Why do people freak out about ADS-B and mid-air collisions?

[wombat]

My position on this:

Midair collisions are horrific and often fatal and sometimes happen to pilots who do everything right.  I would like to reduce the frequency of midair collisions.  Despite those statements, I am willing to continue with some risk of midair collisions in order to maintain some level of freedom of flying and to maintain some level of affordability of flying.   Exactly where that balance falls is not clear, but I'm relatively happy with the current balance.

The data I am using:

The risk of midair collisions is very small.   Since 2013 we've averaged about 200 fatalities per year in non-commercial fixed wing (1) and collisions are a very small part of them.

In 2020, there were. 5 with 4 having fatalities. (1)(1.1)

In 2019 there were 8, with 7 having fatalities. (2)

In 2018 there were 12, with 7 having fatalities. (3)

In 2017 there were 7, with 5 having fatalities. (4)

Fuel management kills ~10/year, maneuvering kills about 28/year, and poor IFR technique and VFR into IMC kill. about 30/year. (1)

 

The behavior I see that bothers me:

People on here and other pilot forums placing outsized importance on the reduction of midair collisions through ADS-B in cockpit displays and undersized importance on the reduction of risks that are more significant. 

Specific examples:

A PPL co-worker was so freaked out that they got within 2 NM of another aircraft they said they will never again fly without ADS-B in, despite knowing that they fly in airspace with no TIS-B and where ADS-B out is not mandated.

A PPL I was conducting a BFR for in day VFR became so fixated on making their ADS-B in work that they lost situational awareness and entered an unusual attitude.

A PPL I was flying with just for fun was so heads-down in the cockpit they hadn't looked outside at all in over 5 minutes despite being day VFR as we were approaching KEAT.   When I asked if they were scanning for traffic, they said "Yes, I have my ADS-B as part of my instrument scan."

My hypothesis:

Midair collisions usually have someone who has made a mistake and is at fault or at least who was taking more risk even if they were following all of the regulations. For example by flying without using a radio.  This gives other pilots a focus where they can expend effort and money that demonstrates their dedication to safety without significantly changing their behaviors.   By doing so they relieve the stress of the actions they knowingly and secretly take that are risky such as flying with inadequate health, maintenance, preflight action, or poor fuel planning and management. 

 

My recommendation:

Evaluate the different risks that each of us are exposed to in all aspects of our lives and expend effort where the effort will have the most reward in terms of safety/life/health.

 

(1) https://www.aopa.org/training-and-safety/air-safety-institute/accident-analysis/joseph-t-nall-report/nall-report-figure-view?category=all&year=2020&condition=all&report=true)

(1.1) Note that each aircraft is counted separately. The reason there are odd numbers in these is that one of the aircraft is the collision is not a non-commercial fixed-wing aircraft.   In 2020 the other aircraft was commercial and in 2017 the other aircraft was a rotorcraft.

(2) https://www.aopa.org/training-and-safety/air-safety-institute/accident-analysis/joseph-t-nall-report/-/media/Files/AOPA/Home/Training-and-Safety/Nall-Report/28thNallReport2019

(3) https://www.aopa.org/training-and-safety/air-safety-institute/accident-analysis/joseph-t-nall-report/-/media/Files/AOPA/Home/Training-and-Safety/Nall-Report/27thNallReport2018

(4) https://www.aopa.org/training-and-safety/air-safety-institute/accident-analysis/joseph-t-nall-report/-/media/Files/AOPA/Home/Training-and-Safety/Nall-Report/26thNallReport2017

Edited November 15, 2023 by wombat

[EricJ]

It's just additional info that you can use for situational awareness, like a weather briefing or in-cockpit weather displays like weather radar, XM, or FIS-B.   Sure, you can do without it, but it's a tool available to help you and improve your chances of not having a Bad Day.   A difference with ADS-B, is it doubly improves your chances because others can use it to be aware of where you are, too, and have better awareness of where you are and where you're headed to help prevent them from having a Bad Day, too.

If you fly around here you're in some of the busiest GA airspace on the planet, and there are some places where it's thicker with small airplanes than others.    I fly in "the stack" a few times a year, where mostly student instrument pilots practice approaches into Casa Grande, KCGZ, with an uncontrolled, stacked holding pattern over the Stanfield VOR (TFD).   There's an uncontrolled radio protocol established for the training aircraft to determine where everybody should be in the stack, how to enter and move down the stack, and how to exit it, so that everybody knows where everybody else is at.    The missed approaches send a returning aircraft straight back into the middle of the stack into space that might be occupied, so diligence is required.

