Happy ADS-B Day! It's Begun

It seems like what’s going on is that the planes are being upgraded by mandate at owners expense, but the ADS-B ground gear, funded by the gubmint, is not being installed as quickly.
 
Adam Weiss said:
I understand what you're saying, but at the same time, I can't tell you how many times I've already been able to spot traffic via ADS-B that I wouldn't have otherwise seen.
I feel MUCH safer with this capability.
Click to expand...
I think you hit the nail on the head saying it makes you feel safer.
 
Warmi said:
It is safer - you are notified about planes around you even if this is not a 100% radar-like picture you are getting.
Click to expand...
I'm not so sure that I feel safer when I think that a pilot has his eyes focused on a screen without keeping a sharp lookout outside the cockpit, especially in the airport environment.
 
I like it. As others, I have seen traffic I never would have seen. Recently ADSB In allowed me to see an aircraft making left traffic calls for the airport where I was entering the pattern. I couldn't see him visually, but I could see on FF and he was actually in the pattern at an airport 6NM away (which had active traffic with a right traffic pattern). I was able to alert the embarrassed pilot he was at the wrong airport before the situation potentially got worse.

That above experience also reinforced that just because pilots are making announcements on the CTAF, that doesn't mean that they're actually listening...
 
Last edited:
Anyone saying nobody needs this has their head in the sand. Most people live in or near a big city. I've read that 80% of Americans live within 100 miles of either coast, 40% live in a county on the coast. Most people live where there are lots of other people. And where there are lots of people there's controlled airspace.

Yeah, maybe you live in East Bumphuck West Egypt and you don't need it. Congratulations. But when you go to sell your airplane your customer is likely to be from a place with lots of people, and some controlled airspace. And odds are they'll either buy the other guy's airplane that's already equipped or they'll ask for a hefty discount on yours because they're going to have to equip it.
 
Last edited:
If there is a pilot that can not multitask to the point of putting traffic scanning both in and out of the cockpit into their cycle they shouldn’t be flying IMHO.

Flying is about multitasking. Adding a glance at the screen for traffic every few minutes should not be too much for any competent, even marginally competent pilot,

dbahn said:
I'm not so sure that I feel safer when I think that a pilot has his eyes focused on a screen without keeping a sharp lookout outside the cockpit, especially in the airport environment.
Click to expand...
 
MBDiagMan said:
If there is a pilot that can not multitask to the point of putting traffic scanning both in and out of the cockpit into their cycle they shouldn’t be flying IMHO.

Flying is about multitasking. Adding a glance at the screen for traffic every few minutes should not be too much for any competent, even marginally competent pilot,
Click to expand...

No argument with the concept, but my concern is the pilot who spends too much time looking at the screen and not enough time looking outside. I really do believe that there is a tendency to see a target on the screen and then instinctively look for it outside, even though there may be virtually no chance of spotting it at that distance and even though it's often travelling in a direction that doesn't pose a conflict anyway. It's human nature to perceive it as a threat and focus on the one tool that eliminates that threat, i.e. visual contact.

I'm reminded of a time when I was flying in Massachusetts and the controller dutifully announced traffic at my two o'clock position several miles away. He didn't see the glider activity at 12 o'clock and about a mile away, which I had already spotted as they turned in a thermal. Most gliders don't need to be transponder equipped and some may not even show up as a primary target due to their thin profiles, and not everyone is going to show up everywhere with ADS-B.
 
I think with a little practice you will find that a quick glance at the traffic indication tells you what you need to know. A few months ago, I got above the airport circling around doing engine break in and got plenty of experience glancing at returns and knowing exactly where they were, above or below and direction of travel.

This may open a debate, but I use North Up. That way I am orienting the direction on the screen with compass direction of traffic and myself. Many people prefer track up, but it just doesn’t work for me.

My wife very quickly got the hang of watching traffic on the screens. For a non pilot she’s a great copilot.

With almost no practice you will be good enough to easily glance at traffic and know what’s up without any fixation at all.
 
Weekend Warrior said:
I think you hit the nail on the head saying it makes you feel safer.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

There may be a generational factor in play. Many of us graybeards navigated safely for decades without swapping paint with another plane in airspace far busier than it is today. Midair collisions are horrible to contemplate, but very, very rare and way down the list of things that bring pilots down.

I think of it as “nice to have”, but for any given pilot over his or her flying career it’s very unlikely that it will alert you to avoid even a single unseen plane you would have hit otherwise.
 
MBDiagMan said:
So we should just ignore them?
Click to expand...

Well, the makers of Skywatch warned that one should never change course or altitude in an attempt to avoid traffic they cannot see. It can set up a “stutter-step” scenario where each plane maneuvers in such a way as to put them in conflict when they otherwise would not have been.

I think it’s good advice, but not regulatory, so do what you want.

That said, if I was alerted to traffic converging from a direction where I was blind, I would make S-turns to try to get a visual on the traffic.
 
Okay then, should I ignore it? I have enough sense to not dodge traffic I can’t see. I have that much sense. Really!

so should I just ignore it?
 
MBDiagMan said:
Okay then, should I ignore it? I have enough sense to not dodge traffic I can’t see. I have that much sense. Really!

so should I just ignore it?
Click to expand...

You’re just being silly. No one said to ignore it. I certainly didn’t. But it is best used as an aid in visually making contact with the traffic before altering course or changing altitude.
 
