vertical GPS guidance to a waypoint

[Axel]

Since several Skyview revisions we finally got the much discussed (sometimes vilified) feature to treat every waypoint like a VOR: with an OBS-like possibility to dial in a radial and course deviation presented in HSI fashion.

Thank you Dynon!

Call me ungrateful, but since then I sit with wet hands whenever a new SW revision is announced, hoping that the logical next step had been implemented:

a "3° glide slope" indicator to the next waypoint,

complementing the azimuth guidance with a vertical "ILS-like" guidance, (which currently exists, but only using external nav sources, not the internal GPS 'SKYVIEW').

Since the math is simple, I would be interested to know what objections can be raised to such an extension and if I can maintain my high expectations.

 

[KRviator]

Unless your waypoint is a runway threshold, flying a VNAV path doesn't seem that useful. Personally, I'd settle for a user-specified rate of descent to a waypoint and a Descend, Descend now audio alert. But that's just me being (exceptionally) lazy, and not wanting to number-crunch a descent profile.

 

[Eric_Greenwell]

a "3° glide slope" indicator to the next waypoint,

What is the purpose and value of such an indicator?

 

[GalinHdz]

To do this I use the altitude intercept arc (better known as the "periwinkle plantain") which was introduced in v10. I dial in my new altitude then adjust my descent rate until the "plantain" is over the waypoint. Works like a charm. 

http://preflight.dynonavionics.com/2014/03/introducing-new-skyview-featuring.html

 

[airguy]

I think the liability aspect of this feature would be troublesome, in that some people would almost certainly use it to establish a pseudo-ILS approach to an airport or private strip that doesn't have one, and has not gone through the FAA procedure to approve that approach as "safe" with the required margins etc etc. A lot of pilots would certainly WANT this, and the equipment manufacturers DO NOT want this, for the simple aspect of having to defend your product in court when the family sues them for even allowing the possibility of that pseudo-ILS approach.

I would not expect Dynon to implement this, and I can't blame them for not doing so. The "periwinkle plantain   ;D " solution outlined above will have to be your approach to this scenario, and places the risk squarely where it belongs, in the pilots lap. Remember that the NTSB can extract the flight data from a Skyview panel, and it will show that the pilot independently elected to penetrate IMC to a low level approach if indeed it goes to the point that the NTSB is involved. That keeps Dynon one step further away from a cursory liability judgement - and that style judgement is what is constantly causing the high prices on avionics for the certified community. We don't want to go there.

 

[jc2da]

I think the liability aspect of this feature would be troublesome, in that some people would almost certainly use it to establish a pseudo-ILS approach to an airport or private strip that doesn't have one, and has not gone through the FAA procedure to approve that approach as "safe" with the required margins etc etc. A lot of pilots would certainly WANT this, and the equipment manufacturers DO NOT want this, for the simple aspect of having to defend your product in court when the family sues them for even allowing the possibility of that pseudo-ILS approach.

I would not expect Dynon to implement this, and I can't blame them for not doing so. The "periwinkle plantain   ;D " solution outlined above will have to be your approach to this scenario, and places the risk squarely where it belongs, in the pilots lap. Remember that the NTSB can extract the flight data from a Skyview panel, and it will show that the pilot independently elected to penetrate IMC to a low level approach if indeed it goes to the point that the NTSB is involved. That keeps Dynon one step further away from a cursory liability judgement - and that style judgement is what is constantly causing the high prices on avionics for the certified community. We don't want to go there.

Garmin already supports this in the Aera 660. Provides both lateral and vertical guidance in a "portable" unit (with usual disclaimer used for advisory purposes only)/

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showpost.php?p=1060458&postcount=52

As shown in the images in the first posting, VNAV vertical guidance is also provided by the aera 660 and both lateral and vertical guidance is output on the serial port if your aircraft has an autopilot that follows this guidance.

Garmin is huge compared to Dynon. They can likely more easily afford the liability. Lately, it seems to me that Dynon has decided to go the safer mostly VFR route. For example, the latest product announcement for Skyview SE for VFR only. Not saying this to be critical or anything. Unfortunately, with regards to liability, the size of your wallet does matter.