See and Avoid

[Bob - S50]

I'm probably going to start a fire storm here but it could also prove to be an interesting discussion.

In my opinion, just pure see and avoid does not work.  If we are not listening to the radio, just looking for traffic, in my opinion we probably see less than 25% of the traffic that comes within 2 miles of us.  It's probably closer to 10%.

The reason we think it works is because of something else, the big sky theory.  That being that the sky is big and our planes are small.  The chances of two planes being in the same place at the same time is remote.  Although with the accuracy of GPS and newer autopilots, if we operate along airways this may no longer be the case.

On the other hand; hear, see, and avoid works pretty well.  For example, in the traffic pattern if we pay attention to the radio chatter and all the traffic is giving accurate position information, we do a pretty good job of spotting each other.  I'd guess something around 75% or maybe even a bit more.  Another example would be if we are enroute and talking to ATC either because we are IFR or getting flight following.  ATC doesn't always point out all the traffic, and we don't always spot everybody they call out, but we see a lot more than if they didn't call them out at all.

And finally; ADS-B, see, and avoid works pretty well too. 

If we know where to look we do pretty well.  If we have no idea where to look we don't.  Be safe out there.

[gsengle]

I hope most pilots would agree with you. See and avoid was just the best we had so we lived with it. But it’s really Russian roulette. If I had the proverbial nickel for every target that comes within 5 miles of me on ADSB/TIS-B that I never manage to spot despite knowing its there and roughly where it is...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bob_Belville]

@Lance Keveand I can attest the worth of ADS-B traffic. We had departed KJNX and were climbing through 2000', nose fairly high. As we left the 5 mile radius of the uncontrolled airport I was about to check in w Raleigh Approach to pick up my clearance. The GTN 750 screen suddenly went to the high alert display with traffic coming right at us a few hundred feet above us. I stopped my climb and turned left. We saw the other plane about the instant he went by us. Without that alert we would have climbed into his altitude in a vision compromised attitude.  

[steingar]

I think we waste way too much time worrying about this.  The number of midair collisions in the US each year can be counted on the fingers of one hand.  You're far more likely to run out of gas, yet how many of us have working fuel gauges?

[KLRDMD]

43 minutes ago, Bob - S50 said:

On the other hand; hear, see, and avoid works pretty well.  For example, in the traffic pattern if we pay attention to the radio chatter and all the traffic is giving accurate position information, we do a pretty good job of spotting each other.  I'd guess something around 75% or maybe even a bit more.

Giving accurate traffic positions is the kicker. In southern AZ we have a lot of student training from other countries and not only is their English often poor to completely not understandable, it is very often flat out wrong. They call five miles east when they're five miles west, etc. ALL THE TIME. That's one of many reasons I recently moved to a nice, quiet private airfield versus a fairly busy uncontrolled (in this case, pilot controlled is not accurate, it is essentially uncontrolled) airport.

[gsengle]

I think we waste way too much time worrying about this.  The number of midair collisions in the US each year can be counted on the fingers of one hand.  You're far more likely to run out of gas, yet how many of us have working fuel gauges?

Safety in aviation comes from leaving nothing to chance. We can avoid running out of fuel with strict adherence to alternates rules and actually checking fuel quantities, checklists, etc. We can avoid midairs with TCAS/ADSB. They are unrelated problems with unrelated solutions for the most part. Why wouldn’t we tackle both?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Skates97]

24 minutes ago, steingar said:

I think we waste way too much time worrying about this.  The number of midair collisions in the US each year can be counted on the fingers of one hand.  You're far more likely to run out of gas, yet how many of us have working fuel gauges?

I have "working" fuel gauges, although they are only accurate when empty. However I don't need them to keep from running out of gas. Checking fuel quantities prior to departure and proper planning will ensure I don't run out of gas.

59 minutes ago, gsengle said:

I hope most pilots would agree with you. See and avoid was just the best we had so we lived with it. But it’s really Russian roulette. If I had the proverbial nickel for every target that comes within 5 miles of me on ADSB/TIS-B that I never manage to spot despite knowing its there and roughly where it is...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is my experience as well. On a recent flight I had the other plane on my tablet and ATC was telling me where he was, we were on a converging course about 500' apart in altitude me heading northwest and him heading northeast. Despite that I still couldn't find him and ATC finally said "If you can't see him I suggest you climb" so we went up 1000'. We finally saw him when he was about 2 miles off our right side.

