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

[wombat]

I will re-iterate:  While mid-air collisions are tragic and horrible, spending money on ADS-B in an attempt to prevent midair collisions at the current relative rate of midair collisions to other accident types is counterproductive.  We'd save more lives by putting our money into mitigating other risks.  In this case, it looks like the CFI in the Cessna was looking at his iPad for ADS-B instead of looking outside and consequently they impacted the other aircraft.    

Mistakes may have been made that day but the decision to equip either plane with more or less hardware was not one of them.  Both planes were legal to fly in that airspace with the installed equipment and as I have said many times before, if we want to direct our limited safety budget toward producing additional safety, additional ADS-B requirements is the wrong decision.

[Aaviationist]

10 hours ago, wombat said:

I will re-iterate:  While mid-air collisions are tragic and horrible, spending money on ADS-B in an attempt to prevent midair collisions at the current relative rate of midair collisions to other accident types is counterproductive.  We'd save more lives by putting our money into mitigating other risks.  In this case, it looks like the CFI in the Cessna was looking at his iPad for ADS-B instead of looking outside and consequently they impacted the other aircraft.    

Mistakes may have been made that day but the decision to equip either plane with more or less hardware was not one of them.  Both planes were legal to fly in that airspace with the installed equipment and as I have said many times before, if we want to direct our limited safety budget toward producing additional safety, additional ADS-B requirements is the wrong decision.

Except that isn’t true at all. The pilot account says neither pilot (two of them) could see the traffic visually. So one began looking at the iPad while the other continued looking outside until the impact happened. 
 

yes, more than likely ADSB would have prevented this incident. Tell me how that would have been counter productive?

[Will.iam]

58 minutes ago, Aaviationist said:

Except that isn’t true at all. The pilot account says neither pilot (two of them) could see the traffic visually. So one began looking at the iPad while the other continued looking outside until the impact happened. 
 

yes, more than likely ADSB would have prevented this incident. Tell me how that would have been counter productive?

Well for one thing ADS-B at close range can and does produce skating which is to say the target is not where it actually is in relationship to you. Just yesterday we were at an uncontrolled field with 4 other airplanes in the pattern. The aircraft that was in front of us turning base to final as we were on downwind about to turn base when we decided to extend our base turn because he was at our 10 o’clock but the ads-b did not show any traffic in front of us. Once we heard his call sign again i found his ads-b target and it was behind us! off our 8 o’clock. Had i looked at my ipad first and tried to find the traffic it would have suggested for me to look in the wrong direction.  

[EricJ]

19 minutes ago, Will.iam said:

Well for one thing ADS-B at close range can and does produce skating which is to say the target is not where it actually is in relationship to you. Just yesterday we were at an uncontrolled field with 4 other airplanes in the pattern. The aircraft that was in front of us turning base to final as we were on downwind about to turn base when we decided to extend our base turn because he was at our 10 o’clock but the ads-b did not show any traffic in front of us. Once we heard his call sign again i found his ads-b target and it was behind us! off our 8 o’clock. Had i looked at my ipad first and tried to find the traffic it would have suggested for me to look in the wrong direction.  

In this case, though, if the other aircraft had been using their ADS-B as they approached the airport it would have increased the likelihood that the Cessna would have been aware of them, which is what it's there for.   If the other aircraft had been using ADS-B-in they'd have had a higher likelihood of being aware of where the Cessna was as well.

I think the glitch you saw may have been due to the display device rather than ADS-B itself.   It seems like some displays will hold their last known display point for a transmitter or apply some predictive algorithm (Kalman filter maybe?) in the event that it misses a transmission or two.    Those sorts of processing artifacts will likely be different from EFB to EFB and display to display.   I've seen disagreements between my in-panel traffic display and my EFBs, or even between the two tablets I use with the same EFB software.   It's not a perfect system, but it is a huge benefit in improving situational awareness.

My home airport is extremely busy, and even just when holding short of the runway waiting to take off it's very useful to be able to see the traffic in the pattern and the aircraft on final to be able to anticipate a gap when they'll let me out.

I'm very puzzled by people who aren't able to use the information to improve their situational awareness.   

