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

[EricJ]

Leaving Casa Grande the other day after six trips through the stack.    You will not see many airplanes that are around you, and you cannot see many of those directly above or below that may be conflicting, or those closing from behind.   Vertical filtering is set to +/-5000 ft.

[Vance Harral]

This is a cool picture and certainly shows that the Stanfield stack is busy.  But it also illustrates the emotional effect of zoom scale.

In this clip from the image above...

... there are four airplanes inbound on the approach to KCGZ, and another two in the vicinity, in addition to the ownship.  Sure looks busy.  But the distance between the VOR and the airport is 8 nautical miles.  The very closet airplanes in this image are about 2nm apart, and the case that is nearest to head-on probably has a closure rate of about 200 knots groundspeed, or about 30 seconds of time at 2nm.  Certainly worth paying attention to, and having the depiction on ADS-B is useful.  But none of the airplanes in the picture are (yet) in a "near miss" scenario by anyone's definition, even if they were all at the same altitude; and everyone is less close than the traffic pattern at many uncontrolled airports on a Saturday morning.  It's also worth noting that while your average GA airplane is about the size of a house, the icons in the depiction suggest a single airplane is about as big as the entire city limits of Casa Grande.  My experience working with clients is that these issues of scale/zoom are often poorly understood, leading to inappropriate fixation.

For better or worse, this is what I think about every time someone posts an ADS-B depiction of all the airplanes inbound to Airventure being "crazy"; or says something like, "you just don't realize how many airplanes are out there"; or expresses certainty that a threat they saw on ADS-B would have speared them but for their superior situational awareness and valiant maneuvering.  Of all the bad things that could happen to the airplanes in this picture - basic loss of control, mechanical failure, etc. - a midair is the lowest risk by far, even given what it looks like on the display.  Presumably the pilots in this picture are all working on their instrument skills, and that training results in significantly more risk reduction for them than the risk of the stack itself.  To hear some on this thread characterize it, operating in the Stanfield stack or something like it without devoting a significant amount of attention to traffic displays is a death trap; and yet as has been noted, the stack was around for decades before ADS-B traffic became commonplace.

That doesn't mean ADS-B traffic is worthless or that pilots shouldn't use it.  But the folks saying, "If it saves even one midair it's worth it" are ignoring a crucial part of the calculus, which is, what other risks increase and how much additional maiming and death is caused by fixation on a very small threat, to the exclusion of more significant ones?  In a world of finite resources, fixation on shark repellent instead of swimming lessons may be a bad idea, even if it conclusively prevents a single shark attack.

[EricJ]

6 minutes ago, Vance Harral said:

That doesn't mean ADS-B traffic is worthless or that pilots shouldn't use it.  But the folks saying, "If it saves even one midair it's worth it" are ignoring a crucial part of the calculus, which is, what other risks increase and how much additional maiming and death is caused by fixation on a very small threat, to the exclusion of more significant ones?  In a world of finite resources, fixation on shark repellent instead of swimming lessons may be a bad idea, even if it conclusively prevents a single shark attack.

Can you offer some support or examples of people "fixating" on ADS-B?   Is monitoring your airspeed indicator on an approach "fixating" about an approach stall?  Is looking outside for traffic "fixating" on this "very small threat"?  

It seems odd to me that people think this is what's happening.

Also, since it seems that you may have missed the point, the pic was posted to show that wherever you go here you need to be alert for traffic.    We went from the spot shown to Falcon (FFZ) via the gap over Chandler (CHD) just to the west of Mesa Gateway (IWA).   That's a busy corridor for flight school traffic coming from Falcon to the stack or to any of the training areas to the south.   It gets crowded with traffic going both ways there, staying above the Chandler Class-D and below the Phoenix Bravo.  The scale of the map shows that there will be traffic there, and there are also two targets to watch out for that will soon be crossing in front of us.    We were able to keep an eye out for those, and anticipate that there will be (as usual) traffic to watch out for coming the other way when we cross over CHD.  This is called planning and situational awareness.   It's a good thing to practice and is highly augmented and enabled by ADS-B-in.

