TIS and What could have been

[Chuck]

Unnerveing thing happen to me today.
I have TIS displayed on the Garmin 430.
I was 15 or 20 miles north of Moraine (I73) in southern Ohio and
talking to Dayton Controller under Flight Following.
I'm at 4500 ft and landing at Moraine. I request (I'm in his air
space) the controller that I would like to start my decent and he says
cleared to decend. Shortly, the display squacks and says "traffic" and
I see a traffic indicated at 500 ft below. I tell controller that I
have traffic on my display 500 ft below and he says "Yes, it is a 172
going into Moraine also."

So now we have a low wing (my Archer) above a high wing (172) and I
have been cleared to decend. I tell the controller that I am stopping
my decent and turning left 30 deg (and speeding up). He did not
respond. The 430 display over the next minute shows seperation and I
turn back to course and see the 172. I continue to keep my speed
greater that his and we both land without further problem.

I think TIS may have saved my ( and others) life today and the FAA is
decomissioning the sites with the explination that ADS-B is going to be
better when they get it implemented in the next few years and an an
inexpensive plane electronic becomes available.

God, I wish I knew how to stop this decomissioning of TIS before ADS-B
is widely available. My life (and maybe yours) may depend on it.

Chuck

[Peter R.]

Chuck > wrote:

> God, I wish I knew how to stop this decomissioning of TIS before ADS-B
> is widely available. My life (and maybe yours) may depend on it.

According to the most recent AOPA magazine, TIS in this form will be a
distant memory as of 2012, when the last of the radar sites is upgraded to
the latest technology.

I guess I'll toss my Garmin Mode-S transponder into the same heap of
garbage as my WSI weather receiver since they both represent good
technology that became obsolete. :(


--
Peter
If I wanted to lose $10Gs that fast, I would have invested it in the stock
market.























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Jose]

> I guess I'll toss my Garmin Mode-S transponder into the same heap of
> garbage as my WSI weather receiver since they both represent good
> technology that became obsolete. :(

More and more we buy devices, not for ourselves, but for the benefit of
other companies who support (or don't support) them.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Newps]

Chuck wrote:


>
> So now we have a low wing (my Archer) above a high wing (172) and I
> have been cleared to decend.

You were never restricted from descending in the first place.


>
> I think TIS may have saved my ( and others) life today and the FAA is
> decomissioning the sites with the explination that ADS-B is going to be
> better when they get it implemented in the next few years and an an
> inexpensive plane electronic becomes available.

That's correct. TIS was obsolete before it was even commissioned.

[[email protected]]

Newps wrote:

> That's correct. TIS was obsolete before it was even commissioned.

Not to mention impractical.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Chuck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Unnerveing thing happen to me today.
> I have TIS displayed on the Garmin 430.
> I was 15 or 20 miles north of Moraine (I73) in southern Ohio and
> talking to Dayton Controller under Flight Following.
> I'm at 4500 ft and landing at Moraine. I request (I'm in his air
> space) the controller that I would like to start my decent and he says
> cleared to decend. Shortly, the display squacks and says "traffic" and
> I see a traffic indicated at 500 ft below. I tell controller that I
> have traffic on my display 500 ft below and he says "Yes, it is a 172
> going into Moraine also."
>
> So now we have a low wing (my Archer) above a high wing (172) and I
> have been cleared to decend. I tell the controller that I am stopping
> my decent and turning left 30 deg (and speeding up). He did not
> respond. The 430 display over the next minute shows seperation and I
> turn back to course and see the 172. I continue to keep my speed
> greater that his and we both land without further problem.
>

Had you been assigned any altitude restriction prior to your descent
request? If not, then you were free to descend at any time. But it seems
odd that you weren't assigned an altitude restriction as you'd be pretty
much right over DAY.

[John Doe]

I assume you were VFR when all this happened?


"Chuck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Unnerveing thing happen to me today.
> I have TIS displayed on the Garmin 430.
> I was 15 or 20 miles north of Moraine (I73) in southern Ohio and
> talking to Dayton Controller under Flight Following.
> I'm at 4500 ft and landing at Moraine. I request (I'm in his air
> space) the controller that I would like to start my decent and he says
> cleared to decend. Shortly, the display squacks and says "traffic" and
> I see a traffic indicated at 500 ft below. I tell controller that I
> have traffic on my display 500 ft below and he says "Yes, it is a 172
> going into Moraine also."
>
> So now we have a low wing (my Archer) above a high wing (172) and I
> have been cleared to decend. I tell the controller that I am stopping
> my decent and turning left 30 deg (and speeding up). He did not
> respond. The 430 display over the next minute shows seperation and I
> turn back to course and see the 172. I continue to keep my speed
> greater that his and we both land without further problem.
>
> I think TIS may have saved my ( and others) life today and the FAA is
> decomissioning the sites with the explination that ADS-B is going to be
> better when they get it implemented in the next few years and an an
> inexpensive plane electronic becomes available.
>
> God, I wish I knew how to stop this decomissioning of TIS before ADS-B
> is widely available. My life (and maybe yours) may depend on it.
>
> Chuck
>

