What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Synthetic Approach to Your Backyard Strip

CarlosF@grtavionics

Active Member
From time to time customers ask about the synthetic approach capability in the GRT Avionics Sport and Horizon EFIS (all models). How does it work, are public and/or private airports supported, etc. The one question that we have not been able to answer positively til now was, "Can I fly a synthetic approach to my backyard strip?" The answer now, is, yes, you can.

Below are file details to make a synthetic approach in the GRT Avionics EFIS to any landing site you want, anywhere in the world.

<GRTUserDB>
<Airport ident="UDBEX3" lat="42.900000" lon="-85.900000" elevation="604" name="USER DATABASE EXAMPLE 3">
<Runway surface="ASP" length="3000" width="50" >
<RunwayEnd ident="09" lat="42.900000" lon="-85.904000" elevation="606.0" />
<RunwayEnd ident="27" lat="42.900000" lon="-85.896000" elevation="602.0" tdze="602.67" dispthr="200" dispthrelev="602.27" lights="Yes" />
</Runway>
</Airport>
</GRTUserDB>


For more details about Synthetic Approach to Your Backyard Strip go to
http://grtavionics.com/Default.aspx?id=37

To learn more about GRT Avionics, it's products and capabilities visit http://grtavionics.com

Have fun, fly safe!

Regards,

Carlos Fernandez
GRT Avionics
...above, beyond.
 
Last edited:
Great stuff, love the works you guys have been doing.

BTW, I have been waiting for the 3D display of traffic. When can we expect that?
 
Brian,
We've considered this and we have some real reservations about doing it. Our main concern is always safety, and we're not sure allowing users to create approaches to random points on the earth is a safe thing to do.

It's critical to know the safe angle to approach a runway at, and this is not always 3 degrees, because at some airports this will kill you. The accuracy of the data used for the end points and altitudes of the runways is also critical too. That's a lot of data and verification to ask a customer to get right.

Also, in our opinion it is not legal in the USA to follow the guidance that synthetic approach would give you, so we question it's real world usefulness. We'd prefer to put our energy into developing software that is more applicable to a larger base of users, and can really add day to day value to experimental aviation. If you're doing an IFR approach, you should really be properly equipped. If you're doing a VFR approach, your eyes should be outside.

Please don't take this as a criticism of GRT's decision or the quality of their implementation. This is just something that Dynon has considered and we have our own opinion on it. The fact that GRT can do something like this is a testament to how neat experimental aviation is. As always, we're open to discussion on the topic and interested in our user's opinions, and our users often change our opinions, so let us know what your opinion is.

--Ian Jordan
Chief Systems Architect, Dynon Avionics
 
More useful information

I personally think that any additional information that helps me safely arrive back on mother earth is useful..

I don't think anyone is going to blindly build an approach and fly it in IMC or darkness just because they can. This feature can be very useful as a backup to folks already familiar with their backyard airport.

I use this feature coming home and I know that if I fly the 3 degree SA I will hit terra firma on the north end. I won't do that. From the south it's very useful, especially at night with no VASI, PAPI and pretty weak runway lights.

It's just another piece of information in the bag. Darwin with take care of those who abuse it.
 
I agree with Jerry - this is (and has been) an incredibly useful tool for night operations. Many (most?) small airports do not have VASI's, and approaching a strange field at night with all the height illusions inherent in that situation is problematic. Having something to give you a reference line off which to work. I never fly down the center of the SA/HITs at an unknown filed - I usually stay high - but I know how high I am.

People who are going to create their own instrument approaches in instrument conditions are going to do dumb things regardless - this is a useful tool for folks who want additional margin on their side.

It's a good tool.
 
I guess I respect the Dynon opinion. Its yours to have and hold. Just like me choosing someone else's avionics suite. Thanks for keeping us "safer".
 
Its an incredibly useful tool for many different operations. I own both my HHX screens because they do have synthetic approaches to non-precision or otherwise non existant approaches.

An excellent safety tool for my airport with no approaches. It keeps me out of trouble in both day and night operations when finding the runway can be a challenge.

Great job GRT.
 
