Author Topic: Enhancement Requests  (Read 237689 times)

AlanG

Re: Enhancement Requests
« Reply #285 on: January 05, 2017, 08:55:56 pm »
Hi Pwwuk

Audio alerts via bluetooth are currently available using a small add-on device.
See this forum link. http://forum.pilotaware.com/index.php/topic,516.msg9100.html#msg9100

the link to the item is here. http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/2-in-1-Wireless-Bluetooth-Audio-Music-Transmitter-Receiver-Adapter-Two-Way-A2DP-/272048764056?hash=item3f575eb498

Alan

mo0g

Re: Enhancement Requests
« Reply #286 on: March 29, 2017, 09:40:54 am »
Not sure if this has been mentioned in the previous pages, or is feasible, but aside from when testing, or just being interested watching the traffic, would there be any way to exclude commercial traffic?  There is no reason any of us needing to be warned about airliners operating in and out of our major airports.

This may be something that needs to be worked on, on the nav app side, where it may be easier to filter out traffic within the major airspace, or be able to use more complex algorithms.

exfirepro

Re: Enhancement Requests
« Reply #287 on: March 29, 2017, 11:23:54 am »
Not sure if this has been mentioned in the previous pages, or is feasible, but aside from when testing, or just being interested watching the traffic, would there be any way to exclude commercial traffic?  There is no reason any of us needing to be warned about airliners operating in and out of our major airports.

Hi Mark,

Sorry but I have to disagree. We operate outside but very close to Edinburgh CTA (as do many other airfields - different CTAs obviously), and have regular overflights by commercial aircraft descending into the approach pattern. Areas such as around Aberdeen also have literally hundreds of low level flights by commercial helicopters and light fixed wing aircraft, so excluding commercial traffic would be difficult to achieve and potentially dangerous.

If you don't want to see high altitude contacts, you should be able to filter them out yourself using the altitude filters in your nav system, but I would certainly be dead against deliberately excluding commercial traffic.

Regards

Peter
« Last Edit: March 29, 2017, 11:26:03 am by exfirepro »

brinzlee

Re: Enhancement Requests
« Reply #288 on: March 29, 2017, 11:29:37 am »
I agree with Peter....That would be a retrograde step, more and more GA are finding ways to enable ADSB with their own transponders and PilotAware. As Peter suggested if their are too many commercial flights on your navigational software decrease the height filter.....I don't think many of the airliners at 30,000 feet are considered much of a threat at the moment !!

mo0g

Re: Enhancement Requests
« Reply #289 on: March 29, 2017, 12:40:06 pm »
I operate between Heathrow and Gatwick, so I know all about low level commercial aircraft, however these operate within strictly controlled zones/cta/tmas etc, and GA should be never busting that airspace, and if we did ATC would be routing traffic away from us.  When we do get permission to fly in/through those zones it is via agreed limits/routes which do not impact on their traffic.

Any airfield within or under CTAs will also have set limits on their operations so conflicting with commercial traffic is nigh on impossible, and again, if you did somehow fly outside those limits and come into potential conflict, you wont need PAW to help you avoid that traffic, ATC will be doing that before you even know you have busted airspace.

Unless I am missing something?

Or lets put it another way, PAW is for GA to avoid conflicts with other GA traffic, not airliners, right?

Now, I accept that this may not be possible due to PAW simply detecting ADSB and not being able to determine whether that is a 787 or just a spamcan with ADSB enabled, but that is a different issue from GA traffic NEEDING to be warned about airliners operating in and out of our major airports.  It is also something which Nav software can potentially do, based on track (into a major airport for example).

There may be other scenarios where a PAW user is in danger of conflicting with commercial traffic too, which I havent thought of, but even so, an option to turn off/on the traffic, if it were possible, would be an "enhancement" from my perspective.

grahambaker

Re: Enhancement Requests
« Reply #290 on: March 29, 2017, 02:53:30 pm »
There are commercial movements outside of CAS in a number of locations around the UK. Also, there places abroad where Class E is prevalent and you can find IFR and uncontrolled VFR traffic mixing it separated only by 500'.

In all these circumstances, filtering out of 'commercial' traffic would be unwise.

Another factor to be considered is that of wake turbulence. There are plenty of videos on YouTube and the like of serious upsets to GA aircraft caused by proximity to CAT. If operating under a CTA or TCA where there are movements of large aircraft, I think I'd rather know where they are than pretend they didn't exist.


T67M

Re: Enhancement Requests
« Reply #291 on: March 29, 2017, 06:19:07 pm »
I regularly fly my SEP through Gatwick and Stansted airspace. Simply using the altitude filters to remove stuff well above me means than I can use PAW to watch the traffic on final and be ready for the crossing clearance because I have the "big picture". The one annoyance is that the audio alerts keep warning me about traffic 10km away and there is no distance filter. If it's more than 3km away, I don't want an audio alert - it will never be an immediate safety concern to me, and unless it's a 747, I won't even be able to see it!

mo0g

Re: Enhancement Requests
« Reply #292 on: March 29, 2017, 06:24:53 pm »
I regularly fly my SEP through Gatwick and Stansted airspace. Simply using the altitude filters to remove stuff well above me means than I can use PAW to watch the traffic on final and be ready for the crossing clearance because I have the "big picture". The one annoyance is that the audio alerts keep warning me about traffic 10km away and there is no distance filter. If it's more than 3km away, I don't want an audio alert - it will never be an immediate safety concern to me, and unless it's a 747, I won't even be able to see it!

I havent tried using the audio alerts in PAW yet, and it is precisely the commercial traffic into and out of Heathrow and Gatwick which would stop me using it.  If I were getting constant audio alerts they would lose their impact, or I would stop using them, which again makes the option of somehow filtering out commercial traffic an "enhancement" for me.

My only concern is to see, and be seen by, other GA bimbling around.  I assume your crossing clearances at Gatwick and Stanstead factor in any wake turbulence potential?  I can possibly see how using PAW for commercial traffic may be useful in that very very limited scenario, but again its not the raison d'etre for PAW afaik.

Ian Melville

Re: Enhancement Requests
« Reply #293 on: March 29, 2017, 08:09:10 pm »
Quote
but again its not the raison d'etre for PAW afaik.
Quote
PAW is for GA to avoid conflicts with other GA traffic, not airliners, right?

Isn't it? I thought the whole idea was to stop anyone bumping into anything airborne! There is enough CAT in my usual Class G airspace to make that a non-starter. However, I can see your problem.

I doubt the Pi has enough power to compute all the airspace(or just Class A) and traffic within it. Then you would have to have updates with the AIRINC data each month. Which countries would it cover? PAW has an international reach.

Filtering by call sign or class or aircraft is also a non-starter as you have no idea of the intent of the flight.

The only way I can see PAW being able to do anything is by 'Trajectory Prediction', and IIRC this is a route Lee was unwilling to go down.

What I don't understand is that you are not using audio alerts, so how is the display of CAT on SD et al, causing an issue?

mo0g

Re: Enhancement Requests
« Reply #294 on: March 29, 2017, 08:15:54 pm »

What I don't understand is that you are not using audio alerts, so how is the display of CAT on SD et al, causing an issue?

It isnt causing a problem.  This wasnt a problem report, but an enhancement idea - being able to disable CAT alerts for those of us utterly unconcerned about bumping into traffic being controlled by ATC into Heathrow or Gatwick.  Apart from anything else, I'd be upset if I didnt spot an airliner on a collision course.

