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

[wombat]

I like ADS-B too.  It is helpful.  But we should be clear that the risk it's helping to mitigate isn't a very big one to begin with.    The system was not designed to help mitigate the risk of mid-air collisions, it was designed to help with the cost of ATC RADAR maintenance costs.

 

It's not that ADS-B is worthless or useless, but the reduction in risk it provides is minimal.

Maybe think of it like this:   Looking at your ADS-B is about the same level of accuracy as getting a report from ATC of other traffic when they are not seeing you directly but using RADAR.    If you are in the traffic pattern, it's effectively useless.   Like when ATC says "Airport is at 12 O'clock, 10 miles, multiple targets in the pattern, report airport in sight."  Once they are done with that, it's up to you and your eyes.

[EricJ]

5 hours ago, wombat said:

I like ADS-B too.  It is helpful.  But we should be clear that the risk it's helping to mitigate isn't a very big one to begin with.    The system was not designed to help mitigate the risk of mid-air collisions, it was designed to help with the cost of ATC RADAR maintenance costs.

 

It's not that ADS-B is worthless or useless, but the reduction in risk it provides is minimal.

Maybe think of it like this:   Looking at your ADS-B is about the same level of accuracy as getting a report from ATC of other traffic when they are not seeing you directly but using RADAR.    If you are in the traffic pattern, it's effectively useless.   Like when ATC says "Airport is at 12 O'clock, 10 miles, multiple targets in the pattern, report airport in sight."  Once they are done with that, it's up to you and your eyes.

I would disagree with this.   Down here we live in some of the most crowded airspace in the country.   ADS-B helps me immensely in managing traffic, including very close traffic.   I regularly fly as a safety pilot in "the stack", which very often has instrument students and others stacked in a hold every 500 feet from about 4000 to often 7000 or 8000 feet, in uncontrolled airspace managing separation only by self-reporting using an ad-hoc protocol.   Conflicts are not unusual, and it'd 1000x harder (or at least more stressful) without ADS-B-in.   You're in a small space with multiple diverse aircraft separated vertically by a maximum of 500' and often (or even usually) less than that due to inattentive students or incorrect altimeter settings or whatever reason.  I was there a couple weeks ago in the stack with two helicopters, a King Air, and some other single engine recips.    One of them, which wasn't one of the local large flight school airplanes, kept maneuvering into our altitude.   Since we were maneuvering to maintain the holding pattern we could not always keep them in sight.   ADS-B-in was the only reason we were able to maintain situational awareness with that traffic and the others.     I won't go in there without functional ADS-B-in because the collision risk is just too high without it.

Many of the uncontrolled fields around here often have a lot of traffic in the pattern due to flight school overflow from other fields.   The risks are real.

It's been a while since we've had a mid-air collision around here, though, I think the last ones were not long before ADS-B came into common use, which I think is notable and likely causal. 

Edit:  I take that back, there was a collision between a flight-school helicopter and a flight school airplane in the pattern at a Class-D field here a couple of years ago. 

[wombat]

I've heard that before.    I find it hard to believe ATC is letting IFR traffic self-separate using ADS-B only with vertical spacing of 500 feet.  Can you tell me exactly where this happens and some times I might be able to see this on FlightAware so I can see it for myself?

The rate of mid-air collisions has not changed significantly since ADS-B adoption has increased significantly.  The rate of mid-air collisions is very small, and even out of those things that might kill you as a pilot in an airplane it's quite small.

So why is it that you think this is such a large risk when it is in fact so small?   And why do you fixate on ADS-B being a 'solution' to this problem?

Edited November 18 by wombat
Making my first paragraph less inflammatory; I'm not out to win, I'm out to find the truth.

[MikeOH]

UGH, I tried to stay out of this one, but I can't help myself!

1) ADSB was NOT designed to be an active traffic AVOIDANCE system (i.e. NOT a TCAS substitute)

2) I have personally, on multiple occasions, observed MAJOR discrepancies between reported position and ACTUAL position of traffic (see number 1)

3) It is another tool in the toolbox.  It is not, IMHO, a necessary tool, but can be useful as a strategic tool.  I like getting the 'lay of the land' when approaching an airport and appreciate the 'big picture' it provides while in cruise.

4) No way I would use it for tactical use in a traffic pattern.  It is NOT reliably accurate (see number 2).  Doing so, again IMHO, would be providing a false sense of security.  I want my head on a swivel looking OUTSIDE, not managing the distraction of 'head's down' time while in critical airspace like a busy traffic pattern.  However, as others mentioned, having a second person monitoring the ADSB display is also useful.

5) Looking at factual accident data shows mid-airs are way down the list of fatal accident causes.  I await some statistical proof that those numbers drop even further before entertaining that a cause/effect relationship has truly been established.  Anecdotes and the absence of an accident in the last x years when mid-airs are so infrequent to begin with is not convincing.