Brian,
We've considered this and we have some real reservations about doing it. Our main concern is always safety, and we're not sure allowing users to create approaches to random points on the earth is a safe thing to do.

It's critical to know the safe angle to approach a runway at, and this is not always 3 degrees, because at some airports this will kill you.

--Ian Jordan
Chief Systems Architect, Dynon Avionics

Although I have no intention of creating my own approach, (not to mention no idea how even given the info from GRT,) I must say I would do a lot of day clear VAF testing of the approach before I ever tried it at night or in the soup.

As has been mentioned already, Darwin will get involved if folks are not doing things correctly.
 
Although I have no intention of creating my own approach, (not to mention no idea how even given the info from GRT,) I must say I would do a lot of day clear VAF testing of the approach before I ever tried it at night or in the soup.

As has been mentioned already, Darwin will get involved if folks are not doing things correctly.
Mike, I wholeheartedly agree with your thoughts on this. I also believe this added functionality should absolutely NOT be implemented on an approach that the pilot is not thoroughly familiar with. He/she should have full confidence that the information placed in the instrument is correct. If he/she is not confident in that information then, by all means, it is not a change that pilot should implement.

Given that, the truth is, I consider it extremely helpful to be able to do this on the private grass strip I fly out of. There are no approach plates, charts, or any other form of additional information out there anywhere about my private airport. The closest thing I have is that it is on the sectional. That is helpful to get me to the airport in route but does not help with an approach that may require additional information such as at night or, not that I would necessarily wish to do so, in IMC conditions.

Ian's statement that some 3 deg approaches will not work in certain airport locations is true but, then again, this functionality should be a user tool for the person who should have detailed information about his/her specific situation. Perhaps there are many flying behind these instruments that might not feel capable of creating these types changes to their instruments. However, there are also a great many of us builders out here who feel perfectly competent to be able to make these additional changes to our instruments. I have confidence that if I am intelligent enough to know how to build an airplane and install its instrumentation, I should be able to understand the particulars of programming its functionality in such a way that I fully understand what it is presenting to me when I use it.

I know the approaches very well on my airport. I know there is a tower 2 miles off of the south end of RWY 17 that is 369' AGL. I know there is a tower 2 miles north and 1/2 mile west off of the north end of RWY 35 that is 350' AGL. Otherwise there is nothing taller than a 50' AGL cottonwood tree anywhere near the runway. I like the idea that I can now go into my instrument and build a synthetic approach for this runway and know that it is based upon the detailed information I know to be true from the aeronautical charting that has already been done and my first hand knowledge of the environment surrounding this runway.

I really cannot fathom how LESS information is better than MORE information in this situation.
 
I have nothing to add to those issues already discussed: everyone agrees Darwin will rule, and Ian is just saying that Dynon doesn't want to be part of all that. Not my view, but a reasonable one anyway.

But I'm surprised that nobody is mentioning the potential training value of this feature. I think setting up several mock approaches, at altitude but away from any real airports, would be a great way to introduce various approach procedures to a new IFR student. It would be great to have practice approaches where a student can safely blow a DA without any real consequence because the DA is actually 1000' AGL. There's lots of desert near where I live, and I'd much rather train for how to approach LAX, SFO, or even SLC when I'm really hundreds of miles away from those congested airspaces.

--
Stephen
 
Dynon, I think you're missing the boat on this one, big time.

On the one hand, it would be (and is for other manufacturers) a very useful tool in the toolbag, to be used at pilots discretion. My home strip is 30 miles from the nearest paved runway and the terrain is flat as a board - but I've got power lines on both ends of my strip that are not lit, and a night approach into my runway would benefit greatly from this tool to keep me on a safe glidepath when the lighting is less than desirable.

On the other hand, it appears you are worried about liability if you provide it - but it's going to be very hard to make the case that a VFR pilot in VMC killed themselves because of using it, when VMC conditions truly existed and they should have had their eyeballs outside. If it's VFR into IMC, then the pilot is clearly at fault or an emergency of some type exists and every tool in the toolbag should be available to me no matter who thinks I shouldn't have it. In the case of IFR (either VMC or IMC) it doesn't matter because it's not approved for IFR use, so that's out the window.

I see only positives for this, and no negatives. I think you should re-evaluate your decision. In the end it's your company and your decision, and the market will vote with their feet and dollars - but I think you're on the wrong end of this argument.
 
Last edited:
On the other hand, it appears you are worried about liability if you provide it - but it's going to be very hard to make the case that a VFR pilot in VMC killed themselves because of using it, when VMC conditions truly existed and they should have had their eyeballs outside. If it's VFR into IMC, then the pilot is clearly at fault or an emergency of some type exists and every tool in the toolbag should be available to me no matter who thinks I shouldn't have it. In the case of IFR (either VMC or IMC) it doesn't matter because it's not approved for IFR use, so that's out the window.

I see only positives for this, and no negatives. I think you should re-evaluate your decision. In the end it's your company and your decision, and the market will vote with their feet and dollars - but I think you're on the wrong end of this argument.

I'm 100% behind GRT on this, and think it's a great tool in the bag. But I'm fine with capability that I won't mis-use. Some people are not.

However, aviation companies have lost lawsuits by VFR-only pilots/estates, crashing from operating in IMC... Nothing is "out the window" when it comes in front of a jury, in an aviation suit.
 
Last edited:
I'm on Dynon's side with this...and having worked on aviation GPS boxes in the distant past, I personally flat refused to write code for certain features on a handheld GPS device. If the company wanted to hire someone else to do them, fine, but I could not in good conscience write a "tool" that someone else would then use in a manner that would eventually get someone killed.

One thing to note...if you need this sort of capability to safely make an approach to an airport, then it's reasonably arguable that your are or should be operating under instrument flight rules.

ETA:

I don't think anyone is going to blindly build an approach and fly it in IMC or darkness just because they can.

Yes, they will. Maybe not many, but there will be a few (think of the few who fly in IMC without an instrument ticket, or those who fly without a current BFR or medical, or who fly planes that people here feel are unairworthy and that may not have gotten an FAA inspection/airworthiness cert). There will be a certain segment that will ignore the rules, and eventually they'll kill themselves and/or others. If we're lucky, their heirs won't recover the EFIS, download the data, and then sue the pants off of the manufacturer and ruin it for us all.
 
Last edited:
I'm on Dynon's side with this...and having worked on aviation GPS boxes in the distant past, I personally flat refused to write code for certain features on a handheld GPS device. If the company wanted to hire someone else to do them, fine, but I could not in good conscience write a "tool" that someone else would then use in a manner that would eventually get someone killed.

One thing to note...if you need this sort of capability to safely make an approach to an airport, then it's reasonably arguable that your are or should be operating under instrument flight rules.

If I sell you scissors, you are free to stab yourself with them. I'll still sell them to you, assuming you don't tell me that is your plan.

And I agree if someone feels they "need" it. It's a nice to have additional margin... Or emergency backup. I'd like to have it.....if say, I lost an engine near a local private unlit strip at night with nothing else in range....might have a chance to make a landing with my "made up approach", or at least not hit anyone else. This stuff could save my life in some cases.

I wish we could all be personally responsible adults with this tech, but I know that is simply not true. So, I'm not really arguing with you either. Just a bit sad about the nature of people...
 
Last edited:
I'm VFR only, but I have used the SA on my GRT to help me on night (and some day) approaches to unfamiliar airports. I have a tendency to end up way high at unfamiliar fields, especially if given a straight in approach. A great aid.
 
. . .Yes, they will. Maybe not many, but there will be a few (think of the few who fly in IMC without an instrument ticket, or those who fly without a current BFR or medical, or who fly planes that people here feel are unairworthy and that may not have gotten an FAA inspection/airworthiness cert). There will be a certain segment that will ignore the rules, and eventually they'll kill themselves and/or others. If we're lucky, their heirs won't recover the EFIS, download the data, and then sue the pants off of the manufacturer and ruin it for us all.
I believe others have stated on this thread that these are the ones "Darwin" will take care of.
 
I believe others have stated on this thread that these are the ones "Darwin" will take care of.

