Anyone who's not been asleep the last threes years has probably heard that ADS-B (Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast) is a key component in the FAA strategy known as NextGen. In addition to reducing airport traffic delays and preventing tooth decay in dogs, NextGen will purportedly use ADS-B to replace traditional, expensive, old-fashioned radar used by air traffic control (ATC). I'll pause here to give my readers a chance to stop laughing before I point out the obvious - ADS-B as it currently stands has more security holes than an old pair of work pants. Good old radar is and will remain critical to our national defense, helping to thwart smugglers, terrorists, and other airborne criminals who don't want to be detected. In spite of all the hyperbole, PR whohaa and design problems, ADS-B is nevertheless a cool and appealing concept.
Before getting into the two halves of ADS-B, let me point out that only bureaucrats and propeller-head engineers could come up with a name like Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast. Don't you like how it just rolls off the tongue? Moving on, there's ADS-B In and ADS-B Out.
ADS-B In is simply the passive reception of traffic data sent from appropriately equipped aircraft and weather information broadcast from local, ground-based stations. ADS-B Out is more complicated (read expensive) for aircraft owners because it involves purchasing and installing new ADS-B transceivers that can transmit and receive GPS-derived position and altitude. The cost of equipping all aircraft with ADS-B is the big hurdle that seems to get glossed over, but such equipment will be mandatory for aircraft that want to use most controlled airspace by January 1, 2020.
In the meantime, there clearly is a void in traffic avoidance technology for light aircraft. Many GA aircraft have equipment that supports the current and useful TIS (Traffic Information System). Unfortunately not all ATC radar sites support TIS and when you're in those areas your TIS equipment will tell you traffic is unavailable. In classic FAA fashion, no sooner had TIS technology become widespread than there was the announcement that TIS would be phased out at some indefinite point in the future (back in 2005, the phase-out was said to be in 2013).
TIS is very useful and has saved my bacon on many occasions. Lately, some local controllers have gotten irritated when instrument pilots practice holding at some airway fixes. One fix in particular has been used by yours truly for holding practice over a decade, but we're now told to practice holds much farther to the East where there is supposedly less traffic. The irony here is that we're often flying TIS-equipped aircraft and in the area we've been asked to avoid we get TIS alerts and visually acquire the traffic, often long before the approach controllers point them out. When we hold further East as requested, we're in an area where ATC's radar does not support TIS, we actually experience more traffic conflicts, and we have to resolve these with just our eyes. To my mind, some procedures that are implemented in the pursuit of safety actually end up decreasing safety.
GNS 5890 USB Stick ADS-B Receiver
My firsthand experience with ADS-B was nil until the kind folks at Global Navigation Systems (makers of the GNS5870 bluetooth GPS receiver) recently allowed me to test-drive their new GNS 5890 ADS-B Receiver USB-Stick Receiver. This receiver comes with Windows software that allows you to display the position of ADS-B Out equipped aircraft on a map. The software itself is pretty simple and more a proof-of-concept than anything else. This device is small, purportedly the smallest ADS-B receiver made. And GNS has plans to release a Bluetooth ADS-B receiver with weather capability that could be very useful with the iPad, provided iPad EFB software developers introduce support for ADS-B Bluetooth devices. A combination ADS-B/GPS Bluetooth receiver would be an ideal solution. If the hardware and software align, ADS-B on the iPad could become a very useful, cost-effective, and subscription-free alternative to XM weather.
In order for ADS-B traffic capability to become a reality, all aircraft will need to have ADS-B Out capability and that will require an appropriately certified (read expensive) transceiver installed in each aircraft. In short, ADS-B traffic technology just doesn't seem to be something that can be accomplished with a portable device and installing ADS-B transceivers in all GA aircraft will be a huge, expensive, and time-consuming undertaking.
In an imperfect world where safety often seems to take a backseat to cost, ADS-B is a cool and promising technology. In the meantime, I sure hope that the FAA's proposed phase-out of TIS will be delayed.
On August 8, 2009, at 11:53 a.m. EDT, a Eurocopter AS 350 BA (N401LH) operated by Liberty Helicopters and a Piper PA-32R- 300 (N71MC) operated by a private pilot, collided in midair over the Hudson River near Hoboken, New Jersey. The certificated commercial pilot and five passengers onboard the helicopter were killed. The certificated private pilot and two passengers onboard the airplane were also killed. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed and no flight plans were filed for either flight. The local sightseeing helicopter flight was conducted under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 136. The personal airplane flight was conducted under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91.
Following this very prominent midair collision, the media have been talking about procedures, policies, and regulations with which most reporters have little experience or expertise. This is nothing new. Every time I read a news story on a topic about which I'm not familiar, I wonder how accurate that story really is. But I digress ...
One news report seemed to imply that the pilot of the Piper (being a private plane) was at fault because it had run into the Eurocopter. The author of another story focused on the shocking fact that aircraft operating in the thin sliver of airspace over the Hudson River do so without talking to air traffic control and without a flight plan. Other reports tried to compare and contrast the water ditching of a US Airways Airbus with this accident. This compels me to comment on what is known about this accident, provide a pilot's perspective on operating in airspace that has little or no ATC intervention, and talk about just how well the see-and-avoid approach to preventing midair collisions really works. I'll attempt to address these issues so that non-pilots can develop a better understanding of just what pilots of smaller aircraft who fly at lower altitudes have to deal with on a regular basis.
Apples and Oranges First off, the only thing this midair accident has in common with the ditching of US Airways Flight 1549 is that in both cases, the aircraft ended up in the Hudson River. The US Airways accident involved a bird strike (which I guess is kind of like a midair collision) that resulted in a loss of power to both engines: The Airbus was still be flyable, it just didn't have any thrust to keep it from losing altitude. The fact that the plane was still flyable, combined with the skilled flight crew and a lot of luck, resulted in an amazingly successful water ditching. In contrast, the midair collision between the Piper and the Eurocopter caused catastrophic damage, both aircraft departed controlled flight, and the impact with the water was not survivable. The only thing these two accidents had in common was their location.
ATC's Role The Piper departed Teterboro Airport and was, in fact, communicating with the tower controller until he was over the Hudson, when he was handed off to the Newark control tower. Talking to an airport's tower controller is mandatory when an aircraft is within that airport's airspace. In these situations, ATC will point out other potentially conflicting air traffic, but this is done on a workload permitting basis. Here's just a bit of what the Aeronautical Information Manual has to say on the subject:
4-1-15. Radar Traffic Information Service
This is a service provided by radar ATC facilities. Pilots receiving this service are advised of any radar target observed on the radar display which may be in such proximity to the position of their aircraft or its intended route of flight that it warrants their attention. This service is not intended to relieve the pilot of the responsibility for continual vigilance to see and avoid other aircraft ...
Many factors, such as limitations of the radar, volume of traffic, controller workload and communications frequency congestion, could prevent the controller from providing this service. Controllers possess complete discretion for determining whether they are able to provide or continue to provide this service in a specific case. The controller's reason against providing or continuing to provide the service in a particular case is not subject to question nor need it be communicated to the pilot. In other words, the provision of this service is entirely dependent upon whether controllers believe they are in a position to provide it.
Some questions have arisen about the Teterboro Tower's handling of the flight. Reportedly the controller was making a "non-business" phone call to the Newark tower which may have contributed to coordination problems with the handoff of the Piper from Tereboro to Newark. A conflict alert indication was shown on the radar displays at both towers as the Piper and the Eurocopter began to converge. Though these alerts usually produce both a visual and audio warning, neither controller recalled seeing or hearing the alert.
Several initial news reports made a big deal of the fact that the Piper's pilot never contacted the Newark tower after being handed off by the Teterboro tower. It's hard to know why that was, but it's also important to point out that a delay checking in after a handoff is quite common. Radio communication in aircraft is somewhat primitive - only one person can talk at a time. Perhaps the Piper's pilot was busy tuning his radio to the new frequency so he could check in, but we don't really know. It does appear that the frequency change came at a very inopportune time and the collision occurred shortly afterward. Remember all those studies that show distractions (like cell phone use while driving) reduce reaction time and situational awareness? The same thing can happen in aircraft and, apparently, in control towers.
