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

[chriscalandro]

16 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

Your (it's not you're, BTW) brain needs to have a better grasp of the English language. You wrote, "at ALL times" if that is not what you meant, then perhaps you should endeavor to write what you do mean in the future.  May your massively swollen head grasp that concept.

I used the correct word.  You want to try to teach lessons at least be correct.  …and you want to call my head swollen.

 

Edited November 17, 2023 by chriscalandro

[chriscalandro]

Just like I’m WATCHING you respond to this thread like an aged out simpleton. 

[Hank]

11 hours ago, chriscalandro said:

Luckily people like you aren’t legally allowed to take off or land anywhere close to where I am. 

6 hours ago, chriscalandro said:

You can either join the program or stick to your Stone Age logic. 

1 hour ago, chriscalandro said:

Just like I’m WATCHING you respond to this thread like an aged out simpleton. 

1 hour ago, chriscalandro said:

You’re smooth brain might not be capable of comprehending this

i apologize for my earlier post complimentimg you for toning down your invective, and am correcting that earlier statement. You've actually spread your despicable attitude and angry verbiage onto everyone in this thread who dared to disagree with your holy opinions!

It's people with attitudes like this (I'm right, you're wrong, and since it's too difficult to prove you wrong, I'll just insult you) that have led to the current impasse in American politics, create strife and dissention everywhere they go, and suck the fun out of nice places like Mooneyspace. 

In more temperatures times, you'd have been called a boor and cast out. Instead, I'm just going to block your arrogant, idiotic speech and try hard to ignore it when someone else quotes you. You've shown yourself tonight to be a detriment to civil discourse and an enemy to good manners and friendship.

Because I can't cast you out of here, I'll settle for flying on the other side of the country and not having to read your diatribes anymore. 

I can't say "farewell" because although this is goodbye, I do not have any good wishes for either your future or seeing / hearing you again.

[Hank]

Wow, this thread is a lot shorter with His Arrogance ignored, and now we can get back on topic:

Why do so many pilots feel that looking at the little TV in the cabin is so much more important than looking out the windows to avoid traffic?

Sure, ADSB can tell you where to look, but then you need to look out the window and actually see what ADSB was indicating! It's called "see and avoid," not "transmit and avoid" for a reason . . . . There's never a delay where you will see another plane out the window where it was 5-10 seconds ago.

[Rwsavory]

ADSB is a useful tool. No one advocates it as the only way to see and avoid traffic. You’re also making a good argument for having ADSB; it can tell you where to look. That’s important. 

[chriscalandro]

These are facts. Not opinions. And the data shows it. 
 

I’ll maintain that I’m glad that someone as cheap and arrogant as you who can’t be bothered to install a lightbulb that has the potential to save lives isn’t allowed to fly in or around the airspace I regularly take off and land in. 

[ArtVandelay]

Wow, this thread is a lot shorter with His Arrogance ignored, and now we can get back on topic:
Why do so many pilots feel that looking at the little TV in the cabin is so much more important than looking out the windows to avoid traffic?
Sure, ADSB can tell you where to look, but then you need to look out the window and actually see what ADSB was indicating! It's called "see and avoid," not "transmit and avoid" for a reason . . . . There's never a delay where you will see another plane out the window where it was 5-10 seconds ago.

1. ADSB has a much bigger range than my eyeballs.
2. ADSB isn’t blocked by clouds, wings, etc.
3. ADSB can see traffic that may blend in with the ground clutter.

Yes, it sometimes misses traffic or traffic is delayed because of ground stations acting as relays. It has similar limitations that the ADSB weather radar broadcasts have.

This is silly hyperbole, no one who has half a brain is suggesting not to look outside. I check the ADSB and if close enough look to confirm traffic or weather in sight. Both weather and traffic make it an invaluable tool.

[chriscalandro]

7 hours ago, Hank said:

i apologize for my earlier post complimentimg you for toning down your invective, and am correcting that earlier statement. You've actually spread your despicable attitude and angry verbiage onto everyone in this thread who dared to disagree with your holy opinions!

 

facts, not opinions. ADSB has proven to increase situational awareness, inform decision making, and reduce incidents like mid air collisions. 

7 hours ago, Hank said:

In more temperatures times, you'd have been called a boor and cast out.

 

you mean like the Stone Age, where it appears you developed most of your (factually incorrect) knowledge?

7 hours ago, Hank said:

Instead, I'm just going to block your arrogant, idiotic speech and try hard to ignore it when someone else quotes you.

My feelings they’re so hurt. This will surely have a major impact on the thoughts I have on all the data and analytics you’re wrong about. 

