Minimums bug

Mike

New Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2019
Messages
6
It seems the minimums bug only adjusts in 10’ Increments. Is there a way to change it to 1’ increments so I can put the exact DA in?
 

kellym

I love flying!
Joined
Sep 29, 2013
Messages
88
It seems the minimums bug only adjusts in 10’ Increments. Is there a way to change it to 1’ increments so I can put the exact DA in?
Are you serious? If 5 ft makes a difference, you are pushing the WX to tightly. IF a DA, you will be dipping through it anyway on the missed. If MDA you can try to squeeze those extra single digit minimums, but unlikely to make one bit of difference. You will have the minimums on top of your head anyway, and setting the reminder for a second or two above the real minimums is adequate reminder. JMHO after 40 years of flying IFR.
 

Mike

New Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2019
Messages
6
Yes I am serious and with only 33 years of IFR experience I still asked the question. I can and do set the exact minimums every approach at work so why not in my RV6? It’s a simple software fix and has absolutely nothing to do with pushing the WX.
 

kellym

I love flying!
Joined
Sep 29, 2013
Messages
88
Yes I am serious and with only 33 years of IFR experience I still asked the question. I can and do set the exact minimums every approach at work so why not in my RV6? It’s a simple software fix and has absolutely nothing to do with pushing the WX.
Hmm, somewhat like the guy that wants his fuel quantity displayed to the nearest tenth of a gallon. Digital readout does not get you digital precision and accuracy. Maybe it is more pleasing to dial in an exact integer, but it doesn't change the significant digits.
Before we had glass panels, you weren't reading your altimeter to the nearest foot. What makes you think your static system/altimeter is any more accurate? Many of your IFR altimeter certification test units are still using analog reference instruments. Remember the Skyview is not the same as your airliner avionics, nor is it going to let you fly Cat II or Cat III approaches. 200 ft AGL is as good as it gets, and +/- 5 ft is way above the precision required for IFR certification. The published minimum in most cases is 200 or 250 ft above either the airport reference point, or less common the touchdown zone elevation. Is the extra knob twirling really worth the 4-5 ft difference from the nearest 10 ft? Are you really trying to fly to a precision that doesn't exist in the instrumentation?
 

Mike

New Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2019
Messages
6
Clearly this thread has struck a nerve with you. Look, I would like to set 1 foot resolution in the minimums bug to match he chart, but it’s not the end of the world if it only does 10 feet. Or how about this... a user setting so you can choose 1 or 10 so you don’t have to twist so much. So relax, if Dynon makes the change I’ll be happy, if not ... I’ll still be happy. In any case, it’s a great day to fly so I think I will.
 

WmInce

New Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2019
Messages
14
. . . Digital readout does not get you digital precision and accuracy. Maybe it is more pleasing to dial in an exact integer, but it doesn't change the significant digits.
Before we had glass panels, you weren't reading your altimeter to the nearest foot. What makes you think your static system/altimeter is any more accurate? Many of your IFR altimeter certification test units are still using analog reference instruments. Remember the Skyview is not the same as your airliner avionics, nor is it going to let you fly Cat II or Cat III approaches. 200 ft AGL is as good as it gets, and +/- 5 ft is way above the precision required for IFR certification. The published minimum in most cases is 200 or 250 ft above either the airport reference point, or less common the touchdown zone elevation. Is the extra knob twirling really worth the 4-5 ft difference from the nearest 10 ft? Are you really trying to fly to a precision that doesn't exist in the instrumentation?
Concur totally.
I would much rather have Dynon spend their time ($$$) addressing more important issues.
 
Top