TRAFFIC! (Now what?)

mikea

mikea

Touchdown! Greaser!
Gone West
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
16,975
Location
Lake County, IL
Display Name
Display name:
iWin
I only got my ADS-B IN working in Foreflight on my new (to me) iPad on the return leg.

It was CAVU although the setting sun was low and blinding behind me.

While I was within 10 miles of home and trying to figure out the landmarks and where my airport was, I see no less than 4 traffic targets.

2 were ahead and almost could have been heading to land where I was.

One was ahead and 200 feet above and crossing from my left. I descended some until it said it was 400 feet above. Never.saw.it.

One was 90 degrees to my course and going so slow that I was able to track it for a few minutes...until I got the AUDIO warning that it was 2 miles out at 9 O'Clock and at my altitude. I could.not.see.a.thing.

With all of that traffic ahead I did a semi-dumb thing and did a left 360. This didn't help (much) with whatever was supposed to be at 9 O'Clock but I guess I circled behind it. I could.not.see.a.thing.

So what should ya do? Climb or Dive?

I think I was happier not knowing and being saved by the Big Sky God.

I hear a plane ahead make 3 passes at landing until he finally decided to use runway 9 to have the sun behind. He was blinded trying to land on 27. The windsock was limp so I agreed with him.
 
I'd be on the radio, announcing my position the whole way, hoping they're on the airport frequency.
 
If you were tracking the one off your wing and you say it was slow moving. There should have been an adsb predictive track leader with it. Did that leader line pass behind you? Was it trending toward the same airport as you? Did it cross your own predictive track? If slow moving at 9 o’clock and two miles, and I’m doing 2 miles a minute and do not turn, it should pass behind?

Unless you were gaining on the two ahead of you a 360 may not be warranted.

Need to watch the trends on traffic, and it could have been a pop up target that was not previously reported by adsb.

Yes before adsb there was a lot of traffic not seen and Big Sky Theory did apply.
 
Climb? Dive? Who knows? Who knows what they are going to do next? I'd sure keep my head outta the cockpit for awhile. Lift a wing, drop a wing, have a look, kick in a foot full of rudder with opposite alierone to get the cowl outta the way to see whats dead ahead. Turn landing lights on if they ain't already. Have a glance or two at the fish bowl and see how things are looking. Above all, don't assume those are the only 4 airplanes out there.
 
have had good luck with just breaking off in the most traffic-devoid direction, circling for 2 or 3 minutes a couple miles away while the furball clears.
 
A certain guy here on POA got his nice new ads-b with traffic. Cool watching all the little dots moving about. I asked him if he could see the yellow Piper climbing towards us.

Just more information for the big picture. You still have to assemble the plan in your head and fly the airplane.
 
Interesting replies so far.

In the only traffic advisory device I’ve flown, Skywatch in a Cirrus, the POH was clear that it was only an aid to visually acquiring traffic, and that no evasive action was recommended until and unless visual contact was made.

Yes, lawyers may have been involved in that, but it’s what I taught and how I utilized it. There may or may not be similar cautions with other systems.

I’ll see if I can find the exact wording.
 
I found these in the Cirrus SR22 POH:

For Perspective: “Use of the TRAFFIC ADVISORY SYSTEM (TAS) to maneuver the airplane to avoid traffic is prohibited. The TAS is intended for advisory use only. TAS is intended only to help the pilot to visually located traffic. It is the responsibility of the pilot to see and maneuver to avoid traffic.”

For Skywatch: “Traffic information shown on the Perspective Integrated Avionics System displays is provided as an aid in visually acquiring traffic. Pilots must maneuver the aircraft based only upon ATC guidance or positive visual acquisition of conflicting traffic.”
 
About ADSB FAA says the same thing, advisory only, no evasive maneuvers to be taken based on that traffic call. I think u need a TCAS before u can act on the traffic call and make maneuvers.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
 
FastEddieB said:
I found these in the Cirrus SR22 POH:

For Perspective: “Use of the TRAFFIC ADVISORY SYSTEM (TAS) to maneuver the airplane to avoid traffic is prohibited. The TAS is intended for advisory use only. TAS is intended only to help the pilot to visually located traffic. It is the responsibility of the pilot to see and maneuver to avoid traffic.”

