TRAFFIC! (Now what?)

FastEddieB said:
Correct. That’s what I did when I had Skywatch in my Cirrus. And never ran into anyone, nor did they run into me.
Click to expand...
Even with no traffic avoidance technology, midair collisions are sufficiently rare that the fact that you never had one is not a statistically valid reason to conclude anything.

What would be more relevant, IMO, is what percentage of the time the traffic was to your left when the technology said it was to your right, or above you when it said it was below you, etc.
 
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...
It's great when JDs write airplane operating manuals.
 
Clark1961 said:
Not unicorn-rare at all in high traffic areas. We’ve had two in the Denver area in the last ten years or so.
Click to expand...
I guess it's personal perspective - two in a decade seems pretty rare to my mind; I'm based in the DC FRZ, which is kinda high traffic - we had a fairly recent one in the pattern at KFDK; I'm not recalling any right now that were outside the patterns at the in-close airports.

We can't know, of course, but I wonder if ADS-B wold have had any effect on the two in Denver - positive or negative?
 
Sundancer said:
I guess it's personal perspective - two in a decade seems pretty rare to my mind; I'm based in the DC FRZ, which is kinda high traffic - we had a fairly recent one in the pattern at KFDK; I'm not recalling any right now that were outside the patterns at the in-close airports.

We can't know, of course, but I wonder if ADS-B wold have had any effect on the two in Denver - positive or negative?
Click to expand...
Can’t know about the possible benefit of ADS-B, but both were outside of the patterns. One was a glider tow who got hit by a Cirrus. The other was a (former?) DPE who collided with a CFI & student. And I also remember another one in Wyoming which was near an airport but outside the pattern.

Anyway, I haven’t seen pictures of an actual unicorn and have seen the results of the mid-airs.
 
Was wondering why I couldn't find this example here and then realized I saw it on the red board...

Michael O;1944454 said:
Damn! I know the Long EZ guy. He never saw the piper until it went right over him. From what I recall being told, the wheel of the Piper caught the left wing of the EZ. He was on downwind, Piper was on base.

Folks, this is a towered airport!
They were both under control. Be vigilant, always.
Click to expand...

https://forums.aopa.org/showthread.php?t=102075&page=2
 
Palmpilot said:
Even with no traffic avoidance technology, midair collisions are sufficiently rare that the fact that you never had one is not a statistically valid reason to conclude anything.

What would be more relevant, IMO, is what percentage of the time the traffic was to your left when the technology said it was to your right, or above you when it said it was below you, etc.
Click to expand...
Yes. I'd like to add to that the percentage of times there are airplanes out there that are not on the A---, T--- or whatever you got. For gawds sake dont just turn away from a 'target' without visually clearing the area you are turning into
 
IMO, the fact that all parties state do NOT deviate tells me something about the confidence in their own product.

Concering TCAS II, the conflicting aircraft talk to each other so both do not climb or descend.
Not sure if the system being discussed does that.
 
Last edited:
Kritchlow said:
IMO, the fact that all parties state do BOT deviate tells me something about the confidence in their own product.

Concering TCAS II, the conflicting aircraft talk to each other so both do not climb or descend.
Not sure if the system being discussed does that.
Click to expand...
I dont think of these systems being talked about here are TCAS
 
luvflyin said:
I dont think of these systems being talked about here are TCAS
Click to expand...

Not even close to TCAS. TCAS II also includes a prohibition against maneuvering based solely on information shown on the Traffic Display.

There are valid technical reasons that no TCAS equipment provides horizontal resolution advisories. Nothing in the less capable traffic advisory systems, including ADS-B, had the capability to eliminate those limitations.
 
Kritchlow said:
Agreed. That's sort of my point. Perhaps I didn't make that clear...
Click to expand...
It was the "Not sure if the system being discussed does that," that threw me. I seriousy doubt if any systems other than TCAS have 'Resolution Advisory' but I don't know for sure.
 
KA550 said:
Not even close to TCAS. TCAS II also includes a prohibition against maneuvering based solely on information shown on the Traffic Display.

There are valid technical reasons that no TCAS equipment provides horizontal resolution advisories. Nothing in the less capable traffic advisory systems, including ADS-B, had the capability to eliminate those limitations.
Click to expand...
Right... that said you MUST respond to the verbal command unless you have them positively identified.
How on God's green earth can you positively identify them?? You may think you see them, but it may not be the correct aircraft.
 
luvflyin said:
Yes. I'd like to add to that the percentage of times there are airplanes out there that are not on the A---, T--- or whatever you got. For gawds sake dont just turn away from a 'target' without visually clearing the area you are turning into
Click to expand...
Good advice!
 
luvflyin said:
Can you find a way for us deadbeat non dues payin folk to read that? Is there an NTSB number, or at least the date and location of the accident.
Click to expand...

For the deadbeats - ;). Sorry, forgot it was just AOPA.

N15664, midair with a long-ez. No fatalities.
 
The whole point of ADS-B traffic is to help the pilot spot the nearby traffic visually so they can avoid a mid air or close encounter. It is an aid to visual acquisition. If you are in VMC and operating under VFR, you can do what you want, but the best defense is to use the traffic information to locate the target so you can take appropriate action. I normally don't start looking for GA aircraft until they are inside of 3 NM as they are just too hard to locate visually before then.
 
I must be getting old. I'm actually thinking all aircraft should be under positive contact & advisory. That's a made up term on my part, but very different from positive control. ATC could only suggest, but not issue instructions.
I'm thinking all aircraft needs a code, and ATC must provide advisories to all. Designated practice areas for training.

I'm betting this is wildly unpopular.
 
Kritchlow said:
I must be getting old. I'm actually thinking all aircraft should be under positive contact & advisory. That's a made up term on my part, but very different from positive control. ATC could only suggest, but not issue instructions.
I'm thinking all aircraft needs a code, and ATC must provide advisories to all. Designated practice areas for training.

I'm betting this is wildly unpopular.
Click to expand...
Buy a boat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top