By Tim Dawson - 9/7/2020 9:54:07 AM
You know there's a SkyDemon option to temporarily mute aural traffic warnings, right? Just tap the traffic radar then choose Silence All. It's as easy to undo it, too.
I'd rather not filter out all traffic below a certain altitude or height, wouldn't it be better to detect traffic that's on the ground if that's the problem? We could probably employ a check that used both the target's groundspeed and altitude to have a pretty good guess as to whether it was on the ground or not.
|
By grahamb - 9/7/2020 11:24:00 AM
+xYou know there's a SkyDemon option to temporarily mute aural traffic warnings, right? Just tap the traffic radar then choose Silence All. It's as easy to undo it, too.
I'd rather not filter out all traffic below a certain altitude or height, wouldn't it be better to detect traffic that's on the ground if that's the problem? We could probably employ a check that used both the target's groundspeed and altitude to have a pretty good guess as to whether it was on the ground or not. On the ground would certainly be my preference, as posted above. I'm aware of the 'silence all' option, but a) I don't like having to fiddle with stuff when on final, and b) on a go-around it's another thing to remember to switch back on, otherwise what's the point of EC if you don't enable it in the most MAC-risky phase of the flight? |
By PaulSS - 9/7/2020 12:48:39 PM
You know there's a SkyDemon option to temporarily mute aural traffic warnings, right? Just tap the traffic radar then choose Silence All. It's as easy to undo it, too.
I didn't know that, so thank you for the information. It is something I will certainly use in the future. I have read the manual abut there are lots of great features in SD and I often find myself forgetting some of the less-used (by me) ones.
Now, I know you have been working closely with Pilot Aware on the ground station stuff and maybe this is no longer an issue but I was getting continuous warnings from the airfield ground station and that is clearly not ideal. I have updated my PAW but have not yet flown with it, so maybe this problem has already been addressed by no longer showing ground station as aircraft. If not, then, yes, a zero groundspeed/altitude might be useful.
However, we are evidently all different. Graham wants to see and hear about circuit traffic. I'd just like to see circuit traffic and not hear about them below (for instance) 1500'. Now I know about the radar tapping I shall endeavour to bring it into my circuit-joining 'checks' but if I was ever offered the option of auto-muting below XXX ft (selectable) I would take advantage of it.
|
By fokus - 9/10/2020 2:14:17 PM
+xYou know there's a SkyDemon option to temporarily mute aural traffic warnings, right? Just tap the traffic radar then choose Silence All. It's as easy to undo it, too.
I'd rather not filter out all traffic below a certain altitude or height, wouldn't it be better to detect traffic that's on the ground if that's the problem? We could probably employ a check that used both the target's groundspeed and altitude to have a pretty good guess as to whether it was on the ground or not.
I would love that option!
|
By PaulSS - 9/11/2020 1:57:48 PM
A definite positive to the latest update of Pilot Aware/changing SD with Tim, seems to be no voice alerts about ground stations; which is great news. It would SEEM that ground stations are no longer treated as aircraft and so the warnings are suppressed. It made for a much nicer circuit experience the other day and no need to use my 'suppress all' function :-)
Also, MUCH better seeing ground stations as green/red 'antennas' and not aircraft symbols. Many thanks for implementing such an improvement.
|
By pilot-byom - 9/12/2020 9:29:12 AM
Looks like all targets reporting ground level are now suppressed? So we have to assume all reported altitudes have to be correct and aircraft sending no altitude or Zero are suppressed in collision warning?
|
By TimT - 10/4/2020 4:25:07 PM
+xLooks like all targets reporting ground level are now suppressed? So we have to assume all reported altitudes have to be correct and aircraft sending no altitude or Zero are suppressed in collision warning?
Let's just face it: The biggest mid-air risk is in the pattern, and at altitues below 1,000 FT AGL. This recent incident is a case in point:
Muting traffic alerts in this scenario, in my opinion, would be the wrong thing to do, despite the additional information load they create. It is exactly when there is lots of traffic, when you think you have seem (some) traffic and when it is already very busy that you need to additional awareness afforded by PCAS like PilotAware. That includes traffic that is straight below you.
