Thank God for ADS-B

iflyvfr said:
I admit that with ADSB-in only now, I can get caught up in the "game play" being presented on my Aera 510, iPhone, and 'Droid tablet, all connected to my GDL-39. I filter out anything >6 nms cuz it's just noise at that point. But even when I do add -out capability, I have to remember that there is still going to be a whole lot of planes without ADSB-out, just like there is today.
Click to expand...

I agree that anything outside of your local area is noise or as I term it, entertainment value only. With ADS-B Out, the ground station will broadcast TISB targets that are nearby your aircraft as long as the target has a transponder with an encoding altimeter. That should increase the % of traffic nearby your location being displayed on your equipment from the below 5% of the near traffic to as much as 95% of the near traffic. Without ADS-B Out, it is a toy and of little practical use.
 
denverpilot said:
Isn't that a bit low in high density areas since there's *usually* going to be multiple aircraft that would be generating "bubbles" for their own use that would generally overlap much of that airspace, triggering traffic to be sent up on 978?

Just wondering. I don't know.
Click to expand...

Most of the high density traffic that is ADS-B Out equipped is the result of airliners using down level ADS-B Out. These older systems do not broadcast the data that indicates to the ground station that they have any ADS-B In capability. Even those few airliners that are equipped with the compliant version have no use for ADS-B In and are configured as such. Since the older systems have no means of identifying their ADS-B In capability, for the time being, the ground station generates TISB for that aircraft on the same frequency of its ADS-B Out. So the TISB will be broadcast on 1090 MHz, but not on 978 MHz. In the case of the newer systems, they will not receive any TISB, because they will indicate they don't have the capability. So with a single frequency UAT receiver, there will not be much activity on 978 MHz. A dual frequency receiver will see the TISB generated by these aircraft and may be lit up so to speak. But these areas are mostly Class B and the airliners are up and away from the low altitudes, exiting and entering the B thru the top of the airspace.

Where there are more GA aircraft, there is a greater possibility of the aircraft being UAT equipped or ADS-B Out with UAT In. These aircraft are generally still relatively sparse as only about 10% of the GA fleet is equipped, and of that about a third are UAT equipped. There are some hot spots where a fleet of training aircraft is equipped and getting lit up is more common. You can usually tell if your aircraft is being lit up, because you will often see a ghost pop up around the initial time of this occurrence. Most software will eventually suppress the TISB once it determines the target is actually your aircraft, some do a better job than others. Even when you are lit up, the question remains, where are you with respect to the ADS-B Out equipped aircraft (client). It is very often the case your altitude or position and the client are diverging, so the period of time that you are lit up can be a matter of minutes. For example, assume you are near a client that departs an airport and you are 3000 feet above the airport. When the client gets to 500 of 1000 AGL, it will probably light you up. Assuming it is climbing to altitude and leaving the area, it will pass thru your altitude on the way up. As long as you remain within 15 NM of the client and 3500 feet of its altitude, you will remain lit up. Some points, it is the client that is protected and although it lights you up, the area around you that is also lit up is not easily determined. You will only see traffic that is within the clients area and it is moving. When I see screenshots of traffic (usually ghost complaints), it is often difficult to locate the aircraft that is lighting up the aircraft. It is not something I would expect a pilot to do on the fly to be doing an analysis such as "So the client is 12 miles from me and 2500 feet above me, that means that I am only going to see his traffic that is 1000 feet below me and 3 miles to this side". Not going to happen.

If you are seeing pop up ghosts you are probably being lit up. But to what extent around, above and below you is also lit up? If you have a single frequency UAT receiver, it will be a mostly traffic free day.
 
Good info, John. I hadn't seen the ghosting problem explained quite that way before. As you mentioned, some software is better at separating out the ghost than others.
 
John Collins said:
Most of the high density traffic that is ADS-B Out equipped is the result of airliners using down level ADS-B Out. These older systems do not broadcast the data that indicates to the ground station that they have any ADS-B In capability. Even those few airliners that are equipped with the compliant version have no use for ADS-B In and are configured as such. Since the older systems have no means of identifying their ADS-B In capability, for the time being, the ground station generates TISB for that aircraft on the same frequency of its ADS-B Out. So the TISB will be broadcast on 1090 MHz, but not on 978 MHz. In the case of the newer systems, they will not receive any TISB, because they will indicate they don't have the capability. So with a single frequency UAT receiver, there will not be much activity on 978 MHz. A dual frequency receiver will see the TISB generated by these aircraft and may be lit up so to speak. But these areas are mostly Class B and the airliners are up and away from the low altitudes, exiting and entering the B thru the top of the airspace.

Where there are more GA aircraft, there is a greater possibility of the aircraft being UAT equipped or ADS-B Out with UAT In. These aircraft are generally still relatively sparse as only about 10% of the GA fleet is equipped, and of that about a third are UAT equipped. There are some hot spots where a fleet of training aircraft is equipped and getting lit up is more common. You can usually tell if your aircraft is being lit up, because you will often see a ghost pop up around the initial time of this occurrence. Most software will eventually suppress the TISB once it determines the target is actually your aircraft, some do a better job than others. Even when you are lit up, the question remains, where are you with respect to the ADS-B Out equipped aircraft (client). It is very often the case your altitude or position and the client are diverging, so the period of time that you are lit up can be a matter of minutes. For example, assume you are near a client that departs an airport and you are 3000 feet above the airport. When the client gets to 500 of 1000 AGL, it will probably light you up. Assuming it is climbing to altitude and leaving the area, it will pass thru your altitude on the way up. As long as you remain within 15 NM of the client and 3500 feet of its altitude, you will remain lit up. Some points, it is the client that is protected and although it lights you up, the area around you that is also lit up is not easily determined. You will only see traffic that is within the clients area and it is moving. When I see screenshots of traffic (usually ghost complaints), it is often difficult to locate the aircraft that is lighting up the aircraft. It is not something I would expect a pilot to do on the fly to be doing an analysis such as "So the client is 12 miles from me and 2500 feet above me, that means that I am only going to see his traffic that is 1000 feet below me and 3 miles to this side". Not going to happen.

If you are seeing pop up ghosts you are probably being lit up. But to what extent around, above and below you is also lit up? If you have a single frequency UAT receiver, it will be a mostly traffic free day.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the info John.

I'm obviously (like most people) using a dual receiver and see plenty of traffic. I don't pretend I see everything though, and I'm not misinformed about that.

The entire "light up a small area" idea is retarded engineering.

If the system can support the traffic density after 2020 when everyone in controlled airspace will be mandated to have Out, there's absolutely no reason at all for it.

Seems like a crippling of the system on purpose to create a fake need for Out.

As far as airliners being "up and away", not around here. The ground is at 6000 and the top of the Bravo compared to other Bravos is compressed downward. In fact the closest ADS-B traffic I've seen was a 737 being vectored over the top of me, when I was at 7500 and he was at 9000 during a runway shift at DEN. They sent numerous aircraft around the "pattern" (shall we call it..) at 9000, right above all us bugsmashers.

Oh and I've seen the ghost also. It goes away in an update or two on the Stratux/Foreflight dual-receiver combo.

My favorite was circling the ADS-B 978 tower itself with Foreflight showing it was receiving at "Low" signal strength. Haha. Don't think I could have been any closer without busting the 1000' AGL rule. (The tower is in a rural area near my home but it would be considered densely populated enough that the 1000' AGL rule would apply.)

Nice FAA aviation orange and white paint though -- the three other towers on that ridgeline aren't painted, and they're not close enough to APA or tall enough to be in the paint required or lighting required area, so I guess they're just wasting more money on paint. That takes a tower crew an entire day to do, and is generally a mess. Don't know why they bothered. LOL. Wasteful.