1 hour ago, Bob - S50 said:

The reason we think it works is because of something else, the big sky theory.  That being that the sky is big and our planes are small.  The chances of two planes being in the same place at the same time is remote.  Although with the accuracy of GPS and newer autopilots, if we operate along airways this may no longer be the case.
 

I think this is true. When you program in a route and let your autopilot follow it you are going to be much closer to the center of the airway instead of a couple miles off to either side. That makes the "big sky" just a little bit smaller enroute than it used to be.

[Marauder]

56 minutes ago, Bob - S50 said:

I'm probably going to start a fire storm here but it could also prove to be an interesting discussion.

In my opinion, just pure see and avoid does not work.  If we are not listening to the radio, just looking for traffic, in my opinion we probably see less than 25% of the traffic that comes within 2 miles of us.  It's probably closer to 10%.

The reason we think it works is because of something else, the big sky theory.  That being that the sky is big and our planes are small.  The chances of two planes being in the same place at the same time is remote.  Although with the accuracy of GPS and newer autopilots, if we operate along airways this may no longer be the case.

On the other hand; hear, see, and avoid works pretty well.  For example, in the traffic pattern if we pay attention to the radio chatter and all the traffic is giving accurate position information, we do a pretty good job of spotting each other.  I'd guess something around 75% or maybe even a bit more.  Another example would be if we are enroute and talking to ATC either because we are IFR or getting flight following.  ATC doesn't always point out all the traffic, and we don't always spot everybody they call out, but we see a lot more than if they didn't call them out at all.

And finally; ADS-B, see, and avoid works pretty well too. 

If we know where to look we do pretty well.  If we have no idea where to look we don't.  Be safe out there.

I have been flying with a full ADS-B solution for a year and I absolutely agree with you. The see and avoid works mainly because of luck. I had 2 near misses in 30 years of flying, both within 100 feet of contact. I also had an encounter that sold my wife on ADS-B. Leaving Ocean City Maryland I was climbing with my wife and son on board. My wife was in the back set and asked if I was aware of a plane above me. I lifted the wing and sure enough, I was climbing up in a plane. Of course when my wife asked "isn't there something you could put in the plane to see other planes?", I was officially given the green light to move ahead.

This video was taken last Sunday. A transponder equipped glider was flying over the approach end of our runway. I did not hear him on the radio and picked him up initially with TAS and the TIS-B. When I first saw him, he was headed north bound and was a 1000' feet above me. I didn't know he was a glider initially but when I did get a visual on him it was solely because ADS-B showed where he was. The risk came in when he literally did a 360 and started descending. That's when the Lynx ADS-B called out the conflict. It was the ADS-B that got me looking. I doubt I would have seen him first without ADS-B.

 

[N6018Q]

I'm a low time (less than 200 hours) VFR only pilot who has now made several 488 nm trips from Oklahoma to Louisiana. I pass ~80 miles east of DFW and it is downright scary, to me, to see all the traffic in the area on my Stratus/ipad combo that neither I nor my passengers ever spot visually. I really don't think I would attempt that trip without either flight following or the Stratus. Am I over cautious? Maybe, but I agree with -S50 that "just pure see and avoid does not work."

[gsxrpilot]

21 minutes ago, Marauder said:

I have been flying with a full ADS-B solution for a year and I absolutely agree with you. The see and avoid works mainly because of luck. I had 2 near misses in 30 years of flying, both within 100 feet of contact. I also had an encounter that sold my wife on ADS-B. Leaving Ocean City Maryland I was climbing with my wife and son on board. My wife was in the back set and asked if I was aware of a plane above me. I lifted the wing and sure enough, I was climbing up in a plane. Of course when my wife asked "isn't there something you could put in the plane to see other planes?", I was officially given the green light to move ahead.

This video was taken last Sunday. A transponder equipped glider was flying over the approach end of our runway. I did not hear him on the radio and picked him up initially with TAS and the TIS-B. When I first saw him, he was headed north bound and was a 1000' feet above me. I didn't know he was a glider initially but when I did get a visual on him it was solely because ADS-B showed where he was. The risk came in when he literally did a 360 and started descending. That's when the Lynx ADS-B called out the conflict. It was the ADS-B that got me looking. I doubt I would have seen him first without ADS-B.

