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

Thanks, the GRT looks much better than G3X then, but has it got the possibility to program ANY descent angle (not just 3 degrees)? And can it use ANY waypoint rather than just official airports?
 
Thanks, the GRT looks much better than G3X then, but has it got the possibility to program ANY descent angle (not just 3 degrees)? And can it use ANY waypoint rather than just official airports?

The default angle is 3 degrees.
You can change that in the setup but all angles will then be the new value.

I think the end point MUST be an airport as they know the location of the runway endpoints and the orientation.

BUT ... you can BUILD your own "airport runway" and put that in the system in advance. Not something you would do "on the fly".

I think this is correct info but am open to being corrected by anyone with better info.

James
 
TERPS

I agree that SV approaches are the cats meow, BUT, remember that the MAP/GPS have absolutely no idea what may be in the approach path, think trees, hills, power lines. Dont just go trusting these things with your life if you cant see out the big window.

At my home airport from both directions the SV approach will fly me right into trees on one end and a mountain on the other.

They have their place.. Familiar, prechecked runways.

Just sayin! Be careful out there.
 
AF-5600 EFIS

The AF-5000 system lets you program a crossing restriction for any waypoint. It will also let you set the synthetic approach glide slope to any runway.

16751695690_d067310d1b_b.jpg



The latest software also uses the same colors and flight plan format as the Avidyne IFD540.

16751452208_744b29d2bf_b.jpg


Once you select the runway in the flight plan it will draw an arrow to the runway on the map and HITS boxes on the PFD. In this case Runway 31R into Boeing Field.
13407365923_e73cfc7c3a_b.jpg


Rob Hickman
Advanced Flight Systems Inc.
N402RH RV-10
 
deciding factor

Despite what I knew beforehand about touch screens and up to date documentation that the competition had/has, this feature made the decision for me in choosing GRT above the D and G systems.

Once I get it operational, I will figure out whether the steep approach into the home strip will pose a problem for routine use into "normal" airports. I think I will have to use about 6-7 degrees for mountain clearance on the straight-in to my home runway, and that might be too steep to be practical at other less cluttered airports. Then again, with full flaps, the 6 seems to descend at a steeper angle even than that. It's nothing to pull power on final with full flaps and have a white over white VASI at one half mile and be red over red well before the threshold. Glides in like a manhole cover.

What default angle works well for you guys using synth approach in the RV without carrying power?

-Stormy
 
I also read the GTN650 and GTN750 manuals (where they call VNAV as "VCALC"), to see if purchasing these expensive and certified units it would make an RV able to perform like my G1000 SR22 in terms of VNAV, but apparently also the GTN have the same "useless" way to program a VNAV descent like the G3X, i.e. inputting the target FPM and not the target Glide Slope Angle. This is confirmed also on a MMOPA blog, where is written "GTN and G1000 have excellent VNAV easy to use, but GTN only provides a foot per minute...". I find this quite incredible from Garmin, to make the G1000 a more capable platform than the G3X+GTN650 combination, EVEN FOR VFR type of flying.
So this analysis leaves as only decent replacements for the G1000 VFR VNAV capabilities only the GRT and the AFS units. The AFS seems even more flexible than the GRT according to the post from yesterday. I live in Europe and the only game in town for advanced navigation in experimentals is Garmin or Dynon, and I never heard of GRT and AFS units in Europe. But given their capability in terms of VFR VNAV programming, I'm ready to install one of them in my RV. Can somebody here share the main pros and cons of GRT vs AFS, and the general consensus in the US RV community in comparing these 2 brands (I understand both brands have more than one unit in their production line, making the comparison a bit articulated).
 
One example I can think of as to why some manufacturers don't allow it:

Pilot creates synthetic approach to his back yard strip intending to use it in VMC conditions only. One day pilot returns home to find his field is IMC due to fog or other low layer. Pilot decides to use his synthetic approach since he has used it 100 times in VMC conditions and all was well. Pilot hits something hard on his approach and dies. Family/Insurance sues the pants off of anyone associated with the event out to about the 10th degree.

Looks like a simple risk vs reward problem to me.....


Keep in mind that this is not a bash on this feature or the manufacturers that have decided to implement it or something similar. It is just an example of why some other manufacturers may chose not to provide it. Not saying that is the reason, just maybe a possible reason.
 
