Traffic

[andyb]

I'm trying to get a better understanding about what traffic will be available, using a Dynon SV-XPONDER 261, along with a Dynon SV-ADSB-470 traffic and weather receiver.

 

I've had experience with the TIS traffic, and near my home airport (KSUS) the service wasn't good; I typically didn't get traffic advisories from it in that area. Also, I've seen the ADSB traffic on my iPad using Foreflight and Stratus. In that case, while some traffic is shown, it's incomplete, not showing anywhere near all the traffic from nearby transponder-equipped planes.

 

The question is, using the Dynon equipment I mentioned, will I get a more complete traffic picture than what the TIS and Foreflight-like ADSB will provide? My understanding is that with the Dynon system, given that it provides ADSB-out (I believe), that the traffic reporting is enhanced. Is that correct?

 

Thanks,

Andy

[Anticept]

ADS-B does not show transponder only planes. You need TIS to receive them. This will probably apply even past 2020, as not everyone will have to have ADS-B and I am not sure the FAA intends to broadcast all TIS over ADS-B channels (maybe UAT, but 1090 is a definite no, not enough bandwidth as it is)

[FlyingMonkey]

Do the Dynon transponder and ADS-B receiver only work with the Skyview setup?  Just curious, this might be a cost effective solution if the output can be sent wirelessly to an iPad or over a wire to a 496/696/796.

[gbigs]

I'm trying to get a better understanding about what traffic will be available, using a Dynon SV-XPONDER 261, along with a Dynon SV-ADSB-470 traffic and weather receiver.

 

I've had experience with the TIS traffic, and near my home airport (KSUS) the service wasn't good; I typically didn't get traffic advisories from it in that area. Also, I've seen the ADSB traffic on my iPad using Foreflight and Stratus. In that case, while some traffic is shown, it's incomplete, not showing anywhere near all the traffic from nearby transponder-equipped planes.

 

The question is, using the Dynon equipment I mentioned, will I get a more complete traffic picture than what the TIS and Foreflight-like ADSB will provide? My understanding is that with the Dynon system, given that it provides ADSB-out (I believe), that the traffic reporting is enhanced. Is that correct?

 

Thanks,

Andy

 

One big difference is you have an external antennae with the Dynon setup.   The system is complete and robust.  You will see and hear it all, even in the middle of Nevada.

[S3flyer]

The question is, using the Dynon equipment I mentioned, will I get a more complete traffic picture than what the TIS and Foreflight-like ADSB will provide? My understanding is that with the Dynon system, given that it provides ADSB-out (I believe), that the traffic reporting is enhanced. Is that correct?

 

 

You will directly receive ADS-B out from aircraft in your area (which is very little today) and you will receive ALL traffic in your area from the ground station including Mode C and Primary radar.  Software in the receiver will reconcile duplicates.  Basically, you'll see the same traffic as the center controller.

[Ed Cesnalis]

Basically, you'll see the same traffic as the center controller.

 

Actually you will potentially see a lot more than the center controller.

 

In my local area you have no line of sight to Oakland Center unless you climb to 13,000'.  All local traffic on the east side of the high Sierra below 13,000' is invisible to Oakland but with ADS-B they can be seen in your aircraft.

[gbigs]

You will directly receive ADS-B out from aircraft in your area (which is very little today) and you will receive ALL traffic in your area from the ground station including Mode C and Primary radar.  Software in the receiver will reconcile duplicates.  Basically, you'll see the same traffic as the center controller.

 

What does 'very little' mean.  We see commercial and GA aircraft routinely (we have both in/out).  And they can see us.  Both in the air and on the ground.  We have been able to avoid traffic and been given far more information than a controller warning of nearby traffic with this gear.  In fact, the system works so well, any new plane we get MUST have full ADS/B in/out  or we won't go up.

 

The bigger problem is too much traffic.  When flying around Las Vegas the screen is cluttered with 'targets'...luckily there is audible warning of traffic close enough to be an issue to back-up what the PFD/MFD are showing..  Dynon also puts out a nice block of text indicating the strength and presence of the ADS-B signal from the ground.

[S3flyer]

 

 

What does 'very little' mean

Less than 10% of the general aviation fleet is ADS-B out equipped at the close of FY14 according to the FAA in their 2014 audit report (quoted by AOPA).  Commercial airlines are equally behind.  I believe United has plans to equip 136 planes by the end 2017 which would constitute a small fraction of their fleet.  Other US airlines are in a similar position.