Seeing the Original Post here it appears that individual needs can be very different. But SD, if you add additional filters, please make them optional.
|
By Tim Dawson - 10/5/2020 8:36:45 AM
Thank you for the helpful video about what happens when two aircraft crash.
No, we have not (yet) made any changes to the way this works.
It is possible that in the future we would decide an aircraft is on the ground if its groundspeed was nearly zero AND its altitude reported below a certain height AGL, and ignore it for the purposes of collision detection. Those two together would be quite a safe way of "proving" it. If they're very wrong, collision detection isn't going to work anyway.
|
By pilot-byom - 10/5/2020 10:09:08 AM
+xThank you for the helpful video about what happens when two aircraft crash.
No, we have not (yet) made any changes to the way this works.
It is possible that in the future we would decide an aircraft is on the ground if its groundspeed was nearly zero AND its altitude reported below a certain height AGL, and ignore it for the purposes of collision detection. Those two together would be quite a safe way of "proving" it. If they're very wrong, collision detection isn't going to work anyway. Giving recent experience, I'd vote not to spend too much effort into 'how to delete signals from the collision warning". One of the most prominent issues this virus times is certain pilots not looking out and entering the runway while someone is on short final. It is not very wise to omit the aircraft at the holding point on the ground at zero speed from collision warning for the approaching aircraft ... |
By grahamb - 10/5/2020 11:30:37 AM
+x+xThank you for the helpful video about what happens when two aircraft crash.
No, we have not (yet) made any changes to the way this works.
It is possible that in the future we would decide an aircraft is on the ground if its groundspeed was nearly zero AND its altitude reported below a certain height AGL, and ignore it for the purposes of collision detection. Those two together would be quite a safe way of "proving" it. If they're very wrong, collision detection isn't going to work anyway. Giving recent experience, I'd vote not to spend too much effort into 'how to delete signals from the collision warning". One of the most prominent issues this virus times is certain pilots not looking out and entering the runway while someone is on short final. It is not very wise to omit the aircraft at the holding point on the ground at zero speed from collision warning for the approaching aircraft ... I have to disagree. The one place I am looking when approaching to land is the runway. I've got past the stage where I shut my eyes and hope when on short final. |
By PaulSS - 10/14/2020 5:10:19 PM
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.
|
By marioair - 10/16/2020 4:01:11 PM
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.
|
By TimT - 10/16/2020 4:20:13 PM
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.
|
By pauls - 10/16/2020 4:56:36 PM
+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.
|
By pilot-byom - 10/17/2020 12:27:30 PM
+xWe should welcome a scenario where everything is visible, incl drones. No.
If there is a thread in the vicinity we have to find supporting solutions and it is most likely far beyond praying to the gods of technology, but - over-flooding the world and especially people not even involved in the particular situation with overwhelming and mostly useless information for them is the wrong way.
|
By marioair - 10/17/2020 8:18:47 PM
+x+xWe should welcome a scenario where everything is visible, incl drones. No.
If there is a thread in the vicinity we have to find supporting solutions and it is most likely far beyond praying to the gods of technology, but - over-flooding the world and especially people not even involved in the particular situation with overwhelming and mostly useless information for them is the wrong way.
|
By nmcgovern - 8/30/2020 4:33:47 PM
Hi folks,
Having now added a PA system to the aircraft, I'm seeing some great results with SkyDemon producing aural alerts for traffic. The one main issue I have is when joining the circuit, it just won't shut up. Today, I also had it warning about traffic at the hold when I took off. This can be very distracting and has had me shouting at SD to shut up, followed by trying to yank out the audio cable.