When we crossed over CHD there were several airplanes coming toward us through that gap, and we were able to know where to look for them and even deviated to make more room...and never saw some of them.   In other words, we were able to deconflict potential risks, and keep the risks minimized, by using ADS-B-in to provide more spacing.    This is routine practice here.   It's not hard, it doesn't involve any fixating, it involves a lot of looking outside assisted by ADS-B-in.  How did ADS-B-in hinder our mitigation of more likely risks?

You don't have to use your airspeed indicator on approach, though.   You don't have to ever look outside for traffic (since I'm hearing that it's such a small threat that should be de-prioritized).  You don't have to use your radio at an uncontrolled field.  You will, however, be much safer if you learn how to use tools effectively to reduce risk, even against low-probability risks, and even when they're not the highest risk.

[N201MKTurbo]

43 minutes ago, EricJ said:

Can you offer some support or examples of people "fixating" on ADS-B?   Is monitoring your airspeed indicator on an approach "fixating" about an approach stall?  Is looking outside for traffic "fixating" on this "very small threat"?  

It seems odd to me that people think this is what's happening.

Also, since it seems that you may have missed the point, the pic was posted to show that wherever you go here you need to be alert for traffic.    We went from the spot shown to Falcon (FFZ) via the gap over Chandler (CHD) just to the west of Mesa Gateway (IWA).   That's a busy corridor for flight school traffic coming from Falcon to the stack or to any of the training areas to the south.   It gets crowded with traffic going both ways there, staying above the Chandler Class-D and below the Phoenix Bravo.  The scale of the map shows that there will be traffic there, and there are also two targets to watch out for that will soon be crossing in front of us.    We were able to keep an eye out for those, and anticipate that there will be (as usual) traffic to watch out for coming the other way when we cross over CHD.  This is called planning and situational awareness.   It's a good thing to practice and is highly augmented and enabled by ADS-B-in.

When we crossed over CHD there were several airplanes coming toward us through that gap, and we were able to know where to look for them and even deviated to make more room...and never saw some of them.   In other words, we were able to deconflict potential risks, and keep the risks minimized, by using ADS-B-in to provide more spacing.    This is routine practice here.   It's not hard, it doesn't involve any fixating, it involves a lot of looking outside assisted by ADS-B-in.  How did ADS-B-in hinder our mitigation of more likely risks?

You don't have to use your airspeed indicator on approach, though.   You don't have to ever look outside for traffic (since I'm hearing that it's such a small threat that should be de-prioritized).  You don't have to use your radio at an uncontrolled field.  You will, however, be much safer if you learn how to use tools effectively to reduce risk, even against low-probability risks, and even when they're not the highest risk.

Are you talking about the gap between Falcon and Gateway class D? That thing is only 1/4 mile wide. They should put lead in and lead out waypoints. There is a waypoint right in the middle, but there are no good waypoints that get you to an angle that keeps you out of the class Ds.

Or are you talking about flying over the top of the CHD class D? Where there is a 300 foot gap between the top of CHD and the bottom of PHX Class B?

 

[1980Mooney]

As much as some above wish to dismiss the accuracy and usefulness of ADS-B, it is the backbone of NextGen real-time traffic avoidance.  TCAS is well along in evolving into ACAS ( Airborne Collision Avoidance System). 

ACAS is aimed at reducing dependence upon visual separation procedures and interaction with ATC that is using radar. (they refer to that level of dependency currently as a "deficiency").

