Offline AI traffic needs to remain the primary means for displaying GA traffic for real-world privacy reasons

Official Microsoft Flight Simulator Wishlist
,
1

tl;dr: The reason Live Traffic today is missing a lot of GA traffic, leaving smaller airports deserted, is that much GA traffic does not have ADS-B out or Mode S and therefore is not captured in the database source for Live Traffic. But as that gradually changes privacy reasons mean much GA traffic will still not be in the database. For that reason, Microsoft need to continue to focus on Offline AI traffic since we need that for GA.

(EDITED to tweak language that could be construed as political)

To further emphasize why Live traffic will never work for light general aviation traffic, consider this:

skyBeacon Wingtip Mounted ADS-B OUT - uAvionix

Just because you are ADS-B equipped, doesn’t mean you want to be tracked. With skyBeacon’s Anonymous Mode, your aircraft identification remains hidden from the ADS-B OUT signal while squawking 1200. Anonymous Mode keeps the skies safe while protecting your privacy.

This is just an example; other systems have similar functionality.

Another example applicable to the 1090ES flavor of ADS-B used by larger GA traffic is FAA’s PIA program:
ADS-B Privacy (faa.gov)

So even if the aircraft has ADS-B (many light GA planes still don’t in large parts of the world), even if there is a PiAware ground tracking station in range (not always the case in parts of the world especially at low altitude), even if the traffic is in the publicly available database MSFS pulls live traffic from, there is insufficient data to generate GA traffic from since it is hidden for quite obvious privacy reasons.

This is not a “bug” that Microsoft or Asobo can fix, it is a fundamental flaw with the Live traffic concept as it relates to GA traffic.

The workaround of randomly assigning aircraft types and callsigns to “blocked” and “anonymous” traffic seems of dubious value since it would not correspond to reality anyway.

Whether one agrees with the privacy concerns or not is not relevant in this context. The fact that live traffic data is filtered is enough to make Live Traffic useless for GA in the sim.

Offline AI traffic needs to remain the primary way to generate traffic at smaller airports, and Microsoft need to continue to focus (or return their focus) on making sure Offline AI traffic works well.

2 Likes
Need more life at smaller airports
2

New legislation is about to go into force requiring all drones to broadcast ads-b. With this legislation I do not doubt that privacy mode for GA aircraft being rescinded is very far behind. Laws in NA generally are challenged based on segregation of different groups. To say that I have to broadcast my identification when flying a drone but you don’t if flying a 172 is likely to result in standardization.

I don’t disagree with your evaluation. I merely point out that it may be a moot point in the near future. Governments usually trump privacy if they have the motivation, “in the interest of public safety”. :wink:

1 Like
3

I don’t see the disadvantage of offline traffic apart increased CPU load (the only reason i use online atm), to be honest.
If the ATC don’t gets significantly improved, online traffic will become a nightmare once every plane in the real world would get depicted in the sim, especially should air travel go back to pre 2020 levels. So yes, offline traffic should not get forgotten.

4

(EDITED to tweak language that could be construed as political)

(ok, that meant basically editing away the whole motivation… :grin: )

Anyway, I believe privacy issues blocking ADS-B data will increase rather than decrease and the issue with Live Traffic GA will remain. But I guess we’ll see!

5

The difference between flying a C172 and a drone is: the C172 shows up on radar and usually is in contact with ATC, so is identifiable anyway. A small drone is almost invisible and anonymous. Also most pilots won’t risk losing their license and maybe even their plane by doing something stupid like crossing over the runway 50ft above ground. There’s been a lot of stuff going wrong with drones and you can’t hold anyone accountable unless you catch them in the act. So I see that as the equivalent of giving the drone a digital license plate.
Hunting drones down with trained birds of prey proved too expensive and too dangerous for the birds.
So I don’t see that the move has automatically to be adapted to GA planes.

6

In about 2 or 3 percent of the world’s airspace. Where I fly, unless I file IFR, I do not even need a transponder. Most of the places I fly, any radio communication is simply spouting off into the ether. Seldom is there anyone there to hear me.

Generalization is the enemy of understanding.

You’re not wrong about the drones. You simply miss the point. Drone pilots feel their rights are being taken away and will continue to fight. The argument that drones are being discriminated against when GA gets to fly free, is valid.

1 Like
10

We’ve reopened this thread for consideration. Everyone tread carefully, and read the Topic Author’s considerations. Stay within the lines. Do not turn this political.

11

Ok. Point taken. I live in the EU which has highly regulated and very dense air space and where you always have to use your transponder on a VFR code, so I generalised. Nevertheless I still believe it to be far easier to identify a GA plane visually and hold a GA pilot accountable than a drone pilot who controls his tiny little toy remotely

What the drone pilots are feeling about their rights being taken away might be true. But the difference is: if there hadn’t been so many incidents, there wouldn’t be a need for such measures. It’s always a few people who spoil it for the rest.

1 Like