Kinda like wasting spectrum with dead air when there's ANY traffic inside the coverage area. Would be interesting if someone were to have a mid-air and they find an In only device in the wreckage that was logging and it's intact enough to prove the other target was never sent to the airplane In equipped. Could make for an interesting lawsuit -- if we were allowed to sue government for negligence.

Keeping tha information on the ground in the computer, only because there isn't an Out bubble nearby, inside the controlled airspace the transmitters are supposed to cover, isn't just bad design, it borders on unethical.

Maybe even immoral if it gets someone killed.

No worries, we know. It's all VFR and all the pilot's fault. See and avoid. Standard FAA response cued up for that one.

I never hope a mid-air happens but if one does and there are fatalities, here's hoping its someone beloved and famous in a small airplane with an in-only device and the press digs in hard and exposes the "bubble" crap.

("You mean to tell us that FAA computers knew there was traffic nearby and even though Beloved Person had a traffic receiver, FAA computers didn't send that information to him?")

I do hope the press fries them for the bubble thing if something like that happens.

Wonder where the so called pilot advocacy groups are on this one? Should be shaming the FAA in print, and online mercilessly over this one. The bubble significantly detracts from air safety, it doesn't add to it.

Which tells us all what we need to know about the cover story that ADS-B is about air safety. It's not. It's about identification.
 
Everskyward said:
There were definitely more midairs, especially involving airlines, before TCAS. Look at how many there were in the 60s and 70s compared with the 80s and later. Then remember there were far fewer airliners flying.

http://www.airsafe.com/events/midair.htm

Personally, I came close to many more airplanes before I started flying one with TCAS. Like others, I was surprised at how many targets I couldn't see. The big sky theory works to a large extent, but see and avoid has many limitations.
Click to expand...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought Mode C was not required in the 70s. I seem to recall a horrific midair in LA in the late 70s because the controllers didn't realize a light single had busted the TCA without clearance, and had assumed he was below it.

Wouldn't Mode C be a much bigger deal that TCAS due to the altitude information being otherwise unavailable?
 
denverpilot said:
That doesn't say good things for transponders and ATC, if true. Have you gotten a lot of TCAS RAs in controlled airspace where transponders are required?

Because I'm kinda doubting you're flying much on non-IFR flight plans outside of controlled airspace much for these incidents you're saying you've seen.

And just the transponder requirement, changing from the 60s to present, not TCAS, was supposed to take care of that.

TCAS simply added to the ability to "see" what was already supposed to have been being seen by ATC.

For traffic visibility, ADS-B adds nothing really unless used in places where there's no radar coverage at all, and they've already said that won't be happening anytime soon. It does add a specific way to identify all traffic by a unique code, is all.
Click to expand...
I don't know what you would call "a lot", but we will get a traffic alert maybe every 25 hours and a RA every 100 hours. These are made up numbers. Most of them are in airspace around metro areas where we are IFR and under radar control but the other airplane us not. I don't understand your complaint about transponders since TCAS works off transponder signals. I think transponders and TCAS have played a large part in reducing midairs and near midairs involving airliners after it was mandated for them.
 
MAKG1 said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought Mode C was not required in the 70s. I seem to recall a horrific midair in LA in the late 70s because the controllers didn't realize a light single had busted the TCA without clearance, and had assumed he was below it.

Wouldn't Mode C be a much bigger deal that TCAS due to the altitude information being otherwise unavailable?
Click to expand...
I don't remember when the requirement for Mode C started. But TCAS needs both airplanes to have Mode C or there is no way for it to determine whether the airplanes should climb it descend during a RA.
 
Everskyward said:
There were definitely more midairs, especially involving airlines, before TCAS. Look at how many there were in the 60s and 70s compared with the 80s and later. Then remember there were far fewer airliners flying.

http://www.airsafe.com/events/midair.htm
Click to expand...