[EricJ]

1 hour ago, wombat said:

I've heard that before.    I find it hard to believe ATC is letting IFR traffic self-separate using ADS-B only with vertical spacing of 500 feet.  Can you tell me exactly where this happens and some times I might be able to see this on FlightAware so I can see it for myself?

1. The traffic at "the stack" is not IFR.   ATC is not involved.  It is typically IFR training flights or proficiency/currency flights with either instructors or safety pilots.    This happens over the Stanfield VOR (TFD) to shoot either GPS, VOR, or ILS approaches into Casa Grande (CGZ) runway 5.  The protocol is pubished here:
   
   https://aftw.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/AFTW_Stanfield_VOR_Procedures_Rev6.pdf

1 hour ago, wombat said:

The rate of mid-air collisions has not changed significantly since ADS-B adoption has increased significantly.  The rate of mid-air collisions is very small, and even out of those things that might kill you as a pilot in an airplane it's quite small.

Many, if not most, of the safety precautions we take as aviators are to mitigate risks with very small (and sometimes very, very, very small) probabilities, but significant consequences.  This one is no different.   I hope you are not suggesting that all of the other safety precautions we routinely take to mitigate small risks are inappropriate.
 

1 hour ago, wombat said:

So why is it that you think this is such a large risk when it is in fact so small?

I do not think it is a large risk, although I think it may be larger in the airspace that I fly than in some others, and I also think it not outside the usual order of risk magnitude that we routinely mitigate with similar safety measures.   I also think that for many of the "small risks" we take as aviators we use many tools to mitigate them, especially those with large consequences.   You'll have to forgive me if I extend those practices to avoiding mid-air collisions as well.

1 hour ago, wombat said:

And why do you fixate on ADS-B being a 'solution' to this problem?

I don't think I've ever heard anyone serious, here or elsewhere, suggest that ADS-B is a solution to mid-air collisions.   I've no idea what makes you think I think so or that I am "fixated" on it being so.

[wombat]

@EricJ  That procedure sounds horribly risky and the businesses that are putting profit over safety and should re-evaluate their culture regarding safety.   I recommend that they talk to the FAA to help them come up with a better procedure or work within their organization to come up with a better procedure on their own.  Some ideas:

• Hold somewhere else.
• Limit training flights that are using that ILS approach like ATC uses flow control at major airports.
• Perform training flights somewhere else.  There are several other airports within 75NM that have precision approaches.   Flight Training Devices are also quite effective and can be used to reduce the amount of time a student must fly to gain proficiency, particularly for IFR.

That being said, when we look at the main causes of accidents at a national level, here is how they tend to stack up, and given your situation, what I think your relative risk is:

1. Loss Of Control, Inflight
   1. You are at high risk for this. Flight training requires performance maneuvers, ground reference maneuvers, and stalls.
2. VFR into IMC
   1. You are at low risk of this in Arizona.
3. Fuel
   1. You are less likely to have this in a school training environment because almost all flights are < 2 hours and students tend to be diligent about checking before flight and there are no pressures to find cheaper fuel and the additional 'cost' to get fuel added before a flight is minimal.
4. Maintenance
   1. You are at elevated risk of this since the pilots are all flying different planes and can't tell what has changed between flights in the same plane.

Using the planecrashmap.com website, I looked at the 50 closest accidents to the VOR, and of the two accidents that I found that are mid-air collisions, one looks like aerobatic maneuvering in formation:   https://planecrashmap.com/plane/az/N64WD/.  and https://planecrashmap.com/plane/az/N2766C/. (Two planes involved, of course.  This happened in 1989) and the other looks like training flights:   https://planecrashmap.com/plane/az/N4184M/ and https://planecrashmap.com/plane/az/N8115Q/ (Two planes involved, one with a Portable Collision Avoidance System (PCAS) unit, this is from 2012)

 

So even given your situation mid-air collisions are not a major source of accidents although due to your environment you have probably mostly eliminated two of the most common accident causes (Fuel and VFR into IMC).

 

If you want to increase your safety by spending money on hardware, I recommend two things before buying ADS-B:

1. Accurate fuel gauges and a fuel management system.
2. An AoA indicator.

Now I'm not saying you shouldn't also have and use ADS-B, but we should be honest with ourselves here that the risk they are mitigating is small compared to others that we are not mitigating, but could, and for less money.  It is therefore weird that people focus so much on ADS-B to mitigate the risk of mid-air collisions.    It's like a smoker who is worried about leaded gas from a nearby GA airport.

9 hours ago, EricJ said:

Many, if not most, of the safety precautions we take as aviators are to mitigate risks with very small (and sometimes very, very, very small) probabilities, but significant consequences.  This one is no different.   I hope you are not suggesting that all of the other safety precautions we routinely take to mitigate small risks are inappropriate.

Of course I'm not saying that all of the other safety precautions are inappropriate.  But I am saying it's inappropriate to fixate on a lesser risk when there is are bigger risks that can be mitigated for less effort.   Like when overweight guys spend thousands of dollars to buy bicycles that are 2 Oz lighter... They would be so much better off if they spent that money on a personal trainer or nutrition coach. 

