Thank God for ADS-B

I agree with TexDeuce. But I also agree with SoonerAviator. (Except for the last 3 words.)

Not installing something because you cannot afford it, and you are willing to accept the limitations of where you can fly because you chose not to install ADSB is one thing. But not installing something that will make it safer for not only you, but your passengers and the rest of us in the sky simply because you don't want to, because you've been flying since Jesus was in diapers and you didn't need it then... Well, that is simply irresponsible.

The sky will get fuller, just as the roads do. Technology will find its way into all modes of transportation, and our ability to guide our machines by hands, feet, and eyeballs will be eroded. Or, we can stick with the horse and buggy and the smell of horse dung will be everywhere.
 
People got around fine without GPS also.. do you agree that we should all stick with ADF and VORs? I believe if you can afford it you should get it.. until you fly with in/out you won't realize how beneficial it is..
 
I pulled up the most recent 15 midairs from the ASI database, and they all occurred in Day VMC conditions. The Mark I eyeball has some serious, known deficiencies. I don't understand the argument against additional SA in regards to traffic as provided by ADS-B, unless you have some sort of sick death wish?
 
uncreative said:
I pulled up the most recent 15 midairs from the ASI database, and they all occurred in Day VMC conditions. The Mark I eyeball has some serious, known deficiencies. I don't understand the argument against additional SA in regards to traffic as provided by ADS-B, unless you have some sort of sick death wish?
Click to expand...

It's common to assume that more gadgets = more safety. It's not always true.

As an example, people widely assumed that antilock brakes would dramatically reduce car accidents, and for a while insurance discounts were available for its installation. Except, once the data was in, it showed no significant difference, and you won't get that discount anymore.

For the "fish finder," it CAN be helpful, but it is not all benefit. I've gotten more alerts from aircraft taxiing on a taxiway on the ground than I care for. This trains you to ignore it. And it is one more device to manage. If you've ever gotten task saturated, you will lose SA in a hurry, fish finder or not. And the fish finder can contribute to task saturation, especially if alerts during a critical time or during an emergency for another IFR aircraft 1000 feet below you.
 
I'll be in California for vacation soon ... can someone lend me their water ADS-B so I can see how many sharks are nearby that I didn't locate with my eyes?:eek::rolleyes:
 
Firefighter_324 said:
People got around fine without GPS also.. do you agree that we should all stick with ADF and VORs? I believe if you can afford it you should get it.. until you fly with in/out you won't realize how beneficial it is..
Click to expand...

If you want to fly with ADF/VOR, or even just ded reckoning/pilotage have at it. Someone who wants to do so is under no responsibility to me to use GPS. I don't care if they're a millionaire, they can fly with nothing but round dials and I'm fine with it. Just because the technology exists doesn't mean that anyone should be compelled to adopt it unless they want to. Whether or not you can afford it is entirely irrelevant.

uncreative said:
I pulled up the most recent 15 midairs from the ASI database, and they all occurred in Day VMC conditions. The Mark I eyeball has some serious, known deficiencies. I don't understand the argument against additional SA in regards to traffic as provided by ADS-B, unless you have some sort of sick death wish?
Click to expand...

I'm in no way arguing against the utility and advancement of ADS-B (or other) tech. I simply don't think it's going to have the impact some think it will and I sure don't think it should be a metric to determine whether someone is an idiot if they don't have it. If you used "see and avoid" and never had a mid-air, or use a fish finder and never had a mid-air, who's right or wrong? It's nice to know where some of the other targets are, but it doesn't change my opinion that, in probably 99.9% of the instances, the traffic is "no factor". Just like having cell phones in cars, there can be some real detriments to having a lot of tech and information in front of your face while operating a complex machine in 3-dimensions.
 
Yeah. And they shouldn't be required anywhere! Because the "big skies" approach works just fine. Safety? Pffft. But at what cost?!
 
ircphoenix said:
Yeah. And they shouldn't be required anywhere! Because the "big skies" approach works just fine. Safety? Pffft. But at what cost?!
Click to expand...

By that notion, we should require all classic/muscle cars to be outfitted with ABS, airbags, and crumple zones. ADS-B is fine, and will be slowly adopted into new aircraft and into older aircraft when upgrading avionics over time. We don't really have a high incidence of mid-air collisions, so it's not like the tried and true method of see-and-avoid is failing us at some unacceptable rate. If you want to try and go after something in the name of safety, try going after a method of keeping idiot pilots from running out of go-juice as often as they seem to. That would likely have a far greater impact on the safety of GA (and those on the ground) than watching a fish finder.
 