• ACAS systems use ADS-B information and selective interrogations of nearby aircraft to determine their position and velocity; this information is passed through “threat logic” to determine proximate traffic, issue traffic alerts, and issue collision avoidance “resolution advisories” to flight crews.Resolution advisories provide flight crews with vertical guidance (climb, descend, remain level, donot descend/climb) as appropriate to avoid collisions.
• In order to achieve a high level of safety, the alerting criteria used by current ACAS systems often overlap with the horizontal and vertical separation associated with many safe and legal procedures (e.g., visual separation operations). ACAS monitoring data from the U.S. indicate that as many as 90% of observed resolution advisories (RAs) are due to the interaction between ACAS II alerting criteria and normal ATC separation procedures (e.g., 500 feet IFR/VFR separation, visual parallel approach procedures, level-off with a high vertical rate, or VFR traffic pattern procedures). This new ACAS system will address this deficiency.

https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/design_approvals/dah/tcas_acas

https://www.icao.int/NACC/Documents/Meetings/2021/ADSB/P05-FutureADS-B-ENG.pdf

https://www4.icao.int/ganpportal/ASBU/Element/Pdf?IDs=153&ShowPart1=true&ShowPart2=true&ShowPart3=true&ShowPart4=true

Also there is talk of a ATAS (ADS-B Traffic Advisory System).  It is intended to be "This low-cost alerting capability for general aviation reduces the number of aircraft collisions."  The standards have already been set.

• After receiving an ATAS traffic alert, the pilot takes action appropriate to the operational rules in effect at the time. Unlike TCAS II systems, ATAS does not provide resolution advisories or maneuvering guidance.

https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/technology/adsb/pilot/atas

Bottom Line:

• Future flights will be more reliant on integrated technology and autonomous real time data systems..... that may mean "more head down" looking at the panel.......and less time talking to ATC.....

 

[1980Mooney]

5 hours ago, Pinecone said:

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

Isn't that the whole aim of future flight operations?.....basically the same finite number of airports & runways but accommodating more flight operations?  The only way to do that is tighter spacing....closer landings.

[N201MKTurbo]

I sure felt safer before ADS-B. I used to fly through the airspace south of KCHD just looking out the window with my head on a swivel. If I didn't see any planes, I felt safe. 

Now I fly through there and see all the planes on the IPad and it's terrifying! (-:

[Pinecone]

1 hour ago, 1980Mooney said:

Isn't that the whole aim of future flight operations?.....basically the same finite number of airports & runways but accommodating more flight operations?  The only way to do that is tighter spacing....closer landings.

Well, sort of.

Done properly, they could decrease separation while increasing safety.

[Pinecone]

58 minutes ago, N201MKTurbo said:

I sure felt safer before ADS-B. I used to fly through the airspace south of KCHD just looking out the window with my head on a swivel. If I didn't see any planes, I felt safe. 

Now I fly through there and see all the planes on the IPad and it's terrifying! (-:

This is SO true.  You didn't know what you didn't know.

ADSB is a tool.  And like any tool, it can be used properly and be a great benefit.  Or, it can be misused and cause trouble.  All in the operator.

IMO, it is a very useful tool for MY situational awareness and helpful in dealing with traffic.  It is not the ONLY tool to do so.

[Vance Harral]

2 hours ago, EricJ said:

Can you offer some support or examples of people "fixating" on ADS-B?

Sure.

A couple of months ago I was asked to assist with recurrent training for a client who was returning to aviation after a long hiatus.  Despite the layoff, he was a good stick, and flew the pattern nicely.  But only after I took his iPad away.  On the first downwind leg, he has his head absolutely buried in the iPad, and was extremely concerned about a couple of other airplanes on or entering the downwind.  I s**t you not, he spent more than 50% of the flight time on the entire downwind leg with his head in his lap (I know because I watched his eyes, like I do with all students).  Meanwhile, he allowed the airplane to accelerate to over 100 KIAS (this was a 172), climb almost 200' above traffic pattern altitude, and was unable to conduct a stabilized approach.  Again, he had no problem maintaining reasonable speeds and altitude profies in the pattern once I took the iPad away.  When I asked him about this, he said he felt it was important to get acquainted with the "new technology", and talked about how much safer he felt with it.  But no one had ever given him any training on how to use it, and he was stunned to hear me say he was making himself less safe.  I did my best to do so politely, using some of the data discussed here.  He finished the checkout with another instructor, and it's unclear to me what impact my training had on him.