The problem is, the people they leave behind will "take care of" the rest of us, via lawsuits (justified or not). Any quick search will turn up scores of cases of multigazillion dollar awards to the grieving widows and children of pilots who, for whatever reason, got themselves into things like VFR into IMC.

There are instrument approach procedures which have been flight-checked and certified, and then there are things that are not.

If you "need" this aid to fly into an airport because you can't see terrain or obstacles (at night, in haze/mist/whatever), then you should be on an IAP, with an IFR ticket, and current.

I'd rather see Dynon work on things like fully coupled approaches, ADS-B weather, etc., than this.
 
Let me clarify something here, too...I'm not too concerned with adding a private airport as some data (runways, location, etc.). It's the "approach" that worries me...something like cobbling together a 3 degree glideslope along an extended centerline, and calling it a "synthetic approach" to your favorite private strip.

Just navigating to a sort of fancy user waypoint, no biggie...flying an approach to landing with your own version of an ILS? Hmmmmm....
 
I am perhaps a bit out of touch with how the newer experimental glass cockpits work so I might be incorrect in all this however part of the posting does not make sense to me. I believe what GRT is offering is the ability to see a pictorial of the runway via the synthetic vision. Most of the posters seem to be discussing a way to have better guidance into such an airfield. Can't almost all the current GPS devices including the garmin handhelds build any waypoints you want. I know my 696 can.
If you have a private airstrip it should be a simple matter to build a couple of waypoints to provide guidance right to the end of the runway. You could also easily place waypoints anywhere to practice approaches. None of this requires the vision systems. You can build a approach to almost anywhere with most GPS's now in use. You simply wont have a picture of a runway. I am not sure in view of this why Dynon is reluctant to add such a feature. If someone wanted to build a illegal IFR approach it could be done with the current systems.

George
 
I am perhaps a bit out of touch with how the newer experimental glass cockpits work so I might be incorrect in all this however part of the posting does not make sense to me. I believe what GRT is offering is the ability to see a pictorial of the runway via the synthetic vision. Most of the posters seem to be discussing a way to have better guidance into such an airfield. Can't almost all the current GPS devices including the garmin handhelds build any waypoints you want. I know my 696 can.
If you have a private airstrip it should be a simple matter to build a couple of waypoints to provide guidance right to the end of the runway. You could also easily place waypoints anywhere to practice approaches. None of this requires the vision systems. You can build a approach to almost anywhere with most GPS's now in use. You simply wont have a picture of a runway. I am not sure in view of this why Dynon is reluctant to add such a feature. If someone wanted to build a illegal IFR approach it could be done with the current systems.

George

Actually no. Synthetic approach is a guidance to the runway, horizontal and vertical, from an altitude you desire. While there is a picture of the runway as you get to it, that is of little use. Its the highway in the sky guidance to the runway that is of particular use. That is not doable on most other systems that you mentioned.

Putting in waypoints is a cobbled together method. The GRT synthetic approach is an amazingly accurate procedure. A couple of button pushes and you have what you need. Only as accurate as the info in it.
 
Last edited:
A understand your concern, BUT

One thing to note...if you need this sort of capability to safely make an approach to an airport, then it's reasonably arguable that your are or should be operating under instrument flight rules.

It's not about "needing this sort of capability", it's another tool to help you accomplish the flight safely and we should all applaud that.

Yes, they will. Maybe not many, but there will be a few (think of the few who fly in IMC without an instrument ticket, or those who fly without a current BFR or medical, or who fly planes that people here feel are unairworthy and that may not have gotten an FAA inspection/airworthiness cert). There will be a certain segment that will ignore the rules, and eventually they'll kill themselves and/or others. If we're lucky, their heirs won't recover the EFIS, download the data, and then sue the pants off of the manufacturer and ruin it for us all.

If we all live by this argument, then we better just stop trying to improve and add safety features that some nut will kill him or herself while they are utilizing it.
 
"Want" ... not "Need"

<<SNIP>>.

There are instrument approach procedures which have been flight-checked and certified, and then there are things that are not.

