Author Topic: Enhancement Requests  (Read 237669 times)

T67M

Re: Enhancement Requests
« Reply #195 on: May 24, 2016, 02:15:31 am »
Joking apart, using an altitude filter of +/- 100 ft could minimise the problem and would automatically take account of the airfield elevation as 'you' would be on the ground (thus automatically setting the datum) - or if on final, warnings would cease during the final approach /round-out and hold-off phase. And all this without needing to manually switch anything![/b

I'm not sure I like the idea of disabling the warning of aircraft within 100ft of mine - they're the ones I'm most likely to hit while flying! Witness my airprox where I was head-on, same altitude and only avoided a collision by pushing -2G at the last second. Literally  :(

exfirepro

Re: Enhancement Requests
« Reply #196 on: May 24, 2016, 07:20:29 am »
Joking apart, using an altitude filter of +/- 100 ft could minimise the problem and would automatically take account of the airfield elevation as 'you' would be on the ground (thus automatically setting the datum) - or if on final, warnings would cease during the final approach /round-out and hold-off phase. And all this without needing to manually switch anything![/b

I'm not sure I like the idea of disabling the warning of aircraft within 100ft of mine - they're the ones I'm most likely to hit while flying! Witness my airprox where I was head-on, same altitude and only avoided a collision by pushing -2G at the last second. Literally  :(

Believe me, I fully appreciate your concerns. You were very lucky and are a terrific 'advert' for why systems like PAW are so important. I too have been there, though didn't get it on video (though I do have a snatched still shot as I banked hard left to avoid the oncoming aircraft - I just happened to have my camera in my hand), so fully appreciate where you are coming from. But remember, what we are discussing here is 'What is the best way of trying to reduce the number of what become nuisance alerts when you are on the ground, without compromising safety in the air.

I don't like the idea of deliberately excluding warnings of any sort, but having  experienced continual alerts from high powered transponders while on the ground at busy airports during Mode S testing, I can appreciate the strain that this places on the pilot and hence why the need to reduce such 'nuisance' alerts was asked for. Before I got involved in the testing, I didn't for example appreciate that CAT traffic in Ground Radar mode can bump out a massive 'mode S' signal while taxiing or queueing waiting for departure, and GA transponders, though less powerful, still cause the same problems.

If Lee agrees to it, the filter would be set for mode S only - ADSB and P3i use a different trigger system which generates far fewer alerts because they are generated from the aircraft's actual position and only occur as it approaches you and breaks one of 3 clearly defined 'physical' boundaries. Because Mode S alerts are not generated from physical boundaries, but from received signal strength at 3 different trigger levels, they repeat every time the signal drops below and then returns above any of these triggers - which can happen several times when the aircraft is in the circuit - especially if it 'disappears' from your antenna behind hangers or terrain for example, or simply because the distance between you increases, then shortens again, generating repeat warnings each time this occurs. The same thing can happen with aircraft taxiing on the ground. These then become 'nuisance' alerts, because you should already be aware of the presence of the aircraft.

In the air, these multiple mode S alerts are far less likely to occur (unless you are flying in very close formation with other mode S aircraft) and the chances of a mode S aircraft getting within +/- 100 ft of your altitude in normal flight without breaking all 3 trigger thresholds as it approaches (thus alerting you to its presence in sufficient time for you to lookout for it) would be extremely low. But of course mode S can only tell you an aircraft is approaching - it can't tell you where it is - that I'm afraid is down to the pilot. To help reduce 'nuisance alerts' and give some user choice, Lee has already introduced 'user selectable' Mode S Detection Range settings in 'Configuration' in the current software release. As part of ongoing development, these are being continually tested and refined and an improved version will be included in a forthcoming update. What we are discussing here is simply a relatively minor adjustment to address a specific ground issue.

Trust me, we are well aware of the dangers and wouldn't suggest - and Lee certainly wouldn't make - any changes which might in any way affect safety without extensive thought, discussion, testing and due consideration of the risk. Hopefully this will help to alleviate your concerns.

Regards

Peter
« Last Edit: May 24, 2016, 07:38:07 am by exfirepro »

Richard

Re: Enhancement Requests
« Reply #197 on: May 24, 2016, 08:21:52 am »
Thank you Peter,
          you have made the suggestion I made very clear. I concur totally.
Richard.
Europa XS

tnowak

Re: Enhancement Requests
« Reply #198 on: May 24, 2016, 08:35:31 am »
Wouldn't a check of the "host" PAW motion (speed) be the simplest check, as mentioned previously? If less than 20 MPH (or Kt) inhibit  all alarms?
I can't think of a "flying" scenario where this type of mask would affect real alerts when in the air.

SD uses a similar check for when to start and stop logging.
Tony Nowak

Paul_Sengupta

Re: Enhancement Requests
« Reply #199 on: May 24, 2016, 08:52:26 am »
I can't think of a "flying" scenario where this type of mask would affect real alerts when in the air.

Maybe if you were a police helicopter.

Or a flexwing flying into a good headwind.

But if you could turn the feature on or off, you could choose to keep the voice alerts enabled below 20 knots.

exfirepro

Re: Enhancement Requests
« Reply #200 on: May 24, 2016, 12:31:32 pm »
All these suggestions have their pros and cons (what's new). Ideally a built in trigger to activate PAW after say 200 ft of climb might be the answer, but that would mean no alerts on the ground from inbound aircraft, which was why I favoured a fairly tight +/- altitude filter. I have given some thought since last night to Paul's suggestion to make it selectable, which I am coming round to now. I just don"t like the idea of having to manually switch something on/off during or after takeoff - far too easy to forget in my experience (viz. my transponder!).

Possibly a combination of forward motion (but as Paul says might not suit helicopters / gyros / older flex wings / paramotors etc) and or an automatic altitude after takeoff 'switch' (driven by the software) might be the answer. I'm sure Lee is following this and cringing at the thought of all the extra workload. 😂

Good positive discussion though

Regards to all

Peter
« Last Edit: May 26, 2016, 01:46:42 pm by exfirepro »

exfirepro

Re: Enhancement Requests
« Reply #201 on: May 26, 2016, 01:45:43 pm »
Further Supplementary after considerably more thought.

A Mode S altitude filter (+/- 100 feet with respect to your own ground 'altitude'), set to switch on automatically when the unit is powered up, would be self calibrating and would cut out alerts from other aircraft on the ground, while leaving those inbound or already in the circuit live (until the final 100 feet or so of descent). That won't stop potential repeat alerts from aircraft in the circuit, but IMHO these are ones we need to hear.

This filter would be set by default but could be de-selectable in 'Configuration' (thanks Paul).

ADSB and P3i, which are far less problematic would be left as they are.

If we could also configure the filter to switch 'off' automatically after takeoff, at say 500 feet WRT our original ground altitude, this would remove the worry about manual switching and the concerns about filtering out aircraft close to our own altitude in flight as these would then remain visible within whatever upper and lower altitude limits you have yourself set.

Now I just need to figure out a way of automatically switching the filter back on again for landing, though I'm not sure this phase presents so much of a problem if left 'open' (oh and persuade Lee to write the additional software). :)

Regards

Peter
« Last Edit: May 26, 2016, 05:19:20 pm by exfirepro »

Admin

Re: Enhancement Requests
« Reply #202 on: May 26, 2016, 05:24:15 pm »
So I have been thinking on this, and it seems difficult doesn't it  ::)

If you use an altitude filter, you may filter the thing you are interested in
if you use motion filter, not good for a helicoptor

So how about an audio mute with a timeout ?

I have been thinking of having a control panel on the web server with some BIG BUTTONS (no fiddly buttons for flight)
so that they are easy to control, and MUTE seems a good candidate

For example a 5 minute mute timeout (or selectable), so that it automatically re-enables after a timeout, or can be manually re-enabled before the timeout has elapsed.

This is actually along the lines of another idea I had which is I want the following audio reminders

1. "Check Flaps"
I am always forgetting to retract flaps after takeoff, then wondering why its sluggish, it is simple to detect the initial acceleration and climb, then simply output a single message to "Check Flaps"

2. "Instrument Scan"
Every 5 minute interval, just a nice reminder to scan your instruments.

And I am sure we can think of others ...

Thx
Lee


exfirepro

Re: Enhancement Requests
« Reply #203 on: May 26, 2016, 05:47:38 pm »
Lee,

My only concern about an audio mute on the ground is that it masks alerts from inbound aircraft which would warn taxiing aircraft not to cross or enter runways in front of landing aircraft. I know... we should be checking visually, but the same could be said of every other potential conflict situation.

