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

[Marc_B]

In flight weather is a distraction. There’s a lag and you get fixated. TIS-b and XM causes fixation. 
 

In all seriousness there is a time and place for an iPad and for me that’s mostly preflight. But my panel makes the iPad completely unnecessary for flight. 

[Hank]

9 hours ago, EricJ said:

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?

Or any of the other instruments, etc...

The only time I fixate on instruments is when I'm IMC, and looking outside the window makes things worse. 

The gear indicator, fuel selector, etc., are all static, while the traffic display is an attractive, constantly changing distraction, which some people fixate on "for safety."

Yes, when I update to TV screens on my panel, I'll also have to fight the distraction of those large displays vs. looking out the windows, but that day hasn't come for me yet. In the meantime, not fixating on my tablet isn't a problem. I do my navigation using my in-panel Garmin WAAS unit; the tablet is mostly for approach plates, but it also shows a fancier moving map that is mostly unnecessary. 

[Pinecone]

14 hours ago, 1980Mooney said:

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.

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.

 

And those 16 year olds are the ones who turn off the stability control, because "it keeps interfering with their driving."  Not realizing that it is saving their butt.

Saw it a lot in the BMW world, and the same people would be back on the forum with a few weeks with a tale of how the car is totaled because "the car lost control."

[Pinecone]

One thing I have found helps in avoiding too much heads down is to put a dedicated screen to Traffic.  That way I ONLY see the traffic close by (normal set to 2/6 miles) and +/- 2000 feet.  With speed/distance vectors shown, it is a quick glance to see if there is an issue, then eyes out to visually acquire the traffic.

[Marc_B]

1 hour ago, Pinecone said:

One thing I have found helps in avoiding too much heads down is to put a dedicated screen to Traffic.

+1.  This is typically the Aera 760 on the yoke with the traffic page in the 2/6 ring for me.  I find that it's easier to quickly reference the traffic page rather than an iPad with Foreflight showing traffic.  The Aera traffic page is just cleaner, has only the pertinent info and seems like a quick glance gives you all the info that you need.

[Vance Harral]

Coincidentally, this week's update of the AOPA McSpadden report re-organizes the data in a way that specifically breaks out collisions, including by phase of flight.  Here's the fixed wing, non-commercial data for the most recently available full year (2022): 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

For those who don't want to pore over the charts, here's a quick breakdown of collisions in 2008 vs. 2022, which arguably spans the time period when in-cockpit traffic displays became ubiquitous:

• landing: 2 nonfatal in 2008, 1 nonfatal in 2022
• takeoff and climb: 1 nonfatal in 2008, 1 nonfatal in 2022
• maneuvering: 1/2 nonfatal/fatal in 2008, 1 fatal in 2022
• descent and approach: 4/2 nonfatal/fatal in 2008, 2 fatal in 2022
• enroute: 1 fatal in 2008, 1 fatal in 2022
• taxi: 13/1 nonfatal/fatal in 2008, 10/0 nonfatal/fatal collisions in 2022

It's interesting to note that the overwhelming majority of collisions occur while taxiing.

It's unclear to me if the landing and takeoff collisions occurred on the runway surface, or just after takeoff/just before landing, but I'm guessing they're probably on the surface, especially given that...

...there is an important note in the data stating that each aircraft involved in a collision is counted separately in the data.  e.g. a classic "midair" is reported as two incidents, and any data point showing only one incident involves a collision with something other than another aircraft (probably a tower or cable in the air, probably lights and signs on the ground).

So I think - my guess only - that the midair collision concern that traffic displays address, is contained in the fatal maneuvering, descent/approach, and enroute data, where there are an even number of incidents.  That's 4 incidents (2 collisions) in 2008, and 2 incidents (1 collision) in 2022.

It's debatable whether traffic displays have driven a 50% reduction in midairs, or if the numbers are so small that it's just noise in the data.  It would be interesting to create a separate graph for every year to see how things move around.  But what's indisputable is that that the average pilot is ten times as likely to kill themselves due to loss of control (the breakout says that in the descent and approach phase, for example, there were 29 fatals in 2008 and 17 fatals in 2022), as they are to die in a midair.  I think one should plan their risk management focus appropriately.

All this only applies to the average pilot, though - not gods of the sky who would never lose control of a perfectly good airplane.  For that latter group, obviously "the other guy" is their biggest risk, and it makes sense for them to focus a lot of attention on midairs, and little on stick and rudder.  Up to each of you to decide which group you're in.

 

[Ibra]

Those ADSB targets are not real 

[Schllc]

So the interesting thing about this thread is that sometimes we get caught in the minutiae and it obscures the objective. 
I think everyone here has the same desired outcome, which is less accidents and better pilotage. 
the simple fact is that all of these things mean both, better training, more frequent training, spending more time looking outside and utilizing new technology to boost awareness. 
I took two flights today, both showed traffic on Adsb that o would never have seen and I wasn’t flying, I was earnestly looking. Three planes were within 100 feet of our elevation and the closest one to our position was under two miles. 
even knowing where it was and where to look, it was extremely difficult to locate. The contrast of the horizon, the sun, distant clouds etc. 

I would agree that Adsb isn’t “necessary”, the “Spirit of St Louis “ didn’t have a windshield or a window in the front of the plane, so we can obviously fly around without anything more than Lindbergh had, but why would we?  Do you think he would have scoffed at the tech or embraced?

Anything that improves situational awareness has to be good, but it shouldn’t be a substitute, just a compliment. 

[wombat]

My point on all of this is that we should be focusing on reducing the risks that are higher rather than the ones that are lower.  That doesn't mean "Don't do anything about the lower ones."   It doesn't mean "ADS-B doesn't provide any safety value."

 

But it does mean many pilots have an inaccurately high estimate of risk of midair collisions relative to other things that are likely to kill them and it is causing them to put themselves at increased risk when flying because they are spending time/effort/money both on the ground and in the air on mitigating the already low mid-air collision risk rather than the risks that are significantly higher.

Fuel starvation, loss of control, and VFR-into-IMC kills way way more pilots than mid-air collisions.  Pilots of all experience levels and certificates.   I have a very hard time believing anyone who says "I've mitigated all those other risks as much as I possibly can such that mid-air collisions are now one of the biggest risks I face."    I much more strongly suspect that those pilots are unknowingly experiencing the hazardous attitudes of invulnerability and resignation.   

[Marc_B]

It seems like this is a case of “do you want me to be on time or at the right restaurant?”  The answer is yes. I want the right tools at the right time.  Not exclusive to, or in place of, one or the other.

Certainly fuel starvation and VFR into IMC are higher accident risk overall. But the chance that those would impact me may be much less. Overall statistics apply to overall populations. But when you’re looking at an individual, these statistics sometimes no longer apply outside of the population they were taken from. I.e. the risk of accident due to VFR into IMC is dramatically reduced with instrument rating.

The point that perception of risk doesn’t always accurately reflect true risk is valid.

But I took this discussion as one of 1) should you concern yourself with traffic displays and ADS-b in data, and 2) does monitoring traffic lead to distraction that results in accidents that wouldn’t have occurred otherwise. As a distant 3) others have described the way they use ADS-b on their panel and portable devices and how they feel it’s been helpful and 4) some instructors have described improper use of technology in the wrong way or at the wrong time that could negatively affect flight/situational awareness  

But I think that the concept of traffic deconfliction vs accident prevention can be blurred as it’s a continuum. I.e. use of ADS-b data can aid traffic deconfliction that avoids a potential accident vs the traffic could have been also deconflicted over the radio as well as visually.

All in all these aren’t mutually exclusive but rather discussing the nuanced use of technology in modern flight, both pros and cons; and highlighting that safe use of technology usually requires education and experience, and sometimes isn't simple or intuitive. 

[Schllc]

On 11/25/2024 at 1:12 PM, wombat said:

My point on all of this is that we should be focusing on reducing the risks that are higher rather than the ones that are lower.  That doesn't mean "Don't do anything about the lower ones."   It doesn't mean "ADS-B doesn't provide any safety value."