 

9 hours ago, EricJ said:

I do not think it is a large risk, although I think it may be larger in the airspace that I fly than in some others, and I also think it not outside the usual order of risk magnitude that we routinely mitigate with similar safety measures.   I also think that for many of the "small risks" we take as aviators we use many tools to mitigate them, especially those with large consequences.   You'll have to forgive me if I extend those practices to avoiding mid-air collisions as well.

I agree that it is a higher risk in your operations than in mine.   But still smaller than other risks we both face and fail to mitigate.

 

9 hours ago, EricJ said:

I don't think I've ever heard anyone serious, here or elsewhere, suggest that ADS-B is a solution to mid-air collisions.   I've no idea what makes you think I think so or that I am "fixated" on it being so.

I'll quote @Aaviationist here:

On 11/16/2024 at 7:22 AM, Aaviationist said:

yes, more than likely ADSB would have prevented this incident. 

[Vance Harral]

9 hours ago, EricJ said:

I hope you are not suggesting that all of the other safety precautions we routinely take to mitigate small risks are inappropriate.

The problem with this kind of thinking is that all of us have finite limitations on the amount of time and money we spend on "safety", and those resources often wind up being misdirected.  Consequently, the most important risks aren't mitigated, and the rate of maiming and death stays about the same.

Scientifically, this is borne out in accident data.  CFIs who enroll in a FIRC every two years get data jammed in our face about it.  The rest of the pilot community could benefit from at least a casual look at it.  AOPA does a good job with their annual McSpadden report.  Here's a link to the data from 2022, which is the most recently compiled year: https://www.aopa.org/training-and-safety/air-safety-institute/accident-analysis/richard-g-mcspadden-report/mcspadden-report-figure-view/?category=all&year=2022&condition=all&report=true

Anecdotally, in my neck of the woods, some of the biggest risks to the aviation community are the aircraft with $100K of avionics, flown by pilots with so little recent experience that they can barely keep the greasy side down, and have almost no ability to really grok where other traffic is in the pattern (or the stack, or the airway, or whatever).  Imagine how much better things would be if those pilots kept their airplane on the flight line instead of in the avionics shop, flew more often, and spent a few bucks on training with the local CFIs, or even just flying with more experienced friends.  But this seems to be a loser of an argument, primarily because humans are terrible at data analysis and risk management.  For better or worse, those folks really believe their big avionics upgrade was a great investment in safety, and scoff at others who are less-well-equipped as being "too cheap for aviation".  Those pilots aren't going to read the McSpadden report; or even if they do, they think it doesn't apply to them.

So yes, I do think "all of the other safety precautions we routinely take to mitigate small risks" are often inappropriate.  Not because it's wrong to mitigate all risks, but because we live in the real world where no one has infinite time/money/energy to actually mitigate all risks.  If you can't mitigate all the risks, you should focus your time and attention on the biggest ones.  That requires the curiosity to actually look at the data, and the humility to accept that you are not somehow a special pilot, whose risks are different than average.

[EricJ]

1 hour ago, wombat said:

@EricJ  That procedure sounds horribly risky and the businesses that are putting profit over safety and should re-evaluate their culture regarding safety.   I recommend that they talk to the FAA to help them come up with a better procedure or work within their organization to come up with a better procedure on their own.

You can contact the Arizona Flight Training Workgroup here:   https://aftw.org/

The FAA is well aware, so perhaps you should talk to them as well.   Many, if not most, instrument check rides use the stack (mine did), and ATC often keeps people away from there due to the traffic.    The entire corridor from Phoenix to Tucson is filled with things like the stack and a large number of airports that are constantly flying jumpers at all altitudes and times of day...e.g., halo at night is not unusual, lots of glider fields, etc., etc.   If you are really concerned about risk reduction you should talk to the FAA about this.

1 hour ago, wombat said:

Now I'm not saying you shouldn't also have and use ADS-B, but we should be honest with ourselves here that the risk they are mitigating is small compared to others that we are not mitigating, but could, and for less money.  It is therefore weird that people focus so much on ADS-B to mitigate the risk of mid-air collisions.    It's like a smoker who is worried about leaded gas from a nearby GA airport.

I don't think people talking about a tool because it's useful means that they are "fixating" or "focusing" on it.   I think it means they're "using" it, and that's a good thing!   Heaven forbid we use available tools to mitigate risk when we can.   Spotting an approaching aircraft on ADS-B means that the risk from that aircraft is increasing as it approaches if it is ignored.   Why ignore it?   An aircraft in close proximity is no longer your lowest risk.   From practice we know that many such targets would never be noticed at all without ADS-B-in, no matter how much you scan outside, so it provides a pretty easy means to mitigate risks that might otherwise increase to much higher levels.

I've puzzled why anyone would not think that's a good thing to do.

