Spotting Traffic

[john smith]

How often do you spot traffic without guidance from ATC when you are out
flying"

How often do you spot traffic called out to you by ATC?

On a recent trip, while flying a PA32-300, I never saw traffic that ATC
called out to me that passed within two miles and 1000 feet vertical
separation. This was a flight of two T-38's.

On my last trip in a C182S with Garmin330 transponder and MX-20 display,
I watch as the display showed traffic passing 1500 feet directly
overhead, but never was able to eyeball the traffic. Earlier in the
flight, I did locate an aircraft 700 feet below and inside a mile.

All of the above occurred during daylight, clear VFR.

[Jim Macklin]

T38's are small and hard to see. Clear skies are harder
because there is no background, just bright sky.

Remember, ATC calls traffic in relation to your track, not
heading, so if they say 2 O'clock it can be anywhere to your
right front.



--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"john smith" > wrote in message
...
| How often do you spot traffic without guidance from ATC
when you are out
| flying"
|
| How often do you spot traffic called out to you by ATC?
|
| On a recent trip, while flying a PA32-300, I never saw
traffic that ATC
| called out to me that passed within two miles and 1000
feet vertical
| separation. This was a flight of two T-38's.
|
| On my last trip in a C182S with Garmin330 transponder and
MX-20 display,
| I watch as the display showed traffic passing 1500 feet
directly
| overhead, but never was able to eyeball the traffic.
Earlier in the
| flight, I did locate an aircraft 700 feet below and inside
a mile.
|
| All of the above occurred during daylight, clear VFR.

[John Clear]

In article >,
john smith > wrote:
>How often do you spot traffic without guidance from ATC when you are out
>flying?

Fairly often, but I don't know how many I missed, obviously.

I've had three near collisions, all away from airports, and two
requiring evasive action. I've had close calls in the pattern when
position reports where horribly wrong, but all of those were resolved
before they got too close for comfort.

The first near collision was at 10,500ft. A bizjet crossed 90degrees
to my path so fast that I didn't have time to react. Range was
less then half a mile. I don't think the bizjet crew even saw me.

The second was at 6,500ft. A Bonanza was off the left side,
90degrees to my path, and wasn't moving in the window. I turned
a few degrees to the left to get off the collision course, and
passed behind the Bo. We got a little bump from the Bonanza's wake
turbulence.

The third was down low, heading eastbound through the pass between
Half Moon Bay and Crystal Springs under the SFO Class B. A Bonanza
was heading westbound on a reciprocal heading at my altitude. With
a closing speed of ~250kts, the Bonanza 'appeared' out of nowhere.
I had to yank hard to avoid the collision.

>How often do you spot traffic called out to you by ATC?

For traffic at <5miles, I spot the traffic ~50% of the time. Alot
of times, I get 'traffic no factor' before I can find it. Small
stuff like us is hard to spot, unfortunately.

>All of the above occurred during daylight, clear VFR.

Ditto.

See and avoid works pretty well in the pattern, where the close
traffic (<1/2mile away) is moving in basically the same direction
as you. Unless someone is flying the opposite pattern or doing
other unfriendly behaviors, the closing rate should be low enough
to see the traffic. And yes, I know most midairs happen at airports,
but I think that is more a factor of the fact that airports attract
lots of airplanes.

Away from an airport, traffic can be moving in any random direction.
Head on, even two spam cans can have a frighteningly high closing
speed. In my head on encounter with the Bonanza, I was a second
away from a fireball.

John
--
John Clear - http://www.clear-prop.org/

[Bob Gardner]

Less than half the time. Even with a callout it is not easy.

Bob Gardner

"john smith" > wrote in message
...
> How often do you spot traffic without guidance from ATC when you are out
> flying"
>
> How often do you spot traffic called out to you by ATC?
>
> On a recent trip, while flying a PA32-300, I never saw traffic that ATC
> called out to me that passed within two miles and 1000 feet vertical
> separation. This was a flight of two T-38's.
>
> On my last trip in a C182S with Garmin330 transponder and MX-20 display,
> I watch as the display showed traffic passing 1500 feet directly
> overhead, but never was able to eyeball the traffic. Earlier in the
> flight, I did locate an aircraft 700 feet below and inside a mile.
>
> All of the above occurred during daylight, clear VFR.

[FLAV8R]

"john smith" wrote in message ...
> How often do you spot traffic without guidance from ATC when you are out
> flying"
>
A few years back, before the New Smyrna Beach Airport (KEVB) had a control
tower
we made all our call outs on the CTAF and while on short final we noticed
something odd.
The image before us was hard to make out but as we got closer to the runway
we realized
that it was a twin on takeoff from runway 20.
The problem with that was the fact that we were on the reciprocal end
landing on runway 02.
The twin was hard to make out because of how low he was to the trees after
he had done
a downwind takeoff without making any calls to anyone (yes we were on the
correct
frequency, we could here everyone else make their calls).
The wind that day was 030 @ 11kts. so that made runway of choice was 02.
That head-on collision was avoided by adding full power and banking hard
right.
But that isn't the end of this story.
We were there to test fly a plane that I was interested in buying.
The owner took us up in the pattern to demonstrate the plane to us but the
first
problem was that he also tried to take off from the wrong runway and was
yelled at by everyone on the frequency.

Since then the New Smyrna Beach Airport (KEVB) now has a working control
tower.

David.

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 01 May 2006 01:22:53 GMT, john smith > wrote in
>::

>I never saw traffic that ATC called out to me that passed within two
>miles and 1000 feet vertical separation.

I agree. It's difficult to spot conflicting air traffic even when
it's only a mile or two away. No doubt, that's the reasoning behind
the FAA's 250 knot speed limit below 10,000'.

As Mr. Macklin indicates:

Remember, ATC calls traffic in relation to your track, not
heading, so if they say 2 O'clock it can be anywhere to your
right front.

There is another insidious inaccuracy in ATC's traffic advisory
information. Termed 'latency' it is caused by the radar antenna's
rotation rate. Targets are updated on the 'scope' once every six
seconds, so the baring provided by ATC is not real-time, but
historical by up to six seconds. (This rate may vary by facility.)

If one assumes a worst case scenario of 250 knot traffic, six seconds
works out to 4,167'/second, or 25,000' (greater than 4 nautical
miles).

Additionally, radar information is remotely relayed to TRACONs, and
then processed by ATC computers. Surely this induces additional
latency, but I have no information on the magnitude of its
significance.

So, with all this in mind, it helps to look along the flight path of
the traffic (corrected for wind) up to 4 NM out ahead of where ATC
reported it.

If you still don't spot the traffic, request a vector from ATC.

And what ever you do, NEVER rely on ATC to keep you separated in VMC;
separation in VMC is ALWAYS airmens' responsibility even if you're on
an IFR flight plan.

As a wise, old airman once opined:

For instance, a pilot who has no fear of a mid-air is an idiot.
A pilot who flies without being constantly aware that he/she is
the main aspect of the mid-air avoidance equation is misguided.
--Dudley Henriques

[Jose]

> If one assumes a worst case scenario of 250 knot traffic, six seconds
> works out to 4,167'/second, or 25,000' (greater than 4 nautical
> miles).

This sounds like orbital speed.

