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

[N201MKTurbo]

The ability to visually spot traffic was a skill pilots were proud of and bragged about. When two or more pilots were in the same plane, it got to be a contest to see who could find the traffic first.

I think these important skills are being lost with the modern electronics. 

[Vance Harral]

4 hours ago, Schllc said:

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

Would you be in favor of the FAA mandating $500 worth of training with a CFI on maneuvering flight instead?  That would buy a lot more safety than requiring any kind of additional equipment.  It's right there in the Nall (now Richard McSpadden) report.

This is my beef with the topic being discussed.  I don't know that I'd use the phrase "freaking out".  I'm not anti-TIS-B or anti-radio.  But the interest, emphasis, and money spent on midair avoidance is grossly disproportionate to the threat of what's actually killing pilots.  If you have X dollars to spend on "safety", there is no rational argument for spending it on anything other than additional practice and training.  That's not to say you shouldn't buy equipment for comfort, convenience, or fun, of course.  Just don't lie to yourself that you're buying safety.

[MikeOH]

@Vance Harral

Best post of the thread, right there!

[chriscalandro]

If you’re a new pilot planning to use or has interest in using modern equipment, you should train with someone capable of using that modern equipment and who is not afraid of it.   There are many devices that you can buy that increase safety and ADSB is absolutely one of them. A good CO monitor is another, and so is a satellite based tracker. 

[dkkim73]

21 hours ago, Vance Harral said:

They are actual behavior I'm observing on a regular basis.  The people engaging in these behaviors aren't idiots, and the insidious thing is that they really believe they're making things safer.  In some cases they lack critical thinking skills, but mostly what they lack is experience and/or instruction.  

 

Thoughtful post overall, quoting a part here. 

This thread reminds me of a larger trend I've seen over the last 10-15 yrs (I associate it with software/technical people, but hey we're all guilty) to overgeneralize from discrete models and to worship data ("more data, better!"). The missing elements are usually actual real-world experience, empiric observation, etc. Also the problems of false correlation and silent evidence (e.g. "I'm making all these frequency-cluttering calls, heads-down, and being a general nuisance, and I'm still alive. Must be the reason. Yay, me! Yay, safety!" Even if it reduced safety, they got away with it). 

Anyhow, two generalizable points I might make are: 

• there isn't one right overarching viewpoint, but complementary grains of truth in the last several pages
• data without prioritization and mental models and flows that use it well obscures actionable information

With point #2, I think there's a real danger of too much mental clutter in many occupational environments, including a gen av cockpit. Thinking through how to use the tools well is important for me at least. Might be different for different people, too, I don't have enough observation in the post-ADS-B gen av environment of different pilots to comment too much more.

As for de-confliction/resolution maneuvering, I would *love* to hear someone more knowlegeable comment. Your point about showing your belly seems right-on. Maybe one of the front-seater types here (rags?) or an airline driver could opine? My instinct would be to roll to keep the traffic in sight even if it meant a closer pass or pushing over. 

My 2 cents. That and $2.97 might get you a small cup of coffee at Starbuck's. 

D

[EricJ]

3 hours ago, N201MKTurbo said:

The ability to visually spot traffic was a skill pilots were proud of and bragged about. When two or more pilots were in the same plane, it got to be a contest to see who could find the traffic first.

I think these important skills are being lost with the modern electronics. 

I think ADS-B-in traffic may actually augment that.    For me now it's still a contest to how soon can I see it.   ADS-B says there's an airplane there, SO WHERE TF IS IT?   If somebody is with me we're still in the competition skill-honing thing, to who sees it first.   I think it's made me better at spotting traffic, actually.

[Schllc]

3 hours ago, Vance Harral said:

Would you be in favor of the FAA mandating $500 worth of training with a CFI on maneuvering flight instead?  That would buy a lot more safety than requiring any kind of additional equipment.  It's right there in the Nall (now Richard McSpadden) report.

