|
guille
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 149,
Visits: 2.4K
|
+xAre you saying you look at your altimeter when flying 500 ft AGL? I am looking outside all the time at that altitude. No altimeter required and hence no elevation information. -- Chris. Sorry, but flying slowly with a Gyro, you can look at the altimeter and the tablet... and of course look outside. But I always fly (since already many years) between 500 and 1000 feet AGL. And at 500 ft you can easily move to 700 ft or 300 ft without realizing it if not looking at the altimeter...
|
|
|
|
|
Gax
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 41,
Visits: 0
|
Why would you stop glancing at your flight instruments at 500'??? How would you even know you're at 500' unless you've looked at an instrument? Not everybody just flies A-to-B at 3000'+, and those of us who do fly at heights under 1000' are completely capable of glancing down for 1 second to read the panel without suddenly rocketing into the ground at 1500'/min (which would still require 20 seconds of descent)
|
|
|
|
|
ckurz7000
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 538,
Visits: 2.2K
|
+xWhy would you stop glancing at your flight instruments at 500'??? How would you even know you're at 500' unless you've looked at an instrument? Not everybody just flies A-to-B at 3000'+, and those of us who do fly at heights under 1000' are completely capable of glancing down for 1 second to read the panel without suddenly rocketing into the ground at 1500'/min (which would still require 20 seconds of descent) BTW, I also fly a gyro and I regularly fly on the lower end of the spectrum. The reason I question the usefulness of knowing elevation figures are these: 1) At low altitudes there are increasingly more obstacles. They are sometimes not on SD, and therefore I keep a more vigilant look out when flying low. 2) Glancing at the altimeter is fine but what I am interested, really, is not dropping below the minimum allowed altitude. Knowing elevation is not going to help me doing this. Altitude above ground level will, however. And this is already provided by SD. 3) Flying at 500 feet, I can easily detect altitude excursions because 100 feet is 20% of my altitude. Whereas at 5000 feet it is only 2%. 4) Altitudes from GPS and a digital elevation model are notoriously inaccurate. Greetings, -- Chris.
|
|
|
|
|
Gax
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 41,
Visits: 0
|
1) any obstacle high enough to be a conflict at 500' will be in SD. I forget the specific max height for marking an obstacle on a chart, but it's well below 500'. Even so, a 'more vigilant look' doesn't men you can't still glance at instruments.
2 and 4) These two points contradict themselves - You say SD already provides height, but then say GPS altitude is inaccurate. I agree with 4 but disagree that knowing elevation is not useful as you can then crosscheck against the theoretically more accurate pressure altimeter.
3) Excursions aren't always noticeable if they're gradual, and not everybody is as good at visually picking out heights. Also, the 500' height isn't the only usecase - Another is flying IMC due to unforeseen weather and trying to maintain an MSA of 1000' under low class A airspace (e.g. the Sevenoaks area), in which case you won't be able to see such excursions.
|
|
|
|
|
Tim Dawson
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.1K,
Visits: 9.4K
|
All potential changes to SkyDemon come with a built-in resistance. That's what stops the software becoming clunky and unusable.
To overcome the built-in resistance, a good case for a new feature needs to be made by a decent number of customers. Sometimes when we give in to the pressure of a few voices on a forum and implement a niche feature, we regret it years later when it has repeatedly confused people who are on the telephone to us.
|
|
|
|
|
ckurz7000
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 538,
Visits: 2.2K
|
+x1) any obstacle high enough to be a conflict at 500' will be in SD. I forget the specific max height for marking an obstacle on a chart, but it's well below 500'. Even so, a 'more vigilant look' doesn't men you can't still glance at instruments. 2 and 4) These two points contradict themselves - You say SD already provides height, but then say GPS altitude is inaccurate. I agree with 4 but disagree that knowing elevation is not useful as you can then crosscheck against the theoretically more accurate pressure altimeter. 3) Excursions aren't always noticeable if they're gradual, and not everybody is as good at visually picking out heights. Also, the 500' height isn't the only usecase - Another is flying IMC due to unforeseen weather and trying to maintain an MSA of 1000' under low class A airspace (e.g. the Sevenoaks area), in which case you won't be able to see such excursions. 1) Not all the obstacles are on the chart (they get erected between issue dates and sometimes not even reported). And most people don't read the corresponding NOTAM and mark them on their charts. 2) Yes, SD does provide height and therefore gives me what I need when I want to check my AGL. And yes, it is inaccurate and fraught with GPS and elevation model errors. I care MUCH more about altitude AGL than the actual elevation of a specific point. The only time I do care about elevation is during flight planning, though. 3) Flying at 500' AGL you will definitely notice an excursion by 20% in altitude just by "the size of the houses". 4) Flying IMC without a flightplan and SD as your gude for terrain clearance is a sure setup for desaster. Greetings, -- Chris.