I hate arguing with you for all sorts of reasons, but I gotta. According to what you posted, there has been one midair collision in the last 20 years. That isn't what I call a lot. I at one point looked up all the midair collisions in the last decade. What I found was the number that occur each year could be counted on the fingers of one hand. It just wasn't as pervasive a problem as all the verbiage would lead one to believe. You are still far more likely to die from inadvertently flying into IMC or fungi out of gas.
 
steingar said:
According to what you posted, there has been one midair collision in the last 20 years. That isn't what I call a lot.
Click to expand...
That was my point. There have been fewer midairs after TCAS was required for airliners and transponders were required for everyone else.
 
Everskyward said:
That was my point. There have been fewer midairs after TCAS was required for airliners and transponders were required for everyone else.
Click to expand...

While I won't discount the notion, has there ever been a direct link to TCAS=lower mid-air rate? I figured there would be a lot of variables that could play into that mid-air statistic, like procedure/regulation changes (airspace changes, IFR/VFR routing/altitudes), other technology additions (ATC radar, GPS, etc.), and even something as benign as more modern paint schemes for visual contrast. Just thinking out loud.
 
Everskyward said:
That was my point. There have been fewer midairs after TCAS was required for airliners and transponders were required for everyone else.
Click to expand...

My point was there weren't a lot in GA to begin with. That said, I didn't go back 4 decades in my analysis. Then again, most light aircraft never had TCAS.
 
steingar said:
My point was there weren't a lot in GA to begin with. That said, I didn't go back 4 decades in my analysis. Then again, most light aircraft never had TCAS.
Click to expand...
I wasn't talking about midairs or near midairs between GA airplanes. I was talking about how the TCAS requirements for airlines and the transponder requirements for everyone (with certain exceptions) have lessened the occurrence of midair collisions betweens airliners and others (sometimes other airliners, sometimes GA).
 
Everskyward said:
I wasn't talking about midairs or near midairs between GA airplanes. I was talking about how the TCAS requirements for airlines and the transponder requirements for everyone (with certain exceptions) have lessened the occurrence of midair collisions betweens airliners and others (sometimes other airliners, sometimes GA).
Click to expand...

But that's not really the reason they don't have mid airs as often, it's the nature of their flights.

You takeoff from, usually, highly controlled and radar intensive airspace, climb out and thousand upon thousands of feet per minute into Alpha, where it's just you and the other IFR dudes, the price of admission into A airspace is high enough to keep most riff raft out, then you decent for landing back into highly controlled and radar intensive airspace and a rate which would make non pressurized aircraft pilots cry like a little girl.

Does TCAS help, sure, but not nearly as much as how airliners operate in the first place.
 
James331 said:
But that's not really the reason they don't have mid airs as often, it's the nature of their flights.

You takeoff from, usually, highly controlled and radar intensive airspace, climb out and thousand upon thousands of feet per minute into Alpha, where it's just you and the other IFR dudes, the price of admission into A airspace is high enough to keep most riff raft out, then you decent for landing back into highly controlled and radar intensive airspace and a rate which would make non pressurized aircraft pilots cry like a little girl.

Does TCAS help, sure, but not nearly as much as how airliners operate in the first place.
Click to expand...
If you (and others) had looked at the link I posted above, you would have seen that midairs involving airliners were much more common in the 60s and 70s, before TCAS, and when there were fewer airliners flying. There would be a huge amount of public outcry today if midairs were that common.

http://www.airsafe.com/events/midair.htm
 
I wonder how much time many of the eager posters have spent in aircraft without a transponder or radios. Considering that some think that's just inexcusably reckless, I'm guessing those haven't done it. Maybe it would help with perspective?
 
John Collins said:
You were extremely lucky to see any traffic nearby. The traffic you do see nearby is real as was true in this case, but with just ADS-B In, you will be lucky to see 5% of the near by traffic.
Click to expand...
John, is there an easy explanation for why one might not see traffic called out by ATC on an ADS-B display even though one has ADS-B out? To be specific, I have a GDL90 driving a GMX-200 and have, several times, not been able to see traffic called out to me on the display (after first searching for it visually, of course). This is the exception rather than the rule, but it has definitely happened.
 