1 hour ago, wombat said:

Of course I'm not saying that all of the other safety precautions are inappropriate.  But I am saying it's inappropriate to fixate on a lesser risk when there is are bigger risks that can be mitigated for less effort.   Like when overweight guys spend thousands of dollars to buy bicycles that are 2 Oz lighter... They would be so much better off if they spent that money on a personal trainer or nutrition coach. 

As mentioned, aircraft that are decreasing separation are increasing risk.    How close should they be before the risk is high enough that it is appropriate to use ADS-B-in?   Could meeting that threshold have been avoidable if it were given attention earlier?   How do you quantify this risk?   What thresholds should be use?    Should the threshold be higher if you have children on board?   

We all manage the tools that we have and we all have our own risk tolerances.   Some people manage their risks right into their own fatality, sometimes taking others with them.

I find it odd that anyone would discourage someone from using a risk mitigating tool or claim it doesn't work or isn't appropriate to do so.
 

1 hour ago, wombat said:

I agree that it is a higher risk in your operations than in mine.   But still smaller than other risks we both face and fail to mitigate.

How do you quantify that?   How close should someone be or how quickly should the distances be closing before it becomes appropriate to mitigate?   Never?  If not never, when?   What are the risks that are higher and should be prioritized when another aircraft is approaching on a collision course?

1 hour ago, wombat said:

I'll quote @Aaviationist here:

He's not claiming it's a solution.    Using an airspeed indicator helps mitigate stalls, they're not a solution to stalls.

[Marc_B]

Seems like extreme stances either way are the issue here. There are times when you should be eyes outside (I.e. landing) and times when your eyes are helped inside on the instruments (I.e. IMC). Effective safe flight is a combination of the two at the right times.

I use an Aera 760 on traffic page when I’m close to practice areas and the terminal environment.  My iPad zoomed in to the airport shows a quick glimpse as to how many targets in the area to better predict the safest way for pattern entry, runways in use, and if now is a good time for that practice instrument approach.  All things I wouldn’t have without ADS-b.

But some aircraft don’t have ADS-b, and some that do, aren’t working.  So it’s important to me to use all the tools in the bag and understand the benefits and limitations of the tools I use.

Personally I find value in ADS-b in and out.  I’m glad when other aircraft have it and wish more of those who don’t, would use it.  But even if it was 100% adoption, nothing is perfect and neither are eyeballs. See and avoid isn’t using one tool…its wisely and timely using a combination of the all the tools available.  The view out our windows are small and have huge blind spots.  ADS-b can start to fill in some of the blanks in our eyeballs and blind spots, but it has never been an either or but rather both. 

[Vance Harral]

1 hour ago, EricJ said:

How close should someone be or how quickly should the distances be closing before it becomes appropriate to mitigate?

This is a great question, and I think it's really the crux of the matter.  It's certainly the reason why I tend to get my hackles up about this stuff.

An aircraft that is "near" certainly presents more risk than one that is "far".  But my experience flying with a lot of other pilots is that many of them are unable to appropriately internalize what actually constitutes "near".  A comical example of this - but an honest-to-god-true-life-story - is a pilot I flew with whose display showed no threats at a particular time during the flight... so he kept zooming out until he found one (any aircraft looks "near" if you zoom out far enough).  Then he got fixated on maneuvering to avoid this wildly distant threat, instead of paying attention to something more important.  This resulted in him basically losing control of the aircraft (uncommanded attitude change under the hood) while trying to figure out what direction to turn to avoid an aircraft that was multiple minutes away (and likely was going to turn away from us anyway).  That's an extreme example, but I see variants of this quite a lot - pilots who are very concerned about midair collisions, who spend an inordinate amount of time looking at traffic displays trying to analyze threats that are objectively tiny, to the detriment of managing other risks.

It turns out there's a pretty narrow range in which traffic displays actually help.  If you're 5 seconds from a conflict, they're unhelpful because they tend to indicate bad position data, just like @MikeOH noted above.  The delays in the ADS-B network are indeed very small, as the reference posted by @Aaviationist indicates.  But that study ignores delays in the display device (maybe a couple of seconds for a Bluetooth-connected iPad which is the most common setup), and delays in the pilot's scanning of said device (maybe very large).  At the other end, if you're more than 60 seconds from a conflict, the information just isn't relevant - you don't actually know if there's a threat, and the best course of action is to just keep doing whatever you're already doing.  If I had my way, no traffic display would be capable of zooming out beyond a couple of miles.

In the narrow range between "too far to care" and "too close to help", ADS-B traffic displays are really helpful when used properly, and all the arguments extolling their virtues make sense.  Airplanes in the same traffic pattern or holding stack with you fall into that range, and people pointing that out have a strong argument.  But it's worth noting that's also when all your other risks unrelated to traffic go way up.  I flew with a pilot earlier this year for an aircraft checkout who was incapable of maintaining pattern altitude and appropriate heading and airspeed on the downwind leg of the traffic pattern, because he was completely heads-down on his iPad, and terrified of a couple of other airplanes trying to work into the pattern.  That's just a single anecdote, but again, I fly with a lot of pilots as an instructor, and I see a lot of variations on this basic mismanagement of airmanship.