[Hank]

And here I thought the primary purpose of ADSB was to allow the FAA to transfer ATC spending from their budget to aircraft owners by reducing radar coverage, with side benefits to us of reducing flight spacing at controlled fields, and providing weather through ADSB In.

That people use it looking for traffic is crazy, with all of the known positional errors. Look out the durn window! Except when IMC on an IFR flight plan, traffic separation is each pilot's responsibility. It has been demonstrated many times that at short distances, ADSB IN traffic is horribly inaccurate, because it wasn't part of the original design constraints. 

Look away from your pretty electronics and look out the windows!!

[Ibra]

ADSB is effective to avoid airprox, let’s say this means keeping other traffic outside some (+/-500ft & +/-2nm) bubble 

Once a traffic is inside the bubble, it’s no longer an airprox and it start to look like mid-air, there are better ways to avoid mid-air such as looking ahead and picking random altitude that differs from what the traffic is using 

I am really puzzled why people rely on likes of ADSB or TAS (or FLARM for gliders down here) to “locate” traffic in tight patterns? these tools are useful to avoid conflicts before they become an airprox once it’s within wing spans and radius of turn the ship has sailed: all you need to know is that traffic is near you and the rest is done using MK1 eyeball and looking outside with extra dose of luck 

On luck: the probability of random mid-air inside (+/-500ft & +/-2nm) 3D bubble with two small aircraft 40ftx40ftx10ft is very small, it’s about 1 in 10million, it gets down to 1 in 10 thousands if flying 2D at same altitude, it gets down to 1 in hundreds if flying same 1D route (e.g. pattern) and about 1 in 1 if landing on same spot. One can come up with precise figures on how much is down to luck with more aircraft, high-low wing, fast-slow speed, lookout angles...but the magnitudes are useful to get an idea of airprox vs. midair risks 

While ADSB is not useful to avoid mid-airs, it is still useful to avoid airprox and give a sense of the stats one is dealing with, one should get worried about mid-air roughly in the following scenarios: 

* If they saw 100 airprox in pattern

* If they saw 10000 airpox at 2000ft 

* If they saw 1000000 airprox under 10000ft 

In my opinion, the most useful information about nearby traffic is their altitude, the exact azimuth and exact position is hot potato when they are inside my bubble (turn radius), I won’t put my money on what the display shows? imagine there is 30 seconds delay or +1nm accuracy 

Edited November 16 by Ibra

[Aaviationist]

2 hours ago, Hank said:

And here I thought the primary purpose of ADSB was to allow the FAA to transfer ATC spending from their budget to aircraft owners by reducing radar coverage, with side benefits to us of reducing flight spacing at controlled fields, and providing weather through ADSB In.

That people use it looking for traffic is crazy, with all of the known positional errors. Look out the durn window! Except when IMC on an IFR flight plan, traffic separation is each pilot's responsibility. It has been demonstrated many times that at short distances, ADSB IN traffic is horribly inaccurate, because it wasn't part of the original design constraints. 

Look away from your pretty electronics and look out the windows!!

I’m not sure why you are so incapable of understanding both the video and the write up. None of what you say above is accurate or true. Please show me ANY study that says ADSB is inaccurate at short distances. 
 

both pilots WERE looking out the window. 
 

it’s a life saving technology for both me AND you. Your unwillingness to participate and your comments here demonstrate almost EVERY dangerous attitude by definition. 
 

I’ve read this thread. At no time have you ever made a coherent argument, or logical explanation for your thoughts other than demonstrating that you operate your airplane likely with minimal equipment, misuse the system, and overall are a total negative impact on safety in general aviation. 
 

see and avoid has many flaws. In the case I posted, 3 COMPENTENT PILOTS, looking out the window, were unable to see and avoid. 
 

at some point you have to give up whatever charade you’re playing. 

Edited November 16 by Aaviationist

[Aaviationist]

2 hours ago, Ibra said:

ADSB is effective to avoid airprox, let’s say this means keeping other traffic outside some (+/-500ft & +/-2nm) bubble 

Once a traffic is inside the bubble, it’s no longer an airprox and it start to look like mid-air, there are better ways to avoid mid-air such as looking ahead and picking random altitude that differs from what the traffic is using 

I am really puzzled why people rely on likes of ADSB or TAS (or FLARM for gliders down here) to “locate” traffic in tight patterns? these tools are useful to avoid conflicts before they become an airprox once it’s within wing spans and radius of turn the ship has sailed: all you need to know is that traffic is near you and the rest is done using MK1 eyeball and looking outside with extra dose of luck 

On luck: the probability of random mid-air inside (+/-500ft & +/-2nm) 3D bubble with two small aircraft 40ftx40ftx10ft is very small, it’s about 1 in 10million, it gets down to 1 in 10 thousands if flying 2D at same altitude, it gets down to 1 in hundreds if flying same 1D route (e.g. pattern) and about 1 in 1 if landing on same spot. One can come up with precise figures on how much is down to luck with more aircraft, high-low wing, fast-slow speed, lookout angles...but the magnitudes are useful to get an idea of airprox vs. midair risks 

While ADSB is not useful to avoid mid-airs, it is still useful to avoid airprox and give a sense of the stats one is dealing with, one should get worried about mid-air roughly in the following scenarios: 

* If they saw 100 airprox in pattern

* If they saw 10000 airpox at 2000ft 

* If they saw 1000000 airprox under 10000ft 

In my opinion, the most useful information about nearby traffic is their altitude, the exact azimuth and exact position is hot potato when they are inside my bubble (turn radius), I won’t put my money on what the display shows? imagine there is 30 seconds delay or +1nm accuracy 

For ADSB in and out equipped aircraft the delay is minimal and is certainly NOT anywhere remotely close to 30 seconds. ADSB is capable of air to air. 
 

It seems there is a lot of mis-information and ill advised members participating in this thread. 

[wombat]

3 hours ago, Aaviationist said:

... one began looking at the iPad ... until the impact happened. 

More likely ADS-B and ADS-B fixation CAUSED this accident.     People who don't understand what the system is and what it does are part of the problem.   

 

2 hours ago, EricJ said:

 ... which is what it's there for.   If the other aircraft had been using ADS-B-in they'd have had a higher likelihood of being aware of where the Cessna was as well.

I'm very puzzled by people who aren't able to use the information to improve their situational awareness.   

There was a radio call telling them where the other aircraft was.  So they decided to keep flying towards danger and one person decided to stop looking outside and look at his iPad instead.

And as @Hank says, ADS-B was not designed as a safety tool, it was a cost mitigation tool for the FAA so they could decomission some RADAR facilities.   If they had wanted to mandate mid-air collision avoidance systems in aircraft, they would have mandated TCAS installs.     Now don't get me wrong (although I expect you will anyway).     ADS-B can provide some additional safety if used correctly.   But this was not a correct use of it.

 

3 minutes ago, Aaviationist said:

I’m not sure why you are so incapable of understanding both the video and the write up. None of what you say above is accurate or true. Please show me ANY study that says ADSB is inaccurate at short distances.  (1)
 

both pilots WERE looking out the window.  (2)

it’s a life saving technology for both me AND you. Your unwillingness to participate and your comments here demonstrate almost EVERY dangerous attitude by definition.  (3)

I’ve read this thread. At no time have you ever made a coherent argument, or logical explanation for your thoughts other than demonstrating that you operate your airplane likely with minimal equipment, misuse the system, and overall are a total negative impact on safety in general aviation.  (4) 

see and avoid has many flaws. In the case I posted, 3 COMPENTENT PILOTS, looking out the window, were unable to see and avoid.  (2)

Wow, it's amazing how almost everything you say is completely wrong.   

#1: I'm sorry, but you are the one that fails to understand the capabilities and limitations of the system, as well as mis-understanding the circumstances around this accident despite it being clear in the NTSB reports.

#2:   No, the pilot best positioned to see the Swift airplane was looking down at his iPad.