 

But it does mean many pilots have an inaccurately high estimate of risk of midair collisions relative to other things that are likely to kill them and it is causing them to put themselves at increased risk when flying because they are spending time/effort/money both on the ground and in the air on mitigating the already low mid-air collision risk rather than the risks that are significantly higher.

Fuel starvation, loss of control, and VFR-into-IMC kills way way more pilots than mid-air collisions.  Pilots of all experience levels and certificates.   I have a very hard time believing anyone who says "I've mitigated all those other risks as much as I possibly can such that mid-air collisions are now one of the biggest risks I face."    I much more strongly suspect that those pilots are unknowingly experiencing the hazardous attitudes of invulnerability and resignation.   

Fair enough point.  What about the intangibles such as spacing yourself during vfr, maybe you are trying to pick up a clearance, or steering around airspace. Knowing where to look for traffic, if for nothing but to avoid having a concern.  
What happens in those moments of distraction?  It isn’t simply to avoid running in to each other, is it?

[Hank]

1 minute ago, Schllc said:

Fair enough point.  What about the intangibles such as spacing yourself during vfr, maybe you are trying to pick up a clearance, or steering around airspace. Knowing where to look for traffic, if for nothing but to avoid having a concern.  
What happens in those moments of distraction?  It isn’t simply to avoid running in to each other, is it?

Just remember--ADSB isn't required outside of Bravo airspace or below 10,000 msl. Not sure how Bravos handle Cubs, Champs, etc., that have no electrical system to power ADSB. But even radios aren't required. 

Not seeing traffic on your display doesn't mean no airplanes are in the area. For example, my Mooney has had ADSB out for almost a whole month, to facilitate multiple trips inside the same Bravo space.

[Vance Harral]

1 hour ago, Marc_B said:

Overall statistics apply to overall populations. But when you’re looking at an individual, these statistics sometimes no longer apply outside of the population they were taken from. I.e. the risk of accident due to VFR into IMC is dramatically reduced with instrument rating.

You're absolutely correct that statistical risk across a population doesn't necessarily map to any particular individual.

... but that's still the way to bet, including on yourself.  About 1/3rd of all VFR-into-IMC accidents involve instrument-rated pilots, and about 1/3rd of all landing accidents involve pilots with a Commercial or ATP certificate.  There's nothing particularly mysterious about this - pilots with instrument ratings are more willing/likely to fly in marginal VFR conditions, and those with advanced certificates are more likely to fly to challenging runways in challenging conditions.

 

[jjsk784]

It's interesting that even the cheap consumer grade Mavic drones have the ADSB receivers and will automatically warn and even avoid traffic, but many of the real airplanes won't.

It may sound drastic but think the FAA should require ADSB OUT and some form of ADSB IN with no exceptions. the aircraft without electrical systems can be extra dangerous since they often do not have a good radio  (just a handheld) or a mod C transponder which would show up in the areas with the FIS-B coverage. They typically don't bother with the ADSB IN either.

the modern ADSB and GPS devices have very low power consumption and can be powered by a battery. 

There was a recent fatal mid-air involving a CAP and a miscommunication (or lack of) with a non-ADSB plane. How can there be any debate on whether the ADSB can save lives.

 

[wombat]

5 hours ago, jjsk784 said:

It's interesting that even the cheap consumer grade Mavic drones have the ADSB receivers and will automatically warn and even avoid traffic, but many of the real airplanes won't.

It may sound drastic but think the FAA should require ADSB OUT and some form of ADSB IN with no exceptions. the aircraft without electrical systems can be extra dangerous since they often do not have a good radio  (just a handheld) or a mod C transponder which would show up in the areas with the FIS-B coverage. They typically don't bother with the ADSB IN either.

the modern ADSB and GPS devices have very low power consumption and can be powered by a battery. 

There was a recent fatal mid-air involving a CAP and a miscommunication (or lack of) with a non-ADSB plane. How can there be any debate on whether the ADSB can save lives.

 

I don't think there is debate about if ADS-B can save lives.   The debate is about if ADS-B's lives saved per dollar is a good deal compared to other safety investments.   There shouldn't be a debate though: the ROI on ADS-B is bad compared to other safety investments.    Yet people still freak out about ADS-B or lack thereof.   Nobody freaks out about not having CIES or other accurate fuel gauges and a fuel computer but the total savings in lives per dollar spent would be a lot higher if we mandated that instead of ADS-B.

Also, in the recent mid-air you reference it's just as reasonable to say that ADS-B caused the accident because the person in the best position to see the other plane (The copilot side CAP pilot) stopped looking outside and was looking at his iPad just before the accident.  If he didn't have that to stare at he might have continued looking outside and the collision may have been avoided.

[Aaviationist]

21 hours ago, jjsk784 said:

It's interesting that even the cheap consumer grade Mavic drones have the ADSB receivers and will automatically warn and even avoid traffic, but many of the real airplanes won't.

It may sound drastic but think the FAA should require ADSB OUT and some form of ADSB IN with no exceptions. the aircraft without electrical systems can be extra dangerous since they often do not have a good radio  (just a handheld) or a mod C transponder which would show up in the areas with the FIS-B coverage. They typically don't bother with the ADSB IN either.

the modern ADSB and GPS devices have very low power consumption and can be powered by a battery. 

There was a recent fatal mid-air involving a CAP and a miscommunication (or lack of) with a non-ADSB plane. How can there be any debate on whether the ADSB can save lives.

 

There seems to be a great fear and resistance of technology for many members here in a certain age group. 
 

its irrational, short sighted, and in the case of a few we’ve seen above, hazardous. 
 

as these people age out, lose their medical, and generally go away I think we’re going to see the mentality observed in this thread that “you get fixated on ADSB” will likely go away with it. 
 

At least for the practical examples anyway. I’m sure there will be a few stuck to their keyboards telling others what they should and shouldn’t do. 

[dkkim73]

On 11/28/2024 at 8:06 PM, Schllc said:

... What about the intangibles such as spacing yourself during vfr, maybe you are trying to pick up a clearance, or steering around airspace. Knowing where to look for traffic, if for nothing but to avoid having a concern.  
What happens in those moments of distraction?  It isn’t simply to avoid running in to each other, is it?

This resonated with me. The greatest utility is in this kind of soft coordination. It's really more about being an aid to situational awareness and planning than a comprehensive "collision avoidance" system. I think a lot of people tacitly treat it as the latter. 

Also there is some arguing past each other on this topic (not just this thread or forum). Statistics are being presented against what are often arguments from emotion or anecdote (not that that's bad, we all worry about what we worry about, like mid-airs... or earthquakes).

I would suggest there are at least two different cognitive styles, caricatured so : 

- more data is better and everything should be instrumented; systems and data will reduce risk indefinitely, and it's all to the good. Stereotype here of the "younger", "non-technophobe", couldagotacirrus, plugging all the things together with USB and networking it! Anyone who doesn't want this is a luddite who fails to see the advantages of the perfectability of machines. Oh, and please track my car while you're at it! 

- piloting is not about technology it's about integrating technology and pilotage and airmanship are primary. People will just stare at screens while flying into things (CFIT), "can't hand-fly an approach", use it as a crutch etc. Spend more time troubleshooting tech than flying the airplane. Emphases here on the imperfection of pure tech solutions and one-size-fits-all. Skepticism about unintended consequences and further regularization and financialization of aviation (auto user fees, insurance surveillance, etc). 

Some people are just going to be a bit closer to one than the other and it's hard not to view truth through the lens of preference. A lot of people will go to great trouble to avoid fearful risks (earthquake or air crashes) but cruise right through much higher risk at-hand risks (traffic accidents on way to airport, slipping on ice). 

Recall that ADS-B was trialed in AK as the Capstone project, in an environment with a lot of mixed IFR/VFR threats, etc. It was probably a game-changer to those early pilots. My CFII was an old Alaska hand, could probably fly a 4-course range if he had to and land with one wing, but was pretty bullish on it. 

Flying before it, and now after it, I welcome it... but only as one arrow in the quiver and no replacement for a broader, humbler sense of what piloting is. *

DK

* caveat, I fly a G1000 airplane that makes me look a lot smarter than I am... at least until I go bouncing down the runway. 

[MikeOH]

@dkkim73

Great post!

(Oh, just use auto land and you won't go bouncing down the runway)