[gbigs]

Less than 10% of the general aviation fleet is ADS-B out equipped at the close of FY14 according to the FAA in their 2014 audit report (quoted by AOPA).  Commercial airlines are equally behind.  I believe United has plans to equip 136 planes by the end 2017 which would constitute a small fraction of their fleet.  Other US airlines are in a similar position.

 

2014?  Do you have ADS-B in/out?  Try it before you diss it, it will change the sky for you.

[FastEddieB]

For perspective, I flew from 1975 until 2003 never once having traffic in the cockpit. Never really felt the need, and "see and avoid" kept me alive, through far more crowded skies than we have now.

 

Bought a Cirrus in 2003 that had it. Fell into the "nice to have" category. It saw a lot of targets I never would have seen, and many I never saw, but truth be told none that were an immediate collision hazard. Cool, but not life changing at all.

 

No longer have it in my Sky Arrow. Don't miss it nor long for it. Don't really want another gadget. Would not pay for it unless forced to do so.

 

I think eyes in the cockpit looking at gadgets is every bit the hazard that unseen planes might be.

[Anticept]

In my opinion, it's exactly that, a gadget. However, I can't deny that it does contribute to situational awareness in the hands of a competent pilot, who doesn't come to rely on it over see-and-avoid.

 

Traffic warning does help a lot in poor visibility, and that is a major plus.

[Doug G.]

Depends on what you call poor. 3 sm is not particularly good, but still legal.

[S3flyer]

I'm somewhere between Eddie and Burgers with a strong alignment with Corey

 

 

However, I can't deny that it does contribute to situational awareness in the hands of a competent pilot, who doesn't come to rely on it over see-and-avoid.

 

I don't disagree with Eddie on:

 

 

 

I think eyes in the cockpit looking at gadgets is every bit the hazard that unseen planes might be. 

 

But adding traffic does not (in most of our planes) add another visual gadget.  It simply adds information to a display that is already in my scan -- adding positively to my situational awareness.

 

Think through a potential situation where there is 3sm visibility and two LSA's are on opposite courses at the same altitude.  Assume 100 kts means that you will have 45 seconds to see and avoid each other.  And that's if you ever see each other.  ADS-B could've show you the potential collision quite a bit before that and you could've gently altered course and/or altitude while keeping your eyes outside the cockpit. 

[Anticept]

3sm visibility is poor. It's hard to prevent your vision from going to the default "null focus" position, which is about 3 feet in front of your face I think. It becomes very hard to see small objects until they become large enough for you to focus on them or the flashing anti-collision lights catch your eye.

 

I have no problem flying in 3sm visibility if it's an improving trend, but traffic systems DO help in those cases.

[FlyingMonkey]

3sm visibility is poor. It's hard to prevent your vision from going to the default "null focus" position, which is about 3 feet in front of your face I think. It becomes very hard to see small objects until they become large enough for you to focus on them or the flashing anti-collision lights catch your eye.

 

I have no problem flying in 3sm visibility if it's an improving trend, but traffic systems DO help in those cases.

 

I agree, 3sm is very marginal.  It's easy to miss landmarks, obstacles, and other traffic when conditions are like that.  

 

Other airplanes are hard enough to see already, the idea that one could "appear" head on at two miles with 200-300 knot closure makes me paranoid.  

 

I'm with Corey on this...I'd make the flight if it were a short hop or conditions are improving.  Otherwise I'm very likely to sit it out.

[FlyingMonkey]

BTW, all "gadget-heads" should read about the Mike Mercer case for a bit of a wake-up call.

 

Mercer made a flight in a Baron, and obtained an EFB (Foreflight, Pilot, or WingX I presume) flight briefing before the flight, which indicated a Presidential TFR in the area.  He made note of the location, planned his flight to avoid the TFR, and thought no more about it.  Long story short, the TFR boundaries were incomplete in his briefing, and he ended up busting the TFR.  Mercer also had full ADS-B.

 

The really scary part is that after the incursion an F-16 "thumped" Mercer's Baron (did a very close pass designed to put another aircraft in the F-16's wake)  WHILE HE WAS ON SHORT FINAL.  Mercer states the F-16's wake turbulence almost made him lose control of his aircraft, and put he and his passengers in fear for their lives.

 

The results were that the FAA  suspended Mercer's certificate for 30 days.  He appealed the decision on the basis of an incomplete flight briefing provided through the DUATS system.  The FAA upheld the suspension, saying that ADS-B and any EFB flight briefing are merely advisory in nature and not to be relied on to fulfill requirements of receiving full flight information.  Mike also filed an ASRS (NASA) report, and it was rejected because apparently Presidential TFRs are run by DHS and not FAA.  WTF??  