 

Maybe the reason you can't see airplanes is because of those black stripes moving up and down in front of you 

You need a Neutral Density filter on that camera. They are cheap on Amazon or eBay. Just get the one that fits your camera.

[jaylw314]

51 minutes ago, steingar said:

I think we waste way too much time worrying about this.  The number of midair collisions in the US each year can be counted on the fingers of one hand.  You're far more likely to run out of gas, yet how many of us have working fuel gauges?

True, but the number of near mid-air collisions is certainly much larger.  While nobody dies, it occupies the attention of aircrews and ATC, and that increases the risk of other problems as well, so there's a cascade of risk.  

 

[0TreeLemur]

While passing the Tampa area at 10,500 last Sunday with VFR flight following, I was told by Tampa approach of an RJ at 11,000 2-o'clock 5 miles, heading straight for me.   He was coming straight at me from behind the right windshield post and I didn't see him until he was very near.   BTW- 500 ft vertical separation is NOT VERY FAR.   The RJ thought I was climbing into his flight path (I wasn't) and diverted around me at about 1/2 mile and 220 kts.   Any tool we can use to help avoid other traffic is great.  That was such a rapid encounter I didn't have much time to use the ADS-B info on the iPad.

[ilovecornfields]

 

20 minutes ago, jaylw314 said:

True, but the number of near mid-air collisions is certainly much larger.  While nobody dies, it occupies the attention of aircrews and ATC, and that increases the risk of other problems as well, so there's a cascade of risk.  

 

I like this video more. I think it’s the same concept:

 

[Marauder]

Maybe the reason you can't see airplanes is because of those black stripes moving up and down in front of you 
You need a Neutral Density filter on that camera. They are cheap on Amazon or eBay. Just get the one that fits your camera.

All in due time, all in due time. These out of the window shots are new to me. My videos are usually showing my panel.

Any recommendations to fit a GoPro 2?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[carusoam]

See and avoid has always worked for me...

1) it improved when both eyes are looking out the windows...

2) improved when told where to look

3) improved when the display shows where the targets are

4) improved when other people report where they are with accuracy... errors come with slight levels of cognitive load. Happens to everybody not just students...

5) improved mid week when nobody is flying.

6) improved at altitudes over 5k’ fewer planes around...

7) improved when the targets were minimized to show only relevant targets... showing Boeings 20k’ overhead isn’t very helpful... neat for conversation.

8) big sky is real, we only have to miss by this much...

9) i’m A big fan of not being perfectly on the magenta line... or perfectly on altitude with a perfect number set in the koelsman’s window...

10) fly in a vfr corridor to see how important these details are.  Read the rules that include speed limits and directional lanes...

11) use flight following...

12) use the proper altitudes...

13) really want to be alone... fly high and ifr in imc... 

14) Bring somebody along, another pair of eyes on the lookout...

15) know and be aware of traffic flows into major airports... some traffic is very predictable...

15) for scary close calls... watch cars on the highway going opposite directions at 50mph each... Nothing between you but two flat yellow lines... you can see what type of phone they are holding to their ears... hey! Watch where you are going... stop checking out the other iPhone user... ! 

We get the freedom to fly because... we can manage these risks... 

There is risk. It isn’t zero. But don’t over inflate the situation with scary videos... people are really good at regulating freedom if you let them... don’t feed the bears.

PP thoughts only, 

Best regards,

-a-

[Ned Gravel]

We lost one in Ottawa this past weekend for the same reason.  https://ottawa.ctvnews.ca/investigators-release-new-details-of-carp-airport-mid-air-plane-crash-1.4165760

I stopped flying VFR in the US because controllers were too busy with real traffic to help me avoid a near-collision (< 1/2 mile) over central Wisconsin in 2011.  I only file IFR now for that reason.  US has more aircraft, more airfields (where aircraft tend to congregate), and many more busy Class B and C areas.  I need the extra set of eyes.

Just me.

[carusoam]

Ned,

I am unable to activate that link...

I get a blank screen ...