For Skywatch: “Traffic information shown on the Perspective Integrated Avionics System displays is provided as an aid in visually acquiring traffic. Pilots must maneuver the aircraft based only upon ATC guidance or positive visual acquisition of conflicting traffic.”
Click to expand...
PROHIBITED is funny. If you're flying VFR and not talking to ATC you can do whatever ya want.

I didn't see a predicted flight path but whatever that slow target was would have to be a ultralight or something like that. It practically hovered a few miles to the left of my course until I caught up to it and it became that traffic at 9 o'clock.

Sent from my Nexus 9 using Tapatalk
 
WannFly said:
About ADSB FAA says the same thing, advisory only, no evasive maneuvers to be taken based on that traffic call. I think u need a TCAS before u can act on the traffic call and make maneuvers.
Click to expand...

Yep.

AIM 4-4−17. Traffic Information Service (TIS)
a. TIS provides proximity warning only, to assist the pilot in the visual acquisition of intruder aircraft. No recommended avoidance maneuvers are provided nor authorized as a direct result of a TIS intruder display or TIS alert. It is intended for use by aircraft in which TCAS is not required.
 
mikea said:
PROHIBITED is funny. If you're flying VFR and not talking to ATC you can do whatever ya want.
Click to expand...

I suppose.

I think they’re just highlighting a real potential hazard: Two planes which had not been in danger of colliding each responding in a random fashion which could put them in conflict.

PROHIBITED might not be so funny if a pilot were ever called upon to justify an operation that his or her POH prohibited, or the AIM recommended against. Certainly unlikely, but I don’t tend to shrug off prohibitions lightly.

You, of course, can feel free to “do whatever ya want”.
 
Last edited:
Bw are u sure it was another traffic so close to u? Or was it your shadow? I have seen it when u have ADSB out and another receiver like stratux for ADSB IN. there is a setting is tratux to ignore the hex code and one in EFB to ignore ur own tail number

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
 
I don't maneuver based on blips on the screen that may or may not be where they are depicted.
 
I've seen my own shadow in ADSB. Scary to suddenly get an alert out of nowhere, see it for a minute or so, and have it disappear.
 
Be aware of your zoom level... except for those "ALERT!" ones, you may not be looking far enough out, or the target is just too dam far to ever see it against the background... I was looking for a target at my 12:00 once and couldn't spot it no matter how much I squinted o_O...until I realized it was over the 5 mile ring, on my display... Lesson Learned!:p
 
C'mon... you changed altitude and heading because your iJunk said there was plane that you never saw?

When you're on Flight Following do you make erratic changes at every traffic call?

I think you're just teasing with this... did you watch a 6PC video recently?
 
FastEddieB said:
I suppose.

I think they’re just highlighting a real potential hazard: Two planes which had not been in danger of colliding each responding in a random fashion which could put them in conflict.

PROHIBITED might not be so funny if a pilot were ever called upon to justify an operation that his or her POH prohibited, or the AIM recommended against. Certainly unlikely, but I don’t tend to shrug off prohibitions lightly.

You, of course, can feel free to “do whatever ya want”.
Click to expand...

"Do you have a display of traffic in the cockpit?"
"Did you notice the potential conflict?"
"Did you visually search for the other aircraft?"
"Did you receive a visual traffic alert?"
"Did you receive an audible traffic alert!"
"Did you visually search for the other aircraft?"
"Did you take any action to AVOID THE COLLISION?"
"No further questions"

Sent from my Nexus 9 using Tapatalk
 
FastEddieB said:
That’s the key - what action to take.

I’m not convinced that one or both planes taking random evasive action is necessary helpful.

But if anyone thinks it’s advantageous, be my guest.
Click to expand...
I get ya that we don't have the conflict resolution negotiation that the new TCAS does, but maybe if we did the standard turn to the right or such it would be a good practice.

I once encountered an airliner maybe 400 feet above in the floor of the Bravo turning to face me head on. I turned right and so did the jet.

Sent from my Nexus 9 using Tapatalk
 
mikea said:
"Do you have a display of traffic in the cockpit?"
"Did you notice the potential conflict?"
"Did you visually search for the other aircraft?"
"Did you receive a visual traffic alert?"
"Did you receive an audible traffic alert!"
"Did you visually search for the other aircraft?"
"Did you take any action to AVOID THE COLLISION?"
"No further questions"

Sent from my Nexus 9 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Maybe the attorney for the other side could ask "Do Federal regulations prohibit operating a civil aircraft without complying with the operating limitations specified in the approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual, markings, and placards?"