7 hours ago, Hank said:

You've shown yourself tonight to be a detriment to civil discourse and an enemy to good manners and friendship.

You’ve shown that no matter how much you’re wrong, you’re going to be a CB and force those around you to have to deal with your arrogance. 

7 hours ago, Hank said:

Because I can't cast you out of here, I'll settle for flying on the other side of the country and not having to read your diatribes anymore. 

Perfect. Stay over there. 
 

7 hours ago, Hank said:

I can't say "farewell" because although this is goodbye, I do not have any good wishes for either your future or seeing / hearing you again.

 

Edited November 17, 2023 by chriscalandro

[chriscalandro]

22 minutes ago, ArtVandelay said:

Yes, it sometimes misses traffic or traffic is delayed because of ground stations acting as relays. It has similar limitations that the ADSB weather radar broadcasts have.
 

ADSB is also air to air for traffic with properly equipped aircraft, which reduces latency and delay significantly and is minimal. 
when relayed through ground stations and TIS-B there will be additional small latency. 

Edited November 17, 2023 by chriscalandro

[MikeOH]

Hey @wombat,

Finished your third box of popcorn, yet?

You get post of the year for kickin the hornet’s nest and running for the hills

[EricJ]

8 hours ago, Hank said:

Sure, ADSB can tell you where to look, but then you need to look out the window and actually see what ADSB was indicating! It's called "see and avoid," not "transmit and avoid" for a reason . . . . There's never a delay where you will see another plane out the window where it was 5-10 seconds ago.

One of the things you learn when you use ADS-B-in regularly is how much traffic there is out there that even if you know exactly where to look you can't see it, even if it's close.    I probably spend more time looking out the window for traffic with ADS-B-in because I have a better idea of where to look for it.    I still may never see it, even if it is close, just because you can't always.   It makes you really glad that you have another way to be aware of that traffic. 

[Hank]

17 minutes ago, EricJ said:

One of the things you learn when you use ADS-B-in regularly is how much traffic there is out there that even if you know exactly where to look you can't see it, even if it's close.    I probably spend more time looking out the window for traffic with ADS-B-in because I have a better idea of where to look for it.    I still may never see it, even if it is close, just because you can't always.   It makes you really glad that you have another way to be aware of that traffic. 

I agree, but ADSB isn’t designed for tactical use--you still have to look out the window and determine with your eyes if you need to take action or not.

[EricJ]

2 minutes ago, Hank said:

I agree, but ADSB isn’t designed for tactical use--you still have to look out the window and determine with your eyes if you need to take action or not.

I'm not aware that anybody has ever suggested otherwise.

[Hank]

1 minute ago, EricJ said:

I'm not aware that anybody has ever suggested otherwise.

Read Chris Calandro's posts.

Read other posts in this thread--thenone that sticks in my mind, the poster was in the back seat and the two guys up front were so.busy looking at the ADSB screen that they didn't see the other aircraft zoom by 19 whole feet away from a mid-air.

[chriscalandro]

25 minutes ago, Hank said:

Read Chris Calandro's posts.

Read other posts in this thread--thenone that sticks in my mind, the poster was in the back seat and the two guys up front were so.busy looking at the ADSB screen that they didn't see the other aircraft zoom by 19 whole feet away from a mid-air.

Again, incorrect. I’ve never said that you shouldn’t look out the window while also watching an ADSB in device. 
 

no rational person would think that and no rational person would interpret my comments that way. 
 

you have repeatedly proven you aren’t capable of rational thought. 
 

Also, let’s look at this example you mentioned. If looking out the window is so effective as a sole source of information, why didn’t the pilot in the back seat spot the incoming airplane with plenty of time to warn the PIC of the incoming traffic?

Edited November 17, 2023 by chriscalandro

[EricJ]

23 minutes ago, Hank said:

Read Chris Calandro's posts.

Read other posts in this thread--thenone that sticks in my mind, the poster was in the back seat and the two guys up front were so.busy looking at the ADSB screen that they didn't see the other aircraft zoom by 19 whole feet away from a mid-air.

Nobody in this thread has suggested not looking out the window.    ADS-B-in is a tool to help you look out the window more effectively.

[Hank]

1 hour ago, EricJ said:

Nobody in this thread has suggested not looking out the window.    ADS-B-in is a tool to help you look out the window more effectively.

You may not be saying it, but Chris Calandro was; since I put him on Ignore last night, I can't point out the times he did so. Regardless, that is the way that many people are using it, despite it's known delays and inaccuracies, as are posted above. These are all from this first page, sufficient in number that I don't feel the need to continue quoting from Page 2 or further along:

 

On 11/15/2023 at 6:16 PM, 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.  . . .