Vertical separation in the stack is 500 feet, with student pilots who are just learning how to do holds and vertical control, and who may or may not have remembered to set their altimeter to the CGZ pressure.  I've been in the stack when it was six airplanes deep, with others somewhere on the approach or return.   It's not at all unusual for very helpful position and intention updates to get missed because either the student or instructor are busy doing what they're doing, so the instructor or safety pilot has an important job to try to stay on top of where people are even if they're behind on reporting.

If you want a really good close-up of an airplane you're not in formation with, that's a good place to get one.   I'm not going in there without ADS-B both in and out.

Likewise just generally flying anywhere around here comes with a lot of opportunities for conflicts.    We did the VFR Bravo transition across Sky Harbor a couple weeks ago, coming back from the stack, and there were three other VFR airplanes crossing the west transition the same time we were, and we were all in touch with Phx TRACON.    Once released out of the transition you really need to know where everybody is going, because it's very easy to get tangled up coming out of a narrow pipe together.

Many people around here have stories of close encounters, and once in a while there's a collision, almost always with fatalities.   If there's a tool to help reduce the likelihood of that, I'm definitely going to use it, and in my experience it's very, very good for that.

Even in places without such close spatial compression, it's a godsend to have just to improve SA, for both you and for everybody else, imho.   It's one of those things where your own risk tolerance is a factor, but in this case the cost is very low and the potential pay off is very high.

[Ragsf15e]

I like adsb, but it’s another tool.  visual lookout, ATC traffic advisories, proper radio usage (traffic pattern), and appropriate vfr altitudes are other tools to reduce the threat.  None completely eliminates it, but i think it’s really low.  
 

There are times/places where I fly that adsb is the best way to find traffic before it’s very close (10,500’, eastern Oregon, no ATC coverage).  Also remember that the airplane that you’re on a collision course with is very hard to see because there’s no line of sight.  The other small airplanes you do find visually are typically already inside 2 miles but not an immediate threat as they are usually easier to see when they have relative motion and thus aren’t going to collide with you.

equipment wise, i wish I could set my gns430w to provide traffic advisories earlier.  It might be too much in busy areas like where @EricJlives, but it’s barely helpful now as the traffic can be very close before it provides a warning. I’ve definitely had it warn me of a rapidly climbing turboprop coming up below me that I would never have seen before we collided or at least passed very close.  As it was on that one, I maneuvered, saw the traffic, deconflicted and still wasn’t very happy about the situation.

The times i’m bummed about “the system” is when I see a “crop duster” (not always a duster) at a remote strip just ignoring radio use, no adsb out, using whichever runway he wants and flying improvised traffic “patterns”.  That’s just putting his risk tolerance (or lack) on everyone else. It’s not fair at all.

Edited November 15, 2023 by Ragsf15e

[Schllc]

9 minutes ago, Ragsf15e said:

The times i’m bummed about “the system” is when I see a crop duster (not always a duster) at a remote strip just ignoring radio use, no adsb out, using whichever runway he wants and flying improvised traffic patterns.  That’s just putting his risk tolerance (or lack) on everyone else. It’s not fair at all.

^^^^^ THIS!!!^^^^^
 

I had a crop duster take off in the opposite direction I was landing one time.  
He took off with a tail wind, when I was less than 1/4 mile from the threshold. 
I made all the calls for the pattern. If he didn’t have the power he had, we would have crashed, he did a 90deg turn under 100’ elevation.  
I was livid, and called the FAA to discuss. They called the other pilot and he corroborated my story 100%. Then the FAA called me back and said no action was necessary because no one did anything wrong.  
That made me even angrier and I told him as much. I said I saw the guys eyes on takeoff and someone did something wrong!  He said since it’s uncontrolled and he isn’t required to have a radio there as nothing they could do. 
I believe a radio should be mandatory for all aircraft, and Adsb in and out would never be a bad thing. 

[Tim-37419]

1 hour ago, Ragsf15e said:

The times i’m bummed about “the system” is when I see a “crop duster” (not always a duster)

For those who live on the ocean (or close), that's banner tow-er behavior to a T

 

I love ADSB and take back all the bitching I did as the mandate was approaching. Its not a replacement for scanning but it's where I look first for traffic for all the reasons rags listed.