One thing that would help is if the industry could put together an AC on how to effectively use traffic systems.  Today, there's just an assumption that the way to use them is "obvious", and that's a lot of what all the arguing is about.  One of my fellow flight instructors wrote a great article in the NAFI Mentor magazine about this.  I don't have a link, because it requires a subscription.  But the gist of it was to define certain ranges to the threat, and appropriate actions to take in response to threats in those ranges.  Outside a certain range, no action is warranted and there is no value in paying attention to the threat.  Once a threat moves inside a "noticeable" range (30 seconds or so of closure), a single, predictable, course or altitude change may be warranted before visually acquiring the target - especially if that change actually helps you and the threat acquire each other visually.  But if the target moves inside a "critical" range, blind maneuvering is as likely to cause a collision as it is to prevent one, and the best action is to maintain course and altitude while working especially hard to visually acquire the threat, perhaps to the extent of paying less attention to your usual fly-the-airplane duties.  Only after visual acquisition is maneuvering appropriate inside this range.

Everyone is free to disagree with this strategy, and would be even if there was an AC.  But @EricJ is asking a really good question: not if ADS-B traffic data is helpful, but when.  Especially relative to other risks.

[Marc_B]

We should all keep in mind that a deficiency with a pilot/person shouldn't necessarily be blamed on the technology.  The Technology is separate from the Interface which is separate from the Person.  The broad brushstrokes in this thread discount the nuance for the extreme (all good vs all bad).

Good technology with poor interface can have a bad response even with a good pilot.

Good technology and solid interface can have a poor response from a pilot without sufficient training or ADM.

All ADS-b solutions are not equal and shouldn't be lumped all together as we discuss where the fracture lines exist with technology.  Proper training with any form of aircraft equipment is paramount.  Poor training or education shouldn't immediately be blamed on the technology.

[Marc_B]

30 minutes ago, Vance Harral said:

how to effectively use traffic systems

For me, I find that typically my eyes can mostly pick up traffic within a 2-3nm range...good lights/reflection from the sun/etc can sometimes increase that...glare from direct sun, poor lighting, looking down at the traffic over the ground can decrease it.

So typically my traffic page is at the 2nm (inner) /6nm (outer) rings on the Aera traffic page.  At 6 nm this is someone that I might need to deal with, and at 2nm this is someone that I should see.  But anything on that page might be an issue.  Of course this is with a typical GA airport with limited jet traffic.  In the pattern I sometimes zoom in one more setting.

On my iPad I find that having traffic painted on this is helpful to help gather information regarding how saturated an area may be, can give a sense of touch and go traffic and traffic pattern direction, and can paint a rough picture of aircraft around the area on possible instrument approaches.  I don't find that traffic on the iPad/Foreflight is as helpful for immediate traffic mitigation as the PFD targets on my G500 + my Aera 760 traffic page; but I find FF/iPad much better for "seeing the big picture" with situational awareness overview.

In the terminal environment we have more threats, but we have a few more tools (position reporting, towers, radar, ADS-b, predictable patterns, etc.).  When you're away enroute you typically have no way to talk to traffic outside of indirectly on flight following, and might not see an aircraft until the last minute with your eyeballs if they are heading towards you or climbing/descending into your path.  Most aircraft have huge 3-dimensional blind spots, plus most eyeballs probably won't pick up traffic until within 1-2nm routinely.  THIS is the reason that midair collisions still occur.  Outside of TCAS and dual directed flight maneuvering, ADS-b can narrow this blind spot, but can't remove it.  This is where I feel ADS-b really can be a HUGE asset for GA.  Not only can it show you trend vector, but it can show you altitude and if target is climbing or descending...all of this WELL before you could ever expect to acquire target visually.

Good practice is to try to visually identify the aircraft on your screen with what you see outside your window.  Then you get a better sense for where to look, what to expect, and how closely this mirrors your screens. 

[1980Mooney]

3 hours ago, Vance Harral said:

The problem with this kind of thinking is that all of us have finite limitations on the amount of time and money we spend on "safety", and those resources often wind up being misdirected.  Consequently, the most important risks aren't mitigated, and the rate of maiming and death stays about the same.

Scientifically, this is borne out in accident data. .....

Really?  Are you looking at the same data that you linked in your post?

Just eyeballing, there appears to be a decline over the 10 year accident rates for Non-Commercial Fixed Wing - both overall and fatal.

So the "finite limitation" of "time and money" resources currently spent by pilot/owners today actually delivers improvements in aviation safety.   No matter how "misdirected" you believe the split of current spending is on avionics, training or just keeping one's plane on the flight line, it is actually yielding positive results.