Last edited:
Well, we've been doing this for some 9 years on our EFIS systems (Enigma, Voyager, Odyssey and all of the latest iEFIS flavours).
Are you seriously suggesting that if somebody wipes himself out using his own (or any supplied) approach guidance (regardless of IMC or VMC) he or his estate has grounds to sue ?
What possible argument would the estate use in court ?
How is this any different from following track and altitude down to a runway using a hand-held GPS ?

Sorry for chiming in here but I am intrigued.

Rainier
CEO MGL Avionics

One example I can think of as to why some manufacturers don't allow it:

Pilot creates synthetic approach to his back yard strip intending to use it in VMC conditions only.

One day pilot returns home to find his field is IMC due to fog or other low layer.

Pilot decides to use his synthetic approach since he has used it 100 times in VMC conditions and all was well.

Pilot hits something hard on his approach and dies.

Family/Insurance sues the pants off of anyone associated with the event out to about the 10th degree.

Looks like a simple risk vs reward problem to me.....
 
Well, we've been doing this for some 9 years on our EFIS systems (Enigma, Voyager, Odyssey and all of the latest iEFIS flavours).
Are you seriously suggesting that if somebody wipes himself out using his own (or any supplied) approach guidance (regardless of IMC or VMC) he or his estate has grounds to sue ?
What possible argument would the estate use in court ?
How is this any different from following track and altitude down to a runway using a hand-held GPS ?

Sorry for chiming in here but I am intrigued.

Rainier
CEO MGL Avionics

Rainier,
It would be ridiculously easy. Pilot hits non-charted object flying his roll-his-own approach in IMC conditions. Pilot's family sues EFIS manufacturer for giving said pilot the ability to build and fly his own approach that had not been TERP'd by the FAA. The fact that it was pilot error and that he was violating FARs won't matter.

This kind of logic has won both aviation and non-aviation cases in the US. Just ask McDonald's about the lady who spilled hot coffee on her.
 
Last edited:
Well, we've been doing this for some 9 years on our EFIS systems (Enigma, Voyager, Odyssey and all of the latest iEFIS flavours).
Are you seriously suggesting that if somebody wipes himself out using his own (or any supplied) approach guidance (regardless of IMC or VMC) he or his estate has grounds to sue ?
What possible argument would the estate use in court ?
How is this any different from following track and altitude down to a runway using a hand-held GPS ?

Sorry for chiming in here but I am intrigued.

Rainier
CEO MGL Avionics

Absolutely. Not sure how the legal system works in South Africa but here in the US, you don't need a good reason to initiate a law suite. Large corporations have spent millions upon millions defending themselves against frivolous law suites that have no real argument. Even if a corporation is successful in winning a case like this, the net cost to them could still be huge...

I have been on the defensive end of a product liability lawsuit where someone got injured. I have seen first hand how much it can cost to prove you had nothing to do with it. All the disclaimers in the world plastered on every page of your manual, warning screens, press to accept buttons and similar won't protect you from being associated with some idiot that decides to do something stupid. Doing business with that idiot is a risk vs reward decision.

Do people honestly think that there is a technological reason why someone like Garmin, Dynon, AFS, GRT & MGL would not implement certain simple features such as this? This stuff is child's play for the programmers and hardware these companies have in place today. There is always more to the story....

Right here in the VAF archives are examples of where pilots have admitted to using a handheld GPS for IMC approaches by making fake entries which defeat the safety features of the GPS that are put there to protect said pilot from himself. Yes some people are that irresponsible.


Keep in mind that this is not a bash on this feature or the manufacturers that have decided to implement it or something similar. It is just an example of why some other manufacturers may chose not to provide it. Not saying that is the reason, just maybe a possible reason.
 
Last edited:
Also, that's the a reason that on the Garmin non-precision LNAV+V approach that the GPS derived glide path is advisory only and the pilot is admonished to not descend below the published MDA until the runway environment is in sight as with any non-precision approach regardless of the glide path indication. The fact that the Garmin is generating a glide path will not give you obstacle clearance below the MDA unlike say an LPV approach where you can safely follow the glide path down to the decision altitude..
 
