Another nice one:
Airborne_Again wrote:
Well if we are discussing other aiming points that what the Garmin units give us, why not also discuss other glide path angles?
Indeed, but even with a 3.5° (or even 4.5°) slope, the aiming point on a 600m runway would be better the threshold than 250m (or 195m) in.
Question for the GTN experts and sorry for the slight off-topic: my GTN keeps saving permanent user-defined waypoints and flight plans, without me asking for it. Every few flights I have to spend several minutes to manually cancel unwanted user-defined waypoints (and the corresponding saved unwanted flight plans. otherwise it would not allow me to cancel the waypoints) otherwise they show as big orange spots on the map and they use up limited memory. Garmin said it is because, maybe in turbulence, I may fiddle with the touchscreen and in particular the rubber-band function, but they agree that the auto-saved waypoints and flightplans should only be temporary and Garmin may change this in a future SW release. The problem is that I cannot replicate the issue even “fiddling” with the rubber-band function: any suggestion from GTN power-users how to avoid this in the current SW version?
EGLC has 5.5 Deg(?) Glide with minimal in the region of 500’
This 600m strip, IF you were flying IMC what minima would you use? 500’? Time enough to tweak your approach path.
Don’t see how you could have"visual approaches" with varying TCH,… Needs to be consistent IMHO.
GTN can save waypoints as temporary if I recall correctly.
I would expect permanent ones to be…..well permanent.
Thanks Pete, but how about waypoints that are saved automatically by the GTN as permanent waypoints during normal flight operations, without any intention or awareness of the pilot to save them: these unwanted saved waypoint just start to clutter the GTN map screen to the point you no longer see more important symbols like obstacles, and nobody seems to understand why the GTN is doing this. I would consider it a SW bug, but maybe I’m doing something wrong without realising it.
Ah right. Not seen that issue as I don’t operate that way.
Just enter/open a route and fly it, using IFR waypoints.
PeteD wrote:
500’? Time enough to tweak your approach path.
My point is that the approach path would have to be tweaked every time. Why would you design an approach that always required instability.
All this is highly theoretical, of course, because, as you say, you would have high minima; it’s just the principle that I am wondering about.
Timothy wrote:
My point is that the approach path would have to be tweaked every time. Why would you design an approach that always required instability.
As you say, it is highly theoretical, but even with the aiming point at the threshold you would have to destabilise the approach as you don’t want to actually touch down at the threshold. Actually intending to do so would be risky for several reasons.