You will hear no argument from me on that point. Some sort of light and audible "hey stupid, fill 'er up" bitchin' Betty system would be highly advisable in GA aircraft.
 
Those who do not change and adapt get left behind.

'nuff said.
 
Rykymus,

You did not mention if your aircraft was ADS-B Out equipped. Is it? Of course without ADS-B Out, you are only likely to see a few percent of the traffic that is nearby.
 
Rykymus said:
Those who do not change and adapt get left behind.

'nuff said.
Click to expand...
Umm, think about that for a bit.

Sometimes those who do "adapt" regret it. Ever fought with a GPS getting bad sensor inputs in IMC? It's not pleasant. Much more so since the GPS doubles as a NAV/COMM, chart, A/FD, fuel planner, tank-switch reminder, and a bunch of other stuff as well. With discrete instruments at least one box failing doesn't take out another.

Part of "adapting," particularly in this context, is to be able to use alternate means when the complex POS screws up.

No one is going to get "left behind" by not relying on ADSB. It's not a technology race. Why could you possibly think that would happen? Eyeballs will suddenly stop working?
 
Pilots don't understand the limitations of ADS-B. TIS-B which are ground station generated ADS-B position reports of targets that are not equipped with ADS-B Out and are only generated for the benefit of aircraft that have ADS-B Out installed (the client). The target must be in radar coverage and the own-ship must be receiving the one and only one ground station that is broadcasting the TIS-B for the client. Last I checked, TIS-B is only generated for the service volume down to 1000 AGL, although I understand the FAA was planning on lowering the floor to 500 AGL where it can. With a portable receiver, their are antenna issues particularly in metal airplanes. TIS-B is not generated for any mode A transponder target (a transponder which is not broadcasting an altitude). It also won't broadcast a TIS-B for a primary only target. The initial TIS-B coverage area covers the same service volume as radar with very few exceptions. ADS-B is intended for surveillance and traffic acquisition provided by TIS-B is not the reason or justification for it. It is at best a carrot for aircraft owners who don't want to add an active traffic system. ADS-B with TISB and weather is only available in the US. The rest of the world uses it for surveillance, and most of that is for high level FL290 and above.

People who only have portable ADS-B In without also having installed ADS-B Out are living in a dream world if they think they are receiving traffic that is relevant. They may see tons of traffic, most of which is irrelevant and only good for entertainment purposes for the most part. Just because you are seeing traffic does not mean the traffic that represents a collision hazard is being displayed. Traffic that does show up is likely real, but in most cases just because no traffic is on the display does not have any relationship to whether or not the local path is clear.
 
John Collins said:
Pilots don't understand the limitations of ADS-B. TIS-B which are ground station generated ADS-B position reports of targets that are not equipped with ADS-B Out and are only generated for the benefit of aircraft that have ADS-B Out installed (the client). The target must be in radar coverage and the own-ship must be receiving the one and only one ground station that is broadcasting the TIS-B for the client. Last I checked, TIS-B is only generated for the service volume down to 1000 AGL, although I understand the FAA was planning on lowering the floor to 500 AGL where it can. With a portable receiver, their are antenna issues particularly in metal airplanes. TIS-B is not generated for any mode A transponder target (a transponder which is not broadcasting an altitude). It also won't broadcast a TIS-B for a primary only target. The initial TIS-B coverage area covers the same service volume as radar with very few exceptions. ADS-B is intended for surveillance and traffic acquisition provided by TIS-B is not the reason or justification for it. It is at best a carrot for aircraft owners who don't want to add an active traffic system. ADS-B with TISB and weather is only available in the US. The rest of the world uses it for surveillance, and most of that is for high level FL290 and above.

People who only have portable ADS-B In without also having installed ADS-B Out are living in a dream world if they think they are receiving traffic that is relevant. They may see tons of traffic, most of which is irrelevant and only good for entertainment purposes for the most part. Just because you are seeing traffic does not mean the traffic that represents a collision hazard is being displayed. Traffic that does show up is likely real, but in most cases just because no traffic is on the display does not have any relationship to whether or not the local path is clear.
Click to expand...