Would there be a way of adding a filter so that (say), it doesn't display any traffic warnings below a set value? I'd probably set mine at 1500ft AGL for example.
|
By rv8ch - 8/8/2022 9:55:21 AM
I'm still getting the occasional traffic alert from aircraft on the ground - is this a config option that I have not set right, or perhaps the other aircraft's ADS-B/FLARM is not working right? Thanks!
|
By rv8ch - 8/14/2022 10:45:11 AM
+xIt probably means the other aircraft are misconfigured such that they are reporting that they're in the air. Makes sense, since it's not all of these aircraft. Mostly gliders, which are lined up waiting to be towed. |
By rv8ch - 8/10/2022 7:39:21 AM
+xI'm still getting the occasional traffic alert from aircraft on the ground - is this a config option that I have not set right, or perhaps the other aircraft's ADS-B/FLARM is not working right? Thanks! Actually, to clarify, I don't get the alerts when I'm on the ground, but as soon as I rotate, it gives me warnings from all the aircraft on the ground behind me that are about to depart. |
By erchegyia - 8/10/2022 8:15:38 AM
+x+xI'm still getting the occasional traffic alert from aircraft on the ground - is this a config option that I have not set right, or perhaps the other aircraft's ADS-B/FLARM is not working right? Thanks! Actually, to clarify, I don't get the alerts when I'm on the ground, but as soon as I rotate, it gives me warnings from all the aircraft on the ground behind me that are about to depart. I have the same problem. I guess it depends on the used protocol as well. In the case of FLARM you have to rely on the ground speed, GDL90 has a very specific field: 
Just to make sure: I still prefer to see the traffic which is on the ground, just the warnings need to be suppressed.
|
By Tim Dawson - 8/10/2022 11:30:15 AM
It probably means the other aircraft are misconfigured such that they are reporting that they're in the air.
|
By pauls - 10/8/2020 11:18:07 AM
My setup - PaW Classic with audio fed into intercomm. Display on Skydemon.
I've staretd a thread running on the PaW forum on the same issue - the amount of audio alerts. Reason I've posted here is that I'd like the solution to be controlled via SD. Maybe a cheeky API integration?
Overall - I think its a BAD idea to mute audio alerts in the circuit - surely that's where you'll find lots of other planes!
However, it would be great to have the following options
1) No (or reduced*) audio alerts when you're "on the ground**". Rationale - if i operate from an ATZ environment i'm happy to have a quick glance at skydemon but audio warnings over OTT during takeoff
2) Reduced* audio alerts when in the circuit. I think its will be impossible to do - how would PaW know you're in the circuit. This is where something in SD would be neat a button called "i'm in the circuit Tim, please be quiet, I need to concentrate" - But my nirvana here- if I've set PaW to alert me on traffic in 10km - that's useful for the cruise. But not so much for a circuit. Like wise if there's traffic 2000ft above me in the circuit, I'm not (immimently) worried about it. "even better if" - if i'm facing downwind i care about traffic on final converging with me. I dont care so much about traffic converging from behind me as that's how circuits work
* reduced range and height from me versus cruise notification
** my speed < 20kts AND AGL<100ft for example
|
By pilot-byom - 10/8/2020 11:26:50 AM
+xMy setup - PaW Classic with audio fed into intercomm. Display on Skydemon. I've staretd a thread running on the PaW forum on the same issue - the amount of audio alerts. Reason I've posted here is that I'd like the solution to be controlled via SD. Maybe a cheeky API integration?
Overall - I think its a BAD idea to mute audio alerts in the circuit - surely that's where you'll find lots of other planes!