If you "need" this aid to fly into an airport because you can't see terrain or obstacles (at night, in haze/mist/whatever), then you should be on an IAP, with an IFR ticket, and current.

I'd rather see Dynon work on things like fully coupled approaches, ADS-B weather, etc., than this.

Build it. Test it. Fly it.
In my opinion, people choosing to spend the time to gather up such ADDITIONAL information to "build it" have a high likelihood of actually making sure it works ("test it" and "fly it".

It is actually rare that this feature is needed as most airports are in the database already and the runways are defined. Thus you can simply activate the "Synthetic Approach" to your runway of choice and get to see the "Highway In The Sky".

I fly into an airport with a 5000 ft paved runway and plenty of lights. BUT, the Synthetic Approach is a really nice feature for me as the airport is in the city with houses and trees that make it hard to find sometimes on severe clear nights. Hey, one of our buddies could not find it in severe clear DAYLIGHT! :)

The SA gives you that extra bit of awareness.

I don't NEED it but I surely do WANT it.

And yes, I could in fact (legally) call up approach and get an approach into the airport at night if that is what I wanted but in some ways that would be LESS safe. (Yes, I am IFR rated and current.)

ADS-B weather and fully coupled approaches are in fact GREAT things. I guess since the GRT folks got those checked off the list they moved on down to the next item on theirs.

Finally, Dynon also makes a great product. And, I respect and appreciate the business decision they are taking for their business model. That's what makes this world we are in so great, we have real, viable choices.
 
I see that people are saying "it's safer because ______", but what I'm hearing is "I can use it as an approach procedure".

E.g. (and I'm not picking on anyone in particular):

It is actually rare that this feature is needed as most airports are in the database already and the runways are defined. Thus you can simply activate the "Synthetic Approach" to your runway of choice and get to see the "Highway In The Sky".

That's an approach, complete with a sort of glideslope. Not surveyed, no NOTAMs that you can check for obstructions penetrating the path, the obstacle database might or might not be accurate...

I could in fact (legally) call up approach and get an approach into the airport at night if that is what I wanted but in some ways that would be LESS safe.

How? I have ATC-guaranteed separation from other (IFR) traffic, and if I fly the approach as published or cleared, and I do it correctly, I know I have terrain clearance. PLUS, I can use my EFIS for situational awareness, AND I can use it for the actual approach w/ HITS (if it has it...Dynon, when do we get this?).

vs.

Pick a point on the ground and cobble up a descent profile and flightpath to it.

we better just stop trying to improve and add safety features

It's my personal opinion, but having listened to too many geezers when I worked aviation GPS asking for precisely this capability on their handheld Garmins and Magellans and Trimbles, so that they could "get back home when the weather turned into a **** sandwich", that I do not believe a "fake" approach procedure is a safety feature.

The GRT synthetic approach is an amazingly accurate procedure.

I'm unsurprised. It's just mathematics. But being accurate in time and space means nothing unless you have adequate obstacle and terrain clearance within certain parameters (you don't think the FAA flight check ensures clearance at precisely and ONLY 3 degrees of angle, perfectly on-slope and on-course, did you?). Who is checking that for these "approaches"? Nobody.

Next time you're in the weather, pull up some random local airport and pick any runway, and pull up this sort of synthetic approach. Now ask yourself if you'd be comfortable selecting that and flying it to minimums, right then. Then ask yourself the same question about a published approach.

I know what my answer would be.
 
. . . I do not believe a "fake" approach procedure is a safety feature. . . .

Steve's experience and reasonable arguments have swayed my opinion here, especially in how not to use such a feature if I ever have it.

Quoting myself above:

I think setting up several mock approaches, at altitude but away from any real airports, would be a great way to introduce various approach procedures to a new IFR student.

Nobody has addressed this use case. Is that because my idea is inconvenient to this debate or just stupid? I'm willing to believe either one if someone is willing to teach me.

--
Stephen
 
RAIM?

Curious what type of GPS integrity monitoring and alerting GRT has for loss of valid and accurate GPS signals?

Would the user know instantly while on glide path their guidance went out to lunch?

I'd want to have those annunciations at a minimum - both visual and aural.

