Enhancement Requests

[exfirepro]

Lee/Geoffrey,

I would certainly have no problem with adding additional filtering bands if this would help avoid unnecessary ground aircraft audio alerts.

Regards

Peter

[Ian Melville]

I have no issue with extra bands. If it solves an issue for someone, without negative impact to others, then it will be worthwhile. I may beef need it one day.

[T67M]

This is a gross oversimplification, but I'm only interested in being alerted (by audio) to aircraft that might collide with me within 30 seconds - any further away than that and they will be too far away to spot visually, and quite likely to change course between the alert and the (non-)collision. Most light aircraft struggle to make 1,000'/min in a climb, so +/-500' works well for me. Any wider than that I get too​ many audio alerts for aircraft I'm never going to see. That said, it is sometimes useful to see the more remote aircraft on the chart/radar - but not for audio alerts.

I do wish there was a distance filter too for ADS-B/P3i contacts - I get a lot of false alerts from airliners at my altitude but 10km away. At typical low altitude speeds that's about a 2 minute warning. Again, 30 seconds (3km) would be fine for me.

[exfirepro]

Mike,

Thanks for your comments. From my own involvement in close approach testing as part of the Project EVA Trials, my personal opinion is that 30 seconds to find and avoid a potentially fast moving inbound target approaching from an unknown direction would be cutting things just a bit close for comfort for most GA pilots, though I do appreciate your position. There may certainly be a case for reducing the 'outer' alert boundary for known position ADSB/P3i targets from the existing 10Km to reduce the number of alerts, but I would still want to retain the '3 Warning Zone' principle which was designed to ensure early initial warning with progressively increasing notification only if the inbound aircraft continues to approach. If the aircraft enters the outer zone but doesn't come any closer you will only get the one alert from known bearing targets.

By far the greater number of audio warnings in general come from Mode C/S - especially from Commercial Mode S traffic if in the near vicinity. These alerts tend to repeat if the inbound aircraft signal drops and then increases again - mimicking continuing approach even though this may not be the case. We already have the choice of limiting the level and number of alerts by selecting our desired Vertical Separation and a shorter Detection Range in the Configure Page of course, but my personal feeling is that we still need to do more work in this area.

Thanks again for your views.

Regards

Peter

[T67M]

Hi Peter,

I'd agree that the algorithms in PAW will be tweaked over time, and will probably never be perfect for everyone. If I can be any help testing given my location close to Gatwick then please feel free to ask.

My basis for suggesting 30 seconds for the audio alerts is that beyond this range, I usually find it impossible to acquire the target aircraft visually. Interestingly, according to the Airprox website, this also roughly matches the TCAS thresholds at low altitude - for example, assuming we're talking airliner approach speeds (170kts) vs medium speed GA (120kts) at 2,000', TCAS makes the first audio alert (a "Traffic Alert" or TA) at 1.4-2.0nm (2.6 to 3.7km) depending upon the geometry, and within a height band of +/-600'.

Mike.

[Ian Melville]

My own experience of the time to react to closing traffic was when I was almost head on to a biz jet at the same level. PAW alerted me at 10km. I took avoiding action without seeing the traffic, yet he still ended up about 2km from me, thankfully no longer in conflict. Time between the two was less than 40 seconds. The small head-on view meant that I do not see him until about 3km, perhaps a little more. Waiting until then to take avoiding action would have Resulted in a brown trouser moment  15-20 seconds to get out of the way in a slow aircraft.

[exfirepro]

Afraid I can beat that Ian - head to head with a Typhoon in my flexwing at 2000ft (same level) as it swung East from the Peebles Valley towards East Lothian about 2 miles out from me. No PAW help that time, purely visual. Quick wing waggle while flashing my landing light for a few seconds then I broke sharply right, still flashing the landing light. Thankfully he saw me, also broke right then levelled out and gave me a wave as he passed - still far too close for comfort. Witnessed by the wife of one of my pilot friends who was out on her horse and phoned her husband at the airfield to tell him about it, so everyone knew before I even got back.

Mike, I fully accept and understand your reasoning. I still value the early warning provided by any form of electronic conspicuity to support and enhance visual scan. During the Project EVA Tests we did with Trig, we were doing close range intercepts with me acting as 'mouse' and a colleague approaching from various angles in his Quik - only switching on his transponder (ADSB out) as he got close. In every case, PilotAware 'saw' the threat well before we could acquire it visually and in the 'worst case' it took me and my observer nearly 38 seconds to visually acquire the rapidly approaching microlight from pretty much head on and below - and that was despite knowing his approach height and direction from my PilotAware. I fully agree though that the system is always open to improvement.

Regards

Peter

[PaulSS]

As I said in my first post, I neither own an aircraft nor a PAW (YET) but I am extremely interested in the development and the ideas for this kit. Selfishly, I am most interested in things that might affect me in the future.

To this end, would it be possible to be able set the filters within the PAW kit itself, in addition to being able to do it on the 3rd party equipment. If one is already able to this then please accept my humble apologies and I will scuttle back under my stone.

I ask this because I was particularly interested in Carlos being able to get the PAW information onto his MGL iEFIS but there is, as I understand it, no function for adding filters, so it sounds like he gets to enjoy seeing everything that PAW sees. Reading this forum, it would appear the same can be said of some of the nav displays out there, such as XC Soar.

If one were able to access the PAW Configuration Home screen (the 192.168. Numbers, numbers, numbers thingy) and set the filters there, then they could then enjoy the advantages of the filters on any EFIS (and I’m pretty certain you’ll see a lot more people going that way, so I’m helping to future proof  ) and the XC Soar etc people can do the same.