FastEddieB said:
Well, the makers of Skywatch warned that one should never change course or altitude in an attempt to avoid traffic they cannot see. It can set up a “stutter-step” scenario where each plane maneuvers in such a way as to put them in conflict when they otherwise would not have been.

I think it’s good advice, but not regulatory, so do what you want.

That said, if I was alerted to traffic converging from a direction where I was blind, I would make S-turns to try to get a visual on the traffic.
Click to expand...
This is solid advice. I’ve only changed my course once for traffic I couldn’t see. I could tell we both were headed for the same gap between rain showers and were both limited by the clouds above and the ground below. We were on a 90 degree intercept, knowing I was faster I turned to parallel his course to put some distance between us before returning to my original course.
 
What I was referencing from L3, Cirrus and UND:

49364719133_03a66e60a4_w.jpg


The underlining is in the PowerPoint slide and not something I added.
 
Warmi said:
It is safer - you are notified about planes around you even if this is not a 100% radar-like picture you are getting.
Click to expand...
It might be. But I'll wait until mid-air accident data comes out for 2020 and beyond before I say it IS safer.
 
There is a military product that uses quad-speaker headsets to alert you to traffic in 3-D space and uses voice command to declutter traffic you can see.

Too bad some low-life avionics manufacturer doesn't have such a product...
 
That’s the way at works. The stop signs are plugging up traffic flow everywhere except the dangerous intersections.
 
Weekend Warrior said:
It might be. But I'll wait until mid-air accident data comes out for 2020 and beyond before I say it IS safer.
Click to expand...

Mid-airs are very rare. It's going to take a long time and a lot of objective analysis to make any sense of mid-air accident data for 2020 and subsequent years.

When something happens once in 100,000 or x thousand chances, having it happen twice in one period doesn't really mean much.
 
MBDiagMan said:
That’s the way at works. The stop signs are plugging up traffic flow everywhere except the dangerous intersections.
Click to expand...

They don’t really plug up anything here. We just run them. LOL.

If I see a sheriff in my neighborhood someone called 911 a half an hour prior, or they’re sitting at the fire house or grabbing a snack at the gas station.

My favorite are the signs the politicians required that say “this road paved by blah blah sales tax” where the road has been paved for years and the signs were made so cheap they’re unreadable now unless you stop at one and take a closeup photo of it.

The other one that are great. “Zoned and ordinances” like that’s some kind of grand celebratory thing to put signs up saying you aren’t retarded... and “supports right to farm” like that’s something special too.

Gotta keep the sign shop busy I guess. LOL.

The “road may flood” sign that destroyed a buddy’s Ercoupe hasn’t been replaced. I guess it was super important to have there and they gave excellent records on where they install the things. LOL. You know, difficult places to find where flash flood water comes across the road... haha.

Useless garbage headed for the landfill.
 
MBDiagMan said:
Kind of like waiting for someone to die at an intersection so that you can justify a stop sign?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what you're trying to say. You're comparing ADSB to a stop sign?
Often, safety measures have unintended consequences. I do not feel (there's that word again, "feel") that the ADSB mandate is remotely worth the cost, but I'm willing to say that maybe it will save lives. It could also have unintended consequences and cost lives, or have no effect either way. Only time will tell.
 
Last edited:
hindsight2020 said:
Not only that, but this hobbyist fanaticism over TIS-B is and has been a monumental red herring in the mandate discussion.
Click to expand...
TIS-B or not TIS-B, that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune
Or to install ADS-B against a sea of troubles
And by detecting, avoid them.
 
Weekend Warrior said:
I'm not sure what you're trying to say. You're comparing ADSB to a stop sign?
Often, safety measures have unintended consequences. I do not feel (there's that word again, "feel") that the ADSB mandate is remotely worth the cost, but I'm willing to say that maybe it will save lives. It could also have unintended consequences and cost lives, or have no effect either way. Only time will tell.
Click to expand...

No wonder since you plucked part of what I wrote out of context.

The poster seemed to imply that the technology couldn’t be justified without a mid air collision caused by lack of the technology. If that is the implication, that is akin to the common situation where a stop sign or traffic light won’t be budgeted until someone dies at the intersection.
 
Last edited:
dbahn said:
Mid-airs are very rare. It's going to take a long time and a lot of objective analysis to make any sense of mid-air accident data for 2020 and subsequent years.

When something happens once in 100,000 or x thousand chances, having it happen twice in one period doesn't really mean much.
Click to expand...

Yes, 1 or 2 occurrences out of 100,000 is clearly insufficient data far any meaningful conclusion.
 
I believe that the gubmint has imposed an expense on the back of GA to force the fleet to be equipped or at least mostly equipped so that they can make another step of some sort with the technology. It irritates me that so many individuals have stepped up and paid the cost of admission while the gubmint is dragging their feet on the expenditures to complete the plan.
 
MBDiagMan said:
No wonder since you plucked part of what I wrote out of context.

The poster seemed to imply that the technology couldn’t be justified without a mid air collision caused by lack of the technology. If that is the implication, that is akin to the common situation where a stop sign or traffic light won’t be budgeted until someone dies at the intersection.
Click to expand...
Not "plucking out of context", I'm saying its not the same thing, or even close to the same thing. If I was using your stop sign example to explain ADSB, I'd say the government forces owners of vehicles to install a device that might tell them another car is approaching the intersection, but might not always work to tell you. And the device costs 1/10 of the value of the car or more. But in this case, it would be worth more than ADSB in aircraft, because running-the-stop-sign deaths are a much more significant cause of traffic fatalities.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top