Flying to close, what would you have done, if anything.

[cnoe]

I must respectfully disagree with those who suggest that TIS-B detracts from flight safety. It takes mere seconds to glance at the screen to identify potential traffic conflicts but then greatly enhances the likelihood that I'll actually see it out the windows. It's all but impossible to see a GA bogey at 5 miles in daylight conditions (at least with my old 20/20 eyes) but at least the screen gives me their position, heading, and speed. Many times when IFR or using Flight Following I'll see the traffic before ATC calls them out to me. In the 2 1/2 years since I became ADS-B out compliant there have been very few instances where I've been surprised by traffic. But I will agree that using a screen to negotiate your way around the pattern is ludicrous.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[aviatoreb]

This reminds me of something I have thought before - seems like there are two sorts of VFR near collision or collision incidents.  Those where another aircraft can be seen through the front windscreen - or side windows but they go from tiny to looming-huge very quickly when closing speeds can be upwards of 300-400mph.  But see and avoid is very important there, and so is technology to anticipate, including radio communications which yes sometimes fails us (radios are technology even if old technology), flight following if available, and adsb traffic now, and maybe tcas.  Then there are those where you might not have a possible view of the target like what happened to Dan.  Maybe they are above your roof, or below your belly, or slightly behind you.  Then only the other pilot and or technology can save us.  Either a bunch of site holes - holes then covered by clear plastic, or perhaps cameras like those back-up cameras you see on some minivans, would be useful.  I doubt we will ever see such an stc.  A clear hole on the ceiling and the floor at the pilots position sure would be nice.

[Hank]

3 hours ago, cnoe said:

I must respectfully disagree with those who suggest that TIS-B detracts from flight safety. It takes mere seconds to glance at the screen to identify potential traffic conflicts but then greatly enhances the likelihood that I'll actually see it out the windows. It's all but impossible to see a GA bogey at 5 miles in daylight conditions (at least with my old 20/20 eyes) but at least the screen gives me their position, heading, and speed. Many times when IFR or using Flight Following I'll see the traffic before ATC calls them out to me. In the 2 1/2 years since I became ADS-B out compliant there have been very few instances where I've been surprised by traffic. But I will agree that using a screen to negotiate your way around the pattern is ludicrous.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Nobody said TIS-B / ADS-B / TCAS detracts from safety. What I said detracts from safety is head-down time in the cockpit looking at all the whiz-bang displays, and expecting the display and the radio to keep you separated from other traffic. The only way to guarantee separation is to look out the window, see the traffic and use your flight controls to guarantee separation.

We've all seen it, we've all read about it--people flying along hardly looking out the window. It happens. Most times, people get away with it; sometimes they get scared when they notice something out the window; on rare occasions, there is contact. Not all contact can be prevented by looking out the window, as I can't see below me very well, and have pretty much zero visibility in about a 50º cone behind me that also expands upwards even sharper.

[carusoam]

There is a lot of good that comes from Dan's experience.  Some of the things I have gotten from this thread....

 

Big sky theory has it's limitations.

There are Things that increase the odds of a close encounter...

1) Flying in and out of an airport.  We are all aiming at the numbers.

2) Flying on an airway.

3) Flying near a VOR.  My local VOR always has at least one other plane approaching it....

4) Flying within a few thousand feet of the ground.  Non-mooney traffic for some reason.

5) Flying at particular times of certain days.  Saturday, at lunch time is big.

6) Pilot's ability to see and avoid.  

7) Know that practice areas exist.  Know what a plane is doing when you see it performing clearing turns...

8) Using Precision nav equipment that accurately puts you on the magenta line at exact altitudes is nice in theory, but doing this has unintentionally limited the size of the big sky.  WAAS can precisely have you share the same Magenta line.

 

Things that improve the big sky theory.

1) practice looking outside.  Even analog instruments can be looked at for too long.  It's not just color screens.  Funky human behaviors.

2) Using ADSb technology to pick out the known bogies.  Know that there are still some unknown bogies.

3) Using the GPS technology to give better position reports.

4) Using the radio to give accurate position reports and intentions.  Keep no secrets while approaching the airport.

5) Using clearing turns if you are out practicing maneuvers.

6) Be friendly while trying to improve separation.  Not everyone is going to have the interpersonal skills required to communicate and fly at the same time.

7) Setting an offset into the Magenta line. 

8) Setting an offset into the altitude selected for VFR flights, could be helpful.  Missing a head-on accident or missing by 20’...

9) raising and lowering the wing to see around it...? (Any ideas, how and when?)

