What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Stall warning or traffic alerts: Which offers the best safety benefit?

It's a good article, although I have to say I've come a lot closer to having midairs than close to stalling it in. I trust my flying a lot more than i trust other people's flying. :D
 
Bob, I would say the same for myself, yet the accident statistics do tell an overall different story.
 
Oh, I agree that people are more likely to stall it in than hit something in the air. But good airmanship and constant practice -- it seems to me -- is the best instrument to prevent that. I think it's really important to know your plane, the sounds, the speeds, the performance and to diligently practice stalls and the various weights and profiles for stalls. If you do that, you've already got all the indicators you need.

Traffic, it seems to me, is another story.
 
LettersFromFlyoverCountry said:
Oh, I agree that people are more likely to stall it in than hit something in the air. But good airmanship and constant practice -- it seems to me -- is the best instrument to prevent that. I think it's really important to know your plane, the sounds, the speeds, the performance and to diligently practice stalls and the various weights and profiles for stalls. If you do that, you've already got all the indicators you need.

Traffic, it seems to me, is another story.
Click to expand...

After more than 2,600 hours over 15-years in the RV, I agree with your assessment.

Reading the article, the author and statistics he uses disagree with us.
 
Stall

Suppose the statistics tell the story. I recently installed the Advanced Sport Angle of Attack system in my RV-8. It was quite revealing and surprising to learn new information about different flight regimes. I thought I knew everything about how my -8 flies.:rolleyes: NOT!:eek:

I placed the indicator LED's on top of the glare shield in my line of sight. It also tells me when I need to "unload" when I start pulling too many "G's" and start losing energy in a dogfight.:D
 
Ron Lee said:
Stall warning or traffic alerts: Which offers the best safety benefit?
Click to expand...

I think that framing the question in those terms misses the point.

Stall warning devices are beneficial, I don't think anyone is disputing that. But the stall-related accident rate is relatively high despite the fact that most of the aircraft involved already do have stall warning devices. Pilots are stalling these airplanes anyway. It is possible that better stall warning devices, AoA indicators, and/or more stall/spin resistant aircraft design may help. But the high stall accident rate, as the article aptly notes, appears to be primarily a pilot training / proficiency / judgement problem. Not an equipment problem.

Mid-airs, on the other hand, when they do occur, generally occur because the two aircraft were simply not aware of each other. Mid-airs happen where the odds game of "big sky" and "see and avoid" simply fails, as it does with statistical regularity, and as a result, two airplanes end up occupying the same space at the same time. This is a problem that can easily be remedied by broader use of electronic means to enhance traffic awareness.
 
The false sense of security with Traffic is believeing all aircraft have transponders and comm radios. I fly out of an airport that has three aircraft, that fly regularly, that have niether radio. Living in the midwest where there is very little airspace that requires any radios I keep my eyes outside as much as possible and would rather have my recently install AOA system, which is an aspect of flight that I have control over. Just my two cents.
 
curtis said:
The false sense of security with Traffic is believeing all aircraft have transponders and comm radios. I fly out of an airport that has three aircraft, that fly regularly, that have niether radio. Living in the midwest where there is very little airspace that requires any radios I keep my eyes outside as much as possible and would rather have my recently install AOA system, which is an aspect of flight that I have control over. Just my two cents.
Click to expand...

And then there are places like SoCal, that are virtual beehives of activity, where aircraft equipped with transponders and comm radios have near misses with each other every day, and occasionally a mid-air. That's the point. See and avoid, even with transponders and comm radios, doesn't adequately address the problem. There are more effective technological means available today that could, but indeed, they only help if they're broadly deployed.

In a region like yours with only sparse traffic, it's easier to say that the status quo is good enough because the problem is inherently less acute. Hard to hit anybody, even with your eyes closed, if there's no one around. So even with the odds game of see and avoid, there's simply more big empty sky, so your odds are better of not having your number come up. But with see and avoid there is a false sense of security in the mistaken belief that will actually see all or even most conflicting traffic in time to safely take evasive action.
 
roee said:
And then there are places like SoCal, that are virtual beehives of activity
Click to expand...

I think you meant "veritable". Or maybe not, just sayin' :)

I have an AFS Sport mounted on the glareshield. I like it a lot, and have come to use it as my primary instrument of reference after I turn base. I've flown with it shortly after first flight (had to calibrate it before use). I fly the approach keeping 1-2 amber LEDs lit. There is a measurable difference in airspeed from light to near gross weight required to accomplish that. Then there is the matter of pulling g's as Mannan notes. Nothing surprising, but interesting to see what we know intellectually to be directly presented.

That said, airspeed or lack of same is, as noted by others, something over which I have some control. Not so with traffic. Other aircraft create the same sort of more-difficult-to-mitigate risk one deals with when driving on public roads- the other guy.

The Sacramento Valley seems pretty empty if you are on the ground looking up. Not exactly, as I've discovered. Lots of light aircraft traveling up and down the valley, typically west of my home field- but smack in the middle of my Phase 1 test area. They have tended to be below 5000 feet, I learned to keep my eyes open for those. But a bit higher, I discovered a corridor of light aircraft transiting east/west, probably in and out of the Napa Valley and environs. A couple of times while being relieved that I could out-maneuver and out-climb the north/south aircraft, I was alarmed to spot someone coming at me 90 degrees off my heading as I climbed, a lot closer than I would like. My bad, but I simply missed them, despite keeping the proverbial head on a swivel.

Who knows how many of those aircraft are transponder-equipped. Around here my guess is probably most. See and avoid has worked so far, but an electronic second set of "eyes" is sounding pretty attractive. The device might not spot everything, but more advance warning on even some of them would be comforting. Not to absolve me of my responsibilities, simply making it easier to carry them out- and hopefully, more reliably.
 
roee said:
And then there are places like SoCal, that are virtual beehives of activity, where aircraft equipped with transponders and comm radios have near misses with each other every day, and occasionally a mid-air.
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong, I believe that being able to see traffic is a major plus, however even in SoCal once you are outside the Mode C Veils there is a high volume of aircraft without radios and see and avoid is your only safety factor. Even here in Kansas I have had a couple of times where I have had traffic that was on a collision course with me that required me to change course. What is scary to think about is how many times we have been out flying, had a near miss and didn't even know about it?
 
It should be noted that the majority of Mid-airs occur near the airport, and that is exactly where folk's attention should be outside the cockpit, looking for other aircraft that may or may not be part of the electronic traffic system. But....that is also where folks are generally flying at the slow end of the flight regime, and stall prevention is most important.

Personally, I would like to see more AoA systems with an audible component (not just a warning when you are close to the stall, but a variable tone/frequency) that tells you where you are relative to the stall break, regardless of G or bank angle. This will help keep people away from inadvertent stalls (and it can happen to the most experienced aviators with lots of hours in the plane they are flying) while keeping their eyes outside the cockpit looking for traffic.

I have enjoyed learning to use the TIS on our G3X system in the past year, but have learned that it is easily fooled due to systemic delays and maneuvering flight. I have found that it is quite useful to spot traffic out at the edge of the visual detection range, and less useful for stuff that is very close - mostly because it takes awhile to find traffic visually that is annunciated on the display, and you may not have that time when it is close.

Paul
 
Norman CYYJ said:
How well does the AOA work on the GRT EFIS. Can you always believe it? Does it ever lie to you?
Click to expand...

My experience is that it is accurate (if you have calibrated it) during approach phases of flight. Forget it during aerobatics or other maneuvers with high rates of change. It is handy for flying with configurations you aren't used to (weight, altitude, etc), and for short field operations.

The sensed AoA systems do better through all rages of flight.
 
If I had to guess I've zipped by at least 100 airplanes that never showed up on the Zaon. Traffic systems are no substitute for your eyeballs being where they ought to be. What concerns me about the level of information available from an EFIS system is that too many people are distracted by them, and aren't looking out where they're supposed to be.

Anytime I feel like flying with no particular place to go my custom is to go and practice engine-out scenarios. Two days ago I did so and was sharing the pattern with an Archer that was doing touch-and-go's. As I pulled power and made the desired landing spot every time the Archer was almost too far out to be seen. I'd hate to be a passenger in that airplane if there was a problem...
 
Unfortunately, many general aviation aircraft have inherently poor visibility. Homebuilts aren't immune to that, and if you have a wing adjacent to you blocking one sector, and glare on the canopy blocking another, your options for seeing other aircraft are somewhat limited.

One airplane that has exceptional visibility is the RV-12. I'm glad that Van's designs are evolving towards better visibility.

Dave
 
Traffic warning, no question in my mind. The airplane gives you plenty of warning that it is going to stall. Traffic gives you very little, particularly if it is behind you, high wing vs low wing in climb/decent, etc. Also, as others have noted, most certified airplanes already have stall warning devices.

Part of my answer is from the glider point of view. We often fly formation in gaggles while thermaling and traffic is my #1 concern, even above landing out.

Another thing to remember is that if you stall and spin, you are probably uncoordinated. Every airplane has a ball or yaw string, and better stall warnings won't keep the rudder in the correct position.

TODR
 
stalls vs. stick position vs. AOA

the OP provided a link to the article which if you dive down into the blog commentary some wing-nut was very rudely trying to persuade the crowd that the best indication of a pending stall is simply stick position and that the stick will always be in the same position during a stall no matter if it is power-on, power-off, accelerated or otherwise. So....

Flew 4 stalls - power off, mid power-on, full power-on, and accel. Luckily dynon provides an auto-pilot servo position readout in the autopilot status page. I noted the stick position during each stall and translated this to - Inches From Neutral (IFN) elevator. My pitch servo outputs 202 step units through a 12" stick range (measured at the thumb/index finger grip point). 108 steps is neutral stick.

Results: steps IFN (aft)
Power Off 50 3.45
mid power 62 2.73
full power 68 2.38
accel 41 3.98

Stick position cannot reliably be used as a defacto stall warning as it will change with CG, GW, DA, Flaps, power, what you had for breakfast, etc..
Of course we all know this but here is the proof.

additionally downloaded the IAS (kts), AOA, Pitch Attitude relationships during the stall. Unfortunately since during a stall the airspeed is below AP min airspeed so servo position is not recorded during these events - this is why I was up the status page to record servo position manually. I didn't have time to format the plot but you should see the data. As you all know, AOA is really nice, but geez these machines give us all kinds of clues prior to the stall event.

9jptox.png
 
From the statistics, it sounds like nearly all the midairs in the U.S. must be happening in Southern California. The rest of us are getting off light with nothing but stalls, CFIT, LOC, fuel starvation, mechanical problems, and such to worry about.

We get this discussion all the time and it again proves that "worry" tends to be personal. For myself, I try not to let my little demons cloud my aeronautical judgement---no question your view might be totally different, but anyone who grew up flying in the military with AoA would ever turn it down if it were available, I don't think. Some military jets were a downright hand full without it in heavy maneuvering flight (you can stall an F-4 at 440 knots---all you have to do is pull a little over 6.5 "g"). At slower, but still significant speeds, you call stall at much lower "g" loadings and you don't always get a lot of seat of the pants warning either. In all of these cases, regardless of angle of bank, slipping, skidding, configuration, distractions due to emergencies---you name it---your AoA gage is on the job telling you exactly what your wing is seeing and whether it likes it or not.

Admittedly, it's a bit of an extreme example, but you very likely aren't going to safely trap aboard a carrier without a functioning AoA. In addition to all its speed/stall functions, it helps you set the right pitch attitude for hook function, allows you to safely fly at absolute minimum speeds (carrier accident rates are directly proportional to closure rate), etc. IF (big "if", I know), you have not flown with AoA in a variety of conditions, you are probably not fully aware of all it can do for you. Great help in acrobatics, unusual attitude recovery, determination of spin type, tightest possible turn for the speed you're flying if you get trapped in a box canyon, etc. Yes, I know I'm stretching what any specific RV pilot might use it for, but whether you have one or not---It would in fact do all of these things if you did.

I never hit anybody, but I've been end over end many times. I'll take AoA.


Lee...
 
the_other_dougreeves said:
Traffic warning, no question in my mind. The airplane gives you plenty of warning that it is going to stall. Traffic gives you very little, particularly if it is behind you, high wing vs low wing in climb/decent, etc. Also, as others have noted, most certified airplanes already have stall warning devices.

Part of my answer is from the glider point of view. We often fly formation in gaggles while thermaling and traffic is my #1 concern, even above landing out.

Another thing to remember is that if you stall and spin, you are probably uncoordinated. Every airplane has a ball or yaw string, and better stall warnings won't keep the rudder in the correct position.

TODR
Click to expand...

With all respect TODR, there are many experienced and competent pilots with stories about getting distracted and suddenly finding themselves close to (or in) a stall. It is true that most CERTIFIED or factory built airplanes have pretty benign stalls with plenty of warning, but that is simply not true of all AEB aircraft. I have flown kit planes that have essentially NO warning before they depart (steeply).

