Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 11
I don't normally engage in defending SkyDemon any more because a) it's rarely necessary anyway b) plenty of other people do it and c) I was bored stupid of the accusations of being amongst various things a 'fanboi' and 'secretly employed by them'.

But this time Dave was not in the right. He drew a comparison between the voice alerting capabilities of SkyDemon and ForeFlight when clearly he had only experienced one of them and not the other. This can never be the basis of a solid argument... When he was challenged on this, he flounced from the discussion.

I've got masses of respect for Dave, but this time he got it wrong. Nothing more, nothing less. I just think he underestimated what SkyDemon have done and jumped to conclusions.

And, for the avoidance of doubt, and as if it needs saying again, there is no comparison between the advanced intelligent text-to-speech system that SkyDemon have created, and ForeFlight shouting a small handful of pre-defined messages out. The similarity ends with the word 'speech'.
PaulB, Miscellaneous liked this
stevelup, please read the whole thread again to understand the entire line of discussion.

The 'flounce' was due to Tim calling a competitors package 'primitive' without any supporting argument (it was subsequently presented).

In my line of business accuracy is also important but I'm required to demonstrate that, at the time. You will also note that I never slagged-off SD, something that others, including those with clear competing business interests, seemed rather keen to do against alternative products.
Tim wasn't calling ForeFlight primitive. He was very specifically pointing out that ForeFlight's voice alert system is primitive compared with SkyDemon's.

Tim wrote:Foreflight doesn’t have anything like the verbal traffic information feature we have developed.

You wrote:Yes it does, I've used it

Tim wrote:Dave, that really is nothing like what we have developed. It’s incredibly primitive

I still think that if you haven't yet had a play with the new SD voice alert stuff, then you don't realise how much more advanced it is than the FF offering, and therefore cannot continue arguing that FF is not 'primitive' in comparison. If you have had a play with it, and don't agree, then that's a whole different kettle of fish and will be an interesting argument to continue with.

Perhaps the word primitive is a bit inflammatory, but if you check out the dictionary definition of it, it is a .... dictionary definition of the difference between the voice alert systems on FF and SD.

relating to, denoting, or preserving the character of an early stage in the evolutionary or historical development of something.


very basic or unsophisticated in terms of comfort, convenience, or efficiency

Ps. I'm trust you realise I used the word 'flounce' with good humour.
AlanC liked this
IMHO all this anti-collision stuff is great and looks (and probably sounds) lovely. BUT in the grand scheme of things bumping into other aircraft is not a very common problem, it hardly ever happens. This is probably to do with there being lots of sky and not that many aircraft.

having said that the new SD audio stuff will probably make the problem even smaller and reduce the requirement for expensive ATC.
Dave W liked this
It's not *that* small. Top causes of fatal accidents are weather related, loss of control related and low level aerobatics related. This includes CFIT, loss of control in IMC, loss of control in climbout after an engine failure, etc. These are all things people can do something about or change the outcome. Mid air collision then comes closely on their heels, which is as close to just being about chance as you can get.

So if you've mitigated the weather risk, mitigated the EFATO risk, mitigated the low level aeros risk, then maybe next on the list is mitigating the mid-air collision risk.

We seem to be running at approximately two aircraft a year involved in fatal mid air collisions (not including gliders) out of a total of approximately 14 aircraft per year involved in fatal accidents.
Waveflyer, kanga liked this
Tim Dawson wrote:We clearly will have some marketing work to do around this feature, as there will be many who simply don’t understand the difference from what has been offered by some platforms in the past..
Can you elaborate exactly how it differs from what PilotAware gives currently please Tim?

I have a feed from PilotAware into the aircraft intercom, so I can isolate the audio feed with flick of a switch say when entering a busy circuit of EC traffic, where usually it gets "a little bit noisy" and its better to be listening to aircraft/ATC calls rather than the insistent PAW Squawking Lady... :)
You can read how the PilotAware system works at the link you just pasted, under the "how does it work" heading.

I believe I explained how our system works in the post you just quoted from. I suppose the biggest difference is that because we are constantly performing collision avoidance analysis, our engine takes better account of the relative trajectories of you and each other aircraft. Rather than fixed zones, we can tell you about far-away threats which are very fast, and importantly, not tell you about stuff which is close but of no concern. We can make these decisions because each threat is already being categorised, constantly.

I think what people will like most about our system is how little it talks to you. It's also easily silenced when another aircraft is in sight, or in its entirety if (for example) you're about to make an approach to a busy airfield and having all circuit traffic read to you would be counterproductive.

You also have a choice of voices :thumleft:
TouringTuggy, Paul_Sengupta, AlanC and 2 others liked this
bilko2 wrote:IMHO all this anti-collision stuff is great and looks (and probably sounds) lovely. BUT in the grand scheme of things bumping into other aircraft is not a very common problem, it hardly ever happens. This is probably to do with there being lots of sky and not that many aircraft.

It's a big sky, but surprisingly often two aeroplanes find themselves in the same small piece of it. I've been flying for a reasonable length of time, but don't have thousands of hours and I don't know vast numbers of pilots... yet I have known 7 people who have had mid-air collisions. In 2 cases, all occupants of both aircraft died. In 2 cases all occupants of 1 aircraft died while the other aircraft landed safely. In 1 case both aircraft crashed with injuries after a low-level collision on final approach. In 1 case, 2 gliders collided and the pilots parachuted to safety. And in the final case both landed safely. For myself, I have had 2 alarmingly close near misses.... that I am aware of.

I haven't experienced the traffic function on SD, but it sounds like a brilliant initiative.
TouringTuggy liked this
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 11