10) Flight Following can be pretty helpful.  

 

These are ideas I think I picked up while reading this thread.  Please let me know if I missed something, or got it wrong.  

Best regards,

-a-

[pinerunner]

One thing about airways; anyone going the opposite direction should be 1000 feet above or below you, or at least 500 ft if one of you is IFR and the other VFR.  At VOR's with converging airways look out (if you're VFR and don't have ATC looking out for you)  but at least you know where to be looking, which is out the front window for looking for someone directly ahead who you'll be passing on the right. There should never be head-on collisions in airways.  This leads me to a new VFR airway rule; never change altitude right in the middle of an airway where there more likely to be other planes above or below. Use the off-ramp. If you're IFR do what they tell you of course.

[MyNameIsNobody]

O.K. I need a little education on the traffic altitude targets.  I purchased the Garmin ADSB glarescreen unit (for weather) and recently I have been getting a lot more traffic indications BESIDES commercial traffic.

Scenario: I was at 8500 feet traveling at 250 degrees magnetic.  I had a target to my front left on ipad that was converging.  Showed -4.  Does that mean he was at 8100?  What if it said -45 would that mean 4000?  I NEVER saw the traffic.  I was monitoring LaCrosse and he wasn't talking to them at the time.  No altitude change by him.  When the screen goes to a dedicated aircraft on whole screen what is the size of the window in miles?  Is that standardized?  Why was I receiving that traffic without ADSB out installed?  Why am I seeing better traffic detail?  Thanks.

Edited October 11, 2016 by MyNameIsNobody

[MyNameIsNobody]

5 hours ago, cnoe said:

I must respectfully disagree with those who suggest that TIS-B detracts from flight safety. It takes mere seconds to glance at the screen to identify potential traffic conflicts but then greatly enhances the likelihood that I'll actually see it out the windows. It's all but impossible to see a GA bogey at 5 miles in daylight conditions (at least with my old 20/20 eyes) but at least the screen gives me their position, heading, and speed. Many times when IFR or using Flight Following I'll see the traffic before ATC calls them out to me. In the 2 1/2 years since I became ADS-B out compliant there have been very few instances where I've been surprised by traffic. But I will agree that using a screen to negotiate your way around the pattern is ludicrous.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Talk about a target rich environment.  No thanks.

[Mooneymite]

TIS-B is a great tool.  So is TCAS.  Use them!

The danger is the belief that creeps into the mind of the user that it is the "big picture".  It isn't.  It is a small picture.

It's the traffic that doesn't show up on screens that'll hurt a fellow.

[Marauder]

O.K. I need a little education on the traffic altitude targets.  I purchased the Garmin ADSB glarescreen unit (for weather) and recently I have been getting a lot more traffic indications BESIDES commercial traffic.
Scenario: I was at 8500 feet traveling at 250 degrees magnetic.  I had a target to my front left on ipad that was converging.  Showed -4.  Does that mean he was at 8100?  What if it said -45 would that mean 4000?  I NEVER saw the traffic.  I was monitoring LaCrosse and he wasn't talking to them at the time.  No altitude change by him.  When the screen goes to a dedicated aircraft on whole screen what is the size of the window in miles?  Is that standardized?  Why was I receiving that traffic without ADSB out installed?  Why am I seeing better traffic detail?  Thanks.

Since you are using the GDL-39 and Garmin Pilot, if you are seeing a -4, it means they were 400 feet lower based on their reported altitude from their transponder. I often wondered what would happen if they set their altimeter incorrectly.

I think the scale of the GP warning window has the plane within the 2 nm window. It may change due to TargetTrend calculations where the threat may be further away but the closure rate is high. I think that is what dictates the range setting for the pop up window.

Here is a good description of the limitations: http://ipadpilotnews.com/2012/08/understanding-ads-b-traffic/


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Guitarmaster]

I must respectfully disagree with those who suggest that TIS-B detracts from flight safety. It takes mere seconds to glance at the screen to identify potential traffic conflicts but then greatly enhances the likelihood that I'll actually see it out the windows. It's all but impossible to see a GA bogey at 5 miles in daylight conditions (at least with my old 20/20 eyes) but at least the screen gives me their position, heading, and speed. Many times when IFR or using Flight Following I'll see the traffic before ATC calls them out to me. In the 2 1/2 years since I became ADS-B out compliant there have been very few instances where I've been surprised by traffic. But I will agree that using a screen to negotiate your way around the pattern is ludicrous.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

That's scary! Looks like a filter is in order.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Jerry 5TJ]

9 hours ago, Marauder said:

Hey buddy! Don't forget I flew a lot of hours with you this past year. Your fondling of your panel stacks right up there with that guy who discovers a strip joint for the first time only to get escorted out of the establishment.