Different Frequencies Aircraft operating over the Hudson usually communicate using a CTAF - common traffic advisory frequency - which is like a party line where only one person can talk at a time. The CTAF is different from the frequencies used by Teterboro and Newark towers. The idea with the CTAF is that each aircraft announces their position, altitude, and intentions so that other pilots can put together a mental picture of where other traffic might be and avoid them. If this sounds primitive, it is! Yet in areas where there is no ATC service (usually at rural airports) and when there's not too much traffic, the CTAF set-up is pretty workable. The thing is that CTAF areas are usually not swarming with the volume of traffic that is seen on a daily basis over the Hudson River corridor. The important point here is that the Eurocopter was probably monitoring and transmitting on the CTAF while the Piper was monitoring and transmitting on the Teterboro Tower frequency.
Big Sky, Little Planes This brings up the big sky theory of preventing midair collisions: The sky is big when compared to the size of aircraft, so the probability of a collision is reduced by the simple fact that the sky is so much bigger than the aircraft. This is a good theory if you assume that aircraft are randomly or evenly distributed throughout the big sky. Unfortunately, aircraft tend to congregate around certain locations (like around airports, helipads, and land-based navigation transmitters) like bees around a hive and that dramatically increases the probability of a collision.
The situation over the Hudson River adds another wrinkle since the area of airspace used by the sightseeing helicopters and other light aircraft is underneath and physically constrained by an overlying area of controlled airspace called Class Bravo. Entering Class Bravo requires a clearance from ATC precisely because this airspace was created primarily to keep small, slower aircraft away from larger, faster aircraft. When aircraft are cleared to enter Class B, ATC will guarantee separation between aircraft: This separation is not done on a workload permitting basis, it is guaranteed. This dramatically enhances the safety of aircraft operating in Class B, but ironically creates a thin layer of airspace for the smaller aircraft to share, which makes the Big Sky quite a bit smaller, and increases the probability that these smaller aircraft who are not in Class B will come close to one another.
Invisible Hands So how about separating aircraft with a controller using radar? Air traffic control (ATC) can and does provide many valuable services to pilots by providing traffic advisories when aircraft get close or appear to be converging, but they are not an invisible hand that holds the aircraft and keeps them completely safe. Just because the pilot or flight crew of an aircraft is talking to a controller does not mean they are immune to mechanical problems, bird strikes, or midair collisions. The idea that ATC keeps aircraft safe, while not entirely a fantasy, is a belief that non-pilots may find comforting. Non-pilots need to remember that it's the pilot that is flying the aircraft and there is no invisible shield provided to aircraft that just happen to be talking to ATC.
Another misconception held by non-pilots has to do with flight plans. The idea that an aircraft is operating with an open flight plan is somehow safer than one operating without a flight plan may or may not be true. There basically are two types of flight plans: Instrument Flight Rules and Visual Flight Rules. Non-pilots need to know that the primary purpose of VFR flight plans is so that the appropriate authorities will be notified if you don't call in and close your flight plan when you arrive. In short, filing VFR flight plan helps ensure that if you crash and no one sees the crash, someone will eventually come looking for you.
Rules, Rules, Rules Some reporters have claimed that aircraft which are not under ATC control are completely unregulated and not following any rules, but nothing could be further from the truth.
The aircraft that fly in any airspace must meet FAA airworthiness requirements including regular maintenance inspections with specific criteria.
The pilots that fly these aircraft must be certificated (we don't call them licenses in the US, but the media can't get that right either), they must hold a medical certificate, and they must meet recency experience to be able to act as pilot-in-command and to carry passengers.
The airspace in which these aircraft are operated have specific flight visibility and cloud clearance requirements. And there are specific right-of-way rules that pilots follow when they see they are getting too close to one another.
To equate these areas of airspace not under air traffic control to the Wild West is uninformed and stupid.
Technology to the Rescue, sort of
Without radar, isn't there someway that technology can keep two aircraft from trying to occupy the same airspace? It's not as if no one has tried to create technology to do this, but the success has been mixed.
Large aircraft are required to have traffic collision and avoidance systems (TCAS), but even with TCAS these planes can run into one another.
Several similar systems are available for smaller aircraft, but they can be expensive and not every aircraft has them. One system is the FAA's Traffic Information System (TIS) where appropriately configured ground radar facilities upload traffic information to appropriately equipped aircraft. This is a common system in many newer general aviation aircraft, but many ATC radar facilities do not support TIS. Oh, and the FAA is planning to phase out TIS. Yes, you read that correctly. The reason is that another system is supposed to replace TIS, even though virtually no small aircraft out there are currently equipped to support the new system. Call me a curmudgeon, but that sounds about right for the FAA ...
Another system for smaller aircraft (that is also expensive) is an Traffic Advisory System (TAS) that actively interrogates other aircrafts' transponders, just like ATC's radar. These systems can be quite helpful, but with some aircraft (like the Cirrus) there is no way to mute the aural warnings and keep them from barking "Traffic! Traffic!" when you're trying to talk to or listen to ATC.
The last system for small aircraft that I'll mention is a class of portable devices that warn of nearby aircraft and are sometimes referred to as Portable Collision Avoidance Systems (PCAS). These devices are not perfect, but they help pilots have an idea when other aircraft are nearby, even if they don't tell you exactly where those aircraft are. As a side note, I always fly with a PCAS unit.
What's a Pilot to Do?
First, scroll back to the top and watch the YouTube video of the Hudson midair. I know it's scary, heartbreaking, and painful, but watch it nevertheless.
Hopefully that video has you in a mood to listen.
Remember that accident statistics indicate that midair collisions tend to occur on clear, sunny days and usually in the vicinity of airports of navigational transmitting stations.
Keep your head on a swivel when operating in crowded airspace.
Fly at an appropriate VFR altitude for your direction of flight. I see at least one pilot violating this simple safety rule every time I fly.
Avoid distractions, like unnecessary conversations or fiddling with your GPS or MP3 player.
Listen up! Poor radio phraseology and technique not only wastes everyone's time, it can actually threaten your life, the lives of your passengers, the lives of other pilots, and the lives of people on the ground.
If you have a traffic detection device, use it.
If you think this sort of collision can't happen to you, watch the video a few more times.
After using my newly converted Modbook quite a bit, there is some news to report. Overall I think the Electronic Flight Bag (EFB) paradigm is definitely where things are headed, especially considering the plans NACO has in store for their system for distributing aeronautical charts. Until Garmin and others wake up and realize that $500 (not $3000) is a reasonable price point for an EFB and $500 per year for chart subscriptions ain't gonna fly with many pilots, it's up to us to roll our own EFB solution. The Modbook is just one possible solution. So let me expatiate on the good, the non-so-good, and the ugly aspects of using one in the cockpit.
The Good First off, the Modbook just works, pretty much as advertised. With a little practice I've found the pen interface to be workable and, in some cases, even preferable to using a keyboard. I haven't taken any cockpit notes on paper since I got the Modbook. I'm happy to report that I haven't had any serious problems using the Modbook in flight. While the Modbook has become my EFB, it also continues to function as my primary desktop machine, using a bluetooth keyboard, mouse, along with a document stand to hold it in a normal screen-like position. So I haven't really lost any function by going Mod.
I find the screen readable in most lighting situations (the photos don't do it justice), though there are some light conditions where I have to change its orientation. Then again, I have to do the same thing with paper charts in bright sunlight, too. I had the opportunity to compare the Modbook with a Lenovo tablet and the screen readability was about the same. The Modbook screen might be a bit brighter, but it was essentially a tie.
ReadyProcs™ works really well for downloading and displaying terminal procedures. You can queue up needed procedures in advance, in the desired sequence, or you can locate them on the fly. My beef with the tap-to-enlarge feature doing undesirable things when I am just tapping to wake my machine up from a sleep has been fixed in the latest release. The new release also provides support for displaying Airport/Facility Directory information, but just for airports that have instrument procedures. The bottom line for me is that when trying to locate a procedure, ReadyProcs on the Modbook beats finding a paper chart in a Jepp binder or NACO book every time.