[John Doe]

"Chuck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Unnerveing thing happen to me today.
> I have TIS displayed on the Garmin 430.
> I was 15 or 20 miles north of Moraine (I73) in southern Ohio and
> talking to Dayton Controller under Flight Following.
> I'm at 4500 ft and landing at Moraine. I request (I'm in his air
> space) the controller that I would like to start my decent and he says
> cleared to decend. Shortly, the display squacks and says "traffic" and
> I see a traffic indicated at 500 ft below. I tell controller that I
> have traffic on my display 500 ft below and he says "Yes, it is a 172
> going into Moraine also."

So you were overtaking the 172? Did you not see him prior to descending?

[Ron Lee]

"John Doe" > wrote:
>
>So you were overtaking the 172? Did you not see him prior to descending?

I assume that you see every aircraft near you. I wish I were that
good. Even when given aircraft advisories I often never see the
aircraft.

Ron Lee

[David Cartwright]

"Chuck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Unnerveing thing happen to me today.
> I have TIS displayed on the Garmin 430.
> I was 15 or 20 miles north of Moraine (I73) in southern Ohio and
> talking to Dayton Controller under Flight Following.
> I'm at 4500 ft and landing at Moraine. I request (I'm in his air
> space) the controller that I would like to start my decent and he says
> cleared to decend. Shortly, the display squacks and says "traffic" and
> I see a traffic indicated at 500 ft below. I tell controller that I
> have traffic on my display 500 ft below and he says "Yes, it is a 172
> going into Moraine also."

No offence, but wasn't this a VFR flight? If so, the primary way to find out
about traffic is to look out of the window. I agree that the circumstances
were such that the task of spotting the other guy was made harder (your low
wings and his high wings, for example) but there are ways (e.g. weaving
descents) to improve your chances.

While I agree that electronic assistance can be a very useful secondary
device for picking up the odd bit of traffic you've not eyeballed, it's
essential to remember that looking out of the window is rule number one, and
if you'd descended onto the top of this other aircraft, it'd have been your
fault. The other thing to remember, of course, is that TIS relies on the
other aircraft giving a correct altitude - which in the aircraft I fly
relies on the the pilot having the correct altimiter setting.

D.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"David Cartwright" > wrote in message
...
>
> No offence, but wasn't this a VFR flight? If so, the primary way to find
> out about traffic is to look out of the window. I agree that the
> circumstances were such that the task of spotting the other guy was made
> harder (your low wings and his high wings, for example) but there are ways
> (e.g. weaving descents) to improve your chances.
>
> While I agree that electronic assistance can be a very useful secondary
> device for picking up the odd bit of traffic you've not eyeballed, it's
> essential to remember that looking out of the window is rule number one,
> and if you'd descended onto the top of this other aircraft, it'd have been
> your fault. The other thing to remember, of course, is that TIS relies on
> the other aircraft giving a correct altitude - which in the aircraft I fly
> relies on the the pilot having the correct altimiter setting.
>

Isn't the altitude encoder the source of altitude used by TIS?

[Chuck]

Why so?
I find it very useful and practical when it is available.

Boy, the installer for the mode S a year and a half ago didn't mention
that it was either impractical or obsolete!

[Chuck]

Yes, I had been told to start decent to 3000. I was in DAYs class C
airspace. I know that in the sever clear of that day, I have the
obligation for seperation, but that doesnot change the controller
allowing decent and my TIS helping to correct the siruation.

[Chuck]

Boy, isn't that true. With the TIS showing the distance at a mile or
so, I sometimes still can't see the plane. Big planes easy, but small
ones, not so.

In this case I did not have a visual on the 172. He was under me.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Chuck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Yes, I had been told to start decent to 3000.
>

Was that before or after your request to start descent?


>
> I was in DAYs class C
> airspace. I know that in the sever clear of that day, I have the
> obligation for seperation, but that doesnot change the controller
> allowing decent and my TIS helping to correct the siruation.
>

What was the situation? Where was the other aircraft in relation to your
own?

[[email protected]]

Chuck wrote:

> Why so?
> I find it very useful and practical when it is available.
>
> Boy, the installer for the mode S a year and a half ago didn't mention
> that it was either impractical or obsolete!

It is impractical from a total systems perspective. It's not unlike TLS
and ILS.

I am sure it is a nice-to-have when you're in the limited service areas.
TCAS, on the other hand, works everywhere independently of the FAA's ATC
system.

It's a niche solution and competes for resources.

