Utah-Jay wrote:

NineThreeKilo wrote:The safety point about sending your personal info is the same as “I didn’t think I cared for ADSB until I almost didn’t see a guy”

Once you have the security issue with a private or public entity it changes your opinion

Per the cell phone tracking, you can always turn it off, not so much flying work ADSB, also that thought process is like saying “oh crap I’m 15lbs overweight, well might as well just keep eat more junk and not exercising at all now”

I think with what we have seen over last few years, cancel culture, covid, “patriot act”, John and Martha king at gun point, the rise of the karens, and so on, it should demonstrate the importance of broadcasting as little as you can across the board

OK, I am laughing at this.

In the late 1980’s I had some very good friends that worked for alphabet companies, I was hesitant to get a concealed license because I did not want to get finger printed. They laughed at me as I was working out of the country and went to some out of the way 3rd world countries, they said the FBI file on me was 100% very extensive. IF you think that anyone with a pilots license is not be watched you are kidding yourself.

The government is a data collection entity, you ARE being watched.

Just make us all safer

So just send more data is the answer lol

“Honey the bacon caught on fire, what should I do!”

“Well shit honey, we already have a fire, just toss the flaming grease on the curtains”


And does it make us that much safer? Do you have some stats showing the night and day difference in mid airs?

I like ADSB, I just like using it smartly. Honestly I’d wager the weather data from ADSB probably helps safety, like real safety not “wont someone think of the children” safety MUCH more than the traffic part of it. Again sending the N number had NOTHING to do with safety.

NineThreeKilo wrote:

Utah-Jay wrote:

NineThreeKilo wrote:The safety point about sending your personal info is the same as “I didn’t think I cared for ADSB until I almost didn’t see a guy”

Once you have the security issue with a private or public entity it changes your opinion

Per the cell phone tracking, you can always turn it off, not so much flying work ADSB, also that thought process is like saying “oh crap I’m 15lbs overweight, well might as well just keep eat more junk and not exercising at all now”

I think with what we have seen over last few years, cancel culture, covid, “patriot act”, John and Martha king at gun point, the rise of the karens, and so on, it should demonstrate the importance of broadcasting as little as you can across the board

OK, I am laughing at this.

In the late 1980’s I had some very good friends that worked for alphabet companies, I was hesitant to get a concealed license because I did not want to get finger printed. They laughed at me as I was working out of the country and went to some out of the way 3rd world countries, they said the FBI file on me was 100% very extensive. IF you think that anyone with a pilots license is not be watched you are kidding yourself.

The government is a data collection entity, you ARE being watched.

Just make us all safer

So just send more data is the answer lol

“Honey the bacon caught on fire, what should I do!”

“Well shit honey, we already have a fire, just toss the flaming grease on the curtains”


And does it make us that much safer? Do you have some stats showing the night and day difference in mid airs?

I like ADSB, I just like using it smartly. Honestly I’d wager the weather data from ADSB probably helps safety, like real safety not “wont someone think of the children” safety MUCH more than the traffic part of it. Again sending the N number had NOTHING to do with safety.

Yes, it makes it easier for me to spot planes OUT THE WINDOW sooner. I don’t have stats, but I can’t image anyone could using common sense could argue for less information on a potential conflict. I don’t care what your N-number is, I just want to know you are out there.

Yes, I want to know, I want to be safer, as stated above, Big Brother is watching you already

Utah-Jay wrote:

NineThreeKilo wrote:

Utah-Jay wrote:

NineThreeKilo wrote:The safety point about sending your personal info is the same as “I didn’t think I cared for ADSB until I almost didn’t see a guy”

Once you have the security issue with a private or public entity it changes your opinion

Per the cell phone tracking, you can always turn it off, not so much flying work ADSB, also that thought process is like saying “oh crap I’m 15lbs overweight, well might as well just keep eat more junk and not exercising at all now”

I think with what we have seen over last few years, cancel culture, covid, “patriot act”, John and Martha king at gun point, the rise of the karens, and so on, it should demonstrate the importance of broadcasting as little as you can across the board

OK, I am laughing at this.

In the late 1980’s I had some very good friends that worked for alphabet companies, I was hesitant to get a concealed license because I did not want to get finger printed. They laughed at me as I was working out of the country and went to some out of the way 3rd world countries, they said the FBI file on me was 100% very extensive. IF you think that anyone with a pilots license is not be watched you are kidding yourself.

The government is a data collection entity, you ARE being watched.

Just make us all safer

So just send more data is the answer lol

“Honey the bacon caught on fire, what should I do!”

“Well shit honey, we already have a fire, just toss the flaming grease on the curtains”


And does it make us that much safer? Do you have some stats showing the night and day difference in mid airs?

I like ADSB, I just like using it smartly. Honestly I’d wager the weather data from ADSB probably helps safety, like real safety not “wont someone think of the children” safety MUCH more than the traffic part of it. Again sending the N number had NOTHING to do with safety.

Yes, it makes it easier for me to spot planes OUT THE WINDOW sooner. I don’t have stats, but I can’t image anyone could using common sense could argue for less information on a potential conflict. I don’t care what your N-number is, I just want to know you are out there.

Yes, I want to know, I want to be safer, as stated above, Big Brother is watching you already

Knowing about that Cessna 152 15 miles away is a life saver!

Honestly it’s good you don’t get what I’m saying, travel enough and stay in the 135 and 91 world and you’d probably get it, ADSB is like crack for the busy bodies, and those fuckers are a pain in the ass, yes even when you’re not doing anything wrong, ever been on the wrong side of “administrative law”?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kangaroo_court

I’d wager the average bug smasher puts more eyes on targets when they don’t have the ADSB screen and are scanning the windows, vs the ADSB hunt and look method

Again, I’d wager the free weather data is a much larger save than the traffic thing, traffic is a “wow that’s cool” but goes from that to a crutch to MANY, the weather, which should have always been free for what we pay in taxes, that’s the real savior, at least according the the facts on how the majority in GA meet their maker

whee wrote:
So, I don't know what to do. I don't need ADSB where I fly but I don't want to get killed by some pilot staring at foreflight. I don't want to get stocked even though I know how it can be fun to be the stocker.

I can make a pretty good guess at what most of you are going to say but I thought the conversation could be interesting and I'm hoping for a new perspective that will tip me one way or another.

Whee - I am guilty of stalking a few friends. It is always good to know friends and loved ones have made it safely on the ground - it is also fun just to see where they went. My friends like to spy on me too - so all in good fun I guess.

Flying in around Portland - ADSB traffic is useful. There are just so many people flying in this area now. I think eyes need to be outside most of the time. The ADSB data is just another piece of data to give a general location where to look. It can also give me a general direction or altitude to avoid while looking for traffic. It has definitely given me information in advance of where I would have noticed it visually and I think helped me avoid a few near miss incidents. I have had a few students get fixated on the Ipad screen looking for bandits. If this happens - I will throw the Ipad in the back seat and tell them to look outside. It is amazing how dependent on technology we've become rather than just using the data as extra information. Time will be the best predictor of ADSB's usefulness. If we see statically significant reduction in mid air collisions in the upcoming years - We may be able to conclude the technology helped.

As for the government surveillance - I think ADSB information is just one of many tools big brother has in their arsenal to track and monitor us. Privacy may be an illusion in 21st century society and will only be getting worse.


Josh

Out

I don’t worry about the .gov initiating action against me using ADS-B, I worry about the crazed lunatics on the ground with access to the data filing complaints. For 2 years I’ve been dealing with a psycho that filed complaints against me any time I spray within 3 miles of his house. I’m currently on investigation #8 between multiple state and federal agencies, multiple false accusations made and I’ve been cleared every time. A death threat made against me in writing was sent to a state agency as well. If I was equipped with ADS-B, he would track my every movement, more so than he already is considering the 1000+ pics he’s taken of me and sent in with complaints. I live 200 miles away from where I work and commute by flying my 182 often, not being equipped with ADS-B allows me the privacy of not letting this weird cat know where I live, or when I’m away from home.

CenterHillAg wrote:I don’t worry about the .gov initiating action against me using ADS-B, I worry about the crazed lunatics on the ground with access to the data filing complaints. For 2 years I’ve been dealing with a psycho that filed complaints against me any time I spray within 3 miles of his house. I’m currently on investigation #8 between multiple state and federal agencies, multiple false accusations made and I’ve been cleared every time. A death threat made against me in writing was sent to a state agency as well. If I was equipped with ADS-B, he would track my every movement, more so than he already is considering the 1000+ pics he’s taken of me and sent in with complaints. I live 200 miles away from where I work and commute by flying my 182 often, not being equipped with ADS-B allows me the privacy of not letting this weird cat know where I live, or when I’m away from home.