Also recent experience when changing to Config or other screens then back to SD is to find SD has dropped out and 'go flying' has to be restarted which is a real pain, especially in bumpy conditions, so I would prefer to avoid changing screens at all once set, if at all possible.

Good idea for audio prompts though.

Peter
« Last Edit: May 27, 2016, 11:27:59 am by exfirepro »

SteveN

Re: Enhancement Requests
« Reply #204 on: May 26, 2016, 11:13:12 pm »
As grist to the mill, this is what  Avidyne TAS does (by default):

When on the ground, other ground traffic is NOT displayed. Airborne traffic is displayed. No audio warnings while on the ground. I think TAS detects something as also on the ground by being the same FL.  A decent Mode S installation will show 25ft resolution but there are plenty around using old encoders so they will be 100ft.

TAS detects it is on the ground via a squat switch.  This could be replaced by GPS speed detection as has been suggested above.  A TB20 and a paramotor need different speeds so best have speed selectable.
Out of interest Garmin use a combination of speed and change in altitude to detect airborne.
« Last Edit: May 27, 2016, 05:47:19 pm by SteveN »

peteD

Re: Enhancement Requests
« Reply #205 on: May 27, 2016, 10:17:09 am »
Is it not possible to filter out mode s transponders when in ground mode?(I understand the ground mode transmissions are different from airborne, and have status info)?

Admin

Re: Enhancement Requests
« Reply #206 on: May 27, 2016, 01:27:46 pm »
Is it not possible to filter out mode s transponders when in ground mode?(I understand the ground mode transmissions are different from airborne, and have status info)?

Hi Pete

I have added this to the current code, so that Ground Mode is ignored from reporting (this will be in the next release)

I think most of the comments here are regarding aircraft in the circuit when you are on the ground, and a way to filter that
information as it is 'too noisy', so a way to filter during arrival/departure

Thx
Lee

T67M

Re: Enhancement Requests
« Reply #207 on: May 27, 2016, 04:50:47 pm »
A couple of thoughts here. First, I frequently hop from one aircraft to another. Having a paper list of all the ICAO codes is a bit fiddly and error prone - would it be possible to instead have a pull-down list of options which can be configured quickly and easily?

Second, accessing the web interface on a tablet whilst in the aircraft is a bit fiddly. Is there any way to add a physical button or even a rotary switch to select between aircraft, or to mute circuit alerts etc? I appreciate this would be a hardware modification - perhaps for the next iteration of the bridge?

Finally, I flew with the Classic for the first time today. In the air it seemed to behave perfectly, however on the ground I saw two returns from an aircraft in the circuit - both were indicating the same relative altitude, one was moving in the correct place, but the other was piggy-backed onto my aircraft. I believe the aircraft is equipped with a Mode S-ES (ADS-B) transponder but was not carrying a PAW. I guess that the piggy-back aircraft was the Mode-S detected return, but I can't see why the PAW didn't collate it with the Mode S-ES (ADS-B) return.


Admin

Re: Enhancement Requests
« Reply #208 on: May 27, 2016, 05:22:22 pm »
Hi T67M,

Wow that is interesting, and needs investigating.
the display you are showing there is the FlightID, by any chance did it switch to the Reg or ICAO ?

Unless we have a bug, this would indicate this aircraft was sending a different ICAO code for Mode-S and ADS-B
which is pretty unbelievable, but possible.

All is not lost
In the background PilotAware is recording lots of information about the data you transmitted and the data you
received ADS-B/P3I/Mode-S

you can see what is recordedd by going to the web browser and selecting 'ListTracks'
the Tracks are Date/Time Ordered of the form
YYYY-MM-DD_HH_MM.trk

*** PLEASE DONT HIT DELETE ***
Could you download the track file and send to me as an email ?
I can then work out what was happening, this is really curious.

By the way, you will not be able to download this from your tablet, you will need a MAC or PC, but the mechanism
is the same

Connect your PC/MAC to the WiFi Hotspot PilotAware-xxxxxxxxxx

Open a browser to http://192.168.1.1
go to ListTracks
download the tracks and please send to me.

Many Thx
Lee

Ian Melville

Re: Enhancement Requests
« Reply #209 on: May 28, 2016, 08:51:10 am »
Lee the same question was asked here http://forum.pilotaware.com/index.php/topic,435.0.html. In there I think you misunderstood the question to be about transmission, when it was about how PAW receivers handle a mode S reception and P3i from the same aircraft.