Just don't ever think that it can't happen to you....and I mean this for everyone....that is about the time when you will suddenly surprise yourself.
 
I think this thread has proved the article's point.
While mid-airs were something like 7 times less likely than stall accidents, close to half the posters here are more worried about collisions.
 
No, the question didn't ask "which are you more concerned about -- stalling or midairs," it asked if you had to choose between a stall warning device or a traffic avoidance device.

I think any fool with an airman's certificate understands the CONSTANT threat of stalling vs. the OCCASIONAL threat of if a middair.

I don't really understand the apparent assertion that traffic avoidance equipment keeps your eyes inside when they should be outside. If anything, they tell you not only to put your eyes outside (if they're not already there) , but WHERE to start when you put your eyes outside.

Preventing a stall also requires you to put your eyes INSIDE, at least if you think an airspeed indicator is part of the equipment used to prevent these things. And, no, you shouldn't ALWAYS have your eyes outside; that's why we learned how to divide our attention between outside and our airspeed indicators, and then right back outside again.

Why do stalls occur? The thread suggests we're just flying along when -- WHAM!! -- physics rises up to bite us in the tush. But we already know how to avoid stalls; we just don't pay attention to what we already know. We pull harder when we roll out from base to final and overshoot the center line, we take off overweight and try to put it in the air when we run out of runway when we should've done a proper weight and balance. And on and on and on. And we don't -- for some reason -- remember to FLY THE PLANE as our first priority.

Are there more stall accidents than mid-airs. Well, of course. But the question -- and I've enjoyed the thread immensely -- is stacked because in many cases, poor airmanship -- not the lack of a stall warning device -- got a poor sap into the position he couldn't get out of. Some of the accidents statistics, of course, are understandable and could happen to anyone, but some are just really poor judgment. So, yes, stalls can happen to anyone, but they're a lot more likely to happen to the pilot who put himself in a really poor position with some really bad judgment. I think the statistics accurately reflect that. You can be dumb and stall, but you can be smart and still get hit by another plane. :*)

So if you asked me "which is more important, good airmanship or traffic avoidance?" I'd guess I'd have to go with "good airmanship" because there are a lot more accidents related to poor flying and judgment than midairs.

But we already HAVE an instrument to prevent those situations, we just don't use it nearly enough.

Meanwhile, the instrumentation in our airplanes is becoming incredible for those who can afford it. The next logical step in the thread, it seems to me, is whether that is mirrored in lower accident rates.
 
Last edited:
I'd give up a lot of other things before I'd let go of my AOA indicator.

On the other hand, I wouldn't put traffic in my plane even if the equipment was free - for me, flight following has been good enough (and in some cases better) without the installation or weight penalties. When it's not good, an IFR plan is usually in order which addresses other items as well.
 
Last edited:
I think the issue is fear of the unknown - or not being in control of an outcome. I think most pilots believe they would never allow their plane to stall of it it did, they could get the plane back in control. Having a plane from an unknown location that you have no control over collide with you freaks us out. You can be doing everything right and still be hit by another plane. It happened to a good friend of mine.

I will put a traffic alert system in the plane I am building even though my money would most likely be better spent on more flying lessons. Actually, I will do both or severely limit where I fly. I am lucky and live where there is little traffic. To me it is the same as backup instruments.
 
Once you fly with things like AOA, traffic and weather you will wonder how you ever did without.
 
I think that's the key. It's not an either-or situation. Like everything else, it's mostly in what order you install what items, dictated by money etc. I don't have an AOA. It's on the list. But I just have the regular old working-class pitot tube. I'll have to make accommodations for changes, etc. time and money.

I didn't have traffic either until an RV zipped a few feet under me over by Stanton (MN) airport coming out of the father's day breakfast.

I couldn't really afford the Zaon unit, but I bought it anyway. Installation consisted of taking it out of a box and sticking it on a glareshield. Done.

Meanwhile, I keep playing the lottery, and try to remain a small target of the beancounters at work.
 
AOA and TIS are "indicators", not "preventers"... Both require understanding and proper control input by the pilot to prevent an issue. That said, many pilots are simply not up to the task of flying an airplane safely. "Stick and rudder skills" are sorely lacking and only getting worse. There's an article in AOPA confirming this as just the latest example. While AOA is clearly a superior indicator of impending stall, the older forms are still pretty good. And pilots are extremely adept at ignoring ALL forms of stall warning and killing themselves anyway, so until we fix that (or take control away from the pilot), pilots will continue to do dumb things. Mid airs, OTOH, are really a matter of luck in the visual environment. The BEST we have is our eyes and a good scan, and that is really a poor scheme. I think a method of reaching out and detecting all aircraft would be of significant benefit to pilots.

IMHO, stall prevention can be "fixed" with enough training, but one can never be trained to "see and avoid" better.
 
but one can never be trained to "see and avoid" better.
Click to expand...

There are definitely skills that can be learned to significantly improve your ability to see other aircraft. They are thoroughly taught in the military fighter communities but I don't recall any with civilian training I've done. It's been many years so I just googled and found "Visual Search in Air Combat" by the aerospace folks in Pensacola and the Fighter Weapons School. The training was much more than just reading the material and probably unreasonable to include in a private pilot course but it works.

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA241347
 
Toobuilder said:
IMHO, stall prevention can be "fixed" with enough training, but one can never be trained to "see and avoid" better.
Click to expand...

I guess I'd disagree with this only because of how many folks I've flown with in the flying club that keep their head inside more than outside. Screwing around with the panel mounted AND handheld GPSes on a clear VFR day underneath the MSP class B airspace and not taking advantage of flight following services is a recipe for disaster that training and awareness could address.
 
larrynew said:
There are definitely skills that can be learned to significantly improve your ability to see other aircraft...
Click to expand...

True, we can all likely get better than we are now, but even "eagle eyes" Chuck Yeager can't see through the wing, cabin roof or engine cowl of many airplanes. Heck, in my Hiperbipe, I can hardly see anything in any direction.

The point is, many airplanes are essentially blind in many fields of view. There is no training to overcome that basic deficiency.
 
Toobuilder said:
True, we can all likely get better than we are now, but even "eagle eyes" Chuck Yeager can't see through the wing, cabin roof or engine cowl of many airplanes. Heck, in my Hiperbipe, I can hardly see anything in any direction.

The point is, many airplanes are essentially blind in many fields of view. There is no training to overcome that basic deficiency.
Click to expand...

I agree with you there Mike - See and Avoid has it's drawbacks....but the traffic alert technology is still in its infancy in my opinion, and is not very helpful in a dynamic situation. I rarely have a flight in our TIS-equipped -3 when I don't get alerted about myself - and the false alarms tend to make you suspect all alrms.

I am sure it will develop to be far better than it is, but you still have to have EVERYONE participating, and that rules out lots of non-electric Cubs.

The bottom line is that we have to use multiple tools/skills to stay safe(r), and not rely on any one thing - be it related to traffic, stalls, or whatever.
 
Was flying with #2 son a few weeks ago down the Saint Croix River when the traffic alert went off showing a target ahead of us within a mile, somewhat to the right of us and at our altitude. The distance was not changing much.

I couldn't spot him at all -- I'm just not very good at picking up targets against ground clutter -- but failing to spot the traffic, I decided to slow way down. About 30 seconds later, #2 son picked him up, about a half mile directly in front of us.

This is right in the area where a few years ago there was a midair. On this side of MSP, there are three airports within a small circle...all on different frequencies, all sending traffic over this spot.

A few weeks ago I was approaching home field when someone called in that they were "over the refinery," presumably the same one I was over. I'd been issuing my position reports for the last 10 miles; that was his first (normally at this point, I'd tell you IFR guys to quit giving instrument position reports and give real-world ones, but I've given up :p). My traffic alert -- Zaon -- didn't have him over the refinery; it had him about a mile away and further north... in my path. I started a 360 and, sure enough, there he was -- not where he said he was -- as I rolled away from him. As I did, the Zaon issued another alert around my "6." I flattened the turn and as I rolled out, there he was, sneaking into the pattern with no radio calls.... I took the #3 slot.

It's true, you get a few false alarms which get your attention and, sure, you can use those to ignore everything else if that's what you think is a wise thing to do.

and it's true, too, that not only planes have xponders for passive interrogation. That's significant in this area where there's a fair amount of glider activity.

Ideally, I'd have both a traffic and a stall warning but at this point, as I indicated earlier, it wasn't practical.

There's some really poor pilots up there.
 
Agree with you there Paul, the definitive TIS does not exist yet.