However, it would be great to have the following options
1) No (or reduced*) audio alerts when you're "on the ground**". Rationale - if i operate from an ATZ environment i'm happy to have a quick glance at skydemon but audio warnings over OTT during takeoff
2) Reduced* audio alerts when in the circuit. I think its will be impossible to do - how would PaW know you're in the circuit. This is where something in SD would be neat a button called "i'm in the circuit Tim, please be quiet, I need to concentrate" - But my nirvana here- if I've set PaW to alert me on traffic in 10km - that's useful for the cruise. But not so much for a circuit. Like wise if there's traffic 2000ft above me in the circuit, I'm not (immimently) worried about it. "even better if" - if i'm facing downwind i care about traffic on final converging with me. I dont care so much about traffic converging from behind me as that's how circuits work
* reduced range and height from me versus cruise notification
** my speed < 20kts AND AGL<100ft for example
You are turning these consumer grade devices from TCAS I (TA) into maybe TCAS IV or higher (automated anti collision steering). This is experimental terrain, even in the commercial world. Do we really believe we should awake the Feature Creep on a Skydemon level? |
By pauls - 10/8/2020 11:35:45 AM
+x+xMy setup - PaW Classic with audio fed into intercomm. Display on Skydemon. I've staretd a thread running on the PaW forum on the same issue - the amount of audio alerts. Reason I've posted here is that I'd like the solution to be controlled via SD. Maybe a cheeky API integration?
Overall - I think its a BAD idea to mute audio alerts in the circuit - surely that's where you'll find lots of other planes!
However, it would be great to have the following options
1) No (or reduced*) audio alerts when you're "on the ground**". Rationale - if i operate from an ATZ environment i'm happy to have a quick glance at skydemon but audio warnings over OTT during takeoff
2) Reduced* audio alerts when in the circuit. I think its will be impossible to do - how would PaW know you're in the circuit. This is where something in SD would be neat a button called "i'm in the circuit Tim, please be quiet, I need to concentrate" - But my nirvana here- if I've set PaW to alert me on traffic in 10km - that's useful for the cruise. But not so much for a circuit. Like wise if there's traffic 2000ft above me in the circuit, I'm not (immimently) worried about it. "even better if" - if i'm facing downwind i care about traffic on final converging with me. I dont care so much about traffic converging from behind me as that's how circuits work
* reduced range and height from me versus cruise notification
** my speed < 20kts AND AGL<100ft for example
You are turning these consumer grade equipment from TCAS I (TA) into maybe TCAS IV or higher (automated anti collision steering). This is experimental terrain, even in the commercial world. Do we really believe we should awake the Feature Creep on a Skydemon level? hmmm, i disagree
TCAS has algorithms which are dynamic. it also mandates/advise actions. What i'm talking about is a user controlled option to tell the EC device/data, to reduce it's sensitivity during certain stages of flight. You can do this already in PaW for example - you set the height and distance and type of traffic you want to know about. My assertion in the circuit is that you want to know about stuff alot closer to you and on take off you probably want to know even less
the reason for postin on here rather than PaW (although I have on their forum too) is a usability one. I can do what i've suggested already through the PaW admin/app. But it'd be more dangerous fiddling with those settings in the take off roll or when doing an OHJ!
the "feature creep" that may be interesting is a two way interaction between SD/EFBs and EC devices. At the moment the EC device broadcasts on UDP and SD/EFBs fairly dumbly (no offence) display the data. That is why they are NOT TCAS devices. However if the EC device is API enabled, you can allow the EFC to at least control the existing parameters dynamically, with the EC device still be responsible for deciding what data packets to transmit and using it's internal algorithms. The SD wouldn't be doing nay filtering out etc
|
By pauls - 10/9/2020 9:07:39 AM
+x+x+xMy setup - PaW Classic with audio fed into intercomm. Display on Skydemon. I've staretd a thread running on the PaW forum on the same issue - the amount of audio alerts. Reason I've posted here is that I'd like the solution to be controlled via SD. Maybe a cheeky API integration?
Overall - I think its a BAD idea to mute audio alerts in the circuit - surely that's where you'll find lots of other planes!