250 knots is 250 (nautical) miles per HOUR, about 250*6000 feet per
hour, or about 250*100 feet per minute. 25000 feet every sixty seconds,
or 2500 feet every six seconds. Half a mile in six seconds. Opposite
direction traffic at the same speed and your relative change is a mile
in six seconds.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 01 May 2006 16:10:37 GMT, Jose >
wrote in >::

>> If one assumes a worst case scenario of 250 knot traffic, six seconds
>> works out to 4,167'/second, or 25,000' (greater than 4 nautical
>> miles).
>
>This sounds like orbital speed.
>
>250 knots is 250 (nautical) miles per HOUR, about 250*6000 feet per
>hour, or about 250*100 feet per minute. 25000 feet every sixty seconds,
>or 2500 feet every six seconds. Half a mile in six seconds. Opposite
>direction traffic at the same speed and your relative change is a mile
>in six seconds.
>
>Jose

Damn decimal places.... :-)

I appreciate the correction.

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, Larry Dighera > said:
>>> If one assumes a worst case scenario of 250 knot traffic, six seconds
>>> works out to 4,167'/second, or 25,000' (greater than 4 nautical
>>> miles).
>>
>>This sounds like orbital speed.
>>
>>250 knots is 250 (nautical) miles per HOUR, about 250*6000 feet per
>>hour, or about 250*100 feet per minute. 25000 feet every sixty seconds,
>>or 2500 feet every six seconds. Half a mile in six seconds. Opposite
>>direction traffic at the same speed and your relative change is a mile
>>in six seconds.
>>
>>Jose
>
>Damn decimal places.... :-)

You non-Unix/non-Mac users don't know what you're missing:

[tomblin@chicago ~]$ units
2084 units, 71 prefixes, 32 nonlinear units

You have: 250 knots
You want: feet per 6 seconds
* 2531.7148
/ 0.0003949892
You have: ^D
[tomblin@chicago ~]$

250 knots is 2531.7 feet in 6 seconds.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
"You must be smarter than this stick >---- to put a machine on the
Internet."

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 1 May 2006 16:37:27 +0000 (UTC),
(Paul Tomblin) wrote in >::

>
>You non-Unix/non-Mac users don't know what you're missing:
>
>[tomblin@chicago ~]$ units
>2084 units, 71 prefixes, 32 nonlinear units
>
>You have: 250 knots
>You want: feet per 6 seconds
> * 2531.7148
> / 0.0003949892
>You have: ^D
>[tomblin@chicago ~]$
>
>250 knots is 2531.7 feet in 6 seconds.


I've been a Unix SysAdm since '84, but your response is too arcane for
me. What is that 'bc' or something?

[Paul Tomblin]

Yesterday, in severe clear VMC (with summer haze keeping the visibility
down to a mere 50 miles or so) on an IFR flight. My wife says "there's
traffic right ahead of us, just a little bit below us!" I said "I don't
see it." She gets more insistent. I still don't see it. She suggests I
ask ATC for a position report on it. I still don't see it, but she's
getting a bit anxious about it. Finally I twig to what she's seeing.
There is a very bright white object on the ground, about 10-20 degrees
below the nose. I had seen it and dismissed it as a ground object minutes
before she pointed it out, so I didn't immediately realize what she was
talking about. I point out that it's not moving relative to the other
objects on the ground, and it is moving relative to the windshield and she
reluctantly conceeds that it's probably on the ground.

One of the reasons I fly IFR and I fly between 8000 and 10000 feet is
because while it doesn't guarantee any separation, it does keep me away
from the $100 hamburger crowd down at 3000 feet, and it bumps me up the
priority queue for getting traffic callouts above the VFR flight following
guys. We flew for 3 hours down to AGC and back this weekend and the only
planes we saw were just before landing back at ROC. But my wife is still
anxious as hell about mid air collisions. If somebody else checks in with
the controller at the same altitude as us, she's almost panicing. I have
to explain that the other guy called in 15 miles north of Bradford
descending to a landing at Bradford, while we're 20 miles south of
Bradford and not descending, so we're unlikely to see him. Any
suggestions how to reassure her?


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
Progress (n.): The process through which Usenet has evolved from
smart people in front of dumb terminals to dumb people in front
of smart terminals. --

[Peter Duniho]

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
> You non-Unix/non-Mac users don't know what you're missing:

You non-Internet users don't know what you're missing:

http://www.google.com/search?q=250+knots+in+feet+per+6+seconds

[Frank Ch. Eigler]

(Paul Tomblin) writes:

> Yesterday, in severe clear VMC (with summer haze keeping the
> visibility down to a mere 50 miles or so) on an IFR flight. My wife
> says "there's traffic right ahead of us, just a little bit below
> us!" [...] Any suggestions how to reassure her?

Even though it's imperfect, my passengers seem to find great comfort
in the on-board traffic sensor display. Its little brother (Avidyne
TAS600) is only about 10 AMU now (using existing MFD/GPS as a
display).

- FChE

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, Larry Dighera > said:
>On Mon, 1 May 2006 16:37:27 +0000 (UTC),
>(Paul Tomblin) wrote in >::
>>You non-Unix/non-Mac users don't know what you're missing:
>>
>>[tomblin@chicago ~]$ units
>>2084 units, 71 prefixes, 32 nonlinear units
>>
>>You have: 250 knots
>>You want: feet per 6 seconds
>> * 2531.7148
>> / 0.0003949892
>>You have: ^D
>>[tomblin@chicago ~]$
>>
>>250 knots is 2531.7 feet in 6 seconds.
>
>
>I've been a Unix SysAdm since '84, but your response is too arcane for
>me. What is that 'bc' or something?

No, it's units(1). Just like it says after the prompt.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
I haven't had any mail from my mother since her ISP ended up in the RBL.
I deny that I nominated them...
-- Peter Corlett

[Jose]

> Damn decimal places.... :-)
>
> I appreciate the correction.

Now if we could only get MontJet Inc. to move a few decimal places
too... :)

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose]

> 250 knots is 2531.7 feet in 6 seconds.

Actually, the n knots ~= 10n fps is a useful piece of trivia.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose]

> Actually, the n knots ~= 10n fps is a useful piece of trivia.

Damn decimal places! n knots ~= 10n fp6s. Still useful.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Wallace Berry]

In article
>,
john smith > wrote:

> How often do you spot traffic without guidance from ATC when you are out
> flying"
>
> How often do you spot traffic called out to you by ATC?
>
> On a recent trip, while flying a PA32-300, I never saw traffic that ATC
> called out to me that passed within two miles and 1000 feet vertical
> separation. This was a flight of two T-38's.
>
> On my last trip in a C182S with Garmin330 transponder and MX-20 display,
> I watch as the display showed traffic passing 1500 feet directly
> overhead, but never was able to eyeball the traffic. Earlier in the
> flight, I did locate an aircraft 700 feet below and inside a mile.
>
> All of the above occurred during daylight, clear VFR.



For my tastes, most GA aircraft have poor visibility from the cockpit.
Small windows, wings blocking the view above or below and to one side or
the other in turns serve to block out a lot of the sky. Adding to this I
suspect that the relatively high level of noise (engine and radio) and
vibration in GA cockpits causes a sort of "sensory overload" that may
adversely affect the visual scan. The extent of the effect probably
varies quite a lot from person to person, relative levels of
distractions in different aircraft, and level of experience. Quieter
headsets may improve the situation, but I think the "isolation" of
hearing protectors serves as a sort of temporary distraction in it's own
right.

I know that I spot a lot more traffic when I'm flying my glider (bubble
canopy, wing behind me, no engine noise or vibration) than in my Cessna
(no rear or top window, view blocked by wing into turn). The fact that I
spend up to 30% of a glider flight turning no doubt improves my scan and
sets up more relative motion with respect to other aircraft.

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 01 May 2006 13:09:28 -0500, Wallace Berry
> wrote in
>::

>I think the "isolation" of hearing protectors serves as a sort of
>temporary distraction in it's own right.

Are you sure you're wearing your headset correctly. The cups are
meant to placed over your ears not over your eyes. :-)

[Peter R.]