Using Acrobat Reader to access the Airport/Facility directory in PDF format (downloadable for free from either PDFPlates or NACOmatic) is also quite usable. Acrobat Reader is not really optimized for a pen-based environment, but it works and the price is certainly right. And my complaints about the bookmark layout for terminal procedures from NACOmatic have been addressed in the lastest release of procedure volumes (but not yet in the by-state packages).
MacGPSPro works well for viewing VFR sectionals and terminal area charts and offers some cool features. Last night I asked a commercial pilot candidate to plan a diversion to a nearby airport and while he skillfully juggled control of the aircraft with a plotter, pencil, and sectional, I just selected the distance measuring tool and drew a line between our current position and said airport. Voila! In about three seconds had the distance and the true course for the diversion (note that I enhanced the course line to make it stand out).
During use the Modbook gets hot, but then again, so did the Lenovo tablet computer I mentioned earlier. And if something is generating heat, it's using power and the Modbook is no exception. Without an external power source, a fully charged battery seems to last about 2.5 hours of continuous use.
Apple introduced a good feature with the Macbook - the Magsafe™ power cord connection, but they did a not-so-convenient thing by not licensing this to third-party manufacturers. But you can buy an auto-style power adapter at a reasonable price from Mikegyver. Apparently they have gotten around the licensing issue by recycling Magsafe connectors rather than by trying to manufacture them. Below are two photos of the Mikegyver unit and a close up of the Magsafe connector.
The Not-So-Good Given that the Modbook gets hot during use, it can become a bit uncomfortable without an empty right seat on which to set the computer.
MacGPSPro is not really optimized for aviation use: The current position indicator needs to be bigger (or better yet, configurable), the scrolling interface is clumsy, and the buttons and icons need to be bigger (or configurable). And at the risk of starting a debate, I wish I could select a view other than North Up.
PFD viewing with Acrobat Reader is okay, but Reader is really not optimized for pen-based users and bookmarks are a clumsy way to access data. Trying to use the search feature to located airport data is both ambiguous and abysmally slow, so fagetaboutit!
The Ugly
At just over 5 pounds, the Modbook is heavy. The only time I notice the weight is when I have to lift my backpack. And because I use the Lightspeed Mach1 headset, I don't have the added weight of a normal headset or the weight of my flight bag would be even heavier. Most of the time I don't mind the Modbook sitting in my lap, but I recently did my flight review with an instructor friend of mine and during instrument approaches I did notice that approaching decision height with a landing being imminent, I felt a bit uncomfortable. This was made better by switching the Modbook from a portrait position to a landscape orientation.
Modbook won't fit under the seat of Cessnas or Pipers: The seat rails are just too close together or is the Modbook too big?
There are some glitches with the Modbook's WAAS GPS receiver and MacGPSPro. Once you turn off the the GPS receiver and turn it back on, MacGPSPro is unable to initialize the interface and the only fix I've found is to reboot Mac OS.
And the really bad news is that NACO has pretty much crippled the downloadable versions of IFR low altitude en route charts by releasing them only in non-georeferenced format as PDFs. This makes them pretty much useless. A real same, that.
Mod Conclusions
Overall, the good outweighs the not-so-good and the ugly for me. While I look forward to a possible tablet machine release from Apple or someone else that will really fit the bill, I've gone paperless and I don't plan on going back.
When told that it is dangerous to fly at a low altitude under an overcast or broken sky, some pilots go out and fly at a low altitude under a ceiling of clouds with marginal visibility. I did it myself just the other day with a CFI candidate, pretty much right after the GA accident in New York. No, I'm not crazy and I'm not big on taking risks. And I decided it was time to reveal my personal tips on How to Scud Run Without Killing Yourself.
If you are going to scud run (fly at a low altitude under an overcast or broken sky), there are several things you need to do.
First, know that you have chosen to do something inherently dangerous and, this part is important, admit it to yourself. Bravado and braggadocio are for nut jobs and pilots soon to be selected out of the gene pool. Now that you have accepted that you are heading into the danger zone, it's time to start evaluating and planning.