Personally, I like the idea.

dumb people will kill themselves regardless.
 
From the AF-5000 Manual

6919185921_f40af2226f_b.jpg


6773070406_d02c4a293d_b.jpg


This is an extremely useful feature in VFR weather, it helps you visualize the correct runway and act as a double check. For example KSLE has runways 34 and 31 that are very close. When I get cleared for the runway I select it in the Flight plan and it displays the HITS boxes and the runway lead in arrow on the map.

It is not meant to fly an IFR approach into an airport without one.

Rob Hickman
Advanced Flight Systems Inc.
N402RH RV-10
 
I concur with Rob Hickman

From the AF-5000 Manual

6919185921_f40af2226f_b.jpg


6773070406_d02c4a293d_b.jpg


This is an extremely useful feature in VFR weather, it helps you visualize the correct runway and act as a double check. For example KSLE has runways 34 and 31 that are very close. When I get cleared for the runway I select it in the Flight plan and it displays the HITS boxes and the runway lead in arrow on the map.

It is not meant to fly an IFR approach into an airport without one.

Rob Hickman
Advanced Flight Systems Inc.
N402RH RV-10

Ron's post here (although making a different point I think) also answers the question of earlier about my post of it could be safer using SA.


I have flown our localizer approach AND I have tried the synthetic to the same runway. In marginal though LEGAL conditions for the localizer, having the synthetic info (which I have VERIFIED to place me along the SAME path) gives ME far more situational awareness. And to me that makes it safer.

And oh, AFS makes great systems too!! :)

James
 
There are many uses for this tool as an aid as it has been discussed. In GRT, you can also use it as another aid to your ILS/GPS approach. When you arm your ILS approach, SA becomes available as an overlay or visual aid for your path. It also displays the AGL on the screen in a semi transparent numbers which is another good aid.
 
Hmmmm...ILS "feathers" on the map, use of the word "glideslope"...sounding more and more like a precision approach to me.

Except it's not, of course.

Too bad they couldn't use different terminology and symbology than that used for actual precision approaches. Instead, further blurring the line between "fake", er, synthetic approaches and real ones.

To each his own, I guess...
 
Makes PERFECT sense to me!

These synthetic approaches could of course be used illegally. So can any GPS, or even ILS for that matter. Just because you choose to fly a published approach doesn't mean that you are legal or safe doing so.

Having recently been able to utilize the feature the Rob just explained on the AF 5000 series, I can tell you that these are really helpful in increasing situational awareness. Flying Rob's RV-10 into an unfamiliar airport in VMC, I found the lead-in arrows and the HITS glide-slope quite helpful.

These features, much like synthetic vision, traffic, and weather, can certainly be argued to give pilots a false sense of comfort when they shouldn't be in the situation. But the reality is that ANY feature that increases situational awareness is a good feature.

I certainly like what GRT and AFS have done here. Improved situational awareness period. Use it sensibly and legally and it just makes sense!
 
One other place that I have found the HiTS/Synthetic approach useful is when I am coming in to a towered field, and they clear me for a straight-in from miles out. Unfamiliar with the layouts and elevations, the synthetic glideslope serves as a good guide when you aren't flying a normal downwind/base/final pattern, and normalizes your approach.
 
Yup ..

One other place that I have found the HiTS/Synthetic approach useful is when I am coming in to a towered field, and they clear me for a straight-in from miles out. Unfamiliar with the layouts and elevations, the synthetic glideslope serves as a good guide when you aren't flying a normal downwind/base/final pattern, and normalizes your approach.

Especially when it is 5PM on a sunny and HAZY summer day and the runway is 27 (or like one of my home area runways, 29).
 