However, it would be great to have the following options
1) No (or reduced*) audio alerts when you're "on the ground**". Rationale - if i operate from an ATZ environment i'm happy to have a quick glance at skydemon but audio warnings over OTT during takeoff
2) Reduced* audio alerts when in the circuit. I think its will be impossible to do - how would PaW know you're in the circuit. This is where something in SD would be neat a button called "i'm in the circuit Tim, please be quiet, I need to concentrate" - But my nirvana here- if I've set PaW to alert me on traffic in 10km - that's useful for the cruise. But not so much for a circuit. Like wise if there's traffic 2000ft above me in the circuit, I'm not (immimently) worried about it. "even better if" - if i'm facing downwind i care about traffic on final converging with me. I dont care so much about traffic converging from behind me as that's how circuits work
* reduced range and height from me versus cruise notification
** my speed < 20kts AND AGL<100ft for example
You are turning these consumer grade equipment from TCAS I (TA) into maybe TCAS IV or higher (automated anti collision steering). This is experimental terrain, even in the commercial world. Do we really believe we should awake the Feature Creep on a Skydemon level? hmmm, i disagree
TCAS has algorithms which are dynamic. it also mandates/advise actions. What i'm talking about is a user controlled option to tell the EC device/data, to reduce it's sensitivity during certain stages of flight. You can do this already in PaW for example - you set the height and distance and type of traffic you want to know about. My assertion in the circuit is that you want to know about stuff alot closer to you and on take off you probably want to know even less
the reason for postin on here rather than PaW (although I have on their forum too) is a usability one. I can do what i've suggested already through the PaW admin/app. But it'd be more dangerous fiddling with those settings in the take off roll or when doing an OHJ!
the "feature creep" that may be interesting is a two way interaction between SD/EFBs and EC devices. At the moment the EC device broadcasts on UDP and SD/EFBs fairly dumbly (no offence) display the data. That is why they are NOT TCAS devices. However if the EC device is API enabled, you can allow the EFC to at least control the existing parameters dynamically, with the EC device still be responsible for deciding what data packets to transmit and using it's internal algorithms. The SD wouldn't be doing nay filtering out etc @Tim is it worth splitting out my recent suggestion to a seperate thread? it kind of answers the same problem statement as the original poster but with a different solution |
By TimT - 10/9/2020 9:15:46 AM
+x+x+x+xMy setup - PaW Classic with audio fed into intercomm. Display on Skydemon. I've staretd a thread running on the PaW forum on the same issue - the amount of audio alerts. Reason I've posted here is that I'd like the solution to be controlled via SD. Maybe a cheeky API integration?
Overall - I think its a BAD idea to mute audio alerts in the circuit - surely that's where you'll find lots of other planes!
However, it would be great to have the following options
1) No (or reduced*) audio alerts when you're "on the ground**". Rationale - if i operate from an ATZ environment i'm happy to have a quick glance at skydemon but audio warnings over OTT during takeoff
2) Reduced* audio alerts when in the circuit. I think its will be impossible to do - how would PaW know you're in the circuit. This is where something in SD would be neat a button called "i'm in the circuit Tim, please be quiet, I need to concentrate" - But my nirvana here- if I've set PaW to alert me on traffic in 10km - that's useful for the cruise. But not so much for a circuit. Like wise if there's traffic 2000ft above me in the circuit, I'm not (immimently) worried about it. "even better if" - if i'm facing downwind i care about traffic on final converging with me. I dont care so much about traffic converging from behind me as that's how circuits work
* reduced range and height from me versus cruise notification
** my speed < 20kts AND AGL<100ft for example
You are turning these consumer grade equipment from TCAS I (TA) into maybe TCAS IV or higher (automated anti collision steering). This is experimental terrain, even in the commercial world. Do we really believe we should awake the Feature Creep on a Skydemon level? hmmm, i disagree
TCAS has algorithms which are dynamic. it also mandates/advise actions. What i'm talking about is a user controlled option to tell the EC device/data, to reduce it's sensitivity during certain stages of flight. You can do this already in PaW for example - you set the height and distance and type of traffic you want to know about. My assertion in the circuit is that you want to know about stuff alot closer to you and on take off you probably want to know even less
the reason for postin on here rather than PaW (although I have on their forum too) is a usability one. I can do what i've suggested already through the PaW admin/app. But it'd be more dangerous fiddling with those settings in the take off roll or when doing an OHJ!
the "feature creep" that may be interesting is a two way interaction between SD/EFBs and EC devices. At the moment the EC device broadcasts on UDP and SD/EFBs fairly dumbly (no offence) display the data. That is why they are NOT TCAS devices. However if the EC device is API enabled, you can allow the EFC to at least control the existing parameters dynamically, with the EC device still be responsible for deciding what data packets to transmit and using it's internal algorithms. The SD wouldn't be doing nay filtering out etc @Tim is it worth splitting out my recent suggestion to a seperate thread? it kind of answers the same problem statement as the original poster but with a different solution Nah, I think this is the right thread. |
By pauls - 10/9/2020 9:23:13 AM
+x+x+x+x+xMy setup - PaW Classic with audio fed into intercomm. Display on Skydemon. I've staretd a thread running on the PaW forum on the same issue - the amount of audio alerts. Reason I've posted here is that I'd like the solution to be controlled via SD. Maybe a cheeky API integration?
Overall - I think its a BAD idea to mute audio alerts in the circuit - surely that's where you'll find lots of other planes!
However, it would be great to have the following options
1) No (or reduced*) audio alerts when you're "on the ground**". Rationale - if i operate from an ATZ environment i'm happy to have a quick glance at skydemon but audio warnings over OTT during takeoff
2) Reduced* audio alerts when in the circuit. I think its will be impossible to do - how would PaW know you're in the circuit. This is where something in SD would be neat a button called "i'm in the circuit Tim, please be quiet, I need to concentrate" - But my nirvana here- if I've set PaW to alert me on traffic in 10km - that's useful for the cruise. But not so much for a circuit. Like wise if there's traffic 2000ft above me in the circuit, I'm not (immimently) worried about it. "even better if" - if i'm facing downwind i care about traffic on final converging with me. I dont care so much about traffic converging from behind me as that's how circuits work
* reduced range and height from me versus cruise notification
** my speed < 20kts AND AGL<100ft for example
You are turning these consumer grade equipment from TCAS I (TA) into maybe TCAS IV or higher (automated anti collision steering). This is experimental terrain, even in the commercial world. Do we really believe we should awake the Feature Creep on a Skydemon level? hmmm, i disagree
TCAS has algorithms which are dynamic. it also mandates/advise actions. What i'm talking about is a user controlled option to tell the EC device/data, to reduce it's sensitivity during certain stages of flight. You can do this already in PaW for example - you set the height and distance and type of traffic you want to know about. My assertion in the circuit is that you want to know about stuff alot closer to you and on take off you probably want to know even less
the reason for postin on here rather than PaW (although I have on their forum too) is a usability one. I can do what i've suggested already through the PaW admin/app. But it'd be more dangerous fiddling with those settings in the take off roll or when doing an OHJ!
the "feature creep" that may be interesting is a two way interaction between SD/EFBs and EC devices. At the moment the EC device broadcasts on UDP and SD/EFBs fairly dumbly (no offence) display the data. That is why they are NOT TCAS devices. However if the EC device is API enabled, you can allow the EFC to at least control the existing parameters dynamically, with the EC device still be responsible for deciding what data packets to transmit and using it's internal algorithms. The SD wouldn't be doing nay filtering out etc @Tim is it worth splitting out my recent suggestion to a seperate thread? it kind of answers the same problem statement as the original poster but with a different solution Nah, I think this is the right thread. Thanks @TimT I meant @TimD :-)
|
By Tim Dawson - 10/9/2020 9:23:59 AM
We're very conservative about adding anything like this, and I can't see us doing any conferring with the traffic device behind the scenes. It is right that traffic devices give data on all known traffic to the navigation app, and the latter decides what to do with it. Far from being a dumb display, SkyDemon's vocal traffic information service is the best of its kind.