Also, that's the a reason that on the Garmin non-precision LNAV+V approach that the GPS derived glide path is advisory only and the pilot is admonished to not descend below the published MDA until the runway environment is in sight as with any non-precision approach regardless of the glide path indication. The fact that the Garmin is generating a glide path will not give you obstacle clearance below the MDA unlike say an LPV approach where you can safely follow the glide path down to the decision altitude..

And why they started removing advisory glide path info from approach databases. And another reason why certified navigators are so darn expensive!
 
Last edited:
Hmm.

So if I make a hammer and somebody smashes his index finger with it then I am liable as I made the hammer.

Same thing ? No ?

You guys sure have a funny sense of right and wrong.

Yes, having been on the receiving end of some U.S. based patent infringement claims I understand your system somewhat. No sorry - "understand" is perhaps the wrong term.

Rainier
CEO MGL Avionics
 
Hmm.

So if I make a hammer and somebody smashes his index finger with it then I am liable as I made the hammer.

Same thing ? No ?

You guys sure have a funny sense of right and wrong.

Yes, having been on the receiving end of some U.S. based patent infringement claims I understand your system somewhat. No sorry - "understand" is perhaps the wrong term.

Rainier
CEO MGL Avionics

Gun manufacturers here in the US get sued all the time for that reason. Bottom line is the US is a litigious society where the #1 rule is everyone else is to blame and # 2 is anyone with deep pockets will get sued.
 
Perhpas I was not clear, but hundreds of jets, turboprops and piston planes that have the G1000 , CAN indeed create a synthetic approach with any slope angle and any bearing into any user defined point on earth. I use this feature in my Cirrus every time I land in marginal vfr conditions. So legal liability is not the point. It it market segmentation, where Garmin wants you to buy a g1000 or a g900x to have this incredibly useful feature. How about MGL units capability to program VNAV vfr approaches?
 
Gun manufacturers here in the US get sued all the time for that reason. Bottom line is the US is a litigious society where the #1 rule is everyone else is to blame and # 2 is anyone with deep pockets will get sued.

That's not really true. Almost every state has passed laws that prohibit suing gun manufacturers, except for defects in manufacturing.
 
That's not really true. Almost every state has passed laws that prohibit suing gun manufacturers, except for defects in manufacturing.

There's a loophole in the Federal shield law that still allows suits to happen (eg Bushmaster/Remington and Sandy Hook). Agree that the gun example was a poor analogy. However, the point is Firms can and do get sued under the logic Rainier presented. IOW, just because a tool is used outside of its intended use will not shield the manufacturer from being sued--wrongly or not. Doesn't mean the plaintiff will win, but the manufacturer will still have to expend resources to defend.
 
Happy Friday everyone,

Without commenting on the several topics of discussion going on in this thread, we just wanted to clarify that adding the capability for a G3X user to set up our VNAV feature to use a flight path angle instead of a vertical speed is in fact something we would like to investigate. If you've been following our products, you'll have noticed that we continue to roll out new features and improvements in our free software updates, and that we do go out of our way to incorporate customer feedback as resources permit.

Everybody have a great weekend, and fly safely...

- Matt
 
This kind of logic has won both aviation and non-aviation cases in the US. Just ask McDonald's about the lady who spilled hot coffee on her.

There's actually more to the infamous McDonald's coffee case. http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm?PageSpeed=noscript

The plaintiff originally asked only for medical costs (to treat third-degree burns over 6% of her body) and lost wages; after going to trial she was awarded much more in punitive damages because McDonald's repeatedly shot itself in the foot on the stand and ticked off the jury. Effectively, they said "we knew the coffee was really hot and could cause severe burns, we didn't really tell the customers about it, we know we've had hundreds of people get serious burns from the coffee, but that's nothing, really." The eventual punitive damages came to something like a few hours' worth of coffee profits.
 
Happy Friday everyone,

Without commenting on the several topics of discussion going on in this thread, we just wanted to clarify that adding the capability for a G3X user to set up our VNAV feature to use a flight path angle instead of a vertical speed is in fact something we would like to investigate. If you've been following our products, you'll have noticed that we continue to roll out new features and improvements in our free software updates, and that we do go out of our way to incorporate customer feedback as resources permit.