Best regards,

-a-

[GDGR]

I recently completed my PPL, and I feel there's a reason why EVERY practice exam, and the actual written exam had at least 2 questions about this. One would always ask about which way you would turn/divert course if passing, overtaking, coming towards another aircraft, and who has the right of way. Other would be about how would you know if you're on a collision course with another object / aircraft. 
Yes, simple and for the most part (hopefully), information you will use rarely. But, important enough to have these questions drilled into you, so you know to turn right, and when. 

[gsxrpilot]

23 minutes ago, Marauder said:

 

All in due time, all in due time. These out of the window shots are new to me. My videos are usually showing my panel.

Any recommendations to fit a GoPro 2?

 

Hmmm GoPro Hero2 is not very recent. I actually might have one for you. I don't use my Hero2 anymore. Well, it's actually a test dummy. If I'm trying a new mount that I think might fail, I'll use the Hero2 to see if it does fail. It never has, I still have it. 

I'll look this weekend to see what I have.

[Ned Gravel]

1 hour ago, carusoam said:

Ned,

I am unable to activate that link...

I get a blank screen ...

Best regards,

-a-

Try https://ottawa.ctvnews.ca/search-results/ctv-ottawa-search-7.118?q=carp.

[Bob_Belville]

1 hour ago, carusoam said:

Ned,

I am unable to activate that link...

I get a blank screen ...

Best regards,

-a-

remove the trailing back slash... \

[flyboy0681]

3 hours ago, steingar said:

I think we waste way too much time worrying about this.  The number of midair collisions in the US each year can be counted on the fingers of one hand.  You're far more likely to run out of gas, yet how many of us have working fuel gauges?

I would have to agree with you on this and agree with what @Bob - S50 said, except to say that I see less than 10%.

I adhere to the late George Carlin's view of it:

 

 

[steingar]

2 hours ago, Skates97 said:

I have "working" fuel gauges, although they are only accurate when empty. However I don't need them to keep from running out of gas. Checking fuel quantities prior to departure and proper planning will ensure I don't run out of gas.

And I bet ca$h money every pilot who ever ran out of gas said the same damn thing.  Yet pilots run out of gas all the time, its one of the leading causes of crashes.  I had working fuel gauges in my last airplane, and I can tell you than when they start headed or empty it gets your attention.  I promise you working fuel gauges would reduce the number of accidents due to fuel exhaustion.  But instead we worry about midairs, which almost never happen.

[Skates97]

1 hour ago, steingar said:

And I bet ca$h money every pilot who ever ran out of gas said the same damn thing.  Yet pilots run out of gas all the time, its one of the leading causes of crashes.  I had working fuel gauges in my last airplane, and I can tell you than when they start headed or empty it gets your attention.  I promise you working fuel gauges would reduce the number of accidents due to fuel exhaustion.  But instead we worry about midairs, which almost never happen.

Well, I suppose I'm just a newbie in terms of flying, PPL just over 2 years ago and will hit 300 hours tomorrow on my way to Phoenix. However, I set my own personal minimum of 1 hr reserve when I land and I have always met it. There's a few things in flying that should never happen, one of those is running out of gas. I believe that if you look into the pilots that run out of fuel you will find pilot error in most of the cases, failing to check fuel levels before taking off, trying to stretch the flight time, thinking in terms of distance flown instead of time, etc... I stand by my previous statement that checking fuel quantities prior to departure and proper planning will ensure I don't run out of gas. I suppose I should add proper management in flight (tank switching, monitoring flight time, etc). I do have an engine monitor with fuel flow that is accurate to about 0.2 gallons over a 3 hour flight, but even without it I'm not going to run out of fuel. Have I made unplanned fuel stops on long cross country flights when the winds were different than forecast? Absolutely, because you will never find me trying to stretch it to another airport. 

I will add that a pilot that only relies upon his/her fuel gauges runs a higher risk of running out of fuel than one that properly plans and executes the plan.

As others have said, I'm not quite sure why we can't worry about more that one thing, ie: fuel starvation and collision avoidance.

[carusoam]

Thanks Ned,

Canada reported 10 mid-air accidents in the last 10 years...

Every one is extra important.  As it involves two aircraft in the same predicament...

Best regards,

-a-