Paul Tomblin > wrote:

> Any
> suggestions how to reassure her?

Upgrade to a mode-S transponder and then display the TIS information on
your moving map. The entire NY State Thruway corridor, including your home
airport, is covered by the TIS network.


--
Peter

[Montblack]

("Jose" wrote)
> Now if we could only get MontJet Inc. to move a few decimal places too...
> :)


Did you see the "new improved" updated numbers - from the MontJet thread? I
need to get Williams International to move a few digits ...FJ44 ...FJ33
....and hopefully, a new FJ22 for the MontJet!

MontJet: (415 kts/FL450)
(Range: 1,500+ miles)
Empty Weight ............600 lbs (x6 = S-33)
Fuel (4 hrs)..................600 lbs @ 21.5 gph (7 lbs/gal)
Pilot + stuff .................260 lbs
MTOW .....................1,460 lbs (x5 = S33)

Spectrum 33: (415 kts/FL450)
(Range: 2,000 miles)
Empty Wt. ...............3,620 lbs
MTOW .....................7,300 lbs

BTW, I'm using the same engine as the Spectrum 33:
Engine ................................290 lbs
Williams FJ33-4A [1,568 pound-thrust]

Unless a smaller (less fuel burn) FJ22 becomes available! <g>

http://www.williams-int.com/high/product/Airplanes/FJ33Planes.htm
Planes using the FJ33 Engine


Team.Mont.Jet.

[B A R R Y]

Wallace Berry wrote:
>
>
> For my tastes, most GA aircraft have poor visibility from the cockpit.
> Small windows, wings blocking the view above or below and to one side or
> the other in turns serve to block out a lot of the sky. Adding to this I
> suspect that the relatively high level of noise (engine and radio) and
> vibration in GA cockpits causes a sort of "sensory overload" that may
> adversely affect the visual scan. The extent of the effect probably
> varies quite a lot from person to person, relative levels of
> distractions in different aircraft, and level of experience. Quieter
> headsets may improve the situation, but I think the "isolation" of
> hearing protectors serves as a sort of temporary distraction in it's own
> right.

I can't say I agree, especially about the sensory overload.

While my Beech Sundowner (Slowdowner <G>) dosen't have a bubble canopy,
it has excellent visibility everywhere but straight up, far better than
any single engine Piper or Cessna I've flown. The wing sits farther
back than a PA28, so I have nice visibility to the sides and below.
Since straight up and straight back aren't part of the typical scan, I
don't think I'd be better off with a bubble.

As far as the headset goes, my current ANR set is so comfortable, I can
doze off while my co-owner flies! <G>

[Morgans]

"Montblack" > wrote

> Did you see the "new improved" updated numbers - from the MontJet thread?
> I need to get Williams International to move a few digits ...FJ44 ...FJ33
> ...and hopefully, a new FJ22 for the MontJet!

Damn, if they keep going at this rate, pretty soon there will be a FJ00, and
it will not burn any fuel at all! <g>

I'll bet you could keep two of those in your pockets!
--
Jim in NC

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"FLAV8R" > wrote in message
...
>
> A few years back, before the New Smyrna Beach Airport (KEVB) had a control
> tower
> we made all our call outs on the CTAF and while on short final we noticed
> something odd.
> The image before us was hard to make out but as we got closer to the
> runway we realized
> that it was a twin on takeoff from runway 20.
> The problem with that was the fact that we were on the reciprocal end
> landing on runway 02.
>

The reciprocal end of runway 20 is not runway 02, it's runway 2.

[Ron Lee]

"Peter R." > wrote:

>Paul Tomblin > wrote:
>
>> Any
>> suggestions how to reassure her?
>
>Upgrade to a mode-S transponder and then display the TIS information on
>your moving map. The entire NY State Thruway corridor, including your home
>airport, is covered by the TIS network.

That assumes that this system will be around a while. Seems like it
or something like it is not long for this world so buying equipment to
use it may not be worth it.

Ron Lee

[skym]

Well, I hope this isn't too far OT, but which of those oft-advertised
portable traffic detectors are good/bad? Any opinions or pilot
reports? I'm tempted every time I read one of the ads, but just
haven't made the leap...yet. Are they truely of any help?

[Peter R.]

Ron Lee > wrote:

> That assumes that this system will be around a while. Seems like it
> or something like it is not long for this world so buying equipment to
> use it may not be worth it.

The authors of _Aviation Consumer_ seem to disagree but no matter; I don't
really expect Paul to take my suggestion seriously anyway.


--
Peter

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "Peter R." > said:
>Ron Lee > wrote:
>> That assumes that this system will be around a while. Seems like it
>> or something like it is not long for this world so buying equipment to
>> use it may not be worth it.
>
>The authors of _Aviation Consumer_ seem to disagree but no matter; I don't
>really expect Paul to take my suggestion seriously anyway.

Not in a club plane, anyway.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
"If Bill Gates had a dime for every time a Windows box crashed...
..... Oh, wait a minute, he already does."

[Wallace Berry]

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:

> On Mon, 01 May 2006 13:09:28 -0500, Wallace Berry
> > wrote in
> >::
>
> >I think the "isolation" of hearing protectors serves as a sort of
> >temporary distraction in it's own right.
>
> Are you sure you're wearing your headset correctly. The cups are
> meant to placed over your ears not over your eyes. :-)
>

Dang! So that's the problem!

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-05-01, Peter Duniho > wrote:
> "Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
> ...
>> You non-Unix/non-Mac users don't know what you're missing:
>
> You non-Internet users don't know what you're missing:
>
> http://www.google.com/search?q=250+knots+in+feet+per+6+seconds

Of course, Google runs Linux :-)

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[gatt]

"john smith" > wrote in message

> How often do you spot traffic without guidance from ATC when you are out
> flying"

Every flight.

> How often do you spot traffic called out to you by ATC?

About the same. I suspect that means I don't see half of what's out there.
As long as it's the half that's aft of my CG and they see me, I guess it's
not a problem. :>

-c

[Ron Lee]

john smith > wrote:

>How often do you spot traffic without guidance from ATC when you are out
>flying"

It does happen but not even 50% of the time. Yesterday I saw one
below me and 1-2 miles away before ATC told me about him. That is not
the norm.

>How often do you spot traffic called out to you by ATC?

Maybe 50-75% of the time. Just this morning there was an aircraft on
final to a parallel runway ( I was behind him) but I never saw him
until he was airborne after his T&G.

Ron Lee

[Andrew Gideon]

On Tue, 02 May 2006 08:17:26 -0400, Peter R. wrote:

> Ron Lee > wrote:
>
>> That assumes that this system will be around a while. Seems like it or
>> something like it is not long for this world so buying equipment to use
>> it may not be worth it.
>
> The authors of _Aviation Consumer_ seem to disagree but no matter; I don't
> really expect Paul to take my suggestion seriously anyway.

Where did AC write that TIS will be around for a while? It seems like the
Next Big Thing for traffic is ADS-B.

We're bouncing this around for our club aircraft now. TIS has wider
coverage today, but we're concerned about its longevity.

If we'd a failed transponder, the incremental cost for a mode S
transponder would be small enough that we'd do it. But to throw out a
perfectly good mode C transponder for something that will be replaced in a
relatively short time seems inefficient.

- Andrew

[Peter R.]

Andrew Gideon > wrote:

> Where did AC write that TIS will be around for a while? It seems like the
> Next Big Thing for traffic is ADS-B.

The article was titled, "Airborne Traffic Alerting: TIS Still the One to
Beat," and a sidebar titled, "Why TIS is Still a Good Bet." These articles
were in the November 2005 (volume 35, Number 11) issue of _Aviation
Consumer_.