Scud running requires a clear idea of where you are going and how you plan to get there. Let's say you have both a surface weather observation and a terminal area forecast for your departure and arrival airports. That's great, but what about the area in between, the area that is most crucial, the area where you may come close to terrain, the area where there is no controller, no radar contact, and no runway? This is where you need to use all available information - satellite photos, pilot reports, and your knowledge of local weather patterns - to decide how best to get from point A to point B.
Once you have a planned route to fly under the overcast, come up with Plan B - where you will go if the route you want to fly is not passable. And while you're at it, how about a Plan C? The easiest Plan B is to just turn around and return, assuming the weather conditions haven't deteriorated, and it's the plan many pilots never seem to consider. Truth be told, some pilots seem so intent on continuing along their planned route that it's almost like they want to come to grief.
Don't let your Plan B consist of hoping to find a hole in the ceiling and climb through it to VFR conditions unless you have some really good evidence that this is indeed a possibility. Wishing doesn't make it so.
It's also foolish to assume that Plan B will be to ask for and receive an IFR clearance to climb to VFR on top if you get in a jam. ATC may be able to grant this request, but then again they might be too busy or you might be below radar or radio coverage. If ATC does agree to help you out, they may ask you "Can you maintain your own terrain and obstacle clearance until reaching some altitude?" The bottom line is never assume that an IFR clearance will be available for you.
Speaking of weather, who is? But if I were, you should be interested in the overall weather pattern. If the weather is marginal VFR, are things going to get better or worse, and how quickly? If you're going to scud run, it's best to be headed toward better weather conditions or, at the very least, to have a stable weather pattern. If the weather isn't going to cooperate, file an IFR flight plan or stay on the ground.
One you are airborne, pick an altitude that will give you adequate terrain clearance and legal visibility and cloud clearance. Then fly that altitude! Your eyes are going to be outside a good part of the time while scud running, so being able to accurately fly a predetermined altitude is an important skill. If your predetermined altitude starts to take you into the clouds, don't be overly optimistic. Instead, reevaluate the situation and consider turning around or implementing Plan B.
If you have terrain awareness features on your panel-mounted or handheld GPS, by all means use it. But don't fixate on it.
Don't scud run in areas where you don't know the terrain and where you don't have an understanding of the local weather patterns.
In busy terminal areas you should keep in mind that if you have chosen to scud run, there are probably a bunch of other pilots who have made the same choice. You and your scud-running brethren will be squeezed in to a thin layer of usable airspace and face the chance of coming into close physical contact.
If you find yourself maneuvering in tight quarters, slow the plane down to a slow cruise. Slowing the plane down makes things unfold more slowly, giving you time to think, make decisions, or at least react to what's happening. A slower airspeed gives you the ability to keep your radius of turn small. A 30 degree bank angle at 90 knots is going give you a higher rate of turn and a smaller radius of turn that blasting along at 130 knots.
Oh, and I don't scud run at night.
Finally, scud running can be a seductive experience. Do it successfully a few times and you might start thinking it's a piece of cake. Just remember that like airframe icing encounters, no two scud running adventures are the same. What worked one time, might not work the second time.
And if you have your tips or advice for reducing the risks of flying in marginal VFR, please chime in.
The new glass panels that are quickly becoming commonplace in GA aircraft provide a wealth of information. Topography, traffic, weather. All in beautiful color. But the designers weren't content just to stimulate your retina. They also use sounds and voices to communicate with you. In fact, the only senses these systems don't seem to yet take advantage of are smell, taste, and touch.
I think most pilots can learn to selectively ignore the dazzling array of colors, when necessary. Sound is another issue. Some Cessna aircraft have autopilots and traffic information systems that beep or talk to you. The beeps and talking are quite loud. Pilots are constantly using their hearing and if these gadgets make noise at the wrong time, the results can be downright dangerous.
My first experience with these noisy bastards was the TrafficWatch system in the Cirrus. When transponder-equipped aircraft get too close, the system begins loudly barking "Traffic! Traffic!" Often, this is a great help. Other times, it's just a pain. All it takes to get the TrafficWatch blaring like you are about to die is a pilot in aircraft holding short of the runway turning on their transponder while you are on short final. Of course, you're not about to die. And there is no way to turn it off. You can momentarily stop the racket by diverting your attention to press a button. Perhaps there's a circuit breaker you can pull.