Everskyward said:
If you (and others) had looked at the link I posted above, you would have seen that midairs involving airliners were much more common in the 60s and 70s, before TCAS, and when there were fewer airliners flying. There would be a huge amount of public outcry today if midairs were that common.

http://www.airsafe.com/events/midair.htm
Click to expand...

What were the airspace and radar coverage and airliner climb rate differences between then and now?
 
James331 said:
What were the airspace and radar coverage and airliner climb rate differences between then and now?
Click to expand...
I don't think the climb rates of airliners have changed much since before TCAS (late 1980s, early 1990s?). Radar coverage is better but much of that, including the requirement for transponders was in response to the midair collisions, just like TCAS was.
 
steingar said:
I hate arguing with you for all sorts of reasons, but I gotta. According to what you posted, there has been one midair collision in the last 20 years. That isn't what I call a lot. I at one point looked up all the midair collisions in the last decade. What I found was the number that occur each year could be counted on the fingers of one hand. It just wasn't as pervasive a problem as all the verbiage would lead one to believe. You are still far more likely to die from inadvertently flying into IMC or fungi out of gas.
Click to expand...

I am not arguing but just asking and question to the collective. US only and easily googled, July 7, 2015 f-16 strikes Cessna 150
Aug 8,2009 piper pa-32 strikes tour helicopter
July 27,2007 two news helicopters strikes each other

That is three easily found in the last 9 years that could have been prevented if some system alerted the pilots involved of unseen traffic in the US and that number quickly goes beyond one hand world wide. I love my ADSB when I fly. I set the filters and know when something I should care about is happening. Either I see it before the alert or it tells me and I look closer in that general direction. Knowing when traffic is 5 miles away and within 2000 either way I get the alert. I can see some person playing or training 5-10 miles out and adjust path/altitude accordingly. I don't stare at the ADSB info. It is a tool used to assist with the success with the flight just like my altimeter or oil pressure gauge.

The reluctance of some against ADSB for the sake of anything besides money or lack of electronics in the aircraft to me seems a bit scary. Do you also feel it's your car and seat belts should be optional or its your motorcycle and helmets are going to detract from the joy? What business is it that you don't wear your belts or helmet. Except a rock nails you in forehead, you spill bike or smash into oncoming traffic causing an accident. You are driving along and tire blows, car violently swerves hard right/left and you lose control of car since you are sliding across the seat. What is stopping you from hitting that oncoming traffic or that day school you were driving by? You can laugh/huff at both of those examples for your car but they happened.

ADSB is one of many tools that can (and appears to) improve safety for everyone at what is now available at a fairly low price. Replace your transponder with say a stratus esg or kt74 or new garmin gtx 345. This way if you don't see me up there I will see you and will just fly around you.
 
q5kacom said:
The reluctance of some against ADSB for the sake of anything besides money or lack of electronics in the aircraft to me seems a bit scary. Do you also feel it's your car and seat belts should be optional or its your motorcycle and helmets are going to detract from the joy? What business is it that you don't wear your belts or helmet. Except a rock nails you in forehead, you spill bike or smash into oncoming traffic causing an accident. You are driving along and tire blows, car violently swerves hard right/left and you lose control of car since you are sliding across the seat. What is stopping you from hitting that oncoming traffic or that day school you were driving by? You can laugh/huff at both of those examples for your car but they happened.
Click to expand...

Trying not to make this political, but you are obviously pro-nanny state in the extreme. Yes, it absolutely should be your choice whether or not you wear a seat belt, or a motorcycle helmet. What steps you take to protect your life is none of anyone's concern. How has a helmet-less biker ever affected you? The answer is NONE. The most you can argue is increased medical bills when they crash, but that's why they pay for their health insurance. How many safety nets and devices must one use and purchase in order to satisfy everyone in the name of safety? Same goes with tech gadgets like ADS-B. There's no reason to mandate them for all aircraft and all airspace, nor to imply that everyone should have them. If they want to use nothing but the Mk1 eyeball to maintain compliance with the FAA regulation for VFR flight, they should be within their right to do so without any condemnation from anyone else.