Does anyone have any info on airprox incidents between CAT and GA aircraft, say for the last 20 years?  I am surprised that PAW considers such avoidance a feature, never mind as a primary purpose :)

Ian Melville

Re: Enhancement Requests
« Reply #295 on: March 29, 2017, 08:57:03 pm »
https://www.airproxboard.org.uk/Reports-and-analysis/Annual-Airprox-summary-reports/

Knock yourself out  :o

I picked one report at random and there were 13 CAT v GA in a six month period Jan - Jun 2005, 19 in the same period in 2006, so yes they do happen. I am struggling to pick out the same stats for 2015, though there is a lot more data and analysis.

exfirepro

Re: Enhancement Requests
« Reply #296 on: March 30, 2017, 12:31:22 am »
Mark,

You have certainly opened a can of worms ! Whilst I fully appreciate your comments if operating only in the vicinity of such large and closely controlled airports as Heathrow and Gatwick, I can assure you that in the wider world, Commercial Aircraft regularly operate outside controlled airspace at levels where they can easily come into conflict with GA, including Microlight or Glider traffic operating perfectly legally within the same uncontrolled airspace environment. Using the listening squawks, we regularly hear our local ATC advise in or outbound CAT of the presence of uncontrolled GA traffic and if requested by ATC are happy to exchange information with them regarding our proposed routing, maximum altitude etc. which allows ATC to guide the descent of the inbound aircraft to our mutual benefit and with minimum disruption to either.

I consider the ability to see CAT traffic on screen as well as all other electronically visible traffic to be an essential part of PilotAware's armoury. I could give you many instances where it has already proved mutually beneficial. As ADSB targets are clearly visible and trackable from a long way out, their presence on screen has in my experience never proved detrimental and PilotAware's audio alerts for known position targets are well refined and extremely unlikely to cause major interference, though in your case being so close to Heathrow, I accept that you might want to keep the volume setting low.

Regards

Peter
« Last Edit: March 30, 2017, 12:34:34 am by exfirepro »

mo0g

Re: Enhancement Requests
« Reply #297 on: March 30, 2017, 08:51:30 am »
https://www.airproxboard.org.uk/Reports-and-analysis/Annual-Airprox-summary-reports/

Knock yourself out  :o

I picked one report at random and there were 13 CAT v GA in a six month period Jan - Jun 2005, 19 in the same period in 2006, so yes they do happen. I am struggling to pick out the same stats for 2015, though there is a lot more data and analysis.

Lies, damned lies and statistics :)

It is heavy reading and I havent found the specific section within that report, but moving through it in the CAT section there were zero risk A incidents, and a bit further along, among the causal factors there were only 3 of the total airprox incidents attributed to the pilot not seeing the other traffic.  That is for all the CAT incidents, not CAT v GA.  So I could equally take that as proof CAT v GA, caused by not being able to see the other traffic and needing proximity warnings, is not a problem I need to be worried about.

To reiterate, as PAW does pick up airliners, and if some people do feel they NEED those warnings, then that is fine.  I am simply suggesting that not only do I feel I do not need to be warned about CAT, being warned about CAT where I fly will likely prevent me from enabling aural warnings, so having the option to turn that off would be a significant enhancement.

When I operate in the South East, I am much more concerned about traffic using the rat runs avoiding Heathrow and Gatwick airspace, an was the primary reason I decided to buy PAW.  I still consider it a worthy purchase :)

mo0g

Re: Enhancement Requests
« Reply #298 on: March 30, 2017, 09:05:09 am »
Mark,

You have certainly opened a can of worms ! Whilst I fully appreciate your comments if operating only in the vicinity of such large and closely controlled airports as Heathrow and Gatwick, I can assure you that in the wider world, Commercial Aircraft regularly operate outside controlled airspace at levels where they can easily come into conflict with GA, including Microlight or Glider traffic operating perfectly legally within the same uncontrolled airspace environment. Using the listening squawks, we regularly hear our local ATC advise in or outbound CAT of the presence of uncontrolled GA traffic and if requested by ATC are happy to exchange information with them regarding our proposed routing, maximum altitude etc. which allows ATC to guide the descent of the inbound aircraft to our mutual benefit and with minimum disruption to either.

I consider the ability to see CAT traffic on screen as well as all other electronically visible traffic to be an essential part of PilotAware's armoury. I could give you many instances where it has already proved mutually beneficial. As ADSB targets are clearly visible and trackable from a long way out, their presence on screen has in my experience never proved detrimental and PilotAware's audio alerts for known position targets are well refined and extremely unlikely to cause major interference, though in your case being so close to Heathrow, I accept that you might want to keep the volume setting low.

Regards

Peter

Yes, I can see how for some it is useful or even essential, but again within your examples above we can see ATC have much better sight of possible conflicts, and will advise and route CAT accordingly.  That GA traffic is not in danger of being hit by an airliner, and I would also suggest that the pilot of the GA aircraft is either so lost/confused, or so irresponsible that if they had a PAW device I do not think it would have stopped them busting CAS.  I also do not think ATC would be altering the inbound course of CAT to fit in with you ;)

A wider issue here which I think it pertinent is that us pilots who have bought PAW, or are thinking about it, are already conscientious enough to be at low risk of busting CAS and ever putting ourselves in any danger (not that I think there is any danger for reasons previously given) of collision with CAT.  We will be using radios, talking or listening to the relevant units, have transponders, be using nav software, most likely of the moving map variety, have planned routes etc etc.  I am not ruling out that we might bust CAS, but again we will likely discover that via our GPS software, or having ATC telling us.  IMO obviously :)

exfirepro

Re: Enhancement Requests
« Reply #299 on: March 30, 2017, 09:56:35 am »
Yes, I can see how for some it is useful or even essential, but again within your examples above we can see ATC have much better sight of possible conflicts, and will advise and route CAT accordingly.  That GA traffic is not in danger of being hit by an airliner, and I would also suggest that the pilot of the GA aircraft is either so lost/confused, or so irresponsible that if they had a PAW device I do not think it would have stopped them busting CAS.  I also do not think ATC would be altering the inbound course of CAT to fit in with you ;)

Mark,

You seem to be missing the point. We are NOT busting controlled airspace. We are flying perfectly legally in class G airspace, but are, responsibly, letting ATC know where we are by transponding and using the listening squawk to let them know that they can, if necessary, call up and speak to us or advise us of (usually) inbounds, which drop to 2,500 ft as they approach and enter the east stub of the CTA.

A perfect recent example was, routing to the south of the Edinburgh CTA stub at approximately 3,000ft, on a particularly damp and cold day, (testing PAW development software), I heard an inbound shuttle (which I could already see on my screen some way out) request urgent and immediate descent due to severe wing icing. Edinburgh acknowledged and then knowing my current position and track was likely to bring us into conflict, called to check my intended route and maximum altitude. Knowing the situation, I was able to advise them I was turning back east immediately and descending to clear the approach path for the inbound aircraft, which came back on and thanked me for my assistance. Only one of many examples of where PAW has 'saved the day' or at the very least assisted by facilitating traffic avoidance during my regular zone transits. Once ATC learn that you can 'see' their traffic, it's surprising how much more confidently they deal with zone transit requests.

Quote
A wider issue here which I think it pertinent is that us pilots who have bought PAW, or are thinking about it, are already conscientious enough to be at low risk of busting CAS and ever putting ourselves in any danger (not that I think there is any danger for reasons previously given) of collision with CAT.  We will be using radios, talking or listening to the relevant units, have transponders, be using nav software, most likely of the moving map variety, have planned routes etc etc.  I am not ruling out that we might bust CAS, but again we will likely discover that via our GPS software, or having ATC telling us.  IMO obviously :)

No issue whatsoever with the principle here, but by careful use of the Nav System altitude filters (for CAT) and running 'Short' or even 'Ultra Short' Range plus tight altitude filters for bearingless targets, you should be able to minimise the number of visual Mode S and audio alerts from high power CAT mode S (FlyBe etc). Several of us have also added a manual 'volume control' in the audio feed line between the PAW and aircraft intercom, which makes turning the audio alerts down much simpler.

Happy flying,

Regards

Peter
« Last Edit: March 30, 2017, 09:59:37 am by exfirepro »