Don't confuse the "experts" with facts. Can't you tell that the portable ADS-B equipment can be used without immunity to maneuver horizontally to avoid death on every flight? Too bad that potentially useful information in used incorrectly by most here and one day it will induce a collision. Most users of the equipment are clueless users.
 
SoonerAviator said:
That's horsesh!t. People have been flying VFR without the fish finder for the entirety of aviation and there's no valid reason that should change. The "Big Sky" theory has proven to be pretty effective over time. If someone wants to get the equipment for their own piece of mind, by all means do so, but implying that anyone with the money to do-so is an idiot if they don't is ridiculous and facetious.
Click to expand...

Nope, it's the truth. If you don't have one and you can afford it you are being grossly irresponsible. I've seen too many goofballs buzzing around not looking at anything. Even if you are looking there is no guarantee. ADSB is not a magic bullet by any means and it isn't perfect. But it can help a lot. I care about aviation safety and whatever we can so to improve it. ADSB is great as an added safety tool. Too many dinosaurs finding an excuse to bash yet another safety improvement in aviation.
 
Last edited:
TexDeuce said:
Nope, it's the truth. If you don't have one and you can afford it you are being irresponsible. I've seen too many goofballs buzzing around not looking at anything. Even if you are looking there is no guarantee. ADSB is not a magic bullet by any means and it isn't perfect. But it can help a lot. I care about aviation safety and whatever we can so to improve it. ADSB is great as an added safety tool.
Click to expand...

I assume you mean ADS-B Out. A portable ADS-B In system doesn't cut it unless the aircraft is also equipped with ADS-B Out and even then a portable has serious drawbacks. I am not a believer in a portable ADS-B In for traffic, weather yes. A panel mount solution such as the GDL88, GTX 345, L3 Lynx system and some others makes sense, but it is not cheap.
 
My "portable in" Stratus works flawless in combo with my Freeflight Systems UAT out..I would much rather have a panel mount because I like a clean install... but I haven't won the Power Ball yet!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
TexDeuce said:
Nope, it's the truth. If you don't have one and you can afford it you are being grossly irresponsible. I've seen too many goofballs buzzing around not looking at anything. Even if you are looking there is no guarantee. ADSB is not a magic bullet by any means and it isn't perfect. But it can help a lot. I care about aviation safety and whatever we can so to improve it. ADSB is great as an added safety tool. Too many dinosaurs finding an excuse to bash yet another safety improvement in aviation.
Click to expand...

We'll have to agree to disagree. Affordability is no factor in whether one is grossly irresponsible. You must love being head of your HOA and think that everyone should be required to live in a community with one since you enjoy dictating what everyone should be doing in the name of "safety". You probably enjoy the TSA at any cost as well, 'cause you know, safety and all that.
 
My system was $1995 and I "assisted" in the install under supervision and got it signed off after the checks... Much cheaper than you think!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
No, I do not have ADSB out...yet. Now that the plane is paid off, (last payment was in April) I can now afford it, so I am making arrangements to do so, and upgrade my GPS to WAAS.

The thing I find astonishing is the assumption by many that you cannot, or will not have your eyes outside the cockpit if you have gizmo's in the cockpit to help you spot traffic. Or that you are unable to use pilotage because you have a GPS. Or that your piloting skills are lacking because you routinely use your autopilot. Perhaps, if more energy was spent encouraging everyone to embrace all available SA methods, instead of railing against them, we'd all be better off. I can't imagine anyone ever having their eyes glued to the ADSB display and never looking outside. Of course, I couldn't imagine anyone flying around at night without being properly lit up so that others could see and avoid them, either.

If you think you're just as safe using your eyeballs as you are using both your eyeballs and your ADSB, fish-finder, or whatever other gizmos you have in your cockpit to help your situational awareness, then you are, without a doubt, an idiot.
 
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.
 
Rykymus said:
No, I do not have ADSB out...yet. Now that the plane is paid off, (last payment was in April) I can now afford it, so I am making arrangements to do so, and upgrade my GPS to WAAS.

The thing I find astonishing is the assumption by many that you cannot, or will not have your eyes outside the cockpit if you have gizmo's in the cockpit to help you spot traffic. Or that you are unable to use pilotage because you have a GPS. Or that your piloting skills are lacking because you routinely use your autopilot. Perhaps, if more energy was spent encouraging everyone to embrace all available SA methods, instead of railing against them, we'd all be better off. I can't imagine anyone ever having their eyes glued to the ADSB display and never looking outside. Of course, I couldn't imagine anyone flying around at night without being properly lit up so that others could see and avoid them, either.

If you think you're just as safe using your eyeballs as you are using both your eyeballs and your ADSB, fish-finder, or whatever other gizmos you have in your cockpit to help your situational awareness, then you are, without a doubt, an idiot.
Click to expand...

You have a few things to learn.

You only have so much attention. If you use it up on 10 complex gizmos, something has to give. What is it? Checklists? Assigned altitude? Scanning for traffic?

And people who have analyzed this problem more carefully than you are not "idiots" because they disagree with you. Especially "without a doubt." You've displayed a lot of shallow thinking in this thread. Like assuming that every gadget is a benefit. Real systems are not nearly that easy. And the kind of fair weather VFR flying you're talking about here is not the same type of flying everyone else does.

OnADSB-enabled GPS's, you often have to choose between terrain, weather and traffic. Which is the most useful to display? Foreflight gives you a bunch of targets that might be 30,000 feet over your head. That's a terrible solution; the only time you care about that is if you can't raise anyone on the radio and hope for a 121.5 relay. And at night, terrain is a much bigger risk than traffic. Sometimes it doesn't have any lights at all.
 
121.5 relay? lol how about 406MHz... If someone is afraid of these "gizmos" then fly a Cub all the time.. I have no issue with more information flowing into my brain.. I welcome it and the additional information allows me to make decisions... Dang these new-fangled gadgets that help increase safety.. :) I do agree some people probably should have more distraction but most of us, it helps!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Firefighter_324 said:
121.5 relay? lol how about 406MHz... If someone is afraid of these "gizmos" then fly a Cub all the time.. I have no issue with more information flowing into my brain.. I welcome it and the additional information allows me to make decisions... Dang these new-fangled gadgets that help increase safety.. :) I do agree some people probably should have more distraction but most of us, it helps!


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

You have a 406 MHz radio?

No, 121.5 is not only for ELTs. You can use it to reestablish lost comms, including unscheduled loss of contact with ATC. You can let Center know you're not dead. ALNOTs are best avoided if they are not needed.

You gotta understand your gadgets, and respect what they do to your workload. Few are trivial, particularly when they try to be everything at once.

And information overload is real. Get a CFII and a hood and try an instrument approach "cold" VFR. You'll overload. Especially with the traffic calls.
 
I'm using the portable Skyguard ADSB In/Out device tied to iFly and Xavion primarily. I find the traffic alerting works very well, particularly with Xavion because it provides audio call outs, so you can keep your head outside the vast majority of the time and just quickly glance down when it says "Traffic" to help with locating. The other audio notifications from Xavion can also be useful though ("Check Gear Down" for one)

Most of the time I have such a hard time spotting traffic until I'm very close to them, and that's even when I'm looking in the right general direction due to an ATC or Xavion notification. I'll probably pull the trigger on a certified ADS-B solution in the next year or so, since for me it's been a great benefit in the cockpit. Once I have that installed I'll probably just keep my Skyguard for the AHRS and ADS-B in support and have it hooked to whatever app I'm currently using then.

I'm all about doing whatever I can to help with safety when it's practical. ADS-B In/Out fits into that category for me, and it was a pretty easy decision since the weather feature allowed me to drop my XM subscription. I also added LED lighting to my aircraft and considered those an easy safety enhancement as well. I personally think the FAA should show all the traffic it has available to ADS-B in devices, even when they don't have an ADS-B out device themselves. If there's not a technical reason for them to be doing so, that just doesn't strike me as a good idea..it really makes the system more convoluted than it needs to be.
 
MAKG1 said:
Foreflight gives you a bunch of targets that might be 30,000 feet over your head.
Click to expand...

You know there are filters in FF, right?....unless you like seeing every plane in the sky. To your point...looking at that much information of course would desensitize any pilot.

I was taught that good CRM is using ALL available resources in the cockpit, not excluding one because I have another. Technology when configured and implemented correctly ADDS to situation awareness, not replaces situational awareness.
 
