Why is Garmin so backward?

[Dick Smith]

Does anyone know why Garmin does not provide vertical barometric coupling for GPS approaches so you can legally use a completely coupled approach to the minima?

Universal NAV has had this for about a decade and the Collins Proline equipment in my CJ3 – now more than five years old – has full vertical coupling to the minima on GPS approaches. This, of course, must improve safety. However, get Garmin equipment – even the latest – and this is not possible. This was one of the reasons I cancelled my order for a Mustang – imagine going backwards to the 1950s where you have to work out step-down fixes on distances when the Jeppesen database obviously has all the information there for the glide slope to be provided with barometric coupling.

Does anyone know how we can encourage Garmin to get with the twenty-first century and provide this in Australia?

Of course, we all know that in the United States they have WAAS and so don’t need vertical barometric coupling. Could that be the reason Garmin have not done anything for the rest of the world?

[Dick Smith]

Ex A380-800 driver

That’s the reason Collins and Universal have vertical barometric coupling, that is to give the required vertical accuracy. Without the coupling, the pilot is simply taking the reading from the altimeter - it is obvious that it would be even more accurate for the computer software to do this. That is what happens with Collins equipment and with Universal. I wonder when Garmin will come up to speed.

[glekichi]

Modern Honeywell gear does it also.

[Dick Smith]

Now here’s a chance for CASA to show some initiative. Garmin have recently said to me,

...although Garmin have all the required features available through software capabilities and hardware certifications, our clients the Aircraft Manufacturer being the Type Certificate Holder, is still required to implement and certify the software for release to production and Service Bulletins for aircraft in operation.

Sounds to me if CASA asked some of the OEMs in the interests of the safety of Australian passengers to go ahead and complete the certification, safety would be considerably improved. What do others think?

By the way, have CASA ever made a move on this? Or is it the old system of wait for an accident, an ATSB Inquiry then a Coroner’s Report and then make the change?

Remember – in this case there will be no measurable cost; it’s already there in software.

[nitpicker330]

If you can't use VS then I suggest you fly day VFR only Dick.

[Dick Smith]

Ha Ha. Are you forgetting that one of the most common form of fatal accidents by professional pilots is a contolled flight into terrain?

And what happened at Lockhart River?

[nitpicker330]

Mmmmmmm 2 things:- training and experience my friend.

Myself I haven't found a GPS RNAV approach in Australia too difficult to do without VNAV ( Boeing ) or FINAL ( Airbus )

There usually aren't that many Altitudes to meet anyway.......

Can't your Jet fly the track on AP while you setup the required ROD and then monitor it??

Basic stuff Dick......don't you remember doing NDB's in a twin, hand flown with an engine out AND with a 30 kt tailwind and turbulence on the final segment?????? I do and these modern jets are a breeze in comparison...

Where have all the skills gone??

[thorn bird]

"Sounds to me if CASA asked some of the OEMs in the interests of the safety"

Since when have CAsA been interested in "Safety"??

Its exactly as you allude, CAsA are a reactive , NOT a Proactive organization, besides Dick with the new maintenance reg's they seem determined to put through you'll probably be the only person who can afford to fly a certified aircraft on the Australian register.
But I wholeheartedly agree with what you are saying.

[morno]

I guess we could stay in the past and go back to guages and dials too.

Fair go nitpicker. I fly around in a turbo-prop with glass and even it's capable of VNAV right down to the bottom of the approach.

morno

[fl610]

[QUOTE]Now here’s a chance for CASA to show some initiative./QUOTE]

CASA and initiative = oxymoron.

[waren9]

Since when have CAsA been interested in "Safety"??



my thoughts EXACTLY

[27/09]

Does anyone know why Garmin does not provide vertical barometric coupling for GPS approaches so you can legally use a completely coupled approach to the minima?

Of course, we all know that in the United States they have WAAS and so don’t need vertical barometric coupling. Could that be the reason Garmin have not done anything for the rest of the world?

I think you have answered your own question. Garmin sells mainly into the GA market and the biggest majority of that is in the US whereas the likes of Collins etc have their products being used worldwide so there is a demand for VNAV baro features in their product.

It's about time the likes of CASA and our CAA got off their backsides and pushed for the introduction of WAAS into this part of the world.