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.

On 11/15/2023 at 9:04 PM, Vance Harral said:

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.

On 11/15/2023 at 9:53 PM, 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.

On 11/15/2023 at 11:40 PM, MikeOH said:

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?

On 11/16/2023 at 6:59 AM, GeeBee said:

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.

 

[chriscalandro]

For the record ADSB traffic for properly equipped aircraft is air to air with very minimal latency and delay. If you are using ADSB from air to air you can pretty much watch the target fly by in real time out the window and on the display. 
 

it’s nice to be able to easily correct wrong information posted here without the misinformed interjecting nonsense. 

Edited November 17, 2023 by chriscalandro

[EricJ]

52 minutes ago, Hank said:

You may not be saying it, but Chris Calandro was; 

He didn't, actually.

[Ragsf15e]

I do think one thing we’re missing from @Vance Harral ‘s initial point is about training.  How much training did any of us get on using adsb to look for traffic?  Sure we know how to use the system and make it Bluetooth to all our devices, but to effectively use it to help us deconflict from traffic that may or may not be displayed?  That needs to be taught in ppl and reinforced anytime cfi’s or others experienced pilots fly with someone struggling with effective use of the technology.  It includes when to use it, how to use it and when not to use it.

I will say in the F-15E as I flew it we had a really good radar, but it wasn’t perfect.  The front seaters ran the radar through hotas on both hands (mostly on the throttle), flew tactical formation, and looked outside for bandits.  Sometimes at night on nvgs (which significantly reduces field of view and distance perception).  It was very hard to teach people when they could “stare” at the radar screen vs when they should solely focus on visual lookout (or flying formation).  The simulated bandits we flew against knew how best to avoid detection.  It was very embarrassing when (occasionally) someone would be working hard on the radar and their backseater would yell “break right! Bandit 5 o’clock!” Because they had already merged and the backseater was the only one looking outside.

Training can overcome many (not all) of the issues with proper time management and exactly which “sensor” is priority at the moment. Eyeballs are one of our sensors.

[Vance Harral]

If the conversation is going to turn back to training instead of who's an idiot, I'll play.  Here are some observations I have from watching "self taught" pilots interact with their traffic systems, that bother me.  Feedback is welcome, I'm happy to hear other opinions.

First is understanding the difference between what is, and is not actually a threat.  Pilots say things to me like, "You just don't realize how much traffic is out there, Vance.  There's way more than you think!".  So I ask them to show me, and they'll bring up some picture like this:

It's an impressive image at first glance.  Obviously hundreds of airplanes.  But then I point out this picture encompasses over 2,500 cubic nautical miles of airspace (you can see both KOSH and KMSN in the picture, they're a little over 60nm apart, and there is no altitude filtering).  Each individual blue arrow representing an airplane is about 4 square miles of area at this scale, as if every piston single was the size of an Imperial Star Destroyer.  It paints a completely unrealistic picture of "all that traffic out there".  Conclusion: scale matters.  Set your traffic display to some single-digit number of miles, in accordance with your speed, such that you don't see anything at all until it's within a minute or two of closing on you (nothing under 10,000' is moving faster than 250 knots, and even a 500-knot closure rate is only 8 nm/min).  Employ altitude filtering, too: if you really believe that device is giving you accurate, useful information, you certainly don't need to worry about targets depicted more than 2000' above/below you.  If one does these things, there's often nothing on the display, which frees up a lot of cognitive energy for, you know, flying the airplane.  Trouble is, lots of pilots I fly with have gotten to the point of developing such inherent anxiety about traffic, that if they can't see any threats to avoid on the display, they'll keep zooming out until they do.

Second point: for something that's a real threat, what should you do about it?  Most of the pilots I ask this say something like, "Well, I'll maneuver to avoid the threat based on what the display is showing me".  What I want to hear is "I'll attempt to find the threat visually, then maneuver to avoid it if necessary".  That's usually not what people say.  But you know what?  I can let that go.  Reasonable people can disagree on this.  What drives me nuts is that when I ask how they're going to maneuver, a lot of people tell me they're going to perform a maneuver that absolutely maximizes the chance of a midair.  They say they'll turn "away" from the threat, by which they mean they'll make a turn that puts their belly to the target, guarantees they can't see the threat, and maximizes the time the two aircraft are in close proximity.  Literally any other answer would be better: Climb.  Descend.  Turn toward the target so you can put your nose on their tail and pass behind.  Speed up.  Slow down.  Just anything other than turning your belly to the target and carving a parabolic path right toward their track.