#3:  No, you are wrong again.    If it matters, the airplane I fly most has ADS-B:  (GTX-345R, 1090es out and  1090es and 978UAT in) and displays traffic on my G500, GTN-750, and iPad.  The other airplane I fly frequently has ADS-B as well: out (uAvionix Trailbeacon 978 UAT) and in (Stratux, 1090es and 978 UAT)

#4: What part of "the increase in safety by spending the same amount of money on other equipment would be higher than if we spent that money on additional ADS-B" is not coherent or logical?   And as I addressed in (3), you are wrong about my personal choices on equipment.  I'll also ask you to provide some substantive information to back up your claim I misused the system.   The same with your statement on my impact on safety.   Feel free to come to my home airport (2S0) and ask around to other pilots about what they think my impact on GA safety is.

[Ibra]

44 minutes ago, Aaviationist said:

For ADSB in and out equipped aircraft the delay is minimal and is certainly NOT anywhere remotely close to 30 seconds. ADSB is capable of air to air. 

Maybe it's the EFB that have delays when they display the info?My iPad with GDL39 for ADSB target does not show things exactly where Avidyne Ryan TAS show their transponder ModeS targets

The specs are 2s for aircraft targets (5s for radar targets) are real-time and then one has to add extra processing in certified and uncertified displays, however, one has to take human limitations into account, which is the main thing here. There is no way you can get 2nm near any other traffic if you can process traffic info live and act on it in real-time (yet we always end up in those "close call" situations), if the traffic was visible on display 30nm away on ADSB, why he is now at 1nm? the only explanation: even with real-time info, the pilot still runs on slow processors

At Mooney speeds, 10 seconds is already 0.7nm, assuming the other traffic is C172  not another Mooney !  

Edited November 16 by Ibra

[Aaviationist]

10 minutes ago, wombat said:

More likely ADS-B and ADS-B fixation CAUSED this accident.     People who don't understand what the system is and what it does are part of the problem.   

 

There was a radio call telling them where the other aircraft was.  So they decided to keep flying towards danger and one person decided to stop looking outside and look at his iPad instead.

And as @Hank says, ADS-B was not designed as a safety tool, it was a cost mitigation tool for the FAA so they could decomission some RADAR facilities.   If they had wanted to mandate mid-air collision avoidance systems in aircraft, they would have mandated TCAS installs.     Now don't get me wrong (although I expect you will anyway).     ADS-B can provide some additional safety if used correctly.   But this was not a correct use of it.

 

Wow, it's amazing how almost everything you say is completely wrong.   

#1: I'm sorry, but you are the one that fails to understand the capabilities and limitations of the system, as well as mis-understanding the circumstances around this accident despite it being clear in the NTSB reports.

#2:   No, the pilot best positioned to see the Swift airplane was looking down at his iPad.

#3:  No, you are wrong again.    If it matters, the airplane I fly most has ADS-B:  (GTX-345R, 1090es out and  1090es and 978UAT in) and displays traffic on my G500, GTN-750, and iPad.  The other airplane I fly frequently has ADS-B as well: out (uAvionix Trailbeacon 978 UAT) and in (Stratux, 1090es and 978 UAT)

#4: What part of "the increase in safety by spending the same amount of money on other equipment would be higher than if we spent that money on additional ADS-B" is not coherent or logical?   And as I addressed in (3), you are wrong about my personal choices on equipment.  I'll also ask you to provide some substantive information to back up your claim I misused the system.   The same with your statement on my impact on safety.   Feel free to come to my home airport (2S0) and ask around to other pilots about what they think my impact on GA safety is.

Again, wrong. 
 

they both were looking out the window. Then, one of two pilots started looking at the iPad while the other CONTINUED looking out the window. 
 

how does that mean ADSB fixation caused the accident?  At this point that argument is just delusional and you are either actively skipping the parts you do t want to read or you are so out of touch with reality that your brain is just blocking it out. 
 

that’s crazy. 

[Aaviationist]

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343689163_A_study_of_uncompensated_latency_in_ADS-B_reports

[wombat]

21 minutes ago, Aaviationist said:

Then, one of two pilots started looking at the iPad 

that’s crazy. 

I don't know what else to say other than yeah, that's crazy.

[Aaviationist]

7 minutes ago, wombat said:

I don't know what else to say other than yeah, that's crazy.