For Sky Demon owners etc, then they just carry on as they are or, if they really had filters that never changed, they could set them in the Home screen. Unnecessary, I know because it’s easy to do in the 3rd party gear.

I do appreciate that being able to change the filters in flight, as per Sky Demon, is a huge plus and it may not be quite as easy, or impossible, to do so (I don’t actually know) on the Configuration screen in flight but I think if you could set ‘permanent’ filters (for that flight, at least) into your EFIS or XC Soar through PAW then that would be a BIG plus. It certainly would be for me….the guy without any of this kit.

[GeoffreyC]

If one were able to access the PAW Configuration Home screen (the 192.168. Numbers, numbers, numbers thingy) and set the filters there, then they could then enjoy the advantages of the filters on any EFIS (and I’m pretty certain you’ll see a lot more people going that way, so I’m helping to future proof  ) and the XC Soar etc people can do the same.

The ability to set range and height filters on PAW would get my vote,  XC Soar is very cluttered with all the "long distance" aircraft currently clustered all around the edge of the 6 mile outer circle and I'd really like to only see the aircraft that might be posing a threat not the airliners overhead.

Maybe if this was added as an "advanced option", default turned off,  so for the majority of users that use SkyDemon etc can leave this turned off in PAW and do the filtering in the EFIS.

[PaulSS]

Maybe if this was added as an "advanced option", default turned off,  so for the majority of users that use SkyDemon etc can leave this turned off in PAW and do the filtering in the EFIS.

To be honest, I don't think you'd even need to do that. In the configuration page you could adjust filters or just leave them alone and do it on the Sky Demon etc. The default is the filters are not set in the PAW but the option exists to do so.

Thinking about it a little more, the Sky Demon guys would probably want to leave the filters in the configuration page alone. This would then prevent any conflict problems of the configuration page saying one thing and the Sky Demon saying something else. If not, then some clever chap then has to add more code telling the config page to take its order from the Sky Demon and do as it's told i.e. the config page would be secondary to the Sky Demon. All that just adds complication.

Put simply, if you've got an EFIS system where you can't add filters and/or you've got a nav system like the XC Soar then you set the filters in the configuration page. Everybody else just do what you've been doing.

[exfirepro]

Put simply, if you've got an EFIS system where you can't add filters and/or you've got a nav system like the XC Soar then you set the filters in the configuration page. Everybody else just do what you've been doing.

Paul,

That's always anticipating that Lee decides to take up your suggestion. Certainly sounds feasible, but I don't know how much work would be involved. Bearing in mind recent requests for a relative altitude filter for known position targets and to reduce the  outer range limit for known position (ADSB /P3i) Audio Alerts, it might be appropriate to revisit the PAW configuration setup at some point to address both these issues.

I'm sure Lee will let us know.

Regards

Peter

[PaulSS]

That's always anticipating that Lee decides to take up your suggestion

But of course, and I can only begin to wonder at how much time and effort is involved in coding these 'wouldn't it be nice if' ideas. I have to admit that my final paragraph did sound as if I was giving instructions in how it should be done and that certainly wasn't my intention. I was just trying to emphasise the difference between those who are able to set filters and those who aren't. Clearly my message came across as instructing and, for that I apologise.

As I said in my original suggestion, I know I'm being selfish in putting forward an idea that would directly benefit me in the future. However, I do also think more people will go down the road of displaying the PAW information on their EFIS and, hopefully, this might encourage even more to do so.

Maybe by the time I've built my aircraft Lee would have come round to the idea (and had the time) 

[exfirepro]

Paul,

Clearly my message came across as instructing and, for that I apologise.

I certainly didn't take it that way. Your enthusiasm is infectious and its nice to see you taking such an interest.

Regards

Peter

[GeoffreyC]

Flew today from Sandy to Damyns Hall and then onto Stoke.

PAW definitely helped in the haze today.  Although it was legal flight conditions it was still challenging and there were several times that PAW warned me of other traffic well before I could otherwise see it.  One one occasion it was a Skyranger on very similar height and converging towards me,  the Danger alert I got from PAW definitely helped me find it.

Having been using the Radar feature all the time today I have two suggestions to improve it;
1.  Different colour screen.   When flying towards the sun it was quite hard to see white on black text.  So in addition to the current screen styles is it possible to have black on white?
2.  An auto save for the filter settings on the Radar screen.   Each time I go into the Radar I have to change the height and range filters from the default 50km, 50,000' settings.   Would be good if the settings I chose 'autosaved' so they were preserved next time I went into the Radar

Thanks,  Geoffrey

[jp62]

Hi Lee

You asked me to post my recommendations

Radar Screen:

1.   Have the screen initialise at 10KM and +/-3,000 ft. That is the most usefull setting. 120KM and +/- 50,000ft is not at all useful
2.   Make the buttons bigger.  They are too small partic on a phone but also ipad.
3.   Have + and – buttons do opposite to now.  + for more range.  That is the industry / aviation standard for radars and TAS’s. 
4.     Instead of KM, have the range rings and settings in nm

Hope that helps!

The screen could be really useful with those enhancements.

Audio

There is too much audio for bearingless targets which can be unnecessarily distracting.  I believe you should only give bearingless target audio alerts for a/c within +/- 500ft (green/Notice) +/- 1000 ft (yellow/Alert and red/Danger).    In addition, would it be possible to track the target a/c ident so that once a warning is given, the audio is not repeated if it changes from Danger to Alert for example?  Too much audio is worse than none!  Thoughts?

Thanks Lee