This is the first reasonable argument against ADSB in this thread

CenterHillAg wrote:I don’t worry about the .gov initiating action against me using ADS-B, I worry about the crazed lunatics on the ground with access to the data filing complaints. For 2 years I’ve been dealing with a psycho that filed complaints against me any time I spray within 3 miles of his house. I’m currently on investigation #8 between multiple state and federal agencies, multiple false accusations made and I’ve been cleared every time. A death threat made against me in writing was sent to a state agency as well. If I was equipped with ADS-B, he would track my every movement, more so than he already is considering the 1000+ pics he’s taken of me and sent in with complaints. I live 200 miles away from where I work and commute by flying my 182 often, not being equipped with ADS-B allows me the privacy of not letting this weird cat know where I live, or when I’m away from home.

This is the privacy concern I think about. Not much you can do about big brother or a monster corporation tracking you but there’s no need to let some individual have access to your flights.

If pilots used technology to supplement their visual scan then ASDB would certainly be a positive. The point made about pilots that don’t look outside probably weren’t looking outside prior to ADSB is well taken.

mtv wrote:

gdflys wrote:When I'm flying for work I'm often accused of having eagle eyes as I almost always spot other traffic before the other crewmember regardless of how we are made aware of it, TCAS, ATC traffic calls, or just the MkI eyeballs. (Which aren't nearly as good as they used to be) That might be the result of flying GA in the high traffic density NE or flying gliders in close proximity thermalling, or a strong sense of self preservation.

All that said, even while still spending most of my time looking outside to see and avoid, I may acquire another plane visually first 1 out of 50 times that I see it after being made aware of them by ADS-B. I have ADS-B out and am usually in radar and ADS-B tower coverage so "most" traffic is displayed on the ipad. I would love to think that I can see other traffic earlier and more often than any traffic display system but I would be lying to others and more importantly myself. Thinking you're more unsafe because others have ADS-B is a stretch at best. Any pilot careless enough to blindly follow ADS-B traffic only and not be looking outside as well also wouldn't be looking for you outside without it installed either. The really scary part is suddenly being made aware of how much traffic you weren't seeing while looking out the windows without the traffic aids, not to mention all the blind spots where you'll never see them. The big sky theory starts getting shrinkage real quick.

Yeah, maybe. Walk around any large collection of aircraft and note all the mounting brackets for "devices" that appear ABOVE the glareshield. Some of these folks are in fact flying via virtual reality, frankly. I knew a pretty short guy with a 185 who had THREE large devices mounted on top of the glareshield. Former military pilot, current airline pilot. I can't figure out how he could possibly see ANYthing out front.

And, I've seen similar examples, though not quite as extreme. Put an iPad up above the glareshield and you've just blocked a big part of your vision. Put one on your kneeboard, and your "scan" becomes more a case of staring at your crotch.

ALL ADS-B IN systems SHOULD require some sort of aural warning. But, then, depending on how the parameters are set.....you may spend a lot of time staring at that iPad.

I flew glass cockpit Pipers and Cessnas for seven years that were equipped with traffic awareness. These airplanes all had very large multifunction displays, and warning alerts. But, we still spent a LOT of time in busy airspace staring at those MFDs trying to find the "offending" traffic. These were primitive systems, and one fault was that the systems didn't consider altitude. So, they'd alert to a plane that was 4000 feet above, and no threat at all.

I'm still skeptical. My system doesn't include an aural alert. I almost never look at the iPad as a result.

MTV

I'll concede I've also seen many examples of devices blocking large sections of the view outside. I agree that is completely inexcusable.

Most devices and ipad apps already have aural alerts and the algorithms are pretty good at limiting alerts to near proximity traffic which is close enough to be a collision hazard. I've had to show many pilots you can hide distant traffic to limit the number of targets to only those who are close enough to care about.

It's a tool and like any they can be misused or cause more issues than they solve. Used correctly it is undeniably a safety enhancer.