Another: last week I was established on downwind with a student in a specific training scenario (power-off 180 in a significant crosswind), when an airplane from the flight school down the road reported inbound on the VOR-A approach to my home drome.  I'm very familiar with the approach.  The MDA is 600' AGL, and flown properly, inbound aircraft are established at 600' AGL well before crossing the downwind leg for the runway on a perpendicular course, enroute to a midfield flyover and missed.  There is no conflict between the VFR traffic pattern and this approach, when everyone has eyes outside (and augmenting that with ADS-B traffic data is great).  But rather than continuing to simply report position, the inbound aircraft identified us by call sign and issued us an instruction to do a 360 to accommodate them.  I've had this happen a couple of times, and I'm always incredulous.  But that's actually not the relevant part of the story.  Doing what they asked would have both compromised my training scenario and created another conflict with an aircraft behind me, so I replied "unable", to which the response was, "we have you on ADS-B, we'll blah, blah, blah", at which point their aircraft blindly maneuvered to head directly toward the location of our downwind-to-base turn, and climb right through the pattern altitude.  I presume this is based on what they saw on ADS-B based on their last announcement, but who knows?  In any case, they clearly had positional awareness, but not situational awareness.

Another example, less interesting but still to the point: traffic is congested enough in our metro area that a "common training frequency" has been established, which all the local flight schools would like pilots to monitor if more than a few miles from any particular airport.  I'm unconvinced this is helpful, but I'm not a jerk, so I do monitor it, and do my best to be polite.  I routinely get calls to my N number from aircraft that are multiple minutes away from a possible conflict, asking me to "say intentions", and wanting to negotiate separation even greater than what the professionals who staff ATC require.  Again, I try not to be a jerk about it, but the minor irritation is that it unnecessarily distracts from training; and the major issue is that I've seen it create bizarre panic on a couple of occasions when more than two aircraft happened to be vaguely in the vicinity of each other, but not anywhere near a real threat.

If you've never seen or heard things like this, I respect that.  But don't tell me I haven't seen and heard it with my own eyes and ears.  There is definitely fixation and distraction going on out there.

The bottom line argument in this thread isn't whether ADS-B is "bad", no one is saying it is.  The opposing positions are between "Traffic displays are easy to use effectively, never a distraction, and represent a huge safety improvement", vs. "Effectively using a traffic display is complex and can be counterintuitive, and it provides a moderate benefit against a tiny risk, at the possible expense of a small increase in larger risks".  In this respect, your comments about airspeed indicators are actually a great conversation piece.  We have a finite amount of time to be "heads down" in the cockpit, so what do you think the risk is of taking time away from checking the ASI while in the traffic pattern, in order to look at your traffic display?  Yeah, yeah, I'm sure you can do both at the same time - you're an excellent pilot, you can pat your head and rub your tummy, etc.  But the accident data is right there in black and white: huge numbers of takeoff and landing accidents, very tiny numbers of midairs, and this hasn't changed since ADS-B became commonplace.  As an instructor, should I really be telling other pilots, "I see you're looking at the airspeed indicator a lot, you really should spend more time on your ADS-B display"?

[Marc_B]

You can be target fixated on anything, and in an emergency that’s likely to happen without proper training. Fly with an intro Instrument student and see how effective that scan is. But you can’t point to unskilled or untrained pilots and use that as a bash to all technology.

What you’re insinuating Vance is that all aviation should be dumbed down to the lowest common denominator.  If that’s the case everyone should be flying a most basic 172 or Cherokee.  But certainly you don’t start drivers Ed in a F1 race car…

Perhaps your better argument is that technology and more capable flight equipment requires more training to use safely and effectively.  100% I’m sure we’d all agree. 

But poor pilot skills only points to poor pilot skills.