Everybody have a great weekend, and fly safely...

- Matt

Thanks for bring the conversation back on track. :)

As Widget mentioned earlier .....

DO NOT TRUST "Synthetic Approaches" from anyone unless you KNOW it is not going to fly you into a building or trees or a tower or whatever.
I think it is an emergency safety feature if you are stuck above a cloud layer, must get down, don't have appropriate IFR "stuff" and need additional assistance. It beats what might be the alternative and you will be around to fil out all the violation paperwork. (And that's a GOOD thing in this case!)

There are other uses for them and they are a good thing in gerneral in my opinion, but the moment someone uses one to plow into the ground is the moment all vendors are likely to remove or stop considering them.

Like many other features that the various vendors are making available to us, please use with proper discretion.
 
There's actually more to the infamous McDonald's coffee case. http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm?PageSpeed=noscript

The plaintiff originally asked only for medical costs (to treat third-degree burns over 6% of her body) and lost wages; after going to trial she was awarded much more in punitive damages because McDonald's repeatedly shot itself in the foot on the stand and ticked off the jury. Effectively, they said "we knew the coffee was really hot and could cause severe burns, we didn't really tell the customers about it, we know we've had hundreds of people get serious burns from the coffee, but that's nothing, really." The eventual punitive damages came to something like a few hours' worth of coffee profits.

If you have Netflix, watch "Hot Coffee." It's a documentary on tort reform but soecifically delves into this case. You'll never use it as a punch line again, and McDonald's should've paid out 10x what they did based on how they treated her.
 
If you don't want the information that is available to you, don't accept it. But I want it and accept the information provided by modern avionics quite happily. I never imagined I could have this much situational awareness in an airplane when I started flying in the last century. I think it is great and never want to go back.
 
Happy Friday everyone,

Without commenting on the several topics of discussion going on in this thread, we just wanted to clarify that adding the capability for a G3X user to set up our VNAV feature to use a flight path angle instead of a vertical speed is in fact something we would like to investigate. If you've been following our products, you'll have noticed that we continue to roll out new features and improvements in our free software updates, and that we do go out of our way to incorporate customer feedback as resources permit.

Everybody have a great weekend, and fly safely...

- Matt

Happy to help with the development and to test the first version.
 
So far we discussed which system (GRT, AFS, G3X, Dynon, MGL, GTN650/750, G1000/G900X) allows the pilot to program a vertical path, WITH CONSTANT GLIDE ANGLE (e.g. 3 Degrees) and CONSTANT BEARING, to a user-defined waypoint (e.g. a private strip). The ranking is
1) G1000/G900X
2) AFS, MGL, GRT
3) G3X (perhaps in development, not yet available)
4) Dynon, GTN650/750 (not available AFAIK)

However this is just half of the equation. The other is having a good autopilot that can couple with such vertical path and bring you down smoothly. In the certified world, there are 2 types of autopilots:

Rate-based: like the STEC 55X and KAP140
AHRS/Attitude-based: like the DFC90 or the GFC700

I've flown many hours with both the STEC55X and the GFC700 (both in the same plane, an SR22), and I can confirm the general consensus that you DON'T want a rate-based autopilot coupled to a vertical approach path if there is lateral wind (it will start porpoising and oscillating more and more). Since I'm new to the experimental World, I'd like to ask here which non-certified autopilots are of the AHRS-based type (TruTrak? Own autopilots offered by GRT, AFS, G3X?).
 
Last edited:
5) Dynon, MGL, GTN650/750 (not available AFAIK)

I don't think you have done your research quite accurately.

MGL has has this kind of function for 9 years now. The required data comes from the various sources (for example FAA database or Jeppesen). You can set any glide slope angle you like (normally 3 degrees but personally I prefer 4 degrees).
Using our MGL Central application you can define as many other strips as you like, either by using known coordinates and threshold elevations or - if you happen to be able to see your strip on Google Earth - just click on the two ends of the usable runway. Can't really be done any easier...

This data can be used in addition to any installed databases as "secondary" database.

How is is used ?