•  "Imagine how much better things would be if those pilots kept their airplane on the flight line instead of in the avionics shop, flew more often, and spent a few bucks on training with the local CFIs, or even just flying with more experienced friends."

I get it that you wish that pilots trained and knew their equipment better - both aircraft and avionics. And you wished that safety statistics improved faster.  Who doesn't?  But that doesn't mean that they have to sacrifice technology (which relentlessly marches on).  This argument reminds me of the discussion 25 years ago around the broad advent of GPSS/Roll Steering that allowed most autopilots to fly more approaches - less hand flying and more relying on technology.  There is no going backwards.....

[Aaviationist]

@wombatonce again in this thread you are twisting words. 
 

I did not say ADSB was the answer to solving in air collisions. I DID say that ADSB having been available in both accident aircraft in a SPECIFIC example most probably would have had an impact on the outcome - which I believe to be true

 

ADSB is a potentially life saving technology and is an excellent if not crucial tool in understanding the current status of an airport environment. The more aircraft that participate the more useful that tool is, and becomes. 
 

it’s a tool and technology that helps protect both you AND me, and to not be ADSB out equipped at this stage in the game be it to be a CB or to save a few bucks, is a disservice to you and everyone around you. 

[Vance Harral]

17 minutes ago, 1980Mooney said:

Are you looking at the same data that you linked in your post?

Absolutely.

The graph you posted shows the accident rate per 100K hours has declined from 5.82 to 4.84 in the last 10 years, a roughly 20% improvement.  The fatal rate is also about a 20% improvement.  No argument there.  But you seem to conclude this is mostly or at least largely a result of improved technology.  The accident data doesn't support that at all.

The graph that's relevant to this thread is this one:

That's for 2022.  You can take my word for it (or not) that the graphs for the past 20 years are essentially identical.

Midair collisions are in the "other" category.  It's difficult to tell how many of these were actually midairs vs. other "others".  But it's probably reasonable to estimate that midairs are roughly represented by the fatals.  That's 3 in this case, which is about 0.3% of all accidents, and about 2% of fatals, both of which are statistically insignificant.  So that 20% reduction in overall accident rate isn't coming from a reduction in midairs due to ADS-B improving threat awareness.  I'm sure some of it comes from other technology - onboard weather, better maps and backup instruments in IMC, etc.  But it's worth noting that the majority of accidents occur during takeoff and landing (557 out of 965) , and by definition fall into the "loss of control" category (again, collisions are in the "other" category).  Technology essentially never helps you avoid a takeoff crash.  It can help avoid a landing crash to the extent you might divert somewhere else with better conditions to land in, but I'd wager only a very small number of those landing accidents fall into the, "I wouldn't have tried to land here if only I'd known earlier in the flight that the conditions were challenging" category.

50 minutes ago, 1980Mooney said:

But that doesn't mean that they have to sacrifice technology (which relentlessly marches on)

I think you're misrepresenting my position .  I never said that no one should be allowed to spend money on technology, or that it should be banned/shunned.  I said that when you have X amount of dollars and or time to spend it on "safety", upgrading the avionics in your airplane - and demanding others do the same - is almost never the best use of that money and time.  Now, there are lots of good reasons for avionics upgrades other than safety.  They're fun (I'm an electronics nerd, I really enjoy playing with them); they can make a flight more comfortable; and to the extent they make you feel safer, there is some indirect safety value in that even if you haven't actually changed your direct risk profile.  But what gets my hackles up is stuff like this:

25 minutes ago, Aaviationist said:

to not be ADSB out equipped at this stage in the game be it to be a CB or to save a few bucks, is a disservice to you and everyone around you

To the extent this is true of ADS-B, it's at least as true of training with an instructor, and per the data above, arguably much more so.  So... the bare minimum training requirement for Part 91 ops is a 1-hour flight review every two years.  Is everyone who pursues no additional training beyond that also doing a disservice to themselves and everyone around them?  To be clear, my point is no so much to shill that everyone should get more flight instruction, but just to point out the curiosity of the passion around technology - particularly that designed to reduce midair collision risk - vs. the "meh" attitude toward everything else that is much more likely to hurt you, and somewhat more likely to hurt others.

Bottom line, if you're going to start throwing around opinions about what you think every other pilot should be investing their time and money on, it better be backed up with data; and mid-air collisions ain't.  The fact that one can post an occasional story about a midair where ADS-B might have made a difference doesn't change the risk profile.  As tragic as those accidents are, they're still a drop in the bucket vs. the things that actually put us most at risk.  Focusing on them is akin to investing a bunch of money in shark repellent for a beach vacation, instead of on swimming lessons.

[Vance Harral]

2 hours ago, Marc_B said:

On my iPad I find that having traffic painted on this is helpful to help gather information regarding how saturated an area may be, can give a sense of touch and go traffic and traffic pattern direction, and can paint a rough picture of aircraft around the area on possible instrument approaches.