You have given me an idea for a video competition with two pilots both trying to acquire other traffic visually first. One only using looking outside to see and avoid and the other looking with the aid of ADS-B traffic info. Fly through high traffic density airspace and start keeping score. Change roles and starting keeping score again to balance out any differences in pilot scanning abilities. Who do you think will see more first?

gdflys wrote:

mtv wrote:

gdflys wrote:When I'm flying for work I'm often accused of having eagle eyes as I almost always spot other traffic before the other crewmember regardless of how we are made aware of it, TCAS, ATC traffic calls, or just the MkI eyeballs. (Which aren't nearly as good as they used to be) That might be the result of flying GA in the high traffic density NE or flying gliders in close proximity thermalling, or a strong sense of self preservation.

All that said, even while still spending most of my time looking outside to see and avoid, I may acquire another plane visually first 1 out of 50 times that I see it after being made aware of them by ADS-B. I have ADS-B out and am usually in radar and ADS-B tower coverage so "most" traffic is displayed on the ipad. I would love to think that I can see other traffic earlier and more often than any traffic display system but I would be lying to others and more importantly myself. Thinking you're more unsafe because others have ADS-B is a stretch at best. Any pilot careless enough to blindly follow ADS-B traffic only and not be looking outside as well also wouldn't be looking for you outside without it installed either. The really scary part is suddenly being made aware of how much traffic you weren't seeing while looking out the windows without the traffic aids, not to mention all the blind spots where you'll never see them. The big sky theory starts getting shrinkage real quick.

Yeah, maybe. Walk around any large collection of aircraft and note all the mounting brackets for "devices" that appear ABOVE the glareshield. Some of these folks are in fact flying via virtual reality, frankly. I knew a pretty short guy with a 185 who had THREE large devices mounted on top of the glareshield. Former military pilot, current airline pilot. I can't figure out how he could possibly see ANYthing out front.

And, I've seen similar examples, though not quite as extreme. Put an iPad up above the glareshield and you've just blocked a big part of your vision. Put one on your kneeboard, and your "scan" becomes more a case of staring at your crotch.

ALL ADS-B IN systems SHOULD require some sort of aural warning. But, then, depending on how the parameters are set.....you may spend a lot of time staring at that iPad.

I flew glass cockpit Pipers and Cessnas for seven years that were equipped with traffic awareness. These airplanes all had very large multifunction displays, and warning alerts. But, we still spent a LOT of time in busy airspace staring at those MFDs trying to find the "offending" traffic. These were primitive systems, and one fault was that the systems didn't consider altitude. So, they'd alert to a plane that was 4000 feet above, and no threat at all.

I'm still skeptical. My system doesn't include an aural alert. I almost never look at the iPad as a result.

MTV

I'll concede I've also seen many examples of devices blocking large sections of the view outside. I agree that is completely inexcusable.

Most devices and ipad apps already have aural alerts and the algorithms are pretty good at limiting alerts to near proximity traffic which is close enough to be a collision hazard. I've had to show many pilots you can hide distant traffic to limit the number of targets to only those who are close enough to care about.

It's a tool and like any they can be misused or cause more issues than they solve. Used correctly it is undeniably a safety enhancer.

You have given me an idea for a video competition with two pilots both trying to acquire other traffic visually first. One only using looking outside to see and avoid and the other looking with the aid of ADS-B traffic info. Fly through high traffic density airspace and start keeping score. Change roles and starting keeping score again to balance out any differences in pilot scanning abilities. Who do you think will see more first?

New pilatus will call out traffic and have the recog lights go to wig wag mode automatically if sees traffic get too close, that’s a good use of said data

. Fly through high traffic density airspace and start keeping score. Change roles and starting keeping score again to balance out any differences in pilot scanning abilities. Who do you think will see more first?[/quote]

Ah, but that’s not the point. The POINT is, whether the pilot detects traffic that is, in fact, an ACTUAL collision threat.

I could care less how many airplanes I don’t see which are in fact not a serious threat.

And, in fact, mid air collisions are extremely rare. So, fairly judged, your proposed “test” could take a very long time to produce ANY actual useful data. If ever.

MTV

mtv wrote:. Fly through high traffic density airspace and start keeping score. Change roles and starting keeping score again to balance out any differences in pilot scanning abilities. Who do you think will see more first?

Ah, but that’s not the point. The POINT is, whether the pilot detects traffic that is, in fact, an ACTUAL collision threat.

I could care less how many airplanes I don’t see which are in fact not a serious threat.

And, in fact, mid air collisions are extremely rare. So, fairly judged, your proposed “test” could take a very long time to produce ANY actual useful data. If ever.