[Vance Harral]

2 hours ago, EricJ said:

Sure, you can do without it, but it's a tool available to help you and improve your chances of not having a Bad Day.

The problem with this seemingly obvious statement is, it doesn't account for the possibility that using the tool increases risks other than the one the tool is designed to mitigate.  I see this as an instructor, and generally agree with Wombat: people are so disproportionately concerned with reducing the tiny probability of a mid-air, that they are achieving a net decrease in safety because of it.  Heck, right here on Mooneyspace this week, there is a thread from a brave soul who was willing to confess that his concerns about the tiny probability of a mid-air were a direct contributing factor to him crashing his airplane short of the runway threshold on a botched approach.  I applaud his humility, and his willingness to share the very important lesson he learned.

2 hours ago, EricJ said:

the cost is very low and the potential pay off is very high.

Only if you think the "cost" doesn't include the cost of distraction caused when the tool is used improperly.

I know, I know... you only use traffic information properly, and this doesn't apply to you, of course.  But I fly with dozens of pilots a year, and most of them are focusing an unreasonable amount of time and energy on traffic displays, to the detriment of other threats.

I'm sure arguments about this will continue, but pretty soon we'll have Nall report data from years past 2020, after the ADS-B mandate for rule airspace is in effect.  My prediction is there will not be any statistically significant difference in the number of mid-airs, measured across several years (the numbers are so small that you cannot attribute anything meaningful to a one year variance).

[EricJ]

29 minutes ago, Vance Harral said:

The problem with this seemingly obvious statement is, it doesn't account for the possibility that using the tool increases risks other than the one the tool is designed to mitigate.  I see this as an instructor, and generally agree with Wombat: people are so disproportionately concerned with reducing the tiny probability of a mid-air, that they are achieving a net decrease in safety because of it.  Heck, right here on Mooneyspace this week, there is a thread from a brave soul who was willing to confess that his concerns about the tiny probability of a mid-air were a direct contributing factor to him crashing his airplane short of the runway threshold on a botched approach.  I applaud his humility, and his willingness to share the very important lesson he learned.

Only if you think the "cost" doesn't include the cost of distraction caused when the tool is used improperly.

I know, I know... you only use traffic information properly, and this doesn't apply to you, of course.  But I fly with dozens of pilots a year, and most of them are focusing an unreasonable amount of time and energy on traffic displays, to the detriment of other threats.

I'm sure arguments about this will continue, but pretty soon we'll have Nall report data from years past 2020, after the ADS-B mandate for rule airspace is in effect.  My prediction is there will not be any statistically significant difference in the number of mid-airs, measured across several years (the numbers are so small that you cannot attribute anything meaningful to a one year variance).

You could make the same arguments about all kinds of SA augmenting technologies that aren't necessary, like weather radar, attitude indicators, VSIs, EFBs, GPS, audio warning systems (including stall warnings), navigation lights, etc., etc.   If you're not flying a cub with just an airspeed indicator and a ball, you're hopelessly distracted by the barrage of information and confusing complexity confronting you from every direction, much of which can be wrong with little indication that's it's not correct.

If you don't like ADS-B-in, don't use it.   But don't turn off your ADS-B-out, because I want to know where the people are that likely can't see me.

[Ragsf15e]

30 minutes ago, EricJ said:

You could make the same arguments about all kinds of SA augmenting technologies that aren't necessary, like weather radar, attitude indicators, VSIs, EFBs, GPS, audio warning systems (including stall warnings), navigation lights, etc., etc.   If you're not flying a cub with just an airspeed indicator and a ball, you're hopelessly distracted by the barrage of information and confusing complexity confronting you from every direction, much of which can be wrong with little indication that's it's not correct.

If you don't like ADS-B-in, don't use it.   But don't turn off your ADS-B-out, because I want to know where the people are that likely can't see me.

Heck, the #1 distraction I usually see for young pilots is the radio!  But I think I’ll keep using it and trying to teach them to  !

[aviatoreb]

Why not an all of the above approach?

[Gone]

Or, when you need it to enter rule airspace so they will actually clear you into the zone of one of the large number of US airports with Class C.  Not a requirement in Canada yet, but it is coming.  I don't need the hassle and normally flying IFR allows for a couple of other sets of eyes to watch what is happening in my vicinity.  So for IFR flying, it is clear to me that ADSB out is required.

ADSB in?  Depends.