Side note: if an F-16 smokes a C150 with all of the traffic/targeting tech available to a Viper driver, your point about TCAS is a bit silly. Sometimes bad things happen and you can't prevent every accident from happening short of everyone just staying at home clothed in bubble wrap.
 
But that person rinding their motorcycle on public street without a helmet could affect me just like the person driving their car without a seatbelt. I am not pro-nanny. What you do in your personal space is entirely up to you and no-one should tell you what you can or can not do on your personal property. I am pro-take take all reasonable effort to not effect anyone else when you are in control in public. Rock hits motorcyclist in face/head and rider wrecks but also strikes another car/bike/personal property. The brain bucket isn't just to capture the head while the rest of the body dies, it is to make that rider as safe as possible for very minor accidents and to protect their head while they are riding. Getting hit in chest or hand with a rock while riding hurts but you are not going to dump the bike or swerve into traffic. Get hit in head with one and it could cause the rider to lose control.

Flying around without ADSB means only eyeballs and maybe radar/TIS is able to identify your location. We all trust ourselves but how many of us trust everyone else. Knowing that I am not invincible and I don't know everything means I use all available tools and not rely on just one. Having an electronic eye helping to identify traffic is not a negative and helps make my flight safer. The privilege to fly or drive is that, a privilege. If you are afraid that someone is tracking you, then cut off all ties to the real world and learn to survive off the grid as privacy is gone in this digital age.
 
I do not support a nanny-state. However, I don't see ADSB as part of such a state. It is simply increasing everyone else's chance to see and avoid you, as much as your's to see and avoid them. And other than the cost, which compared to what most spend on their planes is not much, I don't understand anyone's objection to it. I'll give you the argument that one shouldn't be forced to spend $5k on ADSB for a $20k aircraft. But, you won't have to, as long as you don't mind staying out of the airspace where ADSB will be required.

A balance must always be struck between the rights and freedoms of the individual vs that of the public's welfare, and great caution must be taken to avoid going to far in either direction. However, in the reasonable interests of public safety, I believe ADSB is a step in the right direction. It is not perfect. Nothing ever is. And it should not be relied upon as one's sole means of avoiding other traffic. Nothing should, including our eyeballs, which are even more fallible. All available tools should be used in a prudent and responsible fashion.

Regardless of what anyone says here, I will forever believe that my measly little ADSB-in almost certainly saved my butt the other night. Had the other guy been properly illuminated, that would not have been the case. At the very least, it avoided scaring my wife so much that she might not have ever agreed to fly with me again. Will I always fly with ADSB? Yes, as that is my right. Will it make me less aware? No. But that's just me. Will it make me spend less time looking outside? Of course not. The view is more interesting out there.
 
SoonerAviator said:
Trying not to make this political, but you are obviously pro-nanny state in the extreme. Yes, it absolutely should be your choice whether or not you wear a seat belt, or a motorcycle helmet. What steps you take to protect your life is none of anyone's concern. How has a helmet-less biker ever affected you? The answer is NONE. The most you can argue is increased medical bills when they crash, but that's why they pay for their health insurance. How many safety nets and devices must one use and purchase in order to satisfy everyone in the name of safety? Same goes with tech gadgets like ADS-B. There's no reason to mandate them for all aircraft and all airspace, nor to imply that everyone should have them. If they want to use nothing but the Mk1 eyeball to maintain compliance with the FAA regulation for VFR flight, they should be within their right to do so without any condemnation from anyone else.

Side note: if an F-16 smokes a C150 with all of the traffic/targeting tech available to a Viper driver, your point about TCAS is a bit silly. Sometimes bad things happen and you can't prevent every accident from happening short of everyone just staying at home clothed in bubble wrap.
Click to expand...

