Ideally, GA autopilots should have their control loop parameters developed using such models but, hey, this is GA, which is why so many “certified” autopilot installations are unstable under some loading / speed conditions. Same with Apollo, of course, which had way more resources thrown at the simulation side. when the Concorde first flew, the test pilot reported that it flew just like the sim. when the flaps, wheels, spoilers etc are extended, and then rather more so when everything falls apart when the wheels touch the ground Eventually, by say 1965 (when decent computers existed) this process was well developed, and e.g.
Will stec 50 autopilot track vnav full#
Many years ago I discussed this with a full motion sim computing guy (back in the days when GEC were building computers and real programmers used assembler and Fortran… nowadays real programmers use assembler and C of course ) and all the full motion sims wee running a set of partial differential equations which were built for every aircraft to be simulated.
Will stec 50 autopilot track vnav software#
Garmin (or Avidyne) own the software for, potentially, the first two, but I would be amazed if anybody out there has built mathematical models for GA aircraft. It would be very hard to simulate the whole GPS – autopilot – aircraft system. (I am just old enough to remember the last of the London Pea Soupers, where you literally couldn’t see the road from the pavement, but that hasn’t happened for 60 years, as far as I know.) So, in absolute extremis, with zero visibility (more likely to be medical or oil from the engine than fog or ice) and no-one on the ground to give directions, I guess it might work, but, as others have said, in any modern fog you would be able to see the centreline lights from about 50’ and land, or at the very least use sideways vision. It flies super accurately to ~10’ above the GPIP, then levels off and flies along the centreline to the end of the runway. There has been a change in GTN software in the meantime (6.41 – 6.50), and they have done a lot of work in vertical navigation, so maybe they have rewritten or corrected that bit, who knows?īut the good news is that we all seem now to be on the same page. There is no doubt that it was there about three months ago, when I repeated it ad nauseam because it seemed so strange, but now not. So, I have to say that the climbing away has gone. So I thought I would try again using the Visual Approach, as I did a lot of experimenting on that when it first came out, and thought I might have got confused, but the behaviour was exactly the same (same terrain I must apologise to all the good burghers of Calais, whose breakfast I disturbed by flying through their kitchens.) In LPV, it just flew at about 10’ above the ground and eventually hit a “grassy knoll” in the middle of Calais (it doesn’t crash for houses, it flies through them, it only crashes into terrain.) I have spent a frustrating morning trying to video this behaviour. Would you do it unless you absolutely had to – no. I’m not sure of the science behind this below 200’ and it could just be following the localiser with a preset ROD. We decelerate using the hover mode function and can then possibly descend vertically using the radalt alt hold down to 0’. I have tried this in the Sim and when VMC and it seems to work. Our aircraft when 4 axis coupled will fly all the way down to 80’ and then level off on the ILS. I haven’t seen this happen for real but we do practice this on Sim LOFT scenarios. If you haven’t used your superior judgement and taken fuel (may not be available) then you you could find yourself arriving back at the field with little alternative but to go below system minima. Sometimes, but very rarely, the 100kt fog can appear during a long sector back. We often go offshore and return without an alternate if the weather meets the criteria laid down in Part-HOFO. Interesting thread from a helicopter point of view.
0 kommentar(er)