Well,  I think that’s a bit off topic but the relevant part is this…  
What I took from the Adsb component, is that it makes “you” more aware of others that may not see you, not that this was was the most effective way to reduce airplane accidents today, that is an entirely different discussion.  
But you are talking about suggesting something that would make a pilot safer that is within their control. 
Traffic that you cannot see with your eyes is an element that is completely out of the safest pilot in the worlds control. 
if you cannot visually see a threat, and you are doing everything correct, but Adsb allows you to see what you otherwise couldn’t, that is the benefit I was referring to. 
if you want to to talk about immediate impact to safety we should look at fuel exhaustion and inadvertent flight into IMC, these seem to be the biggest culprits. 
we can agree to disagree, but no one will ever convince me that mandatory radios, talking and Adsb wouldn’t make things safer. 

[Ragsf15e]

3 hours ago, dkkim73 said:

Thoughtful post overall, quoting a part here. 

This thread reminds me of a larger trend I've seen over the last 10-15 yrs (I associate it with software/technical people, but hey we're all guilty) to overgeneralize from discrete models and to worship data ("more data, better!"). The missing elements are usually actual real-world experience, empiric observation, etc. Also the problems of false correlation and silent evidence (e.g. "I'm making all these frequency-cluttering calls, heads-down, and being a general nuisance, and I'm still alive. Must be the reason. Yay, me! Yay, safety!" Even if it reduced safety, they got away with it). 

Anyhow, two generalizable points I might make are: 

• there isn't one right overarching viewpoint, but complementary grains of truth in the last several pages
• data without prioritization and mental models and flows that use it well obscures actionable information

With point #2, I think there's a real danger of too much mental clutter in many occupational environments, including a gen av cockpit. Thinking through how to use the tools well is important for me at least. Might be different for different people, too, I don't have enough observation in the post-ADS-B gen av environment of different pilots to comment too much more.

As for de-confliction/resolution maneuvering, I would *love* to hear someone more knowlegeable comment. Your point about showing your belly seems right-on. Maybe one of the front-seater types here (rags?) or an airline driver could opine? My instinct would be to roll to keep the traffic in sight even if it meant a closer pass or pushing over. 

My 2 cents. That and $2.97 might get you a small cup of coffee at Starbuck's. 

D

I’d absolutely turn to keep someone in sight if they are a conflict… especially if the alternative is turning away and “hoping” it works.  Even people with no formation flying experience can maneuver to avoid traffic they can see.
 

 Altitude change of only 500’ usually makes the easiest and quickest adjustment if ATC allows.  Turning towards someone’s tail also works quickly in a lot of cases.  You just want them to have line of sight movement in your windscreen forward or aft.  Altitude offset doesn’t necessarily require this (they will have a little vertical movement though).

I generally don’t waggle my wings at people unless I know they’re looking for me (like atc points me out to them and they respond with searching).  I will make a turn to deconflict in a clear direction and then keep them in sight. Usually if you make a turn in a direction, people who see you will choose the other way.

Edited November 18 by Ragsf15e

[skykrawler]

I really like my CDTI.  Would hate to not have it.  Hard to understand why anyone would fly in busy airspace (regularly) without it.

[Pinecone]

On 11/18/2023 at 10:06 AM, N201MKTurbo said:

The ability to visually spot traffic was a skill pilots were proud of and bragged about. When two or more pilots were in the same plane, it got to be a contest to see who could find the traffic first.

I think these important skills are being lost with the modern electronics. 

But question is, whether even with two of them competing, if they saw all the traffic.

[chriscalandro]

1 minute ago, Echo said:

I lost my 93-year-old mother in a car accident this afternoon so I’m going to pass on your generous offer. Do you have a nice night Chris. Scott.

Then it’s interesting you chose this time to join in a conversation like that which you weren’t involved in. 
 

[Andy95W]

Scott- he’s not worth getting kicked off MooneySpace.  He is one of the most disliked and blocked people around here, and he doesn’t even own a Mooney anymore.  Not even sure why he hangs out here, he should be on Pilots of America.  He’d fit in nicely over there.  Just block him like the rest of us have, we’d rather hear about you and your new M20E.

[dkkim73]

On 11/18/2023 at 2:47 PM, Ragsf15e said:

...

Even people with no formation flying experience can maneuver to avoid traffic they can see.
...

 Altitude change of only 500’ usually makes the easiest and quickest adjustment if ATC allows.  Turning towards someone’s tail also works quickly in a lot of cases.  You just want them to have line of sight movement in your windscreen forward or aft.  Altitude offset doesn’t necessarily require this (they will have a little vertical movement though).

Thank you, much appreciated. 

If you wouldn't mind clarifying, the "turn toward someone's tail" paradigm, over how wide a range of situations would you employ that in a normal category aircraft? In the Eagle, and I would assume the Mudhen (even with conformal tanks and 1,000,000 lbs of GPS-guided bad news), you could do that from any aspect, angle, altitude, all day long and it would work. With GA, would you do that only with a constant-bearing presentation fore or aft? You said it might be a big turn and I'm literally using my hands to try and figure out the variations (ie. this is a naive question). 

I agree on the formation flying point you made. Once you see an external reference, it's suprisingly intuitive to maneuver relative. 

It would be interesting for someone to "game this out" in terms of likely responsives to uncoordinated resolution maneuvers (vs. TCAS which coordinates this). Ie. if you presume similar maneuvability, how does the other (presumably GA) pilot's likely reaction or non-reaction figure with your planned maneuver. I think the simplest thing is the point already made that keeping the other bird in sight will mitigate risk and require the least mutual training. 

Thinking out loud at a lower level here...
D

[Sue Bon]

15 hours ago, dkkim73 said:

likely responsives to uncoordinated resolution maneuvers

I've written this and deleted it a couple of times now, but I'm just going to put it out there... I learned that the plane coming from the right always has the right of way. I also learned this in paragliding. If an aircraft is approaching at your 12 o'clock and not moving (i.e., coming right at you), both aircrafts turn right. If only one aircraft turns right, the situation is still avoided.

This happened to me once in my Mooney and once paragliding. Both pilots turned right and it was over. A bit scary, but over.

If you are on a collision course with another aircraft at the same altitude, it's up to the one coming from the left to avoid. That's also why the lights at the tips of the wings are red on the left wing (coming from the right) and green on the right wing (you have the right of way).

Is this not the case in the US?

[dkkim73]

11 minutes ago, Sue Bon said:

Is this not the case in the US?

Yes, you are entirely correct. Sorry to be unclear. I suspect this is actually a coordinated international standard, and stems from maritime practice, as do so many of our practices (I joked with my father in law that boating was like flying, only much slower; he added that you also do a lot of maintenance underway). 

My musings were more about what people do "in the wild". E.g. we are taught that birds, if faced with potential collision, tend to dive. So I wonder what people actually tend to do if surprised and not thinking through resolution maneuvers. 

This is also confounded by the possibility (probability?) that you might not be seen. And the general lack of direct two-way communications (we don't address other aircraft usually). As people have raised earlier, a person might view the world differently "heads down" looking at cockpit traffic displays vs. being visual with the other traffic, etc. 

Unless there is obvious coordination (via ATC or on a CTAF [local pattern frequency]) I tend to assume the other craft might not see me and try to factor in potential erratic maneuvers later (ie. be more predictable, wider berth, etc). My comment a few posts back was that if I had a choice between being blind or a closer pass, I'd choose the latter, but obviously someone might see you at the last minute and do something unexpected. Or try to resolve it via their traffic display (again, without a full TCAS there is no guaranteed separation).

David

 

[Falcon Man]

Worth pointing out that: any attempt at explaining a position based on a critical thinking and/or scientific basis, is limited by how many data points are available. Statistically, if the data points are less than 40, the power of the data is ZERO. Most of us have purely our personal point of view based on limited personal experience and this is of value, but not scientific truth.

Unfortunately, relying on FAA data isn't based on reasonable numbers, so any foregone conclusions are suspect in my humble opinion.