LOL at ADSB being nanny state. I don't care if you wear your seatbelt in your plane. I don't care if you do barrel roles over tree tops and under powerlines in non residential areas with no seatbelt. That is on you. I care that you have ADSB and a damn radio so I know where you are. Goofballs flying around with no radios or ADSB are irresponsible if they can afford it. I am glad ADSB is being mandated and hope some of you guys would at least pick up a handheld radio when buzzing around in the pattern with other planes.
 
Last edited:
I guess that I'm irresponsible and unsafe because I will be flying around without ADSB in my no electrical system Champ.
I do have a handheld radio though, I use it to get in and out of my Class D airport. Then I turn it off to save the battery, plus I don't have to listen to NN tie up the freqs with their long and rambling transmissions.
 
azure said:
I'm not exactly sure why, but this is not necessarily true, at least not yet. I have had traffic called out to me by ATC that I did not see on ADS-B. I have an old GDL90, but I'm not sure that has anything to do with it. There may still be some bugs/quirks in the system to be worked out.
Click to expand...

Like a lot of things, it depends. If you have certified ADS-B out that meets FAA standards, your airplane will then receive aircraft that ATC has on radar. If you are just using a Stratus 2 and iPad, it probably won't work as well and you may not receive everything ATC has. If you or your targets or both are flying outside/below ATC radar coverage, there are units (Lynx 9000+ for example) that will show you all aircraft that have a transponder but still won't show non-transponder aircraft.

I think ADS-B is great and plan to install it in my modest airplane at annual. I am still researching, but am leaning towards the Lynx 9000+ because I do quite a bit of flying in areas that ATC radar may not reach.
 
FastEddieB said:
This thread makes me sad.

How far some have moved from the simple joy of flight.
Click to expand...

Not I, FastEddieB. But, I am under Memphis Class B so have little choice regarding ADS-B unless I move my airplane. I still revel in the simple joy of flight :)!
 
I think it is plain that the FAA will have a large pool of potential employees to draw upon; we are surrounded by those in aviation whose long term goal is to kill GA with expensive rules.
 
Three mid-airs? That's not a crisis. I understand ADS-B isn't purpose built to prevent mid-airs between VFR GA, got that. . .

But when used for that purpose, it won't add much measurable safety for GA flying in general - we just don't hit each other very often.

I guess I'm saying it's an illusion, self deception, to think GA is inherently safe, or ADS-B will make much diffrence, regarding mid-airs. It's handy for the FAA, has some good utility for us. . .but GA has higher inherent risk than I'm hearing acknowledged here. The drive to the airport is safer, and if you're looking for a comparable level of safety, it doesn't exist in SEL GA flying.

The OP had a lot more likely terminal events than the semi-near, kinda nearby, sorta, almost, collision - like engine or prop failure, fire, VFR into IMC, catastrophic bird strike, etc.

When I retire, I'll look for a rag wing, sans electrical system, buy a hand held for the pattern, and hope the guys with thier heads down and locked stay in controlled airspace.
 
I keep getting a shadow on garmin pilot with a gdl-39 (no ads-b out) that pops up a yellow diamond right on my ass 100 feet below. Scares the crap out of me everytime.
 
somorris said:
Like a lot of things, it depends. If you have certified ADS-B out that meets FAA standards, your airplane will then receive aircraft that ATC has on radar. If you are just using a Stratus 2 and iPad, it probably won't work as well and you may not receive everything ATC has. If you or your targets or both are flying outside/below ATC radar coverage, there are units (Lynx 9000+ for example) that will show you all aircraft that have a transponder but still won't show non-transponder aircraft.
Click to expand...
The GDL90 was originally marketed as conforming to FAA requirements for ADS-B out, and the seller that I bought the plane from claimed that the plane was "ready for 2020". Apparently that's not true, but I'm still not clear on where it falls short of meeting the standards. Also, I seem to see the vast majority of ATC targets; it's rare that I can't see something that is called out to me on the display, and I usually see plenty of traffic that isn't. So I'm pretty sure I see a lot more than someone with just a Stratus 2 and iPad would. I just don't understand what causes me to miss those few targets I know they have but I can't see. At least some of them are clearly both primary and secondary targets for ATC (they have the target's position and reported altitude).

I posted the question for John Collins elsewhere in the thread and am hoping he will have an answer for me.
 
Again. Why all the assumptions that those of us who fly with ADSB, GPS, Radios, and transponders, are flying with our heads down and don't enjoy flying as much as those of you in cloth-covered birds with no electrical? I just doesn't make any sense to me.
 
So we are "fixing" a problem one can count on one hand over nearly w decade, at a total all in cost of over $2B that we can't afford since its all on loans, in an airspace system that moves thousands and thousands of flights per day.

I keep saying it, but nobody it getting the message. ADS-B isn't about safety. It's about identification. And empire building.
 
txflyer said:
I keep getting a shadow on garmin pilot with a gdl-39 (no ads-b out) that pops up a yellow diamond right on my ass 100 feet below. Scares the crap out of me everytime.
Click to expand...

Just you getting lit up from time to time. ADS-B traffic without ADS-B Out is a toy and used for entertainment purposes.
 
denverpilot said:
So we are "fixing" a problem one can count on one hand over nearly w decade, at a total all in cost of over $2B that we can't afford since its all on loans, in an airspace system that moves thousands and thousands of flights per day.

I keep saying it, but nobody it getting the message. ADS-B isn't about safety. It's about identification. And empire building.
Click to expand...

The FAA is not "fixing" a problem one can count on one hand. It was never their stated intention. Read the justification in the Federal Register and the NPRM.

Not only you keep saying it, the FAA does as well. Never was intended as a poor man's traffic system and you are only poor after you purchase it, at best that is a carrot and the FAA calls the application an aid to visual acquisition and not intended or suitable for traffic avoidance. The airlines don't use it, they have TCAS. High end GA has TAS or TCAS. The FAA agrees with you on the primary point of the system is surveillance. Its primary application is for the airlines. The more sophisticated applications of ADS-B In will only be available in high end systems and benefit the airlines.
 
azure said:
John, is there an easy explanation for why one might not see traffic called out by ATC on an ADS-B display even though one has ADS-B out? To be specific, I have a GDL90 driving a GMX-200 and have, several times, not been able to see traffic called out to me on the display (after first searching for it visually, of course). This is the exception rather than the rule, but it has definitely happened.
Click to expand...

By design, primary targets and transponder targets that are not reporting an altitude won't generate a TISB. ATC may know the altitude via being in communication with the pilot of the aircraft. There are occasional glitches in the tracking of targets, particularly near airports (track jumping) or ADSE-X systems at the major airports. System failures are also possible or being at the edges of service volumes or service volume boundaries. My experience is that the vast majority of targets show up. I have seen TIS (aka TIS-A) show targets without a relative altitude and ADS-B not show a TISB for that reason.
 
John Collins said:
By design, primary targets and transponder targets that are not reporting an altitude won't generate a TISB. ATC may know the altitude via being in communication with the pilot of the aircraft. There are occasional glitches in the tracking of targets, particularly near airports (track jumping) or ADSE-X systems at the major airports. System failures are also possible or being at the edges of service volumes or service volume boundaries. My experience is that the vast majority of targets show up. I have seen TIS (aka TIS-A) show targets without a relative altitude and ADS-B not show a TISB for that reason.
Click to expand...
The "vast majority" is consistent with my experience, too. I was just curious about the exceptions. Thanks for the info.
 
denverpilot said:
I keep saying it, but nobody it getting the message. ADS-B isn't about safety. It's about identification. And empire building.
Click to expand...
I think most of us realize it, Nate. Even the name makes it clear that it's about SURVEILLANCE.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top