You have automatic approach guidance - whenever the system detects that you are in possible range of a runway on a meaningful approach bearing you get a line of blue crosses on the synthetic vision extending from the runway threshold into the sky (at whatever favourite glide slope you have selected). To fly this manually - easy. Just line up the crosses in front of you so you see one cross only. You fly "into" the crosses similar to a box type highway in the sky. The runway is at the end - usually just before that you get the "ground proximity" warning from the nice lady in your headsets).

At any time you can convert the blue crosses into green ones - if you do that you have selected a GLS approach and HSI and glide slope indicator reacts as you would expect. large ILS/glide slope "needles" can also be enabled. In this case, if you are flying on autopilot, the AP will duly attempt to intercept the ILS and glide slope and should you not do anything about it - will crash you right into the threshold of the runway. At any time you can also select a missed approach and the AP (or flight director) takes you on a climb to a selected altitude maintaining runway heading - during this you can elect what to do next (aim for a hold or go around for example). This can also be triggered automatically - just give full engine power and missed approach is triggered without you doing anything.
Of course you can activate a GLS from anywhere - you don't have to wait until the blue approach guidance appears.

The line of blue crosses BTW also extends from the threshold on departure. This makes it rather simple to climb out exactly on centerline if you so desire.

Liability ? From what has been written in this interesting thread. Perhaps yes.
Useful ? Absolutely.

Rainier
CEO MGL Avionics
 
I don't think you have done your research quite accurately.

MGL has has this kind of function for 9 years now. The required data comes from the various sources (for example FAA database or Jeppesen). You can set any glide slope angle you like (normally 3 degrees but personally I prefer 4 degrees).
Using our MGL Central application you can define as many other strips as you like, either by using known coordinates and threshold elevations or - if you happen to be able to see your strip on Google Earth - just click on the two ends of the usable runway. Can't really be done any easier...

Perfect, post amended. How about the autopilot recommended by MGL? Is it AHRS-based or Rate-based?
 
Perfect, post amended. How about the autopilot recommended by MGL? Is it AHRS-based or Rate-based?

Autopilot recommended by MGL ?

Do you know we have an internal autopilot ?
Yes, you can indeed elect to have an external AP as well - if you want to fly glide slopes then that needs to be an ARINC based one as NMEA does not do vertical (it does but it seems no vertical nav source sends the required sentence).

The internal AP is both AHRS and rate based (any AHRS based AP will use rates from the AHRS in addition to knowledge of attitude).

The external autopilot depends on the maker of course (most use Trutrak). Our own external stand-alone autopilot due for Oshkosh is AHRS based (in fact it contains much of the actual EFIS autopilot including built in WAAS GPS, NMEA, ARINC and SL30 or compatible Navradio inputs).

Rainier
CEO MGL Avionics
 
Autopilot recommended by MGL ?

The internal AP is both AHRS and rate based (any AHRS based AP will use rates from the AHRS in addition to knowledge of attitude).

Thanks Rainier. Just to make things clear on the MGL system, can your internal AP, as of TODAY, fly the synthetic VFR Vertical approach generated by your MGL EFIS (I mean both laterally and vertically)? Can it fly an IFR vertical approach (ILS or LPV) coming from an external source of IFR navigation (like a GTN650)?
 
Generally most all of the experimental AP's on the market today will smoke the STEC in performance. These modern all digital AP's and their servos are simply amazing to experience compared to the old school rate based units.

As for your other questions: It depends


Some AP's like the TT Sorcerer can couple to both GPSS/GPSV, NMEA and NAV Radio signals (VOR/GS/LOC) others that TT make can only talk NMEA or GPSS/GPSV.

Some EFIS units connected to the proper TT AP can transfigure the NAV radio signals and convert them to GPSS/GPSV that the TT AP can understand and be able to couple to VOR/GS/LOC signals.

Then there is the AP's that can be built into the modern EFIS systems. Feature sets vary between EFIS makes and they are constantly updating their capabilities so it is hard to keep up with which one can do what.

The Garmin G3X AP can couple to it's VNAV just fine. It can also pretty much couple with any other navigation source that it supports. I imagine this will not change when they add the ability to set your own glide angle.
 
Last edited:
Thanks Rainier. Just to make things clear on the MGL system, can your internal AP, as of TODAY, fly the synthetic VFR Vertical approach generated by your MGL EFIS (I mean both laterally and vertically)? Can it fly an IFR vertical approach (ILS or LPV) coming from an external source of IFR navigation (like a GTN650)?