[Mark T. Dame]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>
> Had you been assigned any altitude restriction prior to your descent
> request? If not, then you were free to descend at any time. But it seems
> odd that you weren't assigned an altitude restriction as you'd be pretty
> much right over DAY.

DAY isn't very busy. My last flight through the DAY class C, they let
me fly right over the field at 4,500 using FF. I was expecting to be
vectored around but, all they did was give me notices of departing traffic.


-m
--
## Mark T. Dame >
## VP, Product Development
## MFM Software, Inc. (http://www.mfm.com/)
"Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and
then beat you with experience"
-- Dilbert's Words Of Wisdom

[Nathan Young]

On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 08:43:14 +0000 (UTC), "David Cartwright"
> wrote:

>. The other thing to remember, of course, is that TIS relies on the
>other aircraft giving a correct altitude - which in the aircraft I fly
>relies on the the pilot having the correct altimiter setting.

I am fairly certain the TIS is using the encoder from the transponder
system to send altitude info. The setting in the Kollsman window has
no affect on the output.

[Scott Moore]

Chuck wrote On 10/29/05 14:31,:
> Unnerveing thing happen to me today.
> I have TIS displayed on the Garmin 430.
> I was 15 or 20 miles north of Moraine (I73) in southern Ohio and
> talking to Dayton Controller under Flight Following.
> I'm at 4500 ft and landing at Moraine. I request (I'm in his air
> space) the controller that I would like to start my decent and he says
> cleared to decend. Shortly, the display squacks and says "traffic" and
> I see a traffic indicated at 500 ft below. I tell controller that I
> have traffic on my display 500 ft below and he says "Yes, it is a 172
> going into Moraine also."
>
> So now we have a low wing (my Archer) above a high wing (172) and I
> have been cleared to decend. I tell the controller that I am stopping
> my decent and turning left 30 deg (and speeding up). He did not
> respond. The 430 display over the next minute shows seperation and I
> turn back to course and see the 172. I continue to keep my speed
> greater that his and we both land without further problem.

Welcome to the wonderful world of TIS. Now you can really see what the
controller sees, and be scared. I have seen some amazing things with TIS,
including a near collision between two other aircraft in front of me.

Now, I'm going to side, a little bit, with the controllers on this. I
was visiting the tower, and the controller said to me, some "some guys
have TCAS, because they don't trust us". That's exactly the way they
see it, that you are getting into *their* business.

Now take a typical situation. You are (apparently) closing on another
aircraft. You see the TIS, you make an evasive manuver. The problem
is, the controller, who is watching the entire picture, had it worked
out, and knew you were going to pass behind that aircraft. Now, you
are manuvering, and you have thrown all his cards in the air.

I'm not saying that in this situation you are definately wrong or
definately right, I am just saying that you can cause more harm than
good by second guessing the controller. He has a bigger picture than you
do with that TIS.

>
> I think TIS may have saved my ( and others) life today and the FAA is
> decomissioning the sites with the explination that ADS-B is going to be
> better when they get it implemented in the next few years and an an
> inexpensive plane electronic becomes available.
>
> God, I wish I knew how to stop this decomissioning of TIS before ADS-B
> is widely available. My life (and maybe yours) may depend on it.
>
> Chuck
>

Its worse than that. ADS-B comes with dramatically greater equipment
requirements and expense. The UAT required with ADS-B is $8,000
(garmin). It dosen't stop there. the AIRLINE ARE NOT GOING TO USE
UAT, so you are going to spend all that money and STILL not see
the largest peices of metal in the sky. Oh, the FAA is going to
"cross link" you with the transponder based system that the
airliners are still going to use. Meaning that unless you are both
in radar contact, you won't see each other, neatly chopping off the
biggest advantage of the system, that it works outside radar
coverage.

So thats the FAA solution: More cost to you, less functionality,
less safety! Yea!

[John Doe]

No, but I clear my flight path religiously. Most people I've flown with are
lucky to clear during turns, descents are the worst. Folks just assume
there's no one below them. I learned long ago to do a 'belly check' in low
wing aircraft to make sure I don't hit exactly the issue below.



"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
> "John Doe" > wrote:
>>
>>So you were overtaking the 172? Did you not see him prior to descending?
>
> I assume that you see every aircraft near you. I wish I were that
> good. Even when given aircraft advisories I often never see the
> aircraft.
>
> Ron Lee

[Julian Scarfe]

"Scott Moore" > wrote in message
...

> So thats the FAA solution: More cost to you, less functionality,
> less safety! Yea!

Is there an FAA paper or similar that describes its intentions for TIS and
ADS-B?

Julian

[Mark T. Dame]

Mark T. Dame wrote:

> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>
>>
>> But it
>> seems odd that you weren't assigned an altitude restriction as you'd
>> be pretty much right over DAY.
>
> DAY isn't very busy. My last flight through the DAY class C, they let
> me fly right over the field at 4,500 using FF. I was expecting to be
> vectored around but, all they did was give me notices of departing traffic.