See and avoid doesn’t always work. A mixture of see and avoid and technology is better. 
 

in this case the technology would have presented an immediate solution to the problem with see and avoid that led to this accident. 
 

if you don’t think that’s the case, you need to have your brain examined. Any reasonable person would deduce that ADSB would have played a MAJOR factor in the mitigation of this specific incident. 
 

if you don’t think so I can assure you that you are the minority. 

[wombat]

I know I'm in the minority which is why I started this thread. 

ADS-B is not a panacea to prevent mid-air collisions.  There are mid-air collisions where all aircraft had ADS-B in and out.   There is no affordable silver bullet to stop all mid-air collisions that also allows the current freedom we have to fly.

Yes, having all aircraft equipped with ADS-B in and out *could* have prevented this accident. 

So could removing ADS-B in from both aircraft so the people would know to continue to look outside to see and avoid.  As it is, they neglected to see and avoid each other.

 

Underlying all of this is the real data about the relative infrequency of mid-air collisions and the fact that people fixate on it when the risk is so small to begin with.

I suspect that many of the pilots that fixate on ADS-B as a 'solution' to midair collisions are a victim of the hazardous attitude of Invulnerability.  They see the accident numbers and the relative frequency of accidents for pilot miscontrol, fuel planning, systems operation, and other bad decision making, but think "It can't happen to me!  I'm too good of a pilot for this!" and fixate the mid-air collision risk is the biggest risk they face because they feel they can't control it, since every mid-air collision involved another pilot.  This lets them acknowledge that there is risk but also avoid the feeling of responsibility for that risk since it can always be the other pilot's fault.   Also the hazardous attitude of 'Resignation' as they think there is not only nothing more to improve in the rest of their flying, but that there is no use in trying to do anything more to mitigate the risk of mid-airs... they are thinking "I've already done all I can."

[EricJ]

5 hours ago, Hank said:

And here I thought the primary purpose of ADSB was to allow the FAA to transfer ATC spending from their budget to aircraft owners by reducing radar coverage, with side benefits to us of reducing flight spacing at controlled fields, and providing weather through ADSB In.

That people use it looking for traffic is crazy, with all of the known positional errors. Look out the durn window! Except when IMC on an IFR flight plan, traffic separation is each pilot's responsibility. It has been demonstrated many times that at short distances, ADSB IN traffic is horribly inaccurate, because it wasn't part of the original design constraints. 

Look away from your pretty electronics and look out the windows!!

If you use it sensibly it helps you look outside more, and more effectively.   If it doesn't, you're not doing it right.

Why do you use an airspeed indicator?   Just use the feel and weight of the controls and the sound of the air flowing over the airplane!   THE ASI IS A DISTRACTION!   IT TAKES AWAY FROM YOUR AIRMANSHIP SKILLS!   YOU SHOULDN'T EVEN HAVE ONE!

Why do you use a radio at an uncontrolled airport?   Aren't your eyes effective enough to see all traffic?   STOP USING YOUR RADIO!  LEARN TO LOOK OUTSIDE!   EXERCISE YOUR SKILLS!

YES, I'M KIDDING!

You should use every tool available that improves your situational awareness.   ADSB goes a long ways toward improving SI, but you can't just stare at it and people who think that's how it's used are trapped in cold darkness.

 

[Ragsf15e]

5 hours ago, EricJ said:

In this case, though, if the other aircraft had been using their ADS-B as they approached the airport it would have increased the likelihood that the Cessna would have been aware of them, which is what it's there for.   If the other aircraft had been using ADS-B-in they'd have had a higher likelihood of being aware of where the Cessna was as well.

I think the glitch you saw may have been due to the display device rather than ADS-B itself.   It seems like some displays will hold their last known display point for a transmitter or apply some predictive algorithm (Kalman filter maybe?) in the event that it misses a transmission or two.    Those sorts of processing artifacts will likely be different from EFB to EFB and display to display.   I've seen disagreements between my in-panel traffic display and my EFBs, or even between the two tablets I use with the same EFB software.   It's not a perfect system, but it is a huge benefit in improving situational awareness.

My home airport is extremely busy, and even just when holding short of the runway waiting to take off it's very useful to be able to see the traffic in the pattern and the aircraft on final to be able to anticipate a gap when they'll let me out.