The caveat is that this information can be of limited value unless you're already pretty close to the airport.  Seeing the direction and density of pattern traffic at an airport a few minutes away is helpful.  Less so when you're 10+ minutes out, because things can change a lot in 10 minutes, at least in some areas of the country.

This is especially true in the dense metro area where I teach, hence my sensitivity to it.  There are no less than 7 GA fields one could choose to practice pattern work at, within reasonable flying distance of each other, even on a short lesson.  I can't tell you how many times I've had an instrument or commercial student say something like, "Hey, it looks too busy at KXXX, let's go do our pattern work at KYYY where it's easier", only to find that in the short time it takes to get to KYYY, that airport has become a beehive while KXXX has gone quiet.  Because of this, I no longer base my planning on what traffic appears to be doing on ADS-B at an airport that's more than a few miles away, and that just feeds back into my arrogant opinion that traffic displays should prohibit zooming out more than a few miles.

More generally, one of the common mistakes I observe training advanced students is a stubborn assumption that airport conditions won't change between the time they first think about them, and the time they actually get close to the airport.  Ironically, this problem gets worse the better the student is at staying ahead of the game.  It's admirable to check winds, etc. via ADS-B or ATIS/AWOS when you're 20+ minutes away from an airport, but if you do that, don't forget to spot check them again when you get closer.

[Aaviationist]

There is no amount of flight instruction that is going to give me the situational awareness that ADSB does. 
 

 

no, flight instruction is not an alternative. 

flight training does not allow me to see the 5 people in the pattern while 15 miles out while on my way home from a long cross country  

unless you are some sort of wizzard…

Edited November 18 by Aaviationist

[Marc_B]

@Vance Harral The wrinkle in this logic is that it's driven by the thought that "if an accident didn't happen and someone didn't die, then I don't need to consider it."

Of course everyone makes up their own mind how much time, energy and money to invest in their own safety and enjoyment.  But just because it's not a statistic that results in fatality does not mean it is meaningless.  If it prevents even one fatality it's meaningful.  Of course there's always more spinoffs in capability and utility, and these don't get "credit" in the myopic view of only accidents count.

Certainly you have made your point clear that you think technology adds workload/distraction, and that you don't feel the average pilot puts enough education into their equipment.  But you can't paint technology in the broad brushstroke of bad solely because you've flown with students that don't demonstrate mastery or capability.  It doesn't remotely address the fault, and only suggests that your mindset is "it's over your head, don't bother with it."

The simple solution is fly more, fly often, fly with others, and fly with instructors...and that's universal regardless for what your flying and what equipment it has.  But we're talking nuance of equipment.  In discussing nuance, polarity and extreme isn't helpful.

 

Stay ahead of the aircraft and always be ready for a change.  Listen to the CTAF after you start up to start building situational awareness.  Look ahead at your destination to have an idea of approaches and runways in use.  To suggest that you don't start to build S.A. solely because things may change sounds horribly misguided.

[wombat]

13 hours ago, Aaviationist said:

There is no amount of flight instruction that is going to give me the situational awareness that ADSB does.

...

flight training does not allow me to see the 5 people in the pattern while 15 miles out while on my way home from a long cross country   

There is no amount of situational awareness that is going to have as big of a positive effect on your safety as additional flight instruction and practice will.

And 5 people in the pattern when you are 15 miles out doesn't mean much anyway.  By the time you get there the situation will be different.   Listen to the radio and look out the window.

There is no guarantee that everybody is talking on the radio.  

There is no guarantee that you'll see everybody near you.

Yes, having ADS-B in will help some.  I've never said it doesn't help.  All I've ever said is that people are acting as if it's a huge boost to safety, and it's not.  

The only way to ensure safety in light GA is to not go fly.   Not many of us want that.  I mean, here we are, all on a forum for a specific manufacturer of light GA airplanes!

 

I think the ADS-B thing is kind of like the Cirrus parachutes.    They do provide some additional safety, but the amount of additional safety they provide is not necessarily the highest value.    While it's sometimes fun to poke at Cirrus pilots for their excessive parachute expenses with marginal real-world safety value, there is real and measurable additional safety to be had by having the parachute.  Is it as much additional safety as if they had spent that extra money on training?  I don't think so.  And if someone comes to me and says "I won't ever fly in a plane without a parachute, and you are putting people's lives at risk if you fly them in a plane without a parachute." I'll have the same discussion we've been having here.   

 

This thread is intended to ask the question "Why do people get so freaked out about not having this one feature when it is a lower return on investment for safety expenses than other possibilities?"

[Aaviationist]

38 minutes ago, wombat said:

There is no amount of situational awareness that is going to have as big of a positive effect on your safety as additional flight instruction and practice will.

And 5 people in the pattern when you are 15 miles out doesn't mean much anyway.  By the time you get there the situation will be different.   Listen to the radio and look out the window.

There is no guarantee that everybody is talking on the radio.  

There is no guarantee that you'll see everybody near you.