Yes of course. Been doing that for many years.

You can use either the internal AP or an external AP using any of the many internal nav sources or external nav sources including analog types (+/-150mV signals).
To simplify operation our current systems assign a priority to equivalent nav sources. Say you select "en-route GPS navigation" - this would be anything from a direct-to or a route/flightplan. If you are doing this using the internal GPS it will be used UNLESS it gets en-route navigation information from an external source - in this case the external gets priority (typically a Garmin source). In case of multiple internal or external sources - these are again assigned a priority (for example should you have a SL30 Nav plus a G530 and both are giving VOR - then the systems picks the G530 as it has a higher priority).
The same goes for any other nav mode (VOR, ILS, heading bug...).

This keeps things simple despite supporting a plethora of nav sources and modes.

Rainier
CEO MGL Avionics
 
Happy Friday everyone,

Without commenting on the several topics of discussion going on in this thread, we just wanted to clarify that adding the capability for a G3X user to set up our VNAV feature to use a flight path angle instead of a vertical speed is in fact something we would like to investigate. If you've been following our products, you'll have noticed that we continue to roll out new features and improvements in our free software updates, and that we do go out of our way to incorporate customer feedback as resources permit.

Everybody have a great weekend, and fly safely...

- Matt


7 months have past since the above message from Garmin. Any development on giving g3x the capability that is present on g1000 (and that grt, mgl and afs already have), to descent to any waypoint with arbitrary bearing AND arbitrary glide angle, both kept constant by the autopilot?
 
Happy Friday everyone,

Without commenting on the several topics of discussion going on in this thread, we just wanted to clarify that adding the capability for a G3X user to set up our VNAV feature to use a flight path angle instead of a vertical speed is in fact something we would like to investigate. If you've been following our products, you'll have noticed that we continue to roll out new features and improvements in our free software updates, and that we do go out of our way to incorporate customer feedback as resources permit.

Everybody have a great weekend, and fly safely...

- Matt

Matt, any progress on the "investigation" of providing this ability with the g3x?

Kevin
 
Happy Friday everyone,

Without commenting on the several topics of discussion going on in this thread, we just wanted to clarify that adding the capability for a G3X user to set up our VNAV feature to use a flight path angle instead of a vertical speed is in fact something we would like to investigate. If you've been following our products, you'll have noticed that we continue to roll out new features and improvements in our free software updates, and that we do go out of our way to incorporate customer feedback as resources permit.

Everybody have a great weekend, and fly safely...

- Matt

Matt, any progress on the "investigation" of providing this ability with the g3x?

Kevin

18 months have past since the above statement from g3xpert. Any update on this capability for the G3X? It's just a question of software update, a developer familiar with the G3X system would take 1h to do the job. It's a capability that most uncertified EFIS have and the G1000 has (I use it in EVERY VFR flight on my G1000).
 
Documentation for GRT custom synthetic approach?

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.

Anyone know where to find the documentation on this. The link is broken. I am reasonably sure that the missing piece of information is the expected file name.

Thanks in advance!

Cheers, Sean
 
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.

The problem with letting Darwin sort things out is that Darwin and attornies are best friends. Once Darwin steps in the attornies are sure to follow and that ultimately has a negative effect on us all.
 
All we want are the facts, ma?am

My bad, I should have noted that the controversy has been beaten into some kind of submission over the last 136 posts and hoping to return to the intent of the OP. Any information or documentation appreciated. I've reached out to GRT but the brain trust here is often faster.

Cheers, Sean
 
Sean - the "how to" is now documented in the baseline GRT operator's manuals.

Despite the dire warning issued above, the SAP is a very handy thing to have available. Not to permit an instrument approach into a field that doesn't have an instrument approach, but as additional guidance and a cross-check for the visual approach you're making to that field.
 
GRT - How to...

Thanks Canadian_Joy! For those who may follow:

User databases are loaded through the SET MENU, Display Unit Maintenance, Database Maintenance, Update User Database function. Upon activating the function, the EFIS will display a list of files and folders on the USB flash drive.

Cheers, Sean
 
Back
Top