You couldn't keep your hands off of the merchandise either!

And I have added another Garmin Implant since then, too. 

 

[Marauder]

And I have added another Garmin Implant since then, too. 
 

You dirty old man! Got some pictures?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[cnoe]

That's scary! Looks like a filter is in order.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

As y'all probably realized that's a screenshot of my departure from Oshkosh Wednesday morning following the Mooney Caravan event. I took it to illustrate just how saturated that chunk of airspace is during Airventure.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[carusoam]

Changing the altimeter setting (Kohlsman's window) on an encoding altimeter shouldn't change what the transponder is telling other planes.  The encoding altimeters are all broadcasting Mode C altitudes with a standard 29.92" In their micro brains.  How ATC interprets that is in their SOPs...

So the difference in altitudes is pretty good data.  Just know that the accuracy is as good as the last pitot static test and transponder test. (How often has ATC asked you to reset your transponder?)

The 100 planes on one screen within in a few thousand feet of altitude is a bit unnerving...

Best defense would be to climb when able.  A large percentage of VOR pilots don't often climb very high.

Best regards,

-a-

[Hank]

20 minutes ago, carusoam said:

Best defense would be to climb when able.  A large percentage of VOR pilots don't often climb very high.

 

This Mooney pilot routinely flew VFR at 7500 or higher if going more than an hour. As a 105-hour pilot coming back from a MAPA PPP, I cruised contentedly at 9500, because I was having to dodge too many clouds at 7500 over central KY. And I was still just a beginner pilot, amazed that I was starting my descent 50+ miles out for an airport that was still over the horizon.

Or is it Mooney pilots who fly high and the rest of 'em are down low? VFR, IFR, it don't matter, my Mooney is high if the trip is long enough for some level cruise before coming down, power on, at 500 fpm.

Flight following, or IFR, plus two eyes outside, is how I dodge traffic. Sometimes opposite direction traffic passes me before ATC gives a call out . . .

P.S.--my wife is a great traffic spotter. She's found traffic from the backseat that myself and another pilot up front couldn't spot after being given a point out.

Edited October 12, 2016 by Hank

[carusoam]

The other guys would be there if they could!  

taking a C152 to 10k' legally requires a lunch break.

Best regards,

-a-

[Marauder]

Changing the altimeter setting won't change what the transponder is telling other planes.  The altimeters are all broadcasting Mode C altitudes with a standard 29.92" In their micro brains.  How ATC interprets that is in their SOPs...

So the difference in altitudes is pretty good data.  Just know that the accuracy is as good as the last pitot static test and transponder test. (How often has ATC asked you to reset your transponder?)

The 100 planes on one screen within in a few thousand feet of altitude is a bit unnerving...

Best defense would be to climb when able.  A large percentage of VOR pilots don't often climb very high.

Best regards,

-a-

It's late and I'm tired. I'll let you do the math...

No, changing the barometric pressure won't change what the transporter is sending, but it certainly will be reporting an altitude that the pilot may not really be flying.

If the transponder is reporting 3,000' at 29.92", what altitude is the plane flying at if the pilot sets 30.42" in the Kollsman? I think ATC does the correction by providing the local altimeter setting. Is the plane 500' off altitude and does it really matter?

Thanks Debbie for checking my math.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[cnoe]

It's early now and I'll let my iPad's E6B do the math but you're absolutely right about what the transponder broadcasts.

The plane's actual altitude in your example above is approximately 3,500 msl (assuming an OAT of 12 C.) which is a sizable (500') difference. And no it doesn't matter as long as you're using the pressure setting given to you by ATC.

Now if you take off at 29.92" and fly 400 miles without resetting your altimeter you may indeed be a hazard. This is basic stuff but likely worth repeating here.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[carusoam]

All a good reason why ATC gives you an altimeter setting immediately when you check in with them while flying IFR.

1) It is important to have the right pressure setting in the altimeter to adjust your altitude for separation from the ground.

2) In class A airspace where separation from the ground is already taken care of (in the US) the altimeter setting used is 29.92", the focus is separation from traffic.

3) in GA, we set the altimeter to avoid hitting ground based objects, Set up for the TPA, physically put the plane in the area of the actual altitude where we want to be, etc...

4) fortunately, relative altitude could be set up using either standard.  One requires everyone to set the pressure correctly and the other requires no user input at all.  

5) expect that the relative altitude displayed on your ADSB display has eliminated the forgotten altimeter setting.

6) know that there are still other possible errors related to altimeter encoding issues.

7) consider these errors when filtering out targets.  I don't filter out any targets yet.

8) Are you seeing name tags like flight numbers and tail numbers?

9) when will GPS based altitude become standard?  Are we heading this way with ADSB out?

PP thoughts...

-a-

[cnoe]

5) expect that the relative altitude displayed on your ADSB display has eliminated the forgotten altimeter setting.

7) consider these errors when filtering out targets.  I don't filter out any targets yet.

8) Are you seeing name tags like flight numbers and tail numbers?

PP thoughts...
-a-

Regarding #5: Is this true? I honestly don't know. At this time much of ATC doesn't utilize ADS-B fully. And my ADS-B "out" (GTX330-ES) is still squawking what my blind encoder is telling it.

#7: Still great advice. Just last Sunday I'm on a 425 nm leg watching converging (but lower) traffic on-screen. When ATC calls them out to me I also get the dreaded words "altitude unconfirmed". I remind my lovely wife that I'm a skeptic and ask if she'd mind putting down the Kindle to help me scan until the traffic passes (which she gladly did). I consider this routine.

#8: Yes it's so cool to see all the data. I'm constantly wishing I had internet access so that I could run the n-numbers to identify the type plane. I usually just guess based on their groundspeed displayed. Somebody flying from Palestine, TX to Houston SW in a 252 was pouring the coals to it at 7,500' Sunday. I was running 65% and LOP as he outpaced me by 10-15 kts! I bet my cylinders out-live his.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[carusoam]

CNOE,

I believe the encoding altimeter uses the raw altitude data that is generated using the 29.92" standard.  This way ATC has been able to see data that has met a maintenance standard.  Their systems are able to convert the raw data into actual altitudes based on reported local pressure settings.

I also know my mechanical altimeter doesn't have the power to transmit what setting I put in the window to the encoder.  The altitude encoder used to be an add-on box not related to the altimeter?

This keeps the accuracy acceptably high and eliminates one particular daily pre-flight human error.

I'm only a PP with fuzzy memories.  It would be best to get one of our ATC guys and panel instrument experts to chime in on this..?

Best regards,

-a-

[Hank]

My encoder is a separate box on the back of the altimeter. No idea what it sends out, or if that reflects changes made in the Kollsman window or not . . .

[cnoe]

CNOE,
I believe the encoding altimeter uses the raw altitude data that is generated using the 29.92" standard.  This way ATC has been able to see data that has met a maintenance standard.  Their systems are able to convert the raw data into actual altitudes based on reported local pressure settings.
I also know my mechanical altimeter doesn't have the power to transmit what setting I put in the window to the encoder.  The altitude encoder used to be an add-on box not related to the altimeter?
This keeps the accuracy acceptably high and eliminates one particular daily pre-flight human error.
I'm only a PP with fuzzy memories.  It would be best to get one of our ATC guys and panel instrument experts to chime in on this..?
Best regards,
-a-

My mistake. I thought you were implying that since I'm broadcasting ADS-B Out that ATC was using my GPS altitude to supplement my encoder data (which I agree is fixed at 29.92" reference).


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Marauder]

CNOE,
I believe the encoding altimeter uses the raw altitude data that is generated using the 29.92" standard.  This way ATC has been able to see data that has met a maintenance standard.  Their systems are able to convert the raw data into actual altitudes based on reported local pressure settings.
I also know my mechanical altimeter doesn't have the power to transmit what setting I put in the window to the encoder.  The altitude encoder used to be an add-on box not related to the altimeter?
This keeps the accuracy acceptably high and eliminates one particular daily pre-flight human error.
I'm only a PP with fuzzy memories.  It would be best to get one of our ATC guys and panel instrument experts to chime in on this..?
Best regards,
-a-

But isn't the root of the problem? If you are not setting your altimeter correctly and not talking with ATC, aren't you a risk since what your transponder is reporting out is not what you are flying? And what ADS-B sees will be based on 29.92, correct?

Would love to hear what others think about this.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[cnoe]

As I understand it with an improperly set altimeter you might think you're at the right altitude when you're not (not a great thing) but ATC will still log you at your correct (adjusted) altitude based on your encoder's broadcast (as long as it is calibrated within tolerances). When they have no contact with you to verbally confirm your altitude ATC will tell others you are "altitude unverified" as they don't trust your encoder either. I'm no expert so correct me if I'm wrong.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk while eating lunch at Taco Cabana