 

In other words, if you don't actually call a weather briefer your briefing does not count.  If you get TFRs or airspace information through ADS-B and they are wrong, it's still on the pilot.  Thus there is NO protection for pilots from FAA liability provided by any informational gadget.  I'm sure most pilots are shocked by this, since 90% of us rely on automated flight briefings and in-flight GPS or ADS-B information.

 

Here's the full story in case I got some details wrong:

 

http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2015/July/Pilot/pe_na

[gbigs]

Once again, until you fully equip your plane with ADS-B (not talking about a handlheld gadget with no outside antennae) you will not understand the use of or be able to assess the advantage it offers.  It is a visual and audible tool that requires a little practice to use properly yet becomes critical to flight. 

 

Just as a pilot forms a mental image of the sky from scanning the horizon and listening to the radio, ADS-B adds another entire dimension to that picture. 

[FlyingMonkey]

 

Just as a pilot forms a picture of the sky from scanning the horizon and listening to the radio, ADS-B adds another entire dimension to that picture. 

 

Yes, one which the FAA has just rejected as valid for planning.

 

I have been in airplanes with ADS-B.  My post had nothing to do with its usefulness.  It was about using electronics to flight plan like 90%+ of us do, and how the FAA will burn us for it.

[FastEddieB]

Fast Eddie actually calls FSS immediately before he takes off on every flight.

Yes, I do.

 

You never know if an act of terror might have occurred in the short time since you last checked. I'd rather find out on the ground than in the air. Literally just takes a couple minutes.

 

One gotcha: I saw a firefighting TFR pop up on my Garmin, up to 5,000'. I was just above that, so did not worry. At some point I saw it was up to 5,000' AGL, not MSL. That was totally unexpected, and with elevations between 2,000' to 3,000' in the area, I would have been in it had I not diverted just a little. Just a head's up to check TFR's carefully.

[Al Downs]

Last week I had a low wing go right over the top of me about 100 feet up. I never saw him and apparently he never saw me. It happened so fast there wasn't even time to be scared. This was a very close call and maybe ADS-B would have helped me avoid a close call.

[gbigs]

Someone just posted on another forum an FAA document outlining two changes in the works for ADS-B.  One of these changes is that effective 1/4/16, the ground stations will no longer be activated by non-certified ADS-B out devices.  That pretty much makes all of our non-certified ADS-B out devices useless for traffic.

 

This was discussed on the other thread regarding ADS-B on this forum.  The FAA wants SEL-3 on the GPS.  No one can meet that spec without GREAT expense.  Currently Dynon and Garmin make SEL-1 GPS receivers for the experimental market.

 

The FAA has indicated they will NOT turn off ground stations just because the GPS receivers are not SEL-3, at least for now.  And they have indicated in their correction notification that non TSOd ADS-B like the SV-XPNDR-261 Mode S xpndr (with ADS-B out) and the SV-ADSB-470 UAT Band Traffic and Weather Receiver (ADS-B in) is also allowed.

[S3flyer]

Someone just posted on another forum an FAA document outlining two changes in the works for ADS-B.  One of these changes is that effective 1/4/16, the ground stations will no longer be activated by non-certified ADS-B out devices.  That pretty much makes all of our non-certified ADS-B out devices useless for traffic.

 

What was unclear was whether the FAA was going to broadcast traffic from ground stations continuously, like the weather.  Several vendors appear to be getting clarification so hopefully we'll know the details soon.

[gbigs]

Wrong again.  Different topic.

 

I am correct.  And it is the same topic.  I spoke with Dynon on the subject a few days ago and they mentioned the FAA shutdown threat.   The FAA is NOT going to shutdown non TSOd ADS-B solutions.   The FAA is today insisting on GPS SEL-3 as the source of position and altitude data and that is what Dynon is working on.

[Duane Jefts]

As far as useful is concerned, I found ADS B invaluable on the Alaska trip last summer.  No matter where we were - and we were in the middle of nowhere a lot- I was able to see the farmers plane on my Dynon readout.  How nice was that for safety?  Very nice!

 

I also subscribe to burgers comment - it does give the pilot another bit of information to help complete the "big picture" while flying.  I don't think of it as just another "gadget" in the cockpit.

[gbigs]

Oh, and just having an older Mode C transponder is not enough to transmit to ADS-B ground stations.

 

Aircraft below 18,000 ft and only in the U.S. can opt for a dedicated 978 MHz Universal Access Transceiver (UAT). The 978 MHz UAT frequency allows an existing Mode C or Mode S transponder to be used to accomplish ADS-B out.  Or you can buy a Mode S xpndr like the Dynon SV-XPNDR-261 which has the UAT built-in.