Why would you need a second comms radio and second nav radio? That's just overload. You only need one. Or none would be better. Less distraction. If it ain't in GOOSEACAT, it's totally unnecessary. And hell... even the stuff in that is onerous, burdensome, and useless. More government overreach. If I want a blank panel with a toggle starter, that's my right.
 
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.
 
So, because I don't agree with someone, I have a lot to learn, and my thinking is shallow. Hmm. I'll let that one slide because it just isn't worth it.
Not everyone gets as overloaded as easily as others. You'd be surprised. And you can choose when to use a device, and when not to. But if you don't have it in the cockpit, that's one option you don't have.

Assuming that everyone has to do it your way, is in itself shallow thinking.

I started this post to share an experience for the benefit of all. Somehow, you assumed that my statement that my ADSB-In probably saved my butt somehow meant that I was flying around with my face buried in my iPad like a dumb-***s instead of looking outside. And apparently, anyone who is in favor of tech that might increase SA is only going to make themselves less safe because everyone else has the same information input limitations across the board.

Wow.
 
steingar said:
Mid-air collisions were already vanishingly rare before the advent of TCAS or ADS-B. Obviously no one was colliding with all those aircraft. The traffic displays are a good tool for safety, but far from the only one. Glad it helped someone avoid dutch.
Click to expand...
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.
 
ircphoenix said:
In before some hardcore guy says "Well I understand there are risks so I'm fine with..." It's not about you. The good of the many outweighs the selfishness of the one.
Click to expand...
I'm not hardcore, but that's nonsense - Mid-airs are a rare occurence, and if you die in an airplane, it's improbable it'll be from a collision with anything except the ground. You don't get to have perfect safety at any price point- other people have valid objections, regardless of your threshold of risk tolerance.

Adherence to the "good of many" would put an end to beer, car racing, VFR flight, jelly donuts, and rock concerts. You gotta share the planet, and accept some risks as a participating human, including the risk of dealing with other humans. Or forget about personal freedoms.
 
Rykymus said:
So, because I don't agree with someone, I have a lot to learn, and my thinking is shallow. Hmm. I'll let that one slide because it just isn't worth it.
Not everyone gets as overloaded as easily as others. You'd be surprised. And you can choose when to use a device, and when not to. But if you don't have it in the cockpit, that's one option you don't have.

Assuming that everyone has to do it your way, is in itself shallow thinking.

I started this post to share an experience for the benefit of all. Somehow, you assumed that my statement that my ADSB-In probably saved my butt somehow meant that I was flying around with my face buried in my iPad like a dumb-***s instead of looking outside. And apparently, anyone who is in favor of tech that might increase SA is only going to make themselves less safe because everyone else has the same information input limitations across the board.

Wow.
Click to expand...


You got to read EVERYTHING others said.

NOT A SINGLE PERSON SAID ADSB WAS BAD.

It's just a fail safe and you should be catching close VMC traffic before it does, if it catches something you missed, GREAT!, but it should also be a "hey bub, keep that scan up" nudge moment.

Much like those "blind spot" detectors on cars now, great saftey feature, but you should be turning your head and looking for traffic, when that thing goes off it should NOT come as a surprise, stuff happens, people don't look both ways and whatnot which is why folks invent these neat tools, but ultimately they should not end up as anywhere near your first line of defense. That's all anyone is saying here, I didn't read anything on here saying anything bad about you, I don't think anyone intended to insult you ether.

Blue skies
 
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...

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.

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...

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.

If it hadn't been implemented with this "bubble" thing and it just re-broadcast all traffic it knows about, there'd be no real technical reason to force ADS-B Out at all. Just send up all the traffic the transmitter coverage area covers all the time, and done.

If everyone's going to be mandated to have ADS-B out in controlled airspace anyway, that's going to be the end result of all the "bubbles" in that airspace anyway. Writing the bubble code into the ground segment was in the end, mostly just a waste of time. We could have all the benefits of ADS-B for traffic avoidance today, if it didn't do that. Even if we just had a regular transponder and two receivers. One receiver if ALL seen traffic was sent up 978.
 
It does add additional coverage where radar does not cover.. The FAA has an overlay map that shows the difference between radar coverage and ads-b coverage... ads-b works at lower altitudes and out further off the coast than radar. The Gulf is a great example they have it pretty much covered now by ads-b (think helicopters and oil rigs)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top