Send me a working email address for a return gift in the form of some
random words that, if viewed under certain lighting conditions,
approximately resemble these articles, if you are interested.

pjricc @ gmail . com

--
Peter

[Andrew Gideon]

On Wed, 31 May 2006 15:31:36 -0400, Peter R. wrote:

> The article was titled, "Airborne Traffic Alerting: TIS Still the One to
> Beat," and a sidebar titled, "Why TIS is Still a Good Bet." These
> articles were in the November 2005 (volume 35, Number 11) issue of
> _Aviation Consumer_.

Thanks. I found it:

http://www.aviationconsumer.com/issues/35_11/avionicsreport/5496-1.html

First, this mentions that ADS-B is far from deployment. But that's not
quite true, at least around here. We're located in northern NJ, which is
right at the northernmost tip of ADS-B deployment on the East Coast. So
we'd see *some* benefit from ADS-B pretty quickly.

However, there are other interesting points. There's a paragraph which
suggests, for example, that some TIS units will be "field upgradable" to
"be useable in the ADS-B traffic world". What might that mean?

The sidebar at:

http://www.aviationconsumer.com/newspics/pdfs/35-11-Why.pdf

discusses my concern regarding TIS: that it is a short-term solution to be
replaced by ADS-B. However, a check of:

http://www.aviationconsumer.com/newspics/pdfs/35-8-Mode.pdf

shows that none of the 23 airports to lose TIS in the short term are in my
immediate neighborhood (though some are w/in just a few hours flight).

Hmm.

- Andrew

[Peter R.]

Andrew Gideon > wrote:

<snip>
> discusses my concern regarding TIS: that it is a short-term solution to be
> replaced by ADS-B. However, a check of:
>
> http://www.aviationconsumer.com/newspics/pdfs/35-8-Mode.pdf
>
> shows that none of the 23 airports to lose TIS in the short term are in my
> immediate neighborhood (though some are w/in just a few hours flight).
>
> Hmm.

As someone who flies a lot in the Northeast and mid-Atlantic US, I am very
happy with what TIS is currently providing me.

--
Peter

[Andrew Gideon]

On Thu, 01 Jun 2006 15:07:37 -0400, Peter R. wrote:

> As someone who flies a lot in the Northeast and mid-Atlantic US, I am very
> happy with what TIS is currently providing me.

That's not really in question. The issue is whether or not it is a good
investment given a working mode C transponder.

[If I had to replace a transponder, this would be easier <grin>.]

- Andrew

[Peter R.]

Andrew Gideon > wrote:

> That's not really in question. The issue is whether or not it is a good
> investment given a working mode C transponder.

Yes, I realized after I sent up the post that you were more interested in
the future of TIS, rather than the present. Sorry 'bout that.


--
Peter

[Andrew Gideon]

On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 13:00:25 -0400, Peter R. wrote:

> Andrew Gideon > wrote:
>
>> That's not really in question. The issue is whether or not it is a good
>> investment given a working mode C transponder.
>
> Yes, I realized after I sent up the post that you were more interested in
> the future of TIS, rather than the present. Sorry 'bout that.

No worries. I (1) wanted to be clear that we're not in disagreement, and
(2) am still hoping for more insight into this.

It's not just about the future of TIS, though of course that is a factor.
But it is also a matter of the value of the investment in TIS even given a
limited lifespan.

I could reason, for example: one midair can ruin your whole day. Since
coverage for TIS is better *today* than ADS-B's TIS-B, and will remain so
for at least a while, a few thousand dollars is worth investing in this
dead end technology.

On the other hand, there's the "we've gotten along with those fancy gizmos
for years" reasoning.

On yet a third hand: Not everyone has "gotten along", as NTSB reports
clearly show.

Still, how far can one take that reasoning before flying itself becomes
and unacceptable risk?

- Andrew