|
|
|
|
|
guille
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 149,
Visits: 2.4K
|
+x+x[quote]1) any obstacle high enough to be a conflict at 500' will be in SD. I forget the specific max height for marking an obstacle on a chart, but it's well below 500'. Even so, a 'more vigilant look' doesn't men you can't still glance at instruments. 2 and 4) These two points contradict themselves - You say SD already provides height, but then say GPS altitude is inaccurate. I agree with 4 but disagree that knowing elevation is not useful as you can then crosscheck against the theoretically more accurate pressure altimeter. 3) Excursions aren't always noticeable if they're gradual, and not everybody is as good at visually picking out heights. Also, the 500' height isn't the only usecase - Another is flying IMC due to unforeseen weather and trying to maintain an MSA of 1000' under low class A airspace (e.g. the Sevenoaks area), in which case you won't be able to see such excursions. 1) Not all the obstacles are on the chart (they get erected between issue dates and sometimes not even reported). And most people don't read the corresponding NOTAM and mark them on their charts. 2) Yes, SD does provide height and therefore gives me what I need when I want to check my AGL. And yes, it is inaccurate and fraught with GPS and elevation model errors. I care MUCH more about altitude AGL than the actual elevation of a specific point. The only time I do care about elevation is during flight planning, though. 3) Flying at 500' AGL you will definitely notice an excursion by 20% in altitude just by "the size of the houses". 4) Flying IMC without a flightplan and SD as your gude for terrain clearance is a sure setup for desaster. Greetings, -- Chris. --------------------------- It is not only a problem of obstacles, flying VFR and without obstacles, it would be good to have height errors of less than 100 ft to avoid military corridors safely (when you see a Rafale it can be too late, it is not the same as a windmill) and that is the reason why I think having elevation in the button of altitude/height can be a good thing. Obstacles I can always see. But I don't believe we will change our opinions, so I will stop writing about this issue.
|
|
|
|
|
Gax
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 41,
Visits: 0
|
1) Feel free to show me a 400' obstacle thats but notamed next time you see one.
2) We agree on the altitude point, except that only tells you AMSL. Without elevation you have nothing to reference it to in order to establish AGL.
3) I disagree that every pilot is as adept at identifying heights. You cannot speak for everybody in this regard.
4) "Flying IMC without a flightplan and SD as your gude for terrain clearance is a sure setup for desaster." Clearly you didn't read the part where I said "unforeseen weather". i.e. Making a safety call to climb into IFR enroute rather than landcon a golf course or scud-run it at 300'. SD is a guide to situational awareness, and highlights problems that you may have missed or need reassurance on. You don't use it as primary nav, and you check your MSA, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with glancing up to SD to double-check that you are indeed at sufficient height when flying under the LTMA (which you aren't allowed into) and that you haven't missed something or screwed up the math.
|
|
|
|
|
plume_tray
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 116,
Visits: 434
|
Clearly those who like the idea will find it very useful. As a helicopter pilot, I will find a use for it.
What I don't understand is why there are people arguing against it, when it will likely not impact them. Are we still talking about a ALT / HGT / ELE toggle? If you don't care for it, no one is gonna force you to use it.
It's like GAFOR, very useful for some, but I dont use it in my location, so does not currently benefit me. However due to the design, it doesn't bother me having the feature still.
|
|
|
|
|
ckurz7000
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 538,
Visits: 2.2K
|
+xClearly those who like the idea will find it very useful. As a helicopter pilot, I will find a use for it. What I don't understand is why there are people arguing against it, when it will likely not impact them. Are we still talking about a ALT / HGT / ELE toggle? If you don't care for it, no one is gonna force you to use it.It's like GAFOR, very useful for some, but I dont use it in my location, so does not currently benefit me. However due to the design, it doesn't bother me having the feature still. When you maintain a piece of software you have to be careful what features to include and which ones to forego. Of course, you can make every feature optional, user selectable, individually configurable, etc. But in the end you wind up with a piece of code that is (a) difficult to maintain, (b) difficult to set up and (c) confusing to operate. Tim does a great job at walking this tight line, and he seems to have a good grasp of GUI basics and intuitive interaction. Greetings, -- Chris.
|
|
|
|