To clarify: I was at 4,500 when I contacted them and they didn't give
me an assigned altitude. They just gave the usual "advise of altitude
change".


-m
--
## Mark T. Dame >
## VP, Product Development
## MFM Software, Inc. (http://www.mfm.com/)
"I'm a doctor, not a bricklayer."
-- Star Trek: Dr. McCoy, "The Devil In The Dark"

[Chuck]

Julian Scarfe wrote:
> "Scott Moore" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > So thats the FAA solution: More cost to you, less functionality,
> > less safety! Yea!
>
> Is there an FAA paper or similar that describes its intentions for TIS and
> ADS-B?
>
> Julian

See the AOPA Online - AirTraffic Services Brief - TIS

Chuck

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Mark T. Dame" > wrote in message
...
>
> DAY isn't very busy. My last flight through the DAY class C, they let me
> fly right over the field at 4,500 using FF. I was expecting to be
> vectored around but, all they did was give me notices of departing
> traffic.
>

I think you're missing the point. DAY is busy enough to warrant Class C
airspace and in Class C airspace VFR aircraft must be separated from IFR
aircraft. Overflying VFR aircraft are typically assigned an altitude
restriction 500' above whatever is used as the initial altitude for IFR
departures.

[Newps]

Mark T. Dame wrote:


>
>
> No, I'm not. I'm simply pointing out that I also have been right over
> DAY without being assigned an altitude. While it may be "typical" to
> assign an altitude in such a case, it is by no means unusual not to be
> (or, as you stated "pretty odd"). I was merely pointing out that I have
> been in the same situation as the OP: over DAY without having been
> assigned an altitude.

If you are going right over the field altitude is not nearly as
important as position. If the runways are east/west and they are
departing to the west then tell the VFR aircraft to pass just to the
east of the airport and altitude is irrelavant. Of course if they are
not very busy at the time then no restriction is the right move.


> Be that as it may, it is not unusual (nor "odd") to not be assigned an
> altitude when over flying the airport associated with a class C airspace.

Most facilities use the ceiling of their airspace as the initial
altitude given to IFR departures. Here at BIL that means you get 12,000
or requested lower altitude. And since 90% of overflight traffic is
lower than that it would be stupid to take the overflights that high.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Mark T. Dame" > wrote in message
...
>
> No, I'm not.
>

Then your response didn't make sense.


>
> I'm simply pointing out that I also have been right over DAY
> without being assigned an altitude. While it may be "typical" to assign
> an altitude in such a case, it is by no means unusual not to be (or, as
> you stated "pretty odd"). I was merely pointing out that I have been in
> the same situation as the OP: over DAY without having been assigned an
> altitude.
>

If it is typical to assign an altitude in these cases, it is unusual not to
be.


>
> Which, while may normally result in an assigned altitude for VFR traffic,
> doesn't have to.
>

Correct.


>
> Be that as it may, it is not unusual (nor "odd") to not be assigned an
> altitude when over flying the airport associated with a class C airspace.
>

Actually it is, and you're contradicting yourself.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
> Most facilities use the ceiling of their airspace as the initial altitude
> given to IFR departures.
>

Most facilities use an altitude well below the top of their delegated
airspace and keep overflight traffic above the altitude used for departures.

[Mark T. Dame]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

>
>>Be that as it may, it is not unusual (nor "odd") to not be assigned an
>>altitude when over flying the airport associated with a class C airspace.
>
> Actually it is, and you're contradicting yourself.

I'm not going to get dragged into a ****ing contest over semantics, but
I'm only contradicting myself if you are misreading (either
intentionally or unintentionally) what I wrote.

While you may think that it's unusual to not be assigned an altitude
when under VFR following through class C or over the associated airport,
my experience has shown that, while it doesn't happen all the time, it
is not strange, odd, unusually, unlikely, bizarre, goofy, or whatever
adjective you want to through in.


-m
--
## Mark T. Dame >
## VP, Product Development
## MFM Software, Inc. (http://www.mfm.com/)
"Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine."

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Mark T. Dame" > wrote in message
...
>
> I'm not going to get dragged into a ****ing contest over semantics, but
> I'm only contradicting myself if you are misreading (either intentionally
> or unintentionally) what I wrote.
>

I can assure you I understood what you wrote, perhaps you meant something
else.


>
> While you may think that it's unusual to not be assigned an altitude when
> under VFR following through class C or over the associated airport, my
> experience has shown that, while it doesn't happen all the time, it is not
> strange, odd, unusually, unlikely, bizarre, goofy, or whatever adjective
> you want to through in.
>

It IS unusual not to be assigned an altitude restriction in those cases.