Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Idea: Grouping of common Callsigns for threat calls #434

Open
wolfendragoon opened this issue Dec 14, 2024 · 3 comments
Open

Idea: Grouping of common Callsigns for threat calls #434

wolfendragoon opened this issue Dec 14, 2024 · 3 comments

Comments

@wolfendragoon
Copy link

To better simulate how flights are often treated by a controller as a single unit rather than individual airframes, I propose the following change to threat calls for skyeye.

Trigger: Two or more aircraft sharing the same callsign (e.x. Wolf 1-1 and Wolf 1-2) are close together and a threat enters range of them.

Current state response: As there are multiple aircraft threatened, Skyeye calls out the threat for one of the pilots using Bullseye as reference.

Proposed state response: Check if aircraft share callsign, if they do select the closest airframe to the threat from the group and return the threat call in the same BRAA format used for Single airframes under threat.

@dharmab
Copy link
Owner

dharmab commented Dec 14, 2024

for one of the pilots using Bullseye

Correction, SkyEye calls the threat for all pilots using B/E, not just one. In the given example the call would be "Wolf 11, Wolf 12, group threat"

Check if aircraft share callsign, if they do select the closest airframe to the threat from the group and return the threat call in the same BRAA format used for Single airframes under threat.

I'd instead prefer to use a combined callsign, such as "Wolf flight" if all the Wolf aircraft are included or "Wolf 1" if all Wolf 1X aircraft are included but not any from Wolf 2X/3X/....

Note: There is an additional case to handle. Say Eagle 1 flight, a four ship, splits into two elements. Eagle 11 and Eagle 12 remain together, and Eagle 13 and 14 remain together. They set up a "grinder" CAP pattern where the first element pushes the CAP line while the second element resets. In such a case the calls will still need to be specific to each element, so "EAGLE 11, EAGLE 12" is probably the clearest way to communicate this.

@dharmab
Copy link
Owner

dharmab commented Dec 15, 2024

Proposed state response: Check if aircraft share callsign, if they do select the closest airframe to the threat from the group and return the threat call in the same BRAA format used for Single airframes under threat.

I think this can be simplified to "Check if all aircraft in the call satisfy grouping criteria, and if so, use BRAA format from the 2D center of the group instead of B/E"

@dMARLAN
Copy link
Contributor

dMARLAN commented Dec 15, 2024

If they are outside 3nm from each other I'd make a separate call for each.
"Hornet 11, threat group, BRAA .....",
"Hornet 12, threat group, BRAA .....",

if inside, I'd list each callsign

"Hornet 11, Hornet 12, threat group, BRAA ....."

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants