I've been harping on this subject off and on, in the old forum. Here's the deal: we should not get alerts for traffic that won't pose a threat unless they're close enough that a change in that aircraft's speed or direction, or ours, could then pose a threat.
How close is "close"? The developer could enforce a setting here based on speeds, or allow the user to set it the distance. BTW, this setting is different than the current user-specified distance-threshold setting in Traffic Alerts. This is an "emergency traffic distance threshold".
The list below actually ended up being in order of probably-hardest-to-do to probably-easiest. Also in order of I'd-like-to-see-this to definitely-want-to-see-this. Here's where I think traffic alerts should be suppressed if the user selects that as an option:
It's easy for me to say, but I think items 3-5 should be do'able. I would especially like to see items 4 & 5 addressed. 99% of alerts for traffic behind me are just annoyances. But items 1 & 2... there I'm asking for the software to predict the future location of two aircraft. I can see in my mind how I'd do it by creating a hockey puck of possible positions for both aircraft in x minutes from now and looking to see if the two pucks are at least the x emergency-distance miles away from each other. If they are, then it's physically impossible that there's going to be an issue unless either or both aircraft speed up. Actually, I think that method solves all the items in the list. But I don't think the last two or three items should require any heavy-duty logic or hockey pucks.
Lastly, to emphasize this point: even if this feature request is implemented and logic is applied as a user-selected option to suppress some alerts, once traffic gets within the x miles then no suppression is done -- all traffic in that radius is definitely alerted on no matter the respective courses and speeds.
My list above is surely not exhaustive. Feel free to add to it. Or criticize it. Probably it'll get criticized. But can we agree that at the very least that traffic that's moving away behind us should not cause an alert?
State your views in a reply and "upvote" or "downvote" by using the arrows to the right of this post.
How close is "close"? The developer could enforce a setting here based on speeds, or allow the user to set it the distance. BTW, this setting is different than the current user-specified distance-threshold setting in Traffic Alerts. This is an "emergency traffic distance threshold".
The list below actually ended up being in order of probably-hardest-to-do to probably-easiest. Also in order of I'd-like-to-see-this to definitely-want-to-see-this. Here's where I think traffic alerts should be suppressed if the user selects that as an option:
- Traffic that is ahead of me, on a course that will intercept mine, but due to our relative speeds and/or distance that traffic will cross my course line way ahead of me getting there. That is, I will still be x miles (emergency traffic distance) or more short of that spot by the time that traffic crosses my course. Despite the intersecting course lines, there is no possible collision possibility if we hold to our respective courses & speeds.
- Traffic that is ahead of me, but descending (or climbing) and will be below (above) my set vertical clearance threshold for traffic alerts by the time I get within the x miles of that traffic. If we hold to our respective descent/climb rates.
- Traffic that is ahead of me, but on a diverging course (it will never intercept my course line if we hold to our courses).
- Traffic that is behind me, on an intercept course (or not far off intercept), but is slower than me.
- And the one that most certainly should not be alerted on: Traffic that is behind me on a divergent course -- the most extreme example being if it's heading 180 degrees away from me.
It's easy for me to say, but I think items 3-5 should be do'able. I would especially like to see items 4 & 5 addressed. 99% of alerts for traffic behind me are just annoyances. But items 1 & 2... there I'm asking for the software to predict the future location of two aircraft. I can see in my mind how I'd do it by creating a hockey puck of possible positions for both aircraft in x minutes from now and looking to see if the two pucks are at least the x emergency-distance miles away from each other. If they are, then it's physically impossible that there's going to be an issue unless either or both aircraft speed up. Actually, I think that method solves all the items in the list. But I don't think the last two or three items should require any heavy-duty logic or hockey pucks.
Lastly, to emphasize this point: even if this feature request is implemented and logic is applied as a user-selected option to suppress some alerts, once traffic gets within the x miles then no suppression is done -- all traffic in that radius is definitely alerted on no matter the respective courses and speeds.
My list above is surely not exhaustive. Feel free to add to it. Or criticize it. Probably it'll get criticized. But can we agree that at the very least that traffic that's moving away behind us should not cause an alert?
State your views in a reply and "upvote" or "downvote" by using the arrows to the right of this post.
Last edited: