Give the number of people coming at me on the highway with their eyes down on their phone, it's real hard for me to get worked up about a potential mid-air due to someone looking at their tablet...just not something I'm going to loose sleep over.

Hammer wrote:Give the number of people coming at me on the highway with their eyes down on their phone, it's real hard for me to get worked up about a potential mid-air due to someone looking at their tablet...just not something I'm going to loose sleep over.

Shit, I’m not worried about them looking at a tablet.....I’m worried about ME looking at a tablet. Hence, “Out” only....

MTV

The new ATC reply to a traffic point out will be "I have them on ADS-B" to replace the all to familiar "I have them on TCAS", does anyone look outside anymore, just think of all their missing

Mapleflt wrote:The new ATC reply to a traffic point out will be "I have them on ADS-B" to replace the all to familiar "I have them on TCAS", does anyone look outside anymore, just think of all their missing

"Painting them and looking"

akaviator wrote:

Mapleflt wrote:The new ATC reply to a traffic point out will be "I have them on ADS-B" to replace the all to familiar "I have them on TCAS", does anyone look outside anymore, just think of all their missing

"Painting them and looking"

I think you guys should get the new 2020 FAR/AIM. This is an example of the new updated phraseology. “Reagan tower november nine nine five juan x has the traffic on the fish finder”

In the busy class B environment, ADSB traffic info is a distraction and I largely ignore it.

On a long cross country in rural areas, it's nice when it pops up with traffic for me.

"Tally Ho, Engaged!"

It's information available to you. Use it or don't.

"Tally Ho, Engaged!"

mtv wrote:

Hammer wrote:Shit, I’m not worried about them looking at a tablet.....I’m worried about ME looking at a tablet. Hence, “Out” only....
MTV

Well put, Mike, me too.

The only reason I bought my tail beacon is because friends have a hangar within the mode c veil of MSP, that and when I fly cross country, I usually fly over 10,000. Otherwise, not too interested in ads-b.

It's all relative, I guess. I went from flight watch/flight following to ADS-B IN only, to--as of 2 months ago--ADS-B In+Out.

For weather, I've found in-flight availability of charts and radar to be pretty spotty in the West. For some reason, it does much better getting METARs, and that, by itself is a big help compared to scrolling through a bunch of different AWOS frequencies with the squelch off trying to find out what's ahead, let alone wondering what's happening on the other side of the mountains. When the charts and radar show up, they're good. So, I wouldn't say the weather is great, but it's better than what I'm used to. I understand that XM weather is supposed to be a lot better than ADS-B In Nexrad, but I've never tried XM weather.

For traffic, ADS-B IN+OUT is a huge upgrade compared to the the combination of eyeballs, radio and flight following that I used to fly with, and a substantial upgrade to ADS-B IN only. I thought I had developed a good and disciplined scan, but the truth is that I've spotted many times more aircraft in the last 2 years with ADS-B IN only than I did with the Mark I eyeball.

Now having both In and Out, I get traffic more consistently and more of it. It's not a substitute for scanning and flight following. It's a supplement, and a big one. I like it most when I'm approaching the traffic pattern. Not everyone talks, talks well or reports accurately. Being able to spot traffic that is on the screen quickly frees up my eyeballs to look for other traffic. There have been several times when only one aircraft was talking, but the screen showed two or more in the pattern. Imagine getting a traffic alert on final to Johnson Creek showing another aircraft 200 feet above and behind you and closing. Wouldn't that be nice to know?

I have had some close encounters that didn't show up on ADS-B IN. That doesn't mean it's worthless. Far from it. It's just not flawless. If not being flawless is the same as "it sucks," then I guess it sucks. That's not my experience.

Friends have described me as a techno-grump, and I'm not embarrassed by that. The truth that I have experienced with ADS-B is that I am aware of many times more aircraft using ADS-B than I ever was using "see and avoid," talking on the radio and using flight following. I also find it easier to get weather. I won't stop looking out the window, and I won't stop using the radio or using flight following. I may upgrade to XM weather if my flying habits or routes change. I'm not happier about how much lighter my wallet got from upgrading my panel, but there definitely are benefits.

YMMV

CAVU

Much like the microwave landing system, ADS-B is obsolete even as being installed by mandate in thousands of planes. This thing should have been satellite based from the beginning.Huge areas of AK plus mountainous areas in the US just aren't covered by the ground stations, hence, no weather. They are already doing beta tests on satellite systems that will negate the need for the ground stations, I will be first up for one of those.

Headout nailed it. When the FAA first started talking about Capstone (the “proving ground” for ADS-B) a lot of us in Alaska argued that the system needed to be satellite based. FAA techs said that Capstone was just to demonstrate the technology. Of course, they demonstrated it in the only relatively large flat area f Alaska....the Y-K Delta.

Worked great there, so, hey implement it...... And by then the argument was that satellite time cost too much. Now, everyone else in the world is looking at satellite based ADS-B.

And the original purpose of ADS-B was to replace ATC radars.....very expensive to operate. The system we ended up with will never do so.

MTV

Headoutdaplane wrote:Much like the microwave landing system, ADS-B is obsolete even as being installed by mandate in thousands of planes. This thing should have been satellite based from the beginning.Huge areas of AK plus mountainous areas in the US just aren't covered by the ground stations, hence, no weather. They are already doing beta tests on satellite systems that will negate the need for the ground stations, I will be first up for one of those.

FWIW, in Canada we are going satellite based and we don't get any weather at all through it. That's the only thing I would actually like...

I'm ES1090 in/out. I use FlyQ EFB instead of Forflight. As far as traffic, there is the ability to filter out most traffic that is not a factor. Additionally, it color codes traffic from black to orange to red as it becomes a factor.

ADSB IN without having OUT capability is of limited value because you are observing another aircraft's traffic not your traffic.

mtv wrote:Headout nailed it. When the FAA first started talking about Capstone (the “proving ground” for ADS-B) a lot of us in Alaska argued that the system needed to be satellite based. FAA techs said that Capstone was just to demonstrate the technology. Of course, they demonstrated it in the only relatively large flat area f Alaska....the Y-K Delta.

Worked great there, so, hey implement it...... And by then the argument was that satellite time cost too much. Now, everyone else in the world is looking at satellite based ADS-B.

And the original purpose of ADS-B was to replace ATC radars.....very expensive to operate. The system we ended up with will never do so.

MTV

I was out in the Delta using Capstone and it has evolved into being a very nice tool out there....in the only designated non-mountainous area of the state.

The 2nd phase was implemented in Southeast Alaska. Anyone have experience with it there?

mtv wrote:Phil,

...Florida Keys, eh? Bonefish?

MTV

...and Permit, Tarpon, Reds, etc. You know me too well.

Will never downgrade my plane to the adsb horsepucky. NEVER. Will pull it out on the ramp and burn it first.
There are four purposes for it: 1, track every airplane in the sky, #2 put hooks in place for user fees, #3, hooks in place for automated FAR violations, #4 - helps big airplanes avoid little airplanes.

Maybe we should just go back to the "good old days" when you didn't have to have any instruments in the cockpit. Who needs an airspeed indicator? Or a tachometer? Real pilots should be able to feel the wing and hear the engine well enough to know it's still running. (To this day, some instructors will cover up these gauges and make their students to fly without them to reinforce these concepts.)

Come to think of it, those oil pressure and oil temperature gauges distract us from looking outside. It's not like you're going to be able to do anything to repair your engine while you're flying anyway, so why distract the pilot with them? And why should a VFR pilot have an attitude indicator or a directional gyro? They should be looking outside, not locking in on one instrument in the cockpit.

When autopilots first came along, I read dozens of articles in the trade press about how those darn autopilots were going to kill us all by eroding our flying skills. (No mention during this furor that autopilots actually allowed the pilot to spend more time looking out the windshield for "see and avoid"...) When LORAN and GPS came along, we began hearing tales about the culture of the "magenta line" and how it was going to kill off a whole generation of pilots who would no longer know how to navigate or fly the plane, and would instead be heads down in the cockpit, mesmerized by the pretty movies playing on their moving maps...

But history has shown us that every single one of those issues can be (and should be) resolved through properly focused training. And I believe that the same is true for ADS-B IN displays. Used properly – as just another cockpit aid to assist with situational awareness – ADS-B IN can be a very good thing. If the pilot becomes fixated on the display to the point where it distracts from their many other tasks, it could be a bad thing. But that's true of chasing the airspeed, VSI, or VOR needles as well. I've known pilots to become so fixated on reading their maps that they failed to notice a simulated engine failure in a helicopter... Perhaps the "all in one" glass panels cause the pilot to initially spend more time looking at the display, as he or she learns to interpret a whole new set of instruments in a new format, but again, just like the other things I've mentioned, that's a training issue, and easily overcome.

ADS-B IN traffic displays are just another instrument to add to your scan. For me, after several years of using it (I was an early adopter) it's already become second nature to me. If I see yellow or red indicators (which also come with a "voice alert" warning), I may focus on the display for second or two to figure out where to look outside for the aircraft my visual scan already failed to pickup (a key point!)... But as a general rule, I spend no more time glancing at the traffic display than I devote to the DG or AI during my scan. Your mileage may vary, and it may take you less or more time than it took me, but I'm confident that seeking out some training (even if it's "informal" training from someone who has been using it for a while) will help tremendously in turning that traffic display into a useful tool, without causing the sky to fall, or the world to come to an end... One flight – especially without having any instruction or practice in using the traffic display – is WAY too soon to be giving up on a technology that can be pretty helpful when you're used to it.

Heck with it. I'm returning my ADS-B stuff and buying more LED lights.