Amateur lawyering fantasies aside however, as PIC, I'm going to do whatever I consider necessary for a safe outcome under the circumstances.
 
Last edited:
When you get down, beat the GIB bloody for not doing his job.
Oh.
Right.
Sorry. Time slip. Flashback. My bad.

Turn away from the approaching aircraft. The rules are all in the Aim/FAR.
 
Shepherd said:
Turn away from the approaching aircraft. The rules are all in the Aim/FAR.
Click to expand...

True, but to repeat, the AIM also says this:

“AIM 4-4−17. Traffic Information Service (TIS)
a. TIS provides proximity warning only, to assist the pilot in the visual acquisition of intruder aircraft. No recommended avoidance maneuvers are provided nor authorized as a direct result of a TIS intruder display or TIS alert.”

I think this implies that avoidance maneuvers are to be made only after seeing the conflicting traffic
 
FastEddieB said:
True, but to repeat, the AIM also says this:

“AIM 4-4−17. Traffic Information Service (TIS)
a. TIS provides proximity warning only, to assist the pilot in the visual acquisition of intruder aircraft. No recommended avoidance maneuvers are provided nor authorized as a direct result of a TIS intruder display or TIS alert.”

I think this implies that avoidance maneuvers are to be made only after seeing the conflicting traffic
Click to expand...

I'd love to know what type of Spads we were still flying when that suggestion was written.
At the closing speeds of modern aircraft, by the time you see what's coming at you, it may already be too late.
 
FastEddieB said:
That’s the key - what action to take.

I’m not convinced that one or both planes taking random evasive action is necessary helpful.

But if anyone thinks it’s advantageous, be my guest.
Click to expand...
Why would they take random evasive action? Don't the FARs define what action they should take? I agree that it's iffy maneuvering for traffic that isn't there, but the maneuvering shouldn't be random.

And as for not seeing the traffic, on flight following recently, ATC kept calling traffic at my 12, opposite direction, same reported altitude. I saw nothing until ATC suggested a decent, and then I saw a tiny biplane coming at me, maybe 200' above.
 
FastEddieB said:
True, but to repeat, the AIM also says this:

“AIM 4-4−17. Traffic Information Service (TIS)
a. TIS provides proximity warning only, to assist the pilot in the visual acquisition of intruder aircraft. No recommended avoidance maneuvers are provided nor authorized as a direct result of a TIS intruder display or TIS alert.”

I think this implies that avoidance maneuvers are to be made only after seeing the conflicting traffic
Click to expand...

I think you said a few posts earlier that you have very limited or no experience with ADSB TIS in the cockpit. I can tell you from first hand experience that it is very helpful. Of course I always try to confirm the traffic visually, and it is almost always right where the iPad tells me it is. If I didn't see it, and it showed a real hazard, I would have no problem changing my course to avoid a conflict based solely on the TIS alert. Certainly there may be aircraft that don't show up on it at all, but if it shows one, experience has shown me that I need to believe it's there!
 
Upgrade to an F-22, you’ll never not see traffic, and in the event of a conflict you will most likely always win
 
Let me say this is not the hill I choose to die upon.

Using Skywatch, I’ve certainly had it call traffic that might conflict, been unable to spot it, and wondered what, if anything, I should do.

But then I remember that the designer of the system, the manufacturer of the plane and the FAA ALL recommend not taking evasive action unless and until visual contact is made. And I’ve consistently done that to date.

Maybe it’s the instructor in me, but I feel compelled to go with with the recommendations of the folks that designed and installed the equipment. I would certainly be loathe to recommend to any student, or forum dweller, to do anything other than follow those recommendations.
 
I pretty much ignore it, or don't really notice if I'm looking outside, which is often the case when I'm VFR.

Thing is, GA mid-airs in cruise are unicorn-rare.
 
FastEddieB said:
Let me say this is not the hill I choose to die upon.

Using Skywatch, I’ve certainly had it call traffic that might conflict, been unable to spot it, and wondered what, if anything, I should do.

But then I remember that the designer of the system, the manufacturer of the plane and the FAA ALL recommend not taking evasive action unless and until visual contact is made. And I’ve consistently done that to date.

