ADS-B For Gliders? Dangerous Attitudes and Uninformed Media

When I first heard about the FAA's new rule for ADS-B, I didn't even think to check and see if it made exceptions to allow certain aircraft to operate in controlled airspace without ADS-B. I assumed it would be that way because that's how the current rules regarding transponders work. (This affects gliders, hot air balloons, airplanes not originally equipped with electrical systems and some others.) It turns out that this exemption did carry over into 91.225(e) of the new ADS-B rule (page 140.)

While that makes plenty of sense to someone with an aviation background, it apparently doesn't compute with someone who has little (if any) understanding of the subject. I just realized that fact when I read an editorial in the Washington Examiner yesterday. I'm disturbed and offended that The Examiner would publish such an alarmist story by an author unfamiliar with the subject who didn't bother to do any in-depth research to improve his or her knowledge in the area. However, I'll let that be for a moment.

This article highlights some potential attitudes regarding ADS-B that could prove extremely hazardous to everyone in our country - pilots or not. I want to address these attitudes first.

In trying to justify the NextGen air traffic control system, the FAA has really been forced to emphasize it's few strengths. (They have to do this because the system offers little benefit for General Aviation and will actually cause some added problems for the airlines.) They have sung the praises of NextGen so loudly that I'm worried people are starting to put too much faith in it. The Examiner's editorialist seemed to think that ADS-B was a catch-all cure for the aviation accidents about which he or she wrote. I worry that people think ADS-B will give all pilots infinite Situational Awareness and absolve pilots of our fundamental responsibility to look outside the airplane.

Yes, ADS-B has the potential to display traffic information inside a cockpit, like TCAS does now. Unfortunately, the new rule does not mandate anyone ever equip their aircraft with the "ADS-B in" equipment to do this. The rule only requires pilots to broadcast their own aircraft's information to others. That equipment will be bulky, heavy and expensive. GA is going to be hard-pressed enough buying ADS-B out equipment. I sincerely doubt that many of us will be able to afford the even more expensive equipment for ADS-B in.

Even if some pilots can afford the expensive ADS-B in equipment, it alone will not prevent collisions. Pilots are always responsible for visually acquiring and avoiding other traffic. Even when operating under Instrument Flight Rules and radar control, it's the individual pilot's responsibility to "see and avoid" other aircraft whenever the weather conditions allow. Ultimately, it's his or her life on the line. I worry that uninformed parties in our country will listen to the FAA's praise of NextGen without the contextual knowledge of its limitations and that people will start thinking its acceptable to rely on these systems to avoid collisions. I worry that new laws and rules will reflect this attitude and put too much emphasis on the wrong safety methods.

Am I being an alarmist here? Do people have enough good sense to remember they will always have to visually avoid traffic? If it were only pilots with their lives on the line I'd say yes. However, we're talking about putting UAVs into the national airspace system with ADS-B as the key to safe integration and reporters who don't even seem to bother to read accident reports before writing about them. I worry that such parties are fostering hazardous attitudes. How can we combat this and how can we keep these people more informed?

Speaking of The Examiner's editorial.... The author stated that 9 deaths have occurred as a result of airplane/glider collisions. Unfortunately, he or she failed to provide any context to back up this statement. Any loss of life is of course a tragedy, but alarmist reporting painting these incidents in a false light is just an insult to the people involved. I'd like to provide at least a little of the missing context here:

This author specifically cited a airplane/glider collision that occurred in Middletown, CA, killing two people. He or she mentioned finding an NTSB report, but obviously never looked past the basic info in the search results. The NTSB's official preliminary report on this accident it is more than illustrative enough to show that ADS-B could not possibly have prevented this from happening.

The accident involved a glider (an ASW-27) and the tow plane that had just launched it (a PA-25 Pawnee.) The glider was equipped with a transponder (todays equivalent of ADS-B) and a radio, but the tow plane had neither. (The glider's transponder was likely similar to the Mitre transponder mentioned by the editorialist. Although a decent added safety feature, it's new technology and not widespread. Even then, it's awfully expensive - especially if you're flying a glider that costs less than $15,000.) At Middletown, the glider released from the tow line, but returned quickly to the airport. the two aircraft flew downwind legs on opposite sides of the field, turned base simultaneously and collided during their turn to final.

Let's see if ADS-B could have made a difference here:

1. This airport is in Northern California nowhere near airspace that would dictate use of ADS-B under the new rules. Neither aircraft would have been required to carry or use ADS-B equipment here.
2. As someone well-versed in gliderport operations (I'm a tow pilot and a CFIG with over 900 glider flights) I can guarantee that if the rules did not require these aircraft to carry or use these systems here, the chances of them being used, at least by the tow plane, would be almost zero.
3. Although obvious to the pilots who will have to pay for the equipment, it is apparently less obvious to The Examiner's reporter (and potentially lawmakers) that the new ADS-B rule doesn't mandate any aircraft be equipped to receive more information from this new system. I guarantee that most glider tow planes and gliders will fore go the expense and added weight of ADS-B in equipment. That means even if both aircraft had been equipped with ADS-B out, as mandated by the new rule, the equipment would have done nothing to alert these aircraft to the traffic conflict.
4. In attempting to justify the the fact that ADS-B costs a lot, but gives little benefit to GA aircraft, the FAA has claimed that they might start offering "radar-like services" at some smaller airports. While that might be nice in theory there are two major facts that makes this unlikely: First, ATC is undermanned enough as it is. There is no way they can provide "radar-like" control at thousands of small airports around the country. Second, while ADS-B is a satellite-based system, ATC radio communications are not. Have you ever tried to contact a center controller or even FSS from a middle-of-nowhere airport? Such communication is shoddy if even possible at all. American aviation currently lacks the radio infrastructure to make this promise realistic. In the case of Middletown, CA, there is no way ATC would ever provide the type of "radar-like services" that may have prevented this accident.

This accident was a tragedy, but the bottom line is that only two things could have prevented it: First, if the tow plane had a radio and both aircraft had been communicating, they would have known to avoid each other. Second, if each pilot had done a better job of looking outside the aircraft and maintained sight of the other, they would have known to avoid each other. I don't know the specific circumstances of the accident and I do not place any blame on either party here. These are just the only two strategies that could have made a difference.

I'm worried about the dangerous attitudes that threaten to accompany ADS-B and NextGen, but I'm also concerned that otherwise respectable news agencies allow such uninformed reporting to be published under their own names. To The Examiner: please hire or at least contract an editor with at least a minimal level of aviation knowledge before you allow such ignorant, alarmist reporting to represent you. It's the bare minimum you can do for ethical reporting. I guarantee you can find a pilot out there somewhere who can shed a little light on things for you. Or, if you prefer, send an editor down to Florida and I'd be glad to take him or her flying to see how American aviation really works.