The Cessna G1000's provide a TIS traffic alerting system that, with the proper button pushes, you can turn off if you so desire. While TrafficWatch is a self-contained system that should detect any aircraft that has its transponder turned on, TIS depends on traffic information being uploaded from a properly-equipped ATC radar facility through a Mode-S transponder. Not all areas support TIS and rumor has it that the FAA has plans to phase out TIS. If this comes to pass, this will not be a boon for all the TIS-equipped aircraft out there.
One of the odd things about TIS seems to occur when you practice stalls (it's probaby the very slow airspeed) or when you transition from a non-TIS service area to an area that provides TIS. In both cases, the sytem get confused and you suddenly see a target right at you altitude, right where you are, and you hear "TRAFFIC! TRAFFIC!" Then just as suddenly, the TIS figures out that target is you and shuts up. Oh, and when you transition to an area where TIS is not supported, a voice loudly announces "Traffic unavailable". But traffic alert systems are just one of the noisy beasts in the new cockpits.
Cessna G1000-equipped aircraft with autopilots will either beep or talk to you at various times. When the autopilots disconnects or is disconnected, you will hear a loud, 2-second beep. In the Cirrus, you get a long, annoying sequence of beeps lasting several seconds that are loud enough to blot out any important sound. In a Cessna 182 I fly, disconnecting the autopilot causes a Keanu Reeves-like voice to say "Otto Piiilot!"
Dude!
When you are within 1000' of a selected altitude or you deviate from a selected altitude, you'll hear another beep or Keanu saying "Altituuude"
Dude!
If this happens when ATC is trying to tell you or ask you something, you'll probably have to ask them to "say again." Then there's the perfect noise storm - when the autopilot and the traffic alert system simultaneously vie for you attention. ATC is usually annoyed by having to repeat themselves, but they probably have no idea of the cacophony of sound occuring in some cockpits.
Today, I met a new noise-maker: A newly installed terrain awareness/warning system in a Cirrus SR22. On an instructional flight to one of my old freight dog haunts, we decided to do some touch and goes. There is rising terrain to the south of the westerly facing runway and as soon as we turned onto the base leg, a polite female voice announced "terrain." This was said in a very low-key way, like "Darling, I know you're the best pilot in the world, but you've turned toward rising terrain." Of course, we had every intention of turning away from the hillside and toward the runway at the appropriate moment, but Darling had no way of knowing this. Halfway through the base leg, about to turn final, Darling said "Terrain! Pull up!" with a "Honey, you're starting to scare me" sort of intonation. I thought when we turned final that Darling would relax, but she was wound up really tightly. "Terrain! Pull UP! Pull UP!" she insisted as we approached the runway. The pilot I was instructing was flying and he remained remarkably calm.
I was now resolved to find a way to turn Darling off, but try as I might, I couldn't find a way to disable the voice. I did find a menu item called "Disable Terrain" on the #2 Garmin 430, but selecting it had no effect. I plan to research this further. If anyone knows how to turn off the terrain voice, I'm all ears, as it were. And if you think I'm sexist, let me add that there is a male voice in a Bendix/King-equipped aircraft I fly that barks "Traffic! Traffic!" with such intense intonation that the first time I heard it, I nearly jumped out of my skin.
There is technology available to sort out this mess. My LightSpeed Mach1 headset has an auxiliary audio input for music, like an MP3 player. If listening to an MP3 player while flying sounds dumb, then the Mach1 is smart. When it senses someone talking over the intercom or ATC trying to say something to you, it automatically reduces the volume of the auxiliary audio by about 70%. It is remarkably effective and it happens so quickly, it seems like the unit has ESP. Why can't Garmin, King, BF Goodrich, and the others find a way to do the same with all the voices, beeps, and alarms? Seems to me that only the audio panel/intercom would need to be modified.
I used to fly to get a peaceful feeling. Now, sometimes the only time I feel peaceful is on the drive home.
+copy.jpg)