A great instrument and traffic scan is part of the framework for safe flight.  Solo student pilots are in the air alongside professional lifetime career pilots. We all start somewhere.  One of the lessons we need to learn is what tools to use when.

[EricJ]

2 hours ago, Vance Harral said:

The bottom line argument in this thread isn't whether ADS-B is "bad", no one is saying it is.  The opposing positions are between "Traffic displays are easy to use effectively, never a distraction, and represent a huge safety improvement", vs.

I haven't seen anyone say "never a distraction".   Anything can be a distraction.   

2 hours ago, Vance Harral said:

"Effectively using a traffic display is complex and can be counterintuitive, and it provides a moderate benefit against a tiny risk, at the possible expense of a small increase in larger risks".  In this respect, your comments about airspeed indicators are actually a great conversation piece.  We have a finite amount of time to be "heads down" in the cockpit, so what do you think the risk is of taking time away from checking the ASI while in the traffic pattern, in order to look at your traffic display?

"Moderate benefit against a tiny risk" is the subjective difference where many will disagree.   Avoiding a collision is not a "moderate benefit" to many people, and since mid-airs like the one in question typically happen in the pattern, it's also an area of high risk.   That said, there are other tools, like the radio, and looking outside, that should be and typically are used as well.   A good pilot will use all these tools effectively, and maybe more that people come up with in the future, judiciously to continually minimize risk.

I don't find it particularly difficult to use the traffic display in the pattern, and it's especially useful in busy airports with parallel runways.

2 hours ago, Vance Harral said:

Yeah, yeah, I'm sure you can do both at the same time - you're an excellent pilot, you can pat your head and rub your tummy, etc.  But the accident data is right there in black and white: huge numbers of takeoff and landing accidents, very tiny numbers of midairs, and this hasn't changed since ADS-B became commonplace.  As an instructor, should I really be telling other pilots, "I see you're looking at the airspeed indicator a lot, you really should spend more time on your ADS-B display"?

I've yet to hear of an accident where use of the traffic display, or the radio, or looking outside, was cited as a contributing cause.   We do, however, see accidents, like the one in question, where it is apparent that available tools could have helped prevent the accident.

And, no, I've yet to hear anyone around here complain about the traffic display increasing their workload or adding a source of distraction.   People seem to be able to manage these resources pretty well, just like they do radios, airspeed indicators, etc., etc.  Why do we seldom hear people complaining about the radio being a source of distraction?   It certainly can be, but people manage it quite well.   It seems very specious to me to deprecate the use of a safety tool due to the unlikely effects of misuse.   Scan management and resource management is part of training for use of all kinds of things, but most don't get deprecated to avoid use because some people might do it wrong.

[EricJ]

4 hours ago, N201MKTurbo said:

Or are you talking about flying over the top of the CHD class D? Where there is a 300 foot gap between the top of CHD and the bottom of PHX Class B?

This.   There's a thousand feet between the top of CHD Class-D and the Phoenix Bravo to go to the south end of the FFZ Class-D.  This even came up during the last trip to the Phx TRACON, that those two gaps are high traffic areas that they watch out for.   I typically go east around IWA to avoid all of that, but some people (like the guy I was flying with that day) like to shoot those gaps.    I wouldn't do it without ADS-B-in, or at minimum being on Flight Following.   There were four airplanes coming at us in that space, and since they're head-on they're nearly impossible to see.  ADS-B-in at least makes it manageable.

[1980Mooney]

1 hour ago, Marc_B said:

What you’re insinuating Vance is that all aviation should be dumbed down to the lowest common denominator.  If that’s the case everyone should be flying a most basic 172 or Cherokee.  But certainly you don’t start drivers Ed in a F1 race car…

But poor pilot skills only points to poor pilot skills.

Really?  Ok maybe not in a F1 race car but in a Porsche 911 or 718.  Now days any idiot can drive a 911 - all you need is to be 16 years old and have Daddy's credit card.  Porsche promotes it - and the kids are driving 911's and 718's.

https://www.porschedriving.com/los-angeles/porsche-young-driver/

Gone are the days when skills were needed to manage understeer, throttle-off oversteer, 4 speed clutch, brake fade or lock-up and to get the most out of the engine.  Today full stability and traction management systems control brakes and power on each wheel individually, electric power steering, Tiptroninc auto or PDK effortlessly shifts automatically.

General aviation is going the same direction.  Everyone wants big flat screens with integrated avionics - and more features like electronic stability and protection, smart glide, emergency descent, auto-land.

What new features will Garmin add to its Autonomous suite over the next 10 years?  Auto "take-off" maybe?

https://discover.garmin.com/en-US/autonomi/

https://www.aviationtoday.com/2024/11/14/garmin-g3000-with-autoland-technology-gets-an-upgrade/

And commercial aviation?...in 10 years why will they need 2 pilots up front?  A flight attendant can be trained to "land" the planef if a pilot croaks. (i.e. press the "auto-land" button.  Hell they won't even need to know how to talk to ATC because the plane will automatically send messages on the proper frequencies that it already knows in its database for the location). 

Or maybe it will be remotely flown with the "Pilot" just sitting up front monitoring the systems that are monitoring the plane.  I suspect the reality of events in Ukrane are going to lead to the rapid development of more UAV technology and wars in the future will be fought remotely.  This, like all DOD driven aviation development, will trickle to commercial aviation. 

[T. Peterson]

I think the answer to the question in the title of the post, “Why do people freak out about adsb and midair collisions?”, has a an easy answer. We on Mooneyspace just love to argue!!

[Aaviationist]

Another point about people stating ADSB is not accurate, the source is the same as the one that gets you to the runway on an RNAV approach. 
 

are you also saying that a gps approach is not accurate?

 

or can we all just agree that the information provided for those points was a complete fabrication. 

Edited yesterday at 01:15 AM by Aaviationist

[EricJ]

46 minutes ago, T. Peterson said:

I think the answer to the question in the title of the post, “Why do people freak out about adsb and midair collisions?”, has a an easy answer. We on Mooneyspace just love to argue!!

I'm adding this to my list of Mooneyspace controversies:

1. Touch and goes will kill you.
2. Levelling the airplane during gear swing with prop stand, engine lift point, tail stand, or straps on the engine mount.
3. ROP vs LOP
4. Using your bare hand to wipe the windscreen.
5. Whether to lock the baggage hatch or not.
6. Bladders vs patching/resealing tanks.
7. Take off with or without flaps.
8. OPP stuff, legal or not, etc.
9. Don't let the prop drive the engine.
10. Avoid shock cooling.
11. Turbo cool down time required or not.
12. Raising the flaps on rollout to save the tires vs risking a gear retraction.
13. Travel boards are required for rigging.
14. The ADS-B-in Traffic Display is a distraction and makes you less safe.   <- New!

 

[Aaviationist]

4 minutes ago, EricJ said:

I'm adding this to my list of Mooneyspace controversies:

1. Touch and goes will kill you.
2. Levelling the airplane during gear swing with prop stand, engine lift point, tail stand, or straps on the engine mount.
3. ROP vs LOP
4. Using your bare hand to wipe the windscreen.
5. Whether to lock the baggage hatch or not.
6. Bladders vs patching/resealing tanks.
7. Take off with or without flaps.
8. OPP stuff, legal or not, etc.
9. Don't let the prop drive the engine.
10. Avoid shock cooling.
11. Turbo cool down time required or not.
12. Raising the flaps on rollout to save the tires vs risking a gear retraction.
13. Travel boards are required for rigging.
14. The ADS-B-in Traffic Display is a distraction and makes you less safe.   <- New!

 

You forgot “training provides a better safety than parachutes”

[Hank]

1 hour ago, Aaviationist said:

Another point about people stating ADSB is not accurate, the source is the same as the one that gets you to the runway on an RNAV approach. 
 

are you also saying that a gps approach is not accurate?