[Grogmonster]

Hi Dick,

I was fortunate enough to do the Initial Mustang type rating in Wichita and I can confirm that the RNAV approaches with GBAS or SBAS can be flown all the way down to the MDA fully coupled in the Mustang, just like an ILS, but I think you know this. So we know that the aircraft and Garmin is capable. I was told that it was because there are few or no GBAS corrected approaches available to GA outside the USA that someone had instructed Jeppesen not to code Non Precision approaches with VNAV past the FAF. I doubt it was the manufacturer as Vertical profile is a great selling point. Maybe it was Garmin's lawyers.

I also fly Proline 21 equipped aircraft and I like you am very frustrated that VNAV down the approach is not available in Garmin equipped aircraft as it makes it so much safer. Forget about the chest beating going on about flying twin NDBs etc. Lets try to find out what the legal standpoint is with barometric coupling and hopefully we can make aviation in Australia a bit safer.

Groggy

[Clearedtoreenter]

Can't your Jet fly the track on AP while you setup the required ROD and then monitor it??

Basic stuff Dick......don't you remember doing NDB's in a twin, hand flown with an engine out AND with a 30 kt tailwind and turbulence on the final segment?????? I do and these modern jets are a breeze in comparison...

Amazing.

The Garmin G1000/GFC700 is incredibly capable but not so much in Australia, where the it spits the VNV at the FAF. I guess Garmin know we are all real men (and women) here who hand fly everything to the minima, poo poo the magenta line and only respond to flicking needles. We can just do soooo much better with a WW2 ADF and good old vac driven DI.

[josephfeatherweight]

Nitpicker - why so nasty?

[nitpicker330]

Oh come on...........

Flying an RNAV runway aligned approach must be about the easiest approach in the world to do....even without the AP nicely following a Vertical path to the minima.

Yes an Aircraft that did it all itself would be wonderful but what about a Pilot sitting in the Aircraft that could actually do it himself by selecting 800 fpm or 3deg slope at the correct point then monitoring the result?? They do give you Alts for every 1 nm don't they???

I'm not proposing a return to ww2 ADF approaches!! I love my reasonably modern A330 but do you guys really need to be spoon fed?

[Capt Fathom]

The original post was about Avionic Equipment, in particular Garmin. Not sure why we now have a discussion on how people should be able to fly approaches without all the bells and whistles?

[Avgas172]

What happened yesterday is a matter for the historians, what happens in the future is up to us ..... The floor is yours Garmin.

[Old Akro]

CASA and initiative = oxymoron.

The sad thing is that CASA's predecessors used to have initiative, used to lead the world and used to support aviation. Its all gone bad in the last 30 - 40 years. I don't understand why or how it happened, but undeniably it has. The DCA wasn't this bad. I suspect it happened when it centralised to Canberra and the department changed from people with an interest in aviation to people with an interest in the public service.

[Jack Ranga]

The 'problem' doesn't lie with Garmin Dick.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Remember a post from someone deep in the bowels of BOM a while back. Lots of expense on AWOS installations. BaroVNAV was to be Australia's answer for our commitment to ICAO re-availability of GNSS based approaches.

Dick, could it be the Garmin gear has the capability although I fear you need a FMS to drive the approach and only those approaches depicted with a TWR or AWOS for a current BARO setting?

[Capn Bloggs]

imagine going backwards to the 1950s where you have to work out step-down fixes on distances
As already pointed out, Australian approach charts have distance/altitude scales, obviating the need for working out your own (unlike various other countries. Australia doing something better ? Whatever next). So no, I don't imagine going backwards...

As for us getting WAAS just so Dick can fly his Mustang coupled to the VNAV, #$%^&*( off. There are plenty of other options, as pointed out. Since when has augmentation been necessary for coupling down to the minima anyway? Other "software" does it nicely (in the boonies with no augmentation in sight), so get Garmin to change it's mind or change jets.

Remember a post from someone deep in the bowels of BOM a while back. Lots of expense on AWOS installations. BaroVNAV was to be Australia's answer for our commitment to ICAO re-availability of GNSS based approaches.

Lots of expense on AWOS installations. BaroVNAV was to be Australia's answer for our commitment to ICAO re-availability of GNSS based approaches.

Dick, could it be the Garmin gear has the capability although I fear you need a FMS to drive the approach and only those approaches depicted with a TWR or AWOS for a current BARO setting?
Barovnav is nothing special. It merely lets you down to a slightly lower altitude using a "Decision Altitude" technique, nothing more. And all you need is a chart with the LNAV/VNAV mimima for it and an accurate QNH from an approved source (as you do anyway for the 100ft MDA relief). Nothing new or expensive there. You've obviously got to have an approval for the gear...