I'm very puzzled by people who aren't able to use the information to improve their situational awareness.   

Another reason there could be a delay in adsb traffic showing exactly the right position is it’s source.  It’s often impossible to tell if you’re getting the position/velocity directly from the other aircraft or fed through the FAA system.  For example, if one has UAT only and one has dual in but 1040 out, well the faa resends the 1040 posit to the UAT aircraft.  There are systems with only 1040, only uat, dual in, etc.  Or worse, if someone has no adsb, you still get their position, only it’s derived from the faa radar and then fed out to you.  It’s hard to tell what the source is.

All that being said, my adsb experience in a g1000 aircraft and my own, both with dual in/out, is that the position is usually very accurate.  Certainly better to see a target with your own eyes, but I definitely include adsb in my scan, especially at longer ranges (say 10nm from the pattern, more adsb traffic scan, 5nm more outside traffic scan).

[AndreiC]

My own experience is simply that many times when ATC points traffic out to me (when using flight following) it takes me a while, and sometimes I never manage to spot it. Even though eye doctors say my vision is 20/20 and there's nothing wrong with my CPU afaik, I know there is a plane there but I can't spot it. I have flown several times with an air traffic controller friend who has very good eyes, and he sees traffic way more often than I do. 

The moral of this is that *I* feel I need every help I can get; so I use ADS-B-in as much as I can, use flight following religiously, and if any of these suggest there is a target in my direction I deviate as much as practical so as not to get anywhere close to a conflict. For me, ADS-B has been an excellent tool, as it lets me know of potential conflicts. I know it is not perfect and still scan the horizon as much as I can, but for every airplane I find by myself, ADS-B and ATC tell me of at least 10 others. So I think it is great. But I can also understand how others (with better vision, perhaps) could feel that their scan is good enough to keep them safe.

I also can't forget an interview with a very experienced GA pilot who, when asked what he is afraid of the most, answered "fire on board and mid-flight collision". I know these are not as likely as many other potentially fatal accident causes, but sometimes people are not 100% logical...

[wombat]

27 minutes ago, EricJ said:

If you use it sensibly it helps you look outside more, and more effectively.   If it doesn't, you're not doing it right.

Why do you use an airspeed indicator?   Just use the feel and weight of the controls and the sound of the air flowing over the airplane!   THE ASI IS A DISTRACTION!   IT TAKES AWAY FROM YOUR AIRMANSHIP SKILLS!   YOU SHOULDN'T EVEN HAVE ONE!

You should use every tool available that improves your situational awareness.   ADSB goes a long ways toward improving SI, but you can't just stare at it and people who think that's how it's used are trapped in cold darkness.

I wouldn't say it helps you look outside more, but I agree with you that it can help you look outside more effectively.   And I also agree that if it doesn't help you be more effective at looking outside, you are doing it wrong.   

One training task that I give to students (only when they are receiving instruction, not when solo) is to fly the traffic pattern without the ASI.  Also without the DG, altimeter, or any cockpit instruments at all.   I do the reverse of foggles using some sheets of paper.      It is still surprising to me how accurate they are on altitude, airspeed, and engine settings just using the feel and weight of the controls, the sound of the air flowing over the airplane, and the sound of the engine.   Typically they will be +- 50' on altitude in the pattern and +-5 knots on airspeed, as well as +- 75 RPM for the engine.   This doesn't mean I think people should regularly fly without those instruments but it does help them gain confidence to spend more time looking outside and use the cockpit instruments as an occasional cross-check.   Chasing needles hardly ever results in a good flight.   

Human nature in this regard does not have positive dynamic stability.  . As an example, as long as people are still above where they want to be, they push forward more on the yoke...  So by the time they are back at the correct altitude, they'll have a high rate of descent.   They blast through their altitude picking up airspeed... So they start pulling back, and as long as they are below, they'll continue pulling back....   This is pilot induced oscillation.