Maybe it’s the instructor in me, but I feel compelled to go with with the recommendations of the folks that designed and installed the equipment. I would certainly be loathe to recommend to any student, or forum dweller, to do anything other than follow those recommendations.
Click to expand...
I don't have confidence in the infallibility of the FAA, nor in the wisdom of always following recommendations that were written to protect the manufacturer from liability. I'm the one whose life is on the line, not the FAA nor the manufacturer's attorneys. If experience shows that a particular piece of equipment is right about the direction of traffic more than 50% of the time, then I would think that that would mean that the probability of a collision would be reduced by altering course even if I am unsuccessful in spotting the traffic visually.
 
Palmpilot said:
I don't have confidence in the infallibility of the FAA...
Click to expand...

Nor does anyone posting to this thread, at least judging by the content of their posts. Nice Straw Man, there!

...nor in the wisdom of always following recommendations that were written to protect the manufacturer from liability.
Click to expand...

And I think this assumes facts not in evidence, and sends a dangerous message: that one should pick and choose which manufacturer’s recommendation, warnings, prohibitions or limitations are “real”, and which can be safely ignored. You are personally free to do so, so go right ahead. But I think one reason for the exemplary safety record of the airlines is strict adherence to procedures and limitations. It’s mainly the “little guys” that nibble around the edges and periodically come to grief doing so.
 
FastEddieB said:
And I think this assumes facts not in evidence, and sends a dangerous message: that one should pick and choose which manufacturer’s recommendation, warnings, prohibitions or limitations are “real”, and which can be safely ignored.
Click to expand...

So if I understand you correctly, if I (VFR) get an ADSB contact 2-3 miles at roughly 3:00 my altitude and speed with a 0 bearing rate on a course slightly to the left of mine, the book recommendation is that I take no action until see them. Making a turn to deconflict the zero bearing rate is something I should not do because a book written years ago tells me it's not safe to do.

Perhaps the book IS making CYA warnings.
 
bflynn said:
So if I understand you correctly, if I (VFR) get an ADSB contact 2-3 miles at roughly 3:00 my altitude and speed with a 0 bearing rate on a course slightly to the left of mine, the book recommendation is that I take no action until see them.
Click to expand...

Correct. That’s what I did when I had Skywatch in my Cirrus. And never ran into anyone, nor did they run into me.

Making a turn to deconflict the zero bearing rate is something I should not do because a book written years ago tells me it's not safe to do.
Click to expand...

No, it’s more that the “See” in “See and Avoid” is a time tested way of avoiding midair collisions. And that the designers of the systems in question designed them as an aid to making visual contact. When better systems become available, this may very well change.

But I think I’ve stated my case as clearly as possible, and that we’re pretty much at a point of diminishing returns, so I think I’ll bow out until this topic comes up again, as it inevitably will. At which point I’ll probably just point back to this thread.
 
See and Avoid works when you see them. If you read the description of mid-airs, the phrase that keeps coming up is "I never knew they were there". Strangely, that's the same thing the Navy guys have been saying lately. The Big Sky God helps us all, but he can be fickle at the strangest times.

Take early action to avoid close in contacts in the first place and whether you see them or not, you won't hit them.
 
Sundancer said:
I pretty much ignore it, or don't really notice if I'm looking outside, which is often the case when I'm VFR.

Thing is, GA mid-airs in cruise are unicorn-rare.
Click to expand...
Not unicorn-rare at all in high traffic areas. We’ve had two in the Denver area in the last ten years or so.
 
FastEddieB said:
Nor does anyone posting to this thread, at least judging by the content of their posts. Nice Straw Man, there!
Click to expand...
I understood you to be saying that if the FAA recommends against doing something, then that is sufficient reason by itself to not do that thing. Did I misunderstand you?

And I think this assumes facts not in evidence, and sends a dangerous message: that one should pick and choose which manufacturer’s recommendation, warnings, prohibitions or limitations are “real”, and which can be safely ignored. You are personally free to do so, so go right ahead. But I think one reason for the exemplary safety record of the airlines is strict adherence to procedures and limitations. It’s mainly the “little guys” that nibble around the edges and periodically come to grief doing so.
Click to expand...

A great deal more resources get applied to making sure that the procedures and limitations used in airline service are correct than is the case for general aviation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top