Yes, having ADS-B in will help some.  I've never said it doesn't help.  All I've ever said is that people are acting as if it's a huge boost to safety, and it's not.  

The only way to ensure safety in light GA is to not go fly.   Not many of us want that.  I mean, here we are, all on a forum for a specific manufacturer of light GA airplanes!

 

I think the ADS-B thing is kind of like the Cirrus parachutes.    They do provide some additional safety, but the amount of additional safety they provide is not necessarily the highest value.    While it's sometimes fun to poke at Cirrus pilots for their excessive parachute expenses with marginal real-world safety value, there is real and measurable additional safety to be had by having the parachute.  Is it as much additional safety as if they had spent that extra money on training?  I don't think so.  And if someone comes to me and says "I won't ever fly in a plane without a parachute, and you are putting people's lives at risk if you fly them in a plane without a parachute." I'll have the same discussion we've been having here.   

 

This thread is intended to ask the question "Why do people get so freaked out about not having this one feature when it is a lower return on investment for safety expenses than other possibilities?"

I’m sorry but nothing you have said in this entire diatribe is true or accurate. Then you bring in Cirrus and the parachute which is PROVEN to have a massive increase in safety. It’s a system that works. It’s why the airframe is the number one selling GA airframe and its safety enhancement is why every manufacturer in the space of GA is implementing, trying to implement, or is considering implementation of a BRS system. So who is wrong, everyone but you, or you? (I already know your answer to that)
 

I’ve never seen someone make so many blatantly wrong statements and doubled down on them so hard. 
 

If you really are an instructor, someone needs to have a chat with your students. 

Edited November 19 by Aaviationist

[Pinecone]

One issue with increasing the safety, is that people just push things closer to the limit and mishaps still occur.

There was a column in Auto Week many years ago, that pointed out that the incidence of rear end collisions did not change as we went from drum brakes to disc brakes to power disc brakes to ABS.   As the technology improved, people just drove closer to the car in front of them, negating the safety increase.

[Hank]

48 minutes ago, Pinecone said:

One issue with increasing the safety, is that people just push things closer to the limit and mishaps still occur.

There was a column in Auto Week many years ago, that pointed out that the incidence of rear end collisions did not change as we went from drum brakes to disc brakes to power disc brakes to ABS.   As the technology improved, people just drove closer to the car in front of them, negating the safety increase.

This is called Risk Homeostasis. I read a fascinating paper about it and driving, involving not only the introduction of ABS brakes (and why our insurance discount disappeared), but also the conversion of several European countries to driving on the left. It also covered construction zones,  widened roads, etc. As road and vehicle conditions improve, risk is reduced so drivers change their behavior to bring their risk level back to where it was before; i.e., we drive faster when roads are widened, and follow closer when our braking is improved, etc.

I'm quite certain that this aspect of human behavior carries over into the cockpit with all of us. And each person has a unique risk acceptance profile, so we all drive and fly a bit differently from each other. 

But I'm in the camp that ADSB provides almost zero protection from midair collisions, and that at close distance the best thing to do is look out the windows and think about a steep turn away from the potential conflict--if nothing else, banking sharply will increase your visibility to the other aircraft. 

[N201MKTurbo]

I have been flying approaches at the stack for 30 years. most of that without ADS-B. The stack was as busy back then as it is now. I'm not aware of any accidents there, but I wouldn't be surprised if there were. As far as near misses are concerned, when in the stack, you are in a constant state of near miss.

Back in the day, there were more position reports then there are now. Now you get yelled at if you make too many position reports.

I think in some ways the modern navigation tools makes it a bit more dangerous. When your only guidance was the inbound leg, compass and clock, planes were more scattered around. now everybody flies the exact same patterns. I think this increases the risk a bit.

The most dangerous thing at the stack is when a non-participating airplane flies through the stack. not on the frequency and probably unaware that there is anything special about this airspace. It happens all the time. It is at a VOR, so it is not unusual to fly over a VOR in uncontrolled airspace. They should put a big red box around the area. There is a small note on the chart that there is intensive student activity in the area, but it doesn't do justice to the situation.

[Marc_B]

1 hour ago, Hank said:

But I'm in the camp that ADSB provides almost zero protection from midair collisions

What about the scenario where you're turning final and either you don't have visual but are faster than the aircraft in front of you, or you turn final and someone descends into you?  Both are the blind spots that have resulted in accidents.

Also from the standpoint of one aircraft on the DME arc for an approach while another is on the straight in on the same approach going slower.

These are things that I've seen routinely at my home field.

I guess what I'm saying is that the difference in traffic deconfliction and midair collision is sometimes blurry at best; but they're on the same continuum.  You'll never have statistics on how frequently ADS-b contributed to safe deconfliction.  But you're right in the sense that when aircraft are on the verge of touching my eyes are out the window and not on a screen of any sort.

 

[N201MKTurbo]

As of right now, there are 7 airplanes in the stack...