I acknowledge that people would like something different while in the approach phase of flight, but it's by no means clear that there is a consensus on this at this stage. It's likely we won't develop a significant enhancement to traffic alerts in this phase of flight until one emerges. For the moment you have the option to silence the vocal alerts and then incorporate the display into your scan as you see fit.
|
By pauls - 10/9/2020 9:39:29 AM
+xWe're very conservative about adding anything like this, and I can't see us doing any conferring with the traffic device behind the scenes. It is right that traffic devices give data on all known traffic to the navigation app, and the latter decides what to do with it. Far from being a dumb display, SkyDemon's vocal traffic information service is the best of its kind.
I acknowledge that people would like something different while in the approach phase of flight, but it's by no means clear that there is a consensus on this at this stage. It's likely we won't develop a significant enhancement to traffic alerts in this phase of flight until one emerges. For the moment you have the option to silence the vocal alerts and then incorporate the display into your scan as you see fit. @TimD - you've misunderstood my comment about "dumb" . What i meant was I assume you had no appetite for SD to actively filter out EC data sent from an external source. Looks like you're saying that may not be the case, in which case my proposal changes. See below
The other nuance of course is that some people use the EC devices audio in preference to the SD one. I prefer to SD one, but it doesnt give my bearginless alerts. Hence the suggestion of SD being able to have a two way interaction with EC devices, to tell the EC device to shut up / reduce sensitivty (range/heigh) at certain stages of flight
So, not withstanding the above suggestion, of SD telling EC device to change it's output..... If you're willing to consider a more intelligent traffic system based on phase of flight, I still think an adjustment to my original proposal still meets peoples requirements without making SD overly complex:
However, it would be great to have the following options SD knows when you are on the ground* or can prompt to say "put me in ground mode" SD can prompt when you're near the circuit/atz of your destination and prompt to say "put me in circuit mode"
Then...
1) In Ground Mode - No (or reduced**) audio alerts when you're "on the ground". Rationale - if i operate from an ATZ environment i'm happy to have a quick glance at skydemon but audio warnings over OTT during takeoff
2) In Circuit Mode - Reduced** audio alerts when in the circuit. I think its will be possible to do
* my speed < 20kts AND AGL<100ft for example ** reduced range and height from me versus cruise notification
|
By TimT - 10/9/2020 9:44:43 AM
+xWe're very conservative about adding anything like this, and I can't see us doing any conferring with the traffic device behind the scenes. It is right that traffic devices give data on all known traffic to the navigation app, and the latter decides what to do with it. Far from being a dumb display, SkyDemon's vocal traffic information service is the best of its kind.
I acknowledge that people would like something different while in the approach phase of flight, but it's by no means clear that there is a consensus on this at this stage. It's likely we won't develop a significant enhancement to traffic alerts in this phase of flight until one emerges. For the moment you have the option to silence the vocal alerts and then incorporate the display into your scan as you see fit. I am indeed very happy with SD's intelligent filtering of traffic alerts passed onto it by PAW. |
By grahamb - 10/9/2020 10:43:33 AM
+xWe're very conservative about adding anything like this, and I can't see us doing any conferring with the traffic device behind the scenes. It is right that traffic devices give data on all known traffic to the navigation app, and the latter decides what to do with it. Far from being a dumb display, SkyDemon's vocal traffic information service is the best of its kind.
I acknowledge that people would like something different while in the approach phase of flight, but it's by no means clear that there is a consensus on this at this stage. It's likely we won't develop a significant enhancement to traffic alerts in this phase of flight until one emerges. For the moment you have the option to silence the vocal alerts and then incorporate the display into your scan as you see fit. I'd still like to lobby hard for a simple solution whereby a setup option is provided to suppress audio warnings for traffic determined to be on the ground. I don't want to be finding buttons on the screen to touch when I'm on final nor remembering to do it again in a go-around. Nothing complex, just you either want the aural warnings or not. All other traffic still gets announced.
Solutions that rely on a handshake with an EC device are a non-starter, and anything where the options are complex will just lead to lack of understanding by the users. This in itself carries risks of pilots assuming that SD will warn them of something when it actually won't, because the setup options are not obvious.