Paul, I agree with you. I utilize what is called "VFR Approach" in my Chelton system on practically every runway I utilize in VFR conditions. This gives me an additional layer of SA, particularly at unfamiliar airports. Making sure that I am lined up on the runway I intend to land on, giving me one more source of information about SUA around the airport and approach path, etc. I understand very well that the 3 degree default vertical path gives me NO guarantee of terrain or obstacle clearance. I can, however, make that glidepath something other than 3 degrees if I desire. Airports like Scottsdale, AZ that have a 4 degree VGSI on runway 03 are an example of a place where I would utilize this in VFR conditions. Back when I was flying corporate jets with advanced cockpits, utilizing this function was SOP. I would not be surprised to learn that airlines also utilize something similar.
Nobody here has advocated using this feature for home made IFR approaches, but that seems to be the concern some have with having this capability. Will there be people that make up their own approaches to private strips? Most likely. But, I remember an old timer I ran across early in my career that routinely shot an ADF approach into his home airport, in IMC, that he had made up off a local AM radio station. So, this type of behavior is nothing new, but we have a modern tool that can either be used safely, or not.
 
Please Dynon

I would like to see this in the Skyview. Put me in with the list of people requesting this feature.
 
I remember an old timer I ran across early in my career that routinely shot an ADF approach into his home airport, in IMC, that he had made up off a local AM radio station. So, this type of behavior is nothing new, but we have a modern tool that can either be used safely, or not.

Long time ago I knew two very sharp old aviators with a regular destination lacking a published approach. They used the weather radar in the corporate Navaho to align with a paper mill. Apparently they had lobbed a few into Hanoi using similar methods ;)
 
How do I convert coordinates format?

Please, help me!
How do I convert these coordinates: threshold 13 - S 03 56' 18.9" W 038 22'56.0" threshold 31 - S 03 56'24.7" W 038 22'33.5" to the GRT format?
 
IFR Practice.

But I'm surprised that nobody is mentioning the potential training value of this feature. I think setting up several mock approaches, at altitude but away from any real airports, would be a great way to introduce various approach procedures to a new IFR student. It would be great to have practice approaches where a student can safely blow a DA without any real consequence because the DA is actually 1000' AGL. There's lots of desert near where I live, and I'd much rather train for how to approach LAX, SFO, or even SLC when I'm really hundreds of miles away from those congested airspaces.
--
Stephen

There are numerous ways to do just this, and I used them during my IFR training. First, you can fly a simulator. I flew into SFO, LAX, etc on published approaches just by using the sim. Worked great.

Next, the traffic around the San Francisco Bay is rather busy. Take a look at the chart sometime. You have Bravo smashing into Charlie, on top of Delta, sometimes all three at once. Take a look at KHWD and tell me what the airspace is there at any given altitude. You'll almost sing the alphabet backwards on that one! But I routinely flew practice IFR approaches into HWD, and when the controllers were too busy my instructor would just take all of the altitudes and cut them down to keep us out of their airspace. The problem was we had no terrain clearance, traffic separation, etc. I distinctly remember on a procedure turn we were doing where he changed my minimum from 2100 to 2300. I said "Why, what was I doing wrong?" "Oh, nothing", he says, "we're at 100 AGL right now."

I'm definitely in the camp of "If it isn't a published approach, don't make it look, smell, and feel like a published approach, or people will use it like it is."
 
Last edited:
One other place that I have found the HiTS/Synthetic approach useful is when I am coming in to a towered field, and they clear me for a straight-in from miles out. Unfamiliar with the layouts and elevations, the synthetic glideslope serves as a good guide when you aren't flying a normal downwind/base/final pattern, and normalizes your approach.

I still have to argue, on other boards; especially with freight dog types, who insist that today's technology of synthetic vision and advanced auto-pilots........is nothing, but the dumbing down of pilots.

I do keep track of nearly every CFIT accident. The reasons, vary across the board from highly experienced pilots, to those with much less. Without doubt, SV will enhance awareness, and is clearly the opposite of "dumbing down". IMO---- aircraft with these additions, finally makes it possible to be better informed, with real time & position..... information.

When I do read some of those boards, it's like looking into the past. Too much of the "I did it that way, and so should you" mentality.

Note: Even with my Garmin 696, I did pre-flight flight planning, and kept up to date sectionals (in view) for cross country mountain flights. No hitting direct, and just "blindly" following the magenta line..