MTV[/quote]

Indeed, the weather aspect of ADSB is waaaaaay more for safety than the traffic part, and the N number readout offers nothing for safety

It only takes one mid air to change one's opinion. ADSB saved me of mid air last week departing a busy, non-towered airport in the midwest.

No, I'm not new to the aviation gig. Lot's of military, GA, and 121 experience. One thing I learned early on was every tool made available to me to avoid weather or traffic was a worthy tool. In single seat military planes the air-air radar was great. In the 121 world weather radar and TCAS are huge I adopted ADSB at the earliest onset for the safety benefits. There are ways to opt out of public tracking. I did and I not its not 100% guaranteed but I'll give up a bit of "anonymity" to see someone on my display.

Does anyone really think your last cell phone text or call or last place you logged into the internet can't be tracked?

The world were live in. The choices we make.

MW

I think the Mooney that came blasting over my head from my 6 the other day as I chopped the throttle to out dive him probably wasn’t looking at a screen with ADSB in. Thankfully I was.

I also kinda like having N numbers displayed. In a busy area with one blanket CTAF, like the San Juan Islands, it’s a handy to be able to hail a nearby aircraft by tail number.

185Midwest wrote:Does anyone really think your last cell phone text or call or last place you logged into the internet can't be tracked?

MW

They can’t be tracked by an unstable crazy ex wanting to hurt you or by someone that is curious about your hunting or fishing spots. Maybe not reason enough to negate a safety upgrade, but it’s not all about Big Brother.

mtv wrote:Precisely my point. In those glass cockpit planes, I tried really hard to fly heads up as much as possible, but spent waaay more time staring at those screens than I liked, looking for traffic.

MTV

The first couple of flights in a new-to-me glass cockpit, I found myself spending a lot more time looking at the glass than I did looking outside. I kept finding "new things" on that display, and trying to figure them out. I finally realized that I needed to spend some ground-instruction time with that panel, so I understood it better. I read the manual, studied the "buttonology", and got a CFI who'd been flying that panel for many hours to work with me "offline."

After getting that panel-specific training, I could quickly scan the "panel" (single screen) very quickly, and I knew what some of the more esoteric display components were, and how to interpret them. Within another couple of flights, my head was outside the cockpit even more than with a steam panel - it just took less time to get the full picture. There are all kinds of studies that show that with proper training, instrument scans are faster and more accurate with EFIS-type displays than with steam gauges. (Emphasis on "proper training.") That means that once you get used to it – which may take a few hours – you actually have more time available for "heads up" traffic scanning. What you DO with that time, of course, is an individual pilot decision. You can't legislate "stupid"...

My current plane has four instruments: ASI, VSI, ALT, and a GRT digital engine monitor. My panel also has a radio and transponder (w/ ADS-B OUT, since I'm underneath the DFW Bravo). The only built-in "nav-aid" is the whiskey compass (which apparently has consumed a bit too much of the whiskey). It was a no-brainer to add an iPad that functions as both my nav and my traffic warning device. ForeFlight gives audible traffic alerts, as well as painting the "threat" either yellow or red.

Like others who fly in high traffic density areas (DFW metroplex, in my case), I'm astounded by the number of airplanes in the sky that I did not see, and by how difficult it is to see them – even when I know pretty much exactly where they are! This from a guy who was always the first in the plane to spot traffic (Army aeroscout pilot in a previous life) and who has excellent vision.

At this point, for me the argument is over. Anyone who believes their Mark-1 eyeball is as "good enough" is pretty much relying on the big sky theory (which my ForeFlight display disproves on every single flight) for their safety. I get the points about "stalker" concerns – a valid concern, IMHO – but as others point out, that ship has long since sailed. The last guy who talked to me about it has not one, but two phones (work and personal) that go everywhere with him, and has three "Alexa" type devices in his home... ADS-B is the least of his problems, when it comes to the security of his personal life...

If I lived in one of the states out West, where the traffic density is lower, and where the weather and traffic info was less valuable, I don't know whether I would have equipped or not... But here in the DFW metroplex, it's a no-brainer. And a God-send.

JP256 wrote:

mtv wrote:Precisely my point. In those glass cockpit planes, I tried really hard to fly heads up as much as possible, but spent waaay more time staring at those screens than I liked, looking for traffic.