[McMooney]

one day flying past memphis adsb alerted me to a phenom jet approaching from below and behind, 2 mins later i diverted left and watched it go past me off my right wing.

maybe missed me by a few hundred feet.   If you have tools use them otherwise your're the idiot

[GeeBee]

The problem is not the equipment or the data being present it is how it is being used. When TCAS first came out pilots often created a worse situation by using the screen situation rather than following the guidance. For instance a fast climbing jet that is leveling at 10,000' would trigger an TA then an RA for a jet descending to 11,000. TCAS RA is a coordinated manuever that is worked out between the units  themselves. In the aforementioned case TCAS may direct the pilot of the leveling aircraft to go through 10,000' while directing the descending aircraft to increase rate of descent through assigned altitude. If one pilot fails to follow the guidance a mid-air or close encounter can result. It required training that TCAS was more than PACMAN game but required training of how it works, how it thinks and how it should be used on the flight deck.

In similar terms, pilots locked into ADS-B displays are poorly trained and are failing to use a valuable asset properly. Equally so,  we see pilots who use the radio so diligently on CTAF, but fail to hear what other aircraft are saying or to properly orient what other aircraft are doing and positioned in their mind. I've encountered dozens of pilots who use perfect radio technique in their self announcements but have no clue as to what others are doing around them. So even the radio can be mis-used and as an asset wasted. It is not the asset, it is how you use it. 

[Vance Harral]

1 hour ago, EricJ said:

You could make the same arguments about all kinds of SA augmenting technologies that aren't necessary, like weather radar, attitude indicators, VSIs, EFBs, GPS

I'm not making theoretical arguments, I'm speaking of actual observations of actual pilots and where they spend their attention.  All these other items you've listed don't draw attention disproportionate to the associated risk, the way traffic displays do.

No one is arguing that ADS-B is bad and should be shelved.  We are saying it's being mis-used.  Too much time heads down, not enough time heads up.  Blind maneuvering in response to screens, without actually acquiring the target visually.  Anecdotal claims of "saves" that are far too frequent and common to have averted an actual collision, which just further spin up anxiety amongst the masses.  And most importantly, actual problems caused by inappropriate focus: the aformentioned unusual attitude, landing accident, etc.

I'm sure you feel this doesn't apply to you, because you don't misuse the tool, and that's fine - I have no reason to believe otherwise.  But you seem to think it doesn't apply to most other pilots either.  If we're going to talk about overall utility and education rather than just your personal operations, I think you need to listen to the instructors who are flying with a lot of different pilots about what we're seeing.  There's a lot of not-so-good decision making going on out there with respect to collision avoidance.  It's not theoretical.

[N201MKTurbo]

One of the scariest things that ever happened to me in aviation, and still gives me nightmares, happened while I was riding in the back of a Cherokee Six, being hauled to Kingman AZ to ferry a Rocket to Tucson.

A friend of mine was instructing the new owner of the Six. We were out in the middle of nowhere when I spotted an airplane dead ahead. I told my friend there was traffic at 12 o’clock and to turn left. So, what does he do? He looks down at his IPad and says he doesn’t see any traffic! I yell at him to look out the F’in window. He keeps looking down at the IPad and insists there is no traffic. A moment later the other plane passed about 10 feet off the right wing. My friend never saw it and thinks I was making the whole thing up.

[Ragsf15e]

14 minutes ago, N201MKTurbo said:

One of the scariest things that ever happened to me in aviation, and still gives me nightmares, happened while I was riding in the back of a Cherokee Six, being hauled to Kingman AZ to ferry a Rocket to Tucson.

A friend of mine was instructing the new owner of the Six. We were out in the middle of nowhere when I spotted an airplane dead ahead. I told my friend there was traffic at 12 o’clock and to turn left. So, what does he do? He looks down at his IPad and says he doesn’t see any traffic! I yell at him to look out the F’in window. He keeps looking down at the IPad and insists there is no traffic. A moment later the other plane passed about 10 feet off the right wing. My friend never saw it and thinks I was making the whole thing up.

If you said that to me i might have reverted to a former life and ripped the wings off in an 8 g left turn! Seriously, if someone listens to me that well, I don’t think I’d fly with them anymore.

[EricJ]

2 hours ago, Vance Harral said:

I'm sure you feel this doesn't apply to you, because you don't misuse the tool, and that's fine - I have no reason to believe otherwise.  But you seem to think it doesn't apply to most other pilots either.  If we're going to talk about overall utility and education rather than just your personal operations, I think you need to listen to the instructors who are flying with a lot of different pilots about what we're seeing.  There's a lot of not-so-good decision making going on out there with respect to collision avoidance.  It's not theoretical.

I'm saying I think I've heard this argument about probably six or seven different cockpit technologies over the years, and ADS-B is arguably the newest and so it's in the barrel right now.  I don't think it has anything to do with how I use it or anybody else uses it, it's just a new technology that people are still getting used to.   It's a normal part of new technology cycles in many different industries, and it's happening now with ADS-B.   There'll be some other technology that comes along later that will be "more trouble than it's worth" until people get used to using it and it becomes normal or until the next thing after that comes along and it become the next scourge.   Sometimes it takes the next one coming along to make people forget about how awful that last one must have been.    Then the last one becomes "normal" and everybody forgets how it was going to ruin everything.    It's a historically repeatable process.

[MikeOH]

I can't help but weigh in with my opinion on this...and it aligns pretty well with the OP's: the probability of a mid-air is pretty damn small compared with all the other things that will get you killed in aviation.  I've always believed that looking out the FN window is best and being on Flight Following is a close second; they tend to call out the ones to worry about!  But, of course, it's 'workload permitting' so, see option one: look out the damn window.

Personally, while I resented being forced to spend over $2K on a device I didn't want, it doesn't bother me to have it; as others have said, it's another tool.  Frankly, however, I've not been terribly impressed with its accuracy.  I've had it show traffic converging with my track from left to right when I've visually seen that traffic ALREADY pass in front of me!  I am always in compliance with all the PAPR tests so I don't think there's anything wrong with my ADSB; maybe the other guys?  But, it's happened on way more than just one occasion.

I fly in SoCal which is pretty busy airspace.  If I spent that much heads-down time trying to sort targets I'm sure my actual risk of a mid-air would increase.

Finally, I posit that most mid-airs occur in the traffic pattern or very nearby.  Is that really the best place to be heads-down vs. head-on-a-swivel?

Is there any data that shows even a correlation (let alone actual cause and effect) that since ADSB has been mandated that there has been a decrease in mid-airs? (data needs to be adjusted for activity level. No fair to take credit if flying hours are down).

[Pinecone]

7 hours ago, Ragsf15e said:

Seriously, if someone listens to me that well, I don’t think I’d fly with them anymore.

Ya think?

[Pinecone]

Newer pilots (and some not so new ones) do the same thing with the magenta line.  Heads down watching the little blue airplane track the line.  Not looking out to compare the screen with the world.

When the moving airplane on the chart was our finger on the sectional, we did a lot of looking outside.

Recently, I started putting up the dedicated traffic page on my 650 of AERA 760 (velcro to right panel now).  I set it so the outer ring is 6 miles.  And I set it to is shows targets +/- 2000 feet.  Makes for a clear look and you can tell with a glance that there isn't any conflicting traffic that is showing up on ADSB

 

[GeeBee]

Again what I am seeing here is lack of training and understanding of the system. For instance ADS-B traffic you have acquired visually but does not comport with your display? That is latency. It's why ADS-b is not as good as TCAS (among other reasons). What do all those grey circles on Garmin Pilot and Firelight mean? You're not going to get ADS-B traffic, period. Again ADS-B traffic is like the uplinked weather, it is strategic not tactical information and dependent on data transmission that may or may not be current or even operative. Is it better than nothing? Yes. Is it the solution? Nope.

As for visual identification of traffic, fine by me if you acquire it, but I would suggest a review of the human factors involved. I would suggest a review of the NTSB report of AeroMexico 498. Quick summary. What airplane will collide with you? The one on a constant relative bearing. What objects are the hardest for the human eye to acquire? Ones on a constant relative bearing......oops. 

And uncontrolled field operation. There is no requirement to transmit on CTAF. There is no requirement for a radio period. There is no requirement to landing or takeoff into the wind. There is only a requirement the direction of turns.....so be careful.

Finally maneuvering to avoid imminent collision. Turns take longer than a vertical maneuver. It is why TCAS guidance is vertical, not directional.

[A64Pilot]

Ref following the course line.

I learned years ago to not follow the course line, but to fly to the right of it, because it’s likely that someone may be coming the other way, following the same course line. I learned that flying in the Army where we flew at night with no lights and had airspace corridors to prevent friendly fire so we had to fly the corridors.

