Important: These forums are for discussions between SkyDemon users. They are not routinely monitored by SkyDemon staff so any urgent issues should be sent directly to our Customer Support.

SE2 and SD traffic warnings


Author
Message
tnowak
tnowak
Too Much Forum (16K reputation)Too Much Forum (16K reputation)Too Much Forum (16K reputation)Too Much Forum (16K reputation)Too Much Forum (16K reputation)Too Much Forum (16K reputation)Too Much Forum (16K reputation)Too Much Forum (16K reputation)Too Much Forum (16K reputation)
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 243, Visits: 1.7K
The last time I flew with SE2 I went to a fairly busy airfield so was keeping a good visual lookout in the circuit and listening to SD audio traffic warnings.
I think it may be helpful if the order of the audio traffic warning information was in a different order.
At the moment the altitude of the "target" aircraft is announced last along with info if climbing, descending or level.
I had to listen to all the other info first before being able to decide if it is a likely threat or not.
If the warning info was re-ordered then SD users wouldn't have to listen to the whole warning before deciding if avoiding action was necessary.
Suggest the order is something like this:
Altitude (climbing/descending/level), position, crossing direction etc.

Tony

Tim Dawson
Tim Dawson
SkyDemon Team (562K reputation)SkyDemon Team (562K reputation)SkyDemon Team (562K reputation)SkyDemon Team (562K reputation)SkyDemon Team (562K reputation)SkyDemon Team (562K reputation)SkyDemon Team (562K reputation)SkyDemon Team (562K reputation)SkyDemon Team (562K reputation)
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.7K, Visits: 5.7K
This might be better in the suggestions forum so others can weigh in? The wording of SkyDemon traffic information is based firmly on well-established wording used by FIS operators. We've never changed it, and it's unlikely we would unless we started to receive lots of feedback that the current wording was inadequate.

I particularly disagree with your suggestion that the altitude of the other aircraft should come before its position. How would that help the pilot immediately look in the correct direction?

Let me know if you'd like this moved to Suggestions.

tnowak
tnowak
Too Much Forum (16K reputation)Too Much Forum (16K reputation)Too Much Forum (16K reputation)Too Much Forum (16K reputation)Too Much Forum (16K reputation)Too Much Forum (16K reputation)Too Much Forum (16K reputation)Too Much Forum (16K reputation)Too Much Forum (16K reputation)
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 243, Visits: 1.7K
Tim Dawson - 11/9/2020 9:22:11 AM
This might be better in the suggestions forum so others can weigh in? The wording of SkyDemon traffic information is based firmly on well-established wording used by FIS operators. We've never changed it, and it's unlikely we would unless we started to receive lots of feedback that the current wording was inadequate.

I particularly disagree with your suggestion that the altitude of the other aircraft should come before its position. How would that help the pilot immediately look in the correct direction?

Let me know if you'd like this moved to Suggestions.

Yes, please move to "suggestions" section.
My thinking of the height info being first is that I can ignore the rest of the audio warning it if the warning is "500 ft below".
Tony

Tim Dawson
Tim Dawson
SkyDemon Team (562K reputation)SkyDemon Team (562K reputation)SkyDemon Team (562K reputation)SkyDemon Team (562K reputation)SkyDemon Team (562K reputation)SkyDemon Team (562K reputation)SkyDemon Team (562K reputation)SkyDemon Team (562K reputation)SkyDemon Team (562K reputation)
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.7K, Visits: 5.7K
Why would you ignore it when the target might be climbing?
PaulSS
P
Too Much Forum (748 reputation)Too Much Forum (748 reputation)Too Much Forum (748 reputation)Too Much Forum (748 reputation)Too Much Forum (748 reputation)Too Much Forum (748 reputation)Too Much Forum (748 reputation)Too Much Forum (748 reputation)Too Much Forum (748 reputation)
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 53, Visits: 2.6K
No, let's just keep it how ATC would do it and how it's always been done. The tried and tested method has served us well for many years and there is really no need to change it.
tnowak
tnowak
Too Much Forum (16K reputation)Too Much Forum (16K reputation)Too Much Forum (16K reputation)Too Much Forum (16K reputation)Too Much Forum (16K reputation)Too Much Forum (16K reputation)Too Much Forum (16K reputation)Too Much Forum (16K reputation)Too Much Forum (16K reputation)
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 243, Visits: 1.7K
PaulSS - 11/11/2020 1:09:09 PM
No, let's just keep it how ATC would do it and how it's always been done. The tried and tested method has served us well for many years and there is really no need to change it.

My thinking is that ATC knows the height of conflicting target from their radar display and can see what is likely to happen.
So, probably announces the avoidance information in a certain order to suit the risk.
When having to wait for the full SD audio announcement in order to determine the risk level of the conflicting target, my suggestion was to have, in my opinion, the most important information first. That is, the height of the conflicting target first and whether level, climbing or descending.
However, I take your point about keeping things like ATC does it.
Thanks
Tony



PaulSS
P
Too Much Forum (748 reputation)Too Much Forum (748 reputation)Too Much Forum (748 reputation)Too Much Forum (748 reputation)Too Much Forum (748 reputation)Too Much Forum (748 reputation)Too Much Forum (748 reputation)Too Much Forum (748 reputation)Too Much Forum (748 reputation)
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 53, Visits: 2.6K
My thinking is that ATC knows the height of conflicting target from their radar display and can see what is likely to happen.
So, probably announces the avoidance information in a certain order to suit the risk.

ATC will always use the same format, Tony. They don't vary it according to what they perceive as the most relevant threat. Of course, if they saw an immediate danger then it would be perfectly acceptable to just instruct a climb etc and then follow up with the details but 99% of the time it will be "Traffic 2 o'clock, 3 miles, 200 ft above, descending through your level" etc. 

Peter Robertson
Peter Robertson
Too Much Forum (1.2K reputation)Too Much Forum (1.2K reputation)Too Much Forum (1.2K reputation)Too Much Forum (1.2K reputation)Too Much Forum (1.2K reputation)Too Much Forum (1.2K reputation)Too Much Forum (1.2K reputation)Too Much Forum (1.2K reputation)Too Much Forum (1.2K reputation)
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 36, Visits: 140
Tony,

I have significant experience over more than 40 years of the use of communications in a variety of fields - including military and civilian emergency services and ham radio, as well as in aviation, and strongly agree with Paul on this one.

The use of standard message formats and terminology is of vital importance in critical (or emergency) communications - especially in potentially stressful, busy, high noise or poor radio quality environments, as it helps the brain to subconsciously recognise, register, decode, interpret and act on the message, without distracting focus away from the job in hand - in our case flying the aircraft and continuing to maintain effective visual scan. For this reason it is essential that we keep the format and content of audio warnings as close as possible to the standard (ATC style) format.

Significant deviation or variation will only lead to confusion with potentially critical consequences.

Best Regards

Peter


Edited 11/14/2020 8:55:09 AM by Peter Robertson
grahamb
grahamb
Too Much Forum (2.8K reputation)Too Much Forum (2.8K reputation)Too Much Forum (2.8K reputation)Too Much Forum (2.8K reputation)Too Much Forum (2.8K reputation)Too Much Forum (2.8K reputation)Too Much Forum (2.8K reputation)Too Much Forum (2.8K reputation)Too Much Forum (2.8K reputation)
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 268, Visits: 12K
/thread and product drift/
For that very reason, PilotAware should colour code METAR consistently with the system used at military airfields. :-)

tnowak
tnowak
Too Much Forum (16K reputation)Too Much Forum (16K reputation)Too Much Forum (16K reputation)Too Much Forum (16K reputation)Too Much Forum (16K reputation)Too Much Forum (16K reputation)Too Much Forum (16K reputation)Too Much Forum (16K reputation)Too Much Forum (16K reputation)
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 243, Visits: 1.7K
I completely understand the comments about keeping to "standards" as employed by ATC.
It was only a suggestion that, perhaps, having height (including climbing/level/descending) announced first would help SE2 users quickly be able to determine if an audio alert needed pilot action straight away. 

My particular SE2 "experience" was on the last good flying day before lockdown Mk2.
It was a very busy circuit at Sandown (approx. 5 aircraft arriving at the same time) and not only was I keeping a good visual lookout (and having to fly the circuit twice due to airfield operational issues) but I also received two warnings about an aircraft overtaking me at 330 Kt whilst I was overflying the airfield.
This sort of un-nerved me and only at the end out the audio announcement did I hear that the overtaking aircraft was at 35,000 ft!
That audio alert was a SD glitch (reported in a separate post) but was the trigger for this post.

Out of interest what do you think the negative aspects of SD announcing height etc. first in the audio alert would be?
Tony

GO

Merge Selected

Merge into selected topic...



Merge into merge target...



Merge into a specific topic ID...




Reading This Topic

Login

Explore
Messages
Mentions
Search