 

or can we all just agree that the information provided for those points was a complete fabrication. 

My GPS, the data it uses and the display are all FAA approved.

Is your ipad??? I think not, there's no comparison. 

[Hank]

2 hours ago, EricJ said:

I haven't seen anyone say "never a distraction".   Anything can be a distraction.   

"Moderate benefit against a tiny risk" is the subjective difference where many will disagree.   Avoiding a collision is not a "moderate benefit" to many people, and since mid-airs like the one in question typically happen in the pattern, it's also an area of high risk.   That said, there are other tools, like the radio, and looking outside, that should be and typically are used as well.   A good pilot will use all these tools effectively, and maybe more that people come up with in the future, judiciously to continually minimize risk.

I don't find it particularly difficult to use the traffic display in the pattern, and it's especially useful in busy airports with parallel runways.

I've yet to hear of an accident where use of the traffic display, or the radio, or looking outside, was cited as a contributing cause.   We do, however, see accidents, like the one in question, where it is apparent that available tools could have helped prevent the accident.

It's easy to talk on the radio while looking outside and / or scanning your instruments. We all do it on every flight.

Now scan your ADSB traffic display while looking outside . . . .

It's a tool, but not a primary tool. It's certainly not God's gift to traffic management. 

[T. Peterson]

54 minutes ago, EricJ said:

I'm adding this to my list of Mooneyspace controversies:

1. Touch and goes will kill you.
2. Levelling the airplane during gear swing with prop stand, engine lift point, tail stand, or straps on the engine mount.
3. ROP vs LOP
4. Using your bare hand to wipe the windscreen.
5. Whether to lock the baggage hatch or not.
6. Bladders vs patching/resealing tanks.
7. Take off with or without flaps.
8. OPP stuff, legal or not, etc.
9. Don't let the prop drive the engine.
10. Avoid shock cooling.
11. Turbo cool down time required or not.
12. Raising the flaps on rollout to save the tires vs risking a gear retraction.
13. Travel boards are required for rigging.
14. The ADS-B-in Traffic Display is a distraction and makes you less safe.   <- New!

 

That’s hilarious!…..and oh so true!

[EricJ]

Just now, Hank said:

It's easy to talk on the radio while looking outside and / or scanning your instruments. We all do it on every flight.

You can scan the instruments but not a display?   How about the engine monitor?   Gear indicator?   Fuel gauges?  Fuel selector?  What is so different about the traffic display that it is cursed and the others aren't?

Just now, Hank said:

Now scan your ADSB traffic display while looking outside . . . .

Or any of the other instruments, etc...

[T. Peterson]

3 minutes ago, Hank said:

It's easy to talk on the radio while looking outside and / or scanning your instruments. We all do it on every flight.

Now scan your ADSB traffic display while looking outside . . . .

It's a tool, but not a primary tool. It's certainly not God's gift to traffic management. 

Of course it’s not God’s gift!! Obviously it’s a tool of Satan! Demonic to the core.

[varlajo]

59 minutes ago, EricJ said:

I'm adding this to my list of Mooneyspace controversies:

 

Running a fuel tank dry!! 

[Aaviationist]

29 minutes ago, Hank said:

My GPS, the data it uses and the display are all FAA approved.

Is your ipad??? I think not, there's no comparison. 

Weather it’s approved or not is irrelevant. 
 

yes it is absolutely a comparison, ForeFlight uses the same relocated maps as everything else that is approved, and the gps coordinate of the ADSB target is the same gps coordinate on an iPad, or a fully integrated and approved device, AND in many cases it comes from the same source!
 

not to mention that ADSB traffic targets do in fact also show up on approved devices…..

 

your logic and reasoning gets less comprehensible and proves your lack of knowledge the more you comment in this thread. 

Edited yesterday at 02:54 AM by Aaviationist