MTV

The first couple of flights in a new-to-me glass cockpit, I found myself spending a lot more time looking at the glass than I did looking outside. I kept finding "new things" on that display, and trying to figure them out. I finally realized that I needed to spend some ground-instruction time with that panel, so I understood it better. I read the manual, studied the "buttonology", and got a CFI who'd been flying that panel for many hours to work with me "offline."

After getting that panel-specific training, I could quickly scan the "panel" (single screen) very quickly, and I knew what some of the more esoteric display components were, and how to interpret them. Within another couple of flights, my head was outside the cockpit even more than with a steam panel - it just took less time to get the full picture. There are all kinds of studies that show that with proper training, instrument scans are faster and more accurate with EFIS-type displays than with steam gauges. (Emphasis on "proper training.") That means that once you get used to it – which may take a few hours – you actually have more time available for "heads up" traffic scanning. What you DO with that time, of course, is an individual pilot decision. You can't legislate "stupid"...

My current plane has four instruments: ASI, VSI, ALT, and a GRT digital engine monitor. My panel also has a radio and transponder (w/ ADS-B OUT, since I'm underneath the DFW Bravo). The only built-in "nav-aid" is the whiskey compass (which apparently has consumed a bit too much of the whiskey). It was a no-brainer to add an iPad that functions as both my nav and my traffic warning device. ForeFlight gives audible traffic alerts, as well as painting the "threat" either yellow or red.

Like others who fly in high traffic density areas (DFW metroplex, in my case), I'm astounded by the number of airplanes in the sky that I did not see, and by how difficult it is to see them – even when I know pretty much exactly where they are! This from a guy who was always the first in the plane to spot traffic (Army aeroscout pilot in a previous life) and who has excellent vision.

At this point, for me the argument is over. Anyone who believes their Mark-1 eyeball is as "good enough" is pretty much relying on the big sky theory (which my ForeFlight display disproves on every single flight) for their safety. I get the points about "stalker" concerns – a valid concern, IMHO – but as others point out, that ship has long since sailed. The last guy who talked to me about it has not one, but two phones (work and personal) that go everywhere with him, and has three "Alexa" type devices in his home... ADS-B is the least of his problems, when it comes to the security of his personal life...

If I lived in one of the states out West, where the traffic density is lower, and where the weather and traffic info was less valuable, I don't know whether I would have equipped or not... But here in the DFW metroplex, it's a no-brainer. And a God-send.

I'm not knocking the PROPER use of these tools, I'm only pointing out that many pilots spend a lot of time heads down these days.

My point with the glass cockpits wasn't that I hadn't had familiarization with the systems....I had. My point was that, upon finding a potential "threat" via ADS-B, both my student and I often spent too much time trying to determine if the target was indeed a "threat", or just a "tourist" that we didn't need to worry about. I realize that the technology has matured somewhat, and aural warnings are a positive step.

If I were flying in the DC area, or other really complex and busy airspace, I'd be more enamored with ADS-B In. And, yes, I realize a mid air in the middle of nowhere can kill you just as dead.....

As to ADS-B weather, it's pretty useless many of the places I fly.....too few GBTs, too much terrain. I use Sirius XM Aviation Weather, via a GDL-51. Try parking at Schafer Meadows overnight, and relying on ADS-B for weather info in the AM.....

MTV

mtv wrote:. Fly through high traffic density airspace and start keeping score. Change roles and starting keeping score again to balance out any differences in pilot scanning abilities. Who do you think will see more first?

Ah, but that’s not the point. The POINT is, whether the pilot detects traffic that is, in fact, an ACTUAL collision threat.

I could care less how many airplanes I don’t see which are in fact not a serious threat.

And, in fact, mid air collisions are extremely rare. So, fairly judged, your proposed “test” could take a very long time to produce ANY actual useful data. If ever.

MTV[/quote]

No the POINT is, seeing other aircraft BEFORE they become an ACTUAL Collision threat. That way you can make sure they don't become a collision threat by, you know, seeing and avoiding. If you see them early enough to determine they're not a threat then carry on. If you see them early enough to determine they are a threat then start doing some of that pilot stuff. ADS-B traffic used properly helps you do that earlier.

No offense, but I think you just said exactly what I said, only using more words.

Bottom line….if it gives you a warm fuzzy, stare at that screen.

MTV

Interesting points and pretty good discussion so far. Thanks guys.

I think I’ll buy a set of Bushwheels instead.