My third gripe is the growing preponderance of pilots who use their traffic displays around uncontrolled airports to effectively declare themselves an ad-hoc controller, and make "suggestions" about what other airplanes should do.  To be clear, I've got no problem with a radio call like, "N12345 is on the 45 to downwind for XX, planning to enter the pattern behind N54321".  That's a nice feature of TIS-B.  But in the metro area where I fly, I run into situations a few times a month where some yahoo is asking other airplanes (by call sign), "What are you doing?"; or making position calls on behalf of other airplanes they think have failed to made some "standard" announcement; or initiating a ten-sentence exchange of coordination with the aircraft nearest them, completely oblivious to the bandwidth they're taking up that prevents others from making critical position reports.  CTAF procedures have always been challenging, but ADS-B is making those challenges worse, and I'm inclined to believe the net safety change is a wash at best.

Once again, these are not theoretical problems I'm concerned "could" happen.  They are actual behavior I'm observing on a regular basis.  The people engaging in these behaviors aren't idiots, and the insidious thing is that they really believe they're making things safer.  In some cases they lack critical thinking skills, but mostly what they lack is experience and/or instruction.  It would be nice for the industry to address that.  I can do my part as an instructor, but I'm just one guy, and unlikely to exert much influence on anyone who already has a pilot certificate.

 

[Tim-37419]

19 minutes ago, Vance Harral said:

If the conversation is going to turn back to training instead of who's an idiot, I'll play.

it did stay civil a lot longer than I thought it would.
 

I hope I’m not the only one to disagree with your last sentence. I always listen and take advice from instructors, I hope others do too.

[Ragsf15e]

2 hours ago, Vance Harral said:

If the conversation is going to turn back to training instead of who's an idiot, I'll play.  Here are some observations I have from watching "self taught" pilots interact with their traffic systems, that bother me.  Feedback is welcome, I'm happy to hear other opinions.

First is understanding the difference between what is, and is not actually a threat.  Pilots say things to me like, "You just don't realize how much traffic is out there, Vance.  There's way more than you think!".  So I ask them to show me, and they'll bring up some picture like this:

It's an impressive image at first glance.  Obviously hundreds of airplanes.  But then I point out this picture encompasses over 2,500 cubic nautical miles of airspace (you can see both KOSH and KMSN in the picture, they're a little over 60nm apart, and there is no altitude filtering).  Each individual blue arrow representing an airplane is about 4 square miles of area at this scale, as if every piston single was the size of an Imperial Star Destroyer.  It paints a completely unrealistic picture of "all that traffic out there".  Conclusion: scale matters.  Set your traffic display to some single-digit number of miles, in accordance with your speed, such that you don't see anything at all until it's within a minute or two of closing on you (nothing under 10,000' is moving faster than 250 knots, and even a 500-knot closure rate is only 8 nm/min).  Employ altitude filtering, too: if you really believe that device is giving you accurate, useful information, you certainly don't need to worry about targets depicted more than 2000' above/below you.  If one does these things, there's often nothing on the display, which frees up a lot of cognitive energy for, you know, flying the airplane.  Trouble is, lots of pilots I fly with have gotten to the point of developing such inherent anxiety about traffic, that if they can't see any threats to avoid on the display, they'll keep zooming out until they do.

Second point: for something that's a real threat, what should you do about it?  Most of the pilots I ask this say something like, "Well, I'll maneuver to avoid the threat based on what the display is showing me".  What I want to hear is "I'll attempt to find the threat visually, then maneuver to avoid it if necessary".  That's usually not what people say.  But you know what?  I can let that go.  Reasonable people can disagree on this.  What drives me nuts is that when I ask how they're going to maneuver, a lot of people tell me they're going to perform a maneuver that absolutely maximizes the chance of a midair.  They say they'll turn "away" from the threat, by which they mean they'll make a turn that puts their belly to the target, guarantees they can't see the threat, and maximizes the time the two aircraft are in close proximity.  Literally any other answer would be better: Climb.  Descend.  Turn toward the target so you can put your nose on their tail and pass behind.  Speed up.  Slow down.  Just anything other than turning your belly to the target and carving a parabolic path right toward their track.

My third gripe is the growing preponderance of pilots who use their traffic displays around uncontrolled airports to effectively declare themselves an ad-hoc controller, and make "suggestions" about what other airplanes should do.  To be clear, I've got no problem with a radio call like, "N12345 is on the 45 to downwind for XX, planning to enter the pattern behind N54321".  That's a nice feature of TIS-B.  But in the metro area where I fly, I run into situations a few times a month where some yahoo is asking other airplanes (by call sign), "What are you doing?"; or making position calls on behalf of other airplanes they think have failed to made some "standard" announcement; or initiating a ten-sentence exchange of coordination with the aircraft nearest them, completely oblivious to the bandwidth they're taking up that prevents others from making critical position reports.  CTAF procedures have always been challenging, but ADS-B is making those challenges worse, and I'm inclined to believe the net safety change is a wash at best.

