|
pauls
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21,
Visits: 0
|
+xWe should welcome a scenario where everything is visible, incl drones. I have full confidence in app developers to find a good and useful way to present this information to airmen.
When continiously improving and adjusting its solution, SD also has to take into considerations that circumstances in other countries may be very different from the UK. In my neck of the woods there is mostly nothing, and half of the little traffic there is doesn't even bother to switch on their Mode C transporder (the other half does, and I am very grateful that they show one way or this other on my tablet!).
Far from wanting SD to send me less verbal traffic warnings, I would wish more participants would used EC devices, had ADS-B or would at least switch on their transponders. I'm not sure your post adds an value to the debate. Yes, we all want more ADSB and EC capability. What we are talking about is saturation of pilots mental capacity during takeoff and landing.
|
|
|
|
|
TimT
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 89,
Visits: 92
|
We should welcome a scenario where everything is visible, incl drones. I have full confidence in app developers to find a good and useful way to present this information to airmen.
When continiously improving and adjusting its solution, SD also has to take into considerations that circumstances in other countries may be very different from the UK. In my neck of the woods there is mostly nothing, and half of the little traffic there is doesn't even bother to switch on their Mode C transporder (the other half does, and I am very grateful that they show one way or this other on my tablet!).
Far from wanting SD to send me less verbal traffic warnings, I would wish more participants would used EC devices, had ADS-B or would at least switch on their transponders.
|
|
|
|
|
marioair
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 158,
Visits: 1
|
With the EC rebate this issue will get worse.
I’m just muting the iPad right now but that means I lose all the other useful alerts too.
|
|
|
|
|
PaulSS
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 89,
Visits: 3.2K
|
Thanks Tim. I believe we're back to square two then really. If I 'Suppress All' audio I don't want to be warned verbally about the guy at the holding point when I'm coming into land but by all means please keep displaying it in red on my iPad. It would, of course, be much better if they weren't transmitting ADSB etc on the ground but I'm not going to open that can of worms. Given there will always be people on the ground who are chucking out some sort of EC (thank you very much for doing so nevertheless) and I don't want to get a "Danger, you're going to smash into the guy at the holding point" then either (a)I need to switch off all my audio by turning off the Bluetooth (b)phaff around with audio volume or (c)hope you can either make 'Suppress All' really mean that or (d)hope you can cancel audio for all of those on the ground or (e)hope you can allow us to select an altitude below which we don't want to hear anything.
|
|
|
|
|
Tim Dawson
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.1K,
Visits: 9.4K
|
Yes, the "silence all" thing is to stop SkyDemon talking to you about nearby traffic, but it will still show a warning (with accompanying sound and speech) if it thinks you're actually about to hit something.
|
|
|
|
|
PaulSS
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 89,
Visits: 3.2K
|
Good evening Sir Tim :-) Does the 'Suppress All' literally suppress ALL audio or does it still allow 'danger' voices through? This evening I was on Final and had suppressed all audio. However, at about 300' I got a "Danger, aircraft ahead etc" from an aircraft that was approaching the threshold (in order to takeoff). I double-checked and I had pressed the suppress option. I was just wondering if there is a filter which allows 'dangerous situations' (as judged by the computer algorithm) to override that option. My setup is PAW to SD on iPad Mini. SD audio (not PAW audio). iPad Mini (with SD) Bluetooth to David Clark headset.
|
|
|
|
|
pauls
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21,
Visits: 0
|
I fly from Biggin. I'd be happy to trial something
|
|
|
|
|
grahamb
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 588,
Visits: 28K
|
@ TimD The subsidy for equipping with EC just announced in the UK will quite soon dramatically increase the number of targets whch SD will be reporting. Busy airfields, with perhaps half a dozen or more aircraft manoeuvring on the ground will swamp the audio channel when one is on final.
Please don't dismiss the idea of us having something just slightly more granular than 'silence all traffic'.
|
|
|
|
|
pauls
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21,
Visits: 0
|
+xAs a rule, we don't give options. Most users won't ever discover the option to start with. The users you implemented them for (a handful on a forum) will love them of course. No, it's much better to take one's time and implement a feature properly without forcing people to make choices whose implications they may not necessarily be fully aware of.
The lowest-hanging fruit to come out of this thread would be disabling collision warnings while you are on the ground. That is arguably the way the feature should have worked in the first place, and we may well make that change at some point.
Approaching an airfield is different. It isn't a question of reducing the range or height band for which warnings are triggered, because that isn't how they work. They are far cleverer than that, and you would still want to be warned about some fast jet about to blast through the circuit.
@TimD - yeah that makes sense
I'd suggest for ground based ones, having it configurbale in settings but not to be changed in flight. e.g. if you fly in a ATZ or class D you might say don't tell me about anything until I'm 1k / 500feet. Whereas from an unctrolled airfield you may want it sooner.
For the circuit/join, as you say lots of permutations to worry about. . e.g. what if you want to overfly your destination at 5000 feet before you join. I think it would be impossible for the system to decide this and also unwise NOT to give the pilot the decision on whether they're "in" the circuit. Whilst I'm thinking about it - I've had the geo plates pop up on me before when I wasnt actually intending to land - isnt that a similar issue - the app may be TOO clever trying to determine when youre in the circuit?
.
However once in the circuit i think it is simpler. Whether its based on simple height and range or more complex TCAS like "rate of clouse" i think I'd just want it dialled down.
In your fast jet example - I think i'd rather accept less warnings at the benefit of not getting as much "alert fatigue". If you're in the circuit in an ATZ then a chance of a fast jet outside the ATZ being in conflict is way down the list of things to be notified about. Of course, if you're in uncontrolled airpsace the height/band / rate of closure should be larger for the reasons you state.
|
|
|
|
|
Tim Dawson
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.1K,
Visits: 9.4K
|
As a rule, we don't give options. Most users won't ever discover the option to start with. The users you implemented them for (a handful on a forum) will love them of course. No, it's much better to take one's time and implement a feature properly without forcing people to make choices whose implications they may not necessarily be fully aware of.
The lowest-hanging fruit to come out of this thread would be disabling collision warnings while you are on the ground. That is arguably the way the feature should have worked in the first place, and we may well make that change at some point.
Approaching an airfield is different. It isn't a question of reducing the range or height band for which warnings are triggered, because that isn't how they work. They are far cleverer than that, and you would still want to be warned about some fast jet about to blast through the circuit.
|
|
|
|