...but we ARE much further along with stall avoidance schemes (stall "proof" airplanes, indicators, training, etc) all to no apparent avail. I'm not sure there is much hope of finding more technology to assist in what is essentially a stick and rudder type skillset. OTOH, technology will eventually bring us the ability to "see" other aircraft beyond our own limited field of view. I don't know how or at what cost, but knowing about all targets around you is something that will benefit any pilot.

And BTW, the closest I've ever come to a midair was while I was under the "assistance" of flight following. I was in a Cessna Cardinal on a cross country and missed two air combat T-34's heading out for a "mission". It was head on and only about 50 feet separation. After that, I learned my place as a VFR target in "the system" is pretty low on the priority scale.
 
TIS will get better, but its an awfully expensive option. I've had only one inflight experience with the zaon approach, and it seemed laughable. Most of the flight had the zaon box warning the pilot about itself, apparently.

There is no single answer for traffic - relegating traffic avoidance to flight following, TIS, etc. is no excuse for not looking outside to see traffic which might be coming right at you. This is where I think some training would be useful. I'm really interested in the military's approach from the link earlier.
 
ChiefPilot said:
This is where I think some training would be useful. I'm really interested in the military's approach from the link earlier.
Click to expand...

At the risk of a little thread drift, effective scanning is one area I believe has a big safety benefit with little cost. The article I linked earlier is a good start. Just understanding that your eyes CANNOT make a smooth scan without "jumping", during which your "visual perception is minimal" is a big help. You have to practice stopping your scan in "sectors". You also have to work at overcoming the natural tendency of your eyes to focus at only 10 ft.

The techniques we were taught can be practiced on the ground. I used to challenge my son to see who could spot the most aircraft while we were driving. I always beat him 10 to 1 until I started teaching him what I was taught.
 
Last edited:
The only "faulty" warnings I've gotten when flying was over the Pine Bend refinery and also when turning crosswind when departing on 34.

Didn't we fly down to Red Wing? I don't recall warnings all the way.

But I wasn't paying much attention. It was all I could do keep from stalling it in. :D
 
Last edited:
ChiefPilot said:
TIS will get better, but its an awfully expensive option. I've had only one inflight experience with the zaon approach, and it seemed laughable. Most of the flight had the zaon box warning the pilot about itself, apparently.

There is no single answer for traffic - relegating traffic avoidance to flight following, TIS, etc. is no excuse for not looking outside to see traffic which might be coming right at you. This is where I think some training would be useful. I'm really interested in the military's approach from the link earlier.
Click to expand...

I don't know what TIS is but I do know a system called TCAS worked quite well when I was flying for a living. It works so well, the PIC is authorized to deviate from an assigned IFR altitude and follow its commands if it goes off - had it happen a number of times.

I suspect the system is not a part of GA because it is expensive, but it does work. When ADS-B is up and running and everyone is plugged in, it probably will be very good.
 
David-aviator said:
I don't know what TIS is but I do know a system called TCAS worked quite well when I was flying for a living. It works so well, the PIC is authorized to deviate from an assigned IFR altitude and follow its commands if it goes off - had it happen a number of times.

I suspect the system is not a part of GA because it is expensive, but it does work. When ADS-B is up and running and everyone is plugged in, it probably will be very good.
Click to expand...

It is already very good....much better than TIS, and TIS is good too.

Traffic within 15nm and +-3500ft for all aircraft in the ATC system which includes IFR, VFR and primary radar contacts as well as aircraft-to-aircraft for those equiped. If you live on the East or West coast today you will have really good coverage. The rest of the country will catch up soon. I have both ADS-B in/out and it does improve overall SA for traffic, weather, TFRs, Notams, etc all in one integrated package. An increase in SA will be of benefit to everyone.
 
Ron Lee said:
Not everyone will be "plugged in" to ADS-B.
Click to expand...

You are correct.

People with no xponder won't be plugged in. Sort of...

People with their xponder turned off won't be plugged in. Sort of...

However how many aircraft (that are typically any factor to GA), as a percentage, are built and flown these days with no xponder or with it turned off? I am guessing that percentage is pretty low.
How many typical GA aircraft owners will be willing to exclude their aircraft from "current MODE C required airspace" post 2020?

Like Ken states above, if you see a reply light on your xponder, you are plugged in whether you like it or not.

This ADS-B stuff is similar to the days when GPS was coming on the scene. Most old timers thought it was a fad and that it would never replace traditional land based NAV sources. ADS-B is coming to the masses and we are mandated to either get on board or face restrictions in 2020. Nothing we can do is going to stop it.
 