Once again, these are not theoretical problems I'm concerned "could" happen.  They are actual behavior I'm observing on a regular basis.  The people engaging in these behaviors aren't idiots, and the insidious thing is that they really believe they're making things safer.  In some cases they lack critical thinking skills, but mostly what they lack is experience and/or instruction.  It would be nice for the industry to address that.  I can do my part as an instructor, but I'm just one guy, and unlikely to exert much influence on anyone who already has a pilot certificate.

 

For your #1 point, my gns430w is actually a really good traffic display as I return to my home class D under a class C.  I know lots of people scoff at the small screen, but there’s no background color hiding little traffic icons and it’s super easy to scale in.  I usually cruise with it out at 30 miles scale but zoom in to 10 miles when I start my descent.  It also filters out traffic well off your altitude.  Anyway, your point is valid because a zoomed out ipad screen without filtering is terrible. I do fly in the northwest though so there’s probably less traffic than youre seeing except when I fly to Seattle where I’m on a 5nm scale or less to keep some SA on close traffic.

Second point, I also agree.  Sometimes it’s hard to visualize which way is better to turn to create some line of sight movement.  That can take a long time to learn.

I think for people struggling with this, it might be helpful to get them to concentrate on one aspect per flight or even over several flights.  Like concentrate on visual lookout and atc flight following during a flight without using adsb at all.  Like how to pickup flight following, radio terminology, how/why/when to cancel it, how to use the 2nd radio, etc.  All while doing visual lookout.  Then maybe try a flight where you use adsb instead and try to convince them to take small looks at it, appropriate scale, reasonable action, etc.  I doubt student pilots could incorporate atc flight following, adsb traffic, visual lookout and additional radio work (atis, listening to ctaf, etc) until they are getting close to their checkride (or beyond).

I agree nobody should be making radios calls for/about others based on adsb, but apparently they need to be trained not too.  There’s also some people who aren’t really that willing to listen.  We do what we can…

[Vance Harral]

6 hours ago, Ragsf15e said:

Sometimes it’s hard to visualize which way is better to turn to create some line of sight movement.  That can take a long time to learn.

Maybe it'll amuse you to explain that I teach students it's a mock dogfight, at least as close as you'll get as a civilian.  I was never a fighter jock like you, but "Lose sight, lose the fight" and all that - there's a lot to be said for turning toward a target rather than away from it.  Not only are you more likely to see them, but in most cases, if you point your airplane at where a threat is right now, it actually increases separation by the time you get to where they were.

More controversially, I can often get effective results by rocking my wings without actually changing my flight path at all.  Usually this goads the other guy into doing something, and I can watch the threat actively fly away from me.  The point is not to be a bully, but a little "showing off" in the name of increased visibility isn't a necessarily a bad thing.

Both of these strategies are counter-intuitive.  You need to think about it a lot to understand why they're effective collision avoidance.  Things like this are taught to ATC controllers, radar intercept officers, and fighter jocks; but it hasn't yet made it into the Private Pilot curriculum.

[Schllc]

I’m a little confused as well, and believe that some personal conflicts may have distorted the issue a bit. 
The reality is that even with excellent vision and awareness, you are incapable of seeing a large portion of the visual field. It’s just impossible to see areas behind, over, under and at some point on the side. ADSB can see it all directions. 
When I started flying, none of the planes, at that point, had traffic. Heck the flight school planes didn’t even have functional gps or AP’s, much less traffic. 
My first Mooney did not have ADSB, and I flew it for almost a year before upgrading to a 345. I was going to get active traffic as well but my avionics guy said get ADSB in/out first and see if you still want active traffic.
I listened to him and when I picked up my plane to fly home I was shocked, and I mean SHOCKED at the volume of traffic around me that I could not see!  
There simply is no good reason to suggest this isn’t a benefit, helpful or that it provides additional safety. 
I will never own a plane without traffic of some kind.  While the risk may be statistically low, it’s one you can easily mitigate with traffic, and I see no reason not to have in my aircraft. 
I know some of you guys prefer not to spend the money, but call it what it is, because it does enhance safety and awareness, with or without proper training…

Full disclosure, I would support the FAA mandating radios, and radio use  in all planes, and at all airfields .  There is no valid reason not have a radio in todays day and age. Even a good portable one is less than $500.