Ref Crop Dusters, if they have a loading truck that can move they will almost always land with a tailwind because they don’t have the time to waste taxing and of course it’s better to have the headwind when your heavy taking off, some Crop Dusters have a useful load equal to empty weight so they are usually very power limited when departing heavy. Thrush S2R-H80 had an empty weight of 5,000 lbs and a Max Gross of 10,500 lbs for instance. Ag pilots don’t care about gross weight they usually fly with the most weight they can get off the ground with and struggle to 200 ft or so.

If they have a loading ramp, they will always land toward the ramp and depart away from it, regardless of wind.

However it’s not common for them to fly with much wind unless spreading fertilizer or other relatively harmless thing because any chemical they are very aware of “off target application” meaning wind drift carry’s the chemical where you didn’t want it and as often as not they are paying damages and it tarnishes their reputation.

Oh and many, I’d say depending on where you are, most Ag pilots won’t have an Aviation radio, they will have a Motorola farmer FM radio but that doesn’t help us.

Trivia, but if you look almost none will have an ELT either, I never sold a Thrush in the US with an ELT in it.

Ag is a different world. Most are extremely talented stick and rudder pilots but don’t know how to talk to ATC and never leave their local area. 

[GeeBee]

Actually there is a thing called SLOP, "Strategic Lateral Offset Procedure". You can use it in certain parts of Class A airspace in the world, like the NATs and 10 degrees N and S of the equator. I have my autopilot set to track 1/4 mile to the right of the magenta line for two reasons. One with WAAS the big sky theory is dead on airways. It's going to be a dead nuts hit if someone is out of their altitude. Two, it creates about 50' to the right of the approach course in the approach mode because you are not going to see the rabbit over that big Ovation nose at 200'. I know it will be in the lower left corner of the windscreen.

Ditto me on Ag operations. Different breed, you need to watch out for them.

[Echo]

I was returning from Arkansas yesterday and twice I had traffic approximately 1000 feet below (the correct separation for our courses) and converging with me.  (based on ADSB painting on Garmin Pilot) I looked...and I looked...and I looked, but I could NOT spot the traffic either time.  It is a BIG sky, until it isn't.  A functional radio should be required for flight into airports in the 21st century.

I flew into the same Arkansas airport and there was NO Notam saying there would be approximately 30 ultra lights on the field when I came in for landing...but there WERE.

Not good.

[Vance Harral]

9 hours ago, EricJ said:

I'm saying I think I've heard this argument about probably six or seven different cockpit technologies over the years

Probably one thing we can agree on is that technologies work best when pilots receive training on how to use them, from informed and experienced sources, rather than being expected to figure it out on their own.  I'm not claiming to be the best expert, but who is?  None of the textbooks I'm familiar with (FAA and industry sources) have an in-depth treatment on TIS-B (there's actually more discussion of TCAS).  In particular, there's no formal treatment of attention level and risk/reward, failure modes, appropriate response to threats, etc.  The texts do say visual acquisition is the most important aspect of traffic avoidance, but that's not what pilots (and instructors) are actually prioritizing in the air, because traffic avoidance is not a specific element on any lesson plan I've ever seen.  Engineering nerds and/or pilots with a lot of time, experience, and a skeptical nature reach better conclusions.  But unless they're instructors, they have little influence and little incentive to correct bad behavior.

I guess what bugs me most about it is the generic complaint about flight instruction in general: the bulk of flight instruction is performed by young and inexperienced pilots who haven't flown much outside their local area (not their fault), lack an in-depth understanding of the engineering principles (not their fault), and relative risk (maybe something they should know, but this isn't covered in the CFI curriculum until the first FIRC, by which point it's already too late).  So they guess, based on what seems intuitive, and wind up passing on bad advice to the next cycle of pilots/instructors.  The principle of primacy being what it is, it's very hard to undo these things.  A more humorous, more benign example is the "Last call" radio transmission, which I think of as the illegitimate grandson of "Any traffic in the area, please advise."  I can let that one go because while it doesn't help anything, it doesn't hurt much either.  Poor use of traffic displays is of greater concern to me.  It's not wrong to point out the problems with it, and it's no more appropriate to accuse those who do of being Luddites, than it is to accuse people who evangelize it of being idiots.

[chriscalandro]

I fly a 200kt plus airplane in SoCal. It’s very busy here and you would be stupid to not be watching the ADSB traffic at all times. 
 

When you’re looking out the window for the one guy they told you about, you’re probably not going to see the 2 others near you that they didn’t call about. 
 

it’s a lot easier and benefit to see something in a screen miles off than something outside a half mile away. If you even see it.