It's interesting browsing the PAW forum, where time and time again the same questions get asked, or the same issues are encountered, because people just don't understand what they've bought and/or don't RTFM.
|
By pauls - 10/9/2020 10:50:19 AM
+x+xWe're very conservative about adding anything like this, and I can't see us doing any conferring with the traffic device behind the scenes. It is right that traffic devices give data on all known traffic to the navigation app, and the latter decides what to do with it. Far from being a dumb display, SkyDemon's vocal traffic information service is the best of its kind.
I acknowledge that people would like something different while in the approach phase of flight, but it's by no means clear that there is a consensus on this at this stage. It's likely we won't develop a significant enhancement to traffic alerts in this phase of flight until one emerges. For the moment you have the option to silence the vocal alerts and then incorporate the display into your scan as you see fit. I'd still like to lobby hard for a simple solution whereby a setup option is provided to suppress audio warnings for traffic determined to be on the ground. I don't want to be finding buttons on the screen to touch when I'm on final nor remembering to do it again in a go-around. Nothing complex, just you either want the aural warnings or not. All other traffic still gets announced.
Solutions that rely on a handshake with an EC device are a non-starter, and anything where the options are complex will just lead to lack of understanding by the users. This in itself carries risks of pilots assuming that SD will warn them of something when it actually won't, because the setup options are not obvious.
It's interesting browsing the PAW forum, where time and time again the same questions get asked, or the same issues are encountered, because people just don't understand what they've bought and/or don't RTFM.
Graham - don't think we're asking for something different. I'd see the "prompt me" to "just do it" being user options.
of course, from a "safety perspective" i'd say that "just do it" can be a double edge sword. At least and "alert" to tell you that the "sensitivity" has been reduced automatically may be wise
|
By Tim Dawson - 10/9/2020 1:40:35 PM
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.
|
By pauls - 10/9/2020 3:17:22 PM
+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.
|
By grahamb - 10/9/2020 3:45:59 PM
@ 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'.
|
By pauls - 10/9/2020 4:12:34 PM
I fly from Biggin. I'd be happy to trial something
|
By PaulSS - 10/11/2020 5:27:22 PM
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.
|
By Tim Dawson - 10/12/2020 8:23:24 AM
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.
|
By Tim Dawson - 10/20/2020 8:06:33 AM
The next release of SkyDemon does now ignore aircraft that we think are on the ground, while you are flying. There are two ways in which we judge an aircraft to be on the ground:
1. Its ADS-B packet tells us that it is on the ground (we check this with its reported speed, too) or 2. For protocols that are not ADS-B based, we need its speed to be below 10 knots AND its reported GPS altitude to be below terrain elevation plus 200 feet.
SkyDemon already omits to give traffic information updates when you are on the ground yourself.
|
By grahamb - 10/20/2020 8:36:59 AM
+xThe next release of SkyDemon does now ignore aircraft that we think are on the ground, while you are flying. There are two ways in which we judge an aircraft to be on the ground:
1. Its ADS-B packet tells us that it is on the ground (we check this with its reported speed, too) or 2. For protocols that are not ADS-B based, we need its speed to be below 10 knots AND its reported GPS altitude to be below terrain elevation plus 200 feet.
SkyDemon already omits to give traffic information updates when you are on the ground yourself. Thank you Tim, I look forward to testing it!
(Assuming I'm ever allowed to fly again by the Welsh government  ) |
By marioair - 10/20/2020 2:27:11 PM
Sir Tim - thanks!
Would be good for a “cherry on the top” to have
1) the ability to switch this on and off (to keep naysayers happy)
2) I still find it distracting on final approach as well.
Here I think they best option would be to prompt the user via a dialog to confirm if they’re joining for approach. This could serve several purposes
A) bring up approach charts, VFR geo-ref plates etc, show joining / circuit pattern. SD does this all today but sometimes you don’t want these features at the time they appear
B) use the same dialog to then adjust the traffic audio. There’s been some really good suggestions on algorithmically how to do this. Eg if you normally warn on traffic +\- 2000ft then reduce this whilst within 3nm of AD
|
|