Last edited:
David-aviator said:
I don't know what TIS is but I do know a system called TCAS worked quite well when I was flying for a living. It works so well, the PIC is authorized to deviate from an assigned IFR altitude and follow its commands if it goes off - had it happen a number of times.

I suspect the system is not a part of GA because it is expensive, but it does work. When ADS-B is up and running and everyone is plugged in, it probably will be very good.
Click to expand...

TIS-A is the older system that is being decommissioned. It worked but had some flaws.

TIS-B is like TIS-A on steroids and works much better. It is not perfect but the perfect solution does not exist.

Add to TIS-B the air to air capabilities of ADS-B and it really makes a nice traffic avoidance augmentation system. Bonus is free weather products, NOTAMS and TFRS....
 
Last edited:
Brantel said:
This ADS-B stuff is similar to the days when GPS was coming on the scene. Most old timers thought it was a fad and that it would never replace traditional land based NAV sources. ADS-B is coming to the masses and we are mandated to either get on board or face restrictions in 2020. Nothing we can do is going to stop it.
Click to expand...

ADS-B Out is different. It is there to help the FAA save money and offers little or no benefit to people who only equip with it, thus far more people will not equip with ADS-B Out than you think.

Not everyone has the "get the latest technology" mindset.

A logical outcome (unintended consequence) of the ADS-B Out mandate is that more people will cruise around with their transponder off above 10,000 feet.
 
Ron Lee said:
ADS-B Out is different. It is there to help the FAA save money and offers little or no benefit to people who only equip with it, thus far more people will not equip with ADS-B Out than you think.

Not everyone has the "get the latest technology" mindset.
Click to expand...

I really have no opinion on the real motives for the feds mandating ADS-B out but as far as who will comply with the mandate, lets agree to disagree.

It has nothing to do with the latest technology mindset. It is a federal mandate that you have the option to comply with or not. To chose not to comply limits how one can operate their aircraft. In some areas drastically. I doubt the masses will put that kind of limitation on their aircraft.

Sure there will be a few here and there but as a whole, who wants to have those kinds of restrictions on the use of their bird?

There will end up being some much cheaper options for compliance by 2020 and most of em will also give the return of free weather and traffic.

Ron Lee said:
A logical outcome (unintended consequence) of the ADS-B Out mandate is that more people will cruise around with their transponder off above 10,000 feet.
Click to expand...

And most likely those folks will get a call from some authority when they land. It happens all the time today. If anyone thinks they are not being watched just because they turn off their xponder, they are very wrong. The radar operators do not need a xponder to track a target. One call to the FBO and the line guy will spill his guts on who just landed. Happened recently at our airport when someone busted thru a class B with his xponder off. They tracked him from West TN to East TN and intercepted him on the ground.
 
Last edited:
LettersFromFlyoverCountry said:
I think any fool with an airman's certificate understands the CONSTANT threat of stalling vs. the OCCASIONAL threat of if a middair.
...
But we already HAVE an instrument to prevent those situations, we just don't use it nearly enough.
Click to expand...
Most airplanes - assuming they are in trim - fly just fine if you let go of the stick. The problem tends to be the pilot.

As you note, we have plenty of instrumentation to stay away from the stall. Unless you have a traffic system or a transparent airplane and perfect vision, you do not have instrumentation to avoid traffic.

As Paul notes, some aircraft have little to no warning of the stall. All of the airplanes I fly all have plenty of warning, so I will defer to the experience of others there. But everything I fly has conventional stall characteristics - sloppy controls, low airspeed, buffeting, nose high (for accelerated stalls) - I'd rather have traffic.

(all of this goes out the window if you are talking about full pro-spin inputs in the stall. My first experience with trying to spin the Grob 103 resulted in the aircraft being on its back before I could react)

I actually only have 3 flights as PIC in an aircraft with a stall warning, a 172 during instrument training, so the stall warning device is a foreign to me.

TODR
 
Ron Lee said:
ADS-B Out is different. It is there to help the FAA save money and offers little or no benefit to people who only equip with it, thus far more people will not equip with ADS-B Out than you think.

Not everyone has the "get the latest technology" mindset.

A logical outcome (unintended consequence) of the ADS-B Out mandate is that more people will cruise around with their transponder off above 10,000 feet.
Click to expand...

Ron - you have not yet flown with ADS-B in/out have you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top