L.Adamson
 
Look at the second picture in Post #7 here:

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=73523&highlight=bahamas

My comments on finding the airport:

"I departed Barnwell towards Memphis TN...specifically Olive Branch airport. Somewhere along the way, haze became rather thick. The following picture is facing forward and is somewhat worsened by heading west in the afternoon. But it is realistic in that the dark band in the middle was the best visual horizon that I had.

Memphis1Small.jpg


On the way in to Olive Branch I was offered an ILS to runway 18 after I asked if haze was always this bad. Since I am not current on ILS approaches, I did ask for help on finding the airport. The controller had me direct to a GPS fix which may be the first time I have ever done that. Right turn to a certain heading and soon there was the airport. I could have found it but it did not hurt to have additional guidance under those conditions."

I did have my Trio autopilot (wing leveler functionality) engaged as an aid.

I do not recall if the conditions were VFR or MVFR but it was not ideal for this western pilot. I wonder if this is another situation where the capabilities in question are a safety aid for the VFR pilot.

If you are wondering, I was not scared. Previous trips back east had opened up my comfort zone in these conditions but I was very vigilant to maintain bottom to Earth flight attitude. I did not enjoy this flight condition and visual detection of other aircraft was likely impossible.
 
Last edited:
Ron, in my opinion the capabilities being discussed here could have been a real help in the situation you described. Even if you are using a handheld gps, many of those units have an "extended centerline" type of function that can be used to display a final approach course on the moving map from a specific runway or airport.
 
Curious what type of GPS integrity monitoring and alerting GRT has for loss of valid and accurate GPS signals?

Would the user know instantly while on glide path their guidance went out to lunch?

I'd want to have those annunciations at a minimum - both visual and aural.

Personally, I like the idea.

dumb people will kill themselves regardless.

Did I miss the answer to this? Tolerances and monitoring? Failure annunciation?

As Ken said, "dumb people will kill themselves regardless"
 
Did I miss the answer to this? Tolerances and monitoring? Failure annunciation?

As Ken said, "dumb people will kill themselves regardless"

I don't have a GRT system, but I believe the answer to the question would be whatever the tolerances, monitoring, and failure annunciation of the particular GPS you have driving the GRT, would be what you would have. So, for instance, if you are driving your GRT system with a Garmin 430W, you would have the GPS monitoring and warnings that are built in to the 430W. No?

PS I just looked at the GRT website and they do offer their own GPS and it does have RAIM.
 
Last edited:
Did I miss the answer to this? Tolerances and monitoring? Failure annunciation?

As Ken said, "dumb people will kill themselves regardless"

As it has been mentioned, GRT has a GPS with RAIM and you don't have to use an internal GPS. You could certainly use a certified GPS, like a Garmin 430 that does not have a procedure in its DB for your back yard runway. So, the source of NAV does not have to be from GRT.
 
Dynon, I think you're missing the boat on this one, big time.

On the one hand, it would be (and is for other manufacturers) a very useful tool in the toolbag, to be used at pilots discretion. My home strip is 30 miles from the nearest paved runway and the terrain is flat as a board - but I've got power lines on both ends of my strip that are not lit, and a night approach into my runway would benefit greatly from this tool to keep me on a safe glidepath when the lighting is less than desirable.

On the other hand, it appears you are worried about liability if you provide it - but it's going to be very hard to make the case that a VFR pilot in VMC killed themselves because of using it, when VMC conditions truly existed and they should have had their eyeballs outside. If it's VFR into IMC, then the pilot is clearly at fault or an emergency of some type exists and every tool in the toolbag should be available to me no matter who thinks I shouldn't have it. In the case of IFR (either VMC or IMC) it doesn't matter because it's not approved for IFR use, so that's out the window.

I see only positives for this, and no negatives. I think you should re-evaluate your decision. In the end it's your company and your decision, and the market will vote with their feet and dollars - but I think you're on the wrong end of this argument.

You don't have to be at fault to sue people for anything in this country. All the manufaturers have been sued multiple times in accidents that were blatant pilot error/stupidity.

I can totally understand Dynon's reservation in this one. If you give the masses a great tool, that when misused will potentially kill someone, someone will misuse it and kill themselves.
 
Back
Top