I agree that you should use every tool you can for situational awareness.  And ADS-B can improve situational awareness, but I probably wouldn't say it goes a 'long ways'.   But maybe that's just me.   And I agree with you yet again that people that stare at it are not actually getting as much benefit as they could.   Maybe if the FAA mandated it and didn't allow exceptions that would help, but without 100% adoption, staring at the ADS-B data is likely increasing risk more than mitigating it.

1 minute ago, AndreiC said:

...sometimes people are not 100% logical...

I agree.    And I am trying to figure out what about ADS-B makes people be illogical about it.   Perhaps if I had been more careful in my phrasing earlier I wouldn't have gotten people so defensive about it.   A tactic that I often employ successfully is to ask questions to which I already know the answers and then try to clarify answers given to me by asking questions that will help the other person think through it logically when they try to answer.   How would this have gone if I said "I have an airplane equipped with X systems, but doesn't have ADS-B in and out, and I've got a X dollars budget to improve my safety for this year, how should I spend my money?"    And then when someone suggests putting in ADS-B, ask them about accident rates?

[1980Mooney]

2 minutes ago, wombat said:

 Maybe if the FAA mandated it and didn't allow exceptions that would help, but without 100% adoption, staring at the ADS-B data is likely increasing risk more than mitigating it.

This sounds like your core issue. 

You want everyone to have it 100% no exceptions, understand how to use it and use it 100% of the time because it is useful and effective.

[Will.iam]

My ads-b through the gtx345 will call out traffic that is the same altitude and close (i think about 2 miles out) so in reality in the pattern i have my eye out side as i will get an auditable alert. Great for in the pattern, but formation flying not so much. 

[wombat]

1 hour ago, 1980Mooney said:

This sounds like your core issue. 

You want everyone to have it 100% no exceptions, understand how to use it and use it 100% of the time because it is useful and effective.

I agree that this is the core issue with a bunch of other people, but I'm not one of them. 

I'm fine with people not having it and not using it (when it is legal to do so).   

 

It's very effective and useful for its primary task, which is to reduce cost for the FAA, and it's marginally useful at best for the task of traffic separation for flights not controlled by ATC.   At this point, I don't think there is enough data to measure if it has had any positive effect on safety.  

[T. Peterson]

This is just my philosophy and if you disagree I will not be the tiniest bit offended. I very much like the adsb traffic depiction technology. Today while climbing out of KAIZ heading southwest, the glare was terrible. I did not punt to the technology, as has been pointed out ad nauseum, the technology has limitations. But I do have a lovely bride sitting next to me that is very useful locating the little arrows on the iPad while I diligently continue my outside scan. This works well for me. She warns me of something and then I can scan in the appropriate direction. This has helped numerous times. At least 2 or 3 times just today.

Frankly fellows, it’s just silly to pick one side or the other and then attack your fellow Mooney Spacer. The technology is a help, not a silver bullet, but it is a big help. Outside scanning is vital but it is not the enemy of adsb, and adsb is not the enemy of scanning.

[Ibra]

8 hours ago, T. Peterson said:

The technology is a help, not a silver bullet, but it is a big help

That’s a good summary, both ADSB and MK1 eyeball have limitations, however, they are complementary 99.99% of the times to scan and avoid,

For instance,

* I can’t scan traffic 5nm away using my eyes but ADSB tells me about these before they become a conflict 

* I can avoid slow departing C152 ahead of me using ADSB display but I can do it easily using my eyes when cleared for takeoff 

Sometimes both do not work (let’s call that 0.01% of the times), the “traffic too close than 1/2 mile and converging from an invisible corner”, one should not get into that situation where both ADSB screen and MK1 eyeball are limited? things works better if technology is used for early scan while eye is used to acquire target and avoid them visually (using tools as they are intended)

Edited November 17 by Ibra

[EricJ]

5 hours ago, Ibra said:

That’s a good summary, both ADSB and MK1 eyeball have limitations, however, they are complementary 99.99% of the times to scan and avoid,

For instance,

* I can’t scan traffic 5nm away using my eyes but ADSB tells me about these before they become a conflict 

That's a big one.   It helps you know where to look as a conflict approaches, so that you can visually maintain separation as it gets closer.    It'll help your scan skills, since you know something is there.   Many times you still never see it, so it teaches you that depending on your eyes is not sufficient.