Sat Jan 12, 2019 5:29 pm
#1664889
+1 Totally agree. It should not be combined with Nav information!
Lefty wrote:gaznav wrote:@Cub
I think @GrahamB and I are the most closely aligned on this - let’s have the same sized symbols for different levels of confidence of their data depicted by either colour, shade or shape? Then if we know there is a lower confidence in the position quality then the pilot will need to expand their scan a bit more?
I’m sorry, but I can’t help thinking that all these suggestions of circles, or different coloured, different sized or blinking target, can only serve to force pilots into spending more and more time staring at the SD screen - and almost zero time looking outside. It is fundamentally a bad thing.
Re the alleged poor accuracy being reported by these transponders. Surely for the purpose of EC, we should accept that in 99% of instances, the GPS is actually accurate to within 30-50m and just accept that since the GPS is accurate > 99% of the time, then we shouldn’t add more complexity that simply gives the user (prop 99) incorrect data.
It is clear that a few folks are doing a lot of working trying to perfect EC on SD, which I applaud and thank them for.
However I reiterate my view is that ideally, Traffic Awareness info should NOT be combined with Nav info, but should have it’s own clock face style display that is small enough to be in the pilot’s view whilst he is looking out. (It should also give an audible warning of traffic 2 o’clock 4 miles, 500 ft above). If Tim could offer a facility to have a 2nd phone or similar display device displaying nothing but traffic - I think it would be a winner.
uAvionix-Ramsey wrote:I interpret this a slightly different way. By definition a SIL=0 GPS has no integrity (in GPS aviation terms) and therefore the maximum NACp "uncertainty" radius is entirely appropriate when compared to any certified GPS SIL 1-3..
leemoore1966 wrote:uAvionix-Ramsey wrote:I interpret this a slightly different way. By definition a SIL=0 GPS has no integrity (in GPS aviation terms) and therefore the maximum NACp "uncertainty" radius is entirely appropriate when compared to any certified GPS SIL 1-3..
So is this a recent addition to the SkyEcho2 receiver ?
This would explain how @gaznav is seeing this but not @Cub
To be honest I think once the uncertainty exceeds possibly 2nm, it would be better to either exclude these ADSB targets or represent them as bearingless
To have targets with 10nm of uncertainty is pretty useless.
Even more crazy, is providing ADSB NACp, that are of no use, and causes so much frustration it is ignored by the display
If you are to provide the maximum uncertainty, what would you propose the EFB such as SkyDemon does with this information?
Thx
Lee
gaznav wrote:I just need to convince Tim Dawson to allow 3x iPhone/iPad type devices in lieu of my PC licence that I never use and then I would be happy.
6.12
EC devices are intended to offer similar functionality to FLARM, but using the 1090MHz airborne spectrum. EC devices are expected to comprise commercial off the shelf (COTS) items such as Software Defined Radios (SDRs), GNSS receiver chipsets and, where applicable, altitude transducers, which are acceptable on the basis that Quality Indicators reported by the device, such as NIC, NAC, GVA, SIL and SDA shall report the lowest quality (refer to Table 4). EC devices may report barometric or GNSS altitude.
Quality Indicator reporting
6.29 The Quality Indicators shall be reported by the EC device as detailed in Table 4.
GrahamB wrote:gaznav wrote:I just need to convince Tim Dawson to allow 3x iPhone/iPad type devices in lieu of my PC licence that I never use and then I would be happy {/quote]
You don'y need a third login - just log it in and switch it to off line mode. Then go back to your other devices and log them out and back in again.
The old phone will continue to work in 'go-flying' mode with the radar display perfectly well in off-line mode.
Dave Phillips wrote:I think Christian has no option but to report a NACp=0 if he is to comply with CAP1391.
leemoore1966 wrote:[
Even more crazy, is providing ADSB NACp, that are of no use, and causes so much frustration it is ignored by the display
If you are to provide the maximum uncertainty, what would you propose the EFB such as SkyDemon does with this information?
Thx
Lee
Tim Dawson wrote:The fact is, transponders are pushing out NACp values that are not useful.