid that.

"The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:
The local controller's (LC) failure to properly identify the aircraft in the pattern and to ensure control instructions provided to the intended Cessna on downwind were being performed before turning Eagle1 into its path for landing. Contributing to the LC's actions was his incomplete situational awareness when he took over communications from the LC trainee due to the high workload at the time of the accident. Contributing to the accident were the inherent limitations of the see-and-avoid concept, resulting in the inability of the pilots involved to take evasive action in time to avert the collision."
 
citizen5000 said:
Which contributes to the theory that scan only may not be enough. Pilots should welcome enhancements to situational awareness like ADS-B.
Click to expand...

Meh, I'm not terribly concerned about a Cessna at two o'clock and 8 miles. I'm more concerned about the Piper at 12 o'clock, one mile, opposite direction. And I've already spotted him.

Seriously, every single thing ATC has ever called out for me has been either too far away to be concerned about or I've already seen them. The excitement of "Oh my gosh there's another plane 8 miles away from me good thing I have ADS-B or I might have flown right into him!" thing is a bit overplayed.
 
The flight this morning produced a fun little scenario. Flying South over KMEV (Minden-Tahoe) at 10,500 and just before turning West to fly over Lake Tahoe saw a biz jet taking off North on the runway (6k feet below). Flying West and just before crossing the rim to the lake the jet turned and climbed on a SouthWest track and showed up on ADS-B from behind but not on frequency (Norcal). The target climbed to near 1k feet below us and turned fully South just before becoming a yellow target (still not on frequency). We continued flying West and out over the lake.
 
denverpilot said:
Yes, there are scenarios where when a controller is attempting to kill you, a traffic system may help avoid that.

"The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:
The local controller's (LC) failure to properly identify the aircraft in the pattern and to ensure control instructions provided to the intended Cessna on downwind were being performed before turning Eagle1 into its path for landing. Contributing to the LC's actions was his incomplete situational awareness when he took over communications from the LC trainee due to the high workload at the time of the accident. Contributing to the accident were the inherent limitations of the see-and-avoid concept, resulting in the inability of the pilots involved to take evasive action in time to avert the collision."
Click to expand...
That was the first one I ever saw where the Tower was the cause and failure to see and avoid was the contributing factor. The pilots had seen and were talking to each other about the plane inside on the downwind. When it came time to turn base they had lost sight of it.
 
Last edited:
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.
Back
Top