Testing of Visual Glideslope & Go-Around Indicator

Aviation chatter - For ALL Pilots and Aviation Enthusiasts

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
SaraLima
Too Tousand
Too Tousand
Posts: 2447
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2017 1:39 pm
Closest Airfield: FASH and Morningstar

Re: Testing of Visual Glideslope & Go-Around Indicator

Unread post by SaraLima » Mon Apr 16, 2018 7:53 pm

pietmeyer wrote: Now to include SaraLima and HappySkipper so they do not feel left out :twisted:

SL - "You are only allowed to speculate if you actualy aviate"
Hey Piet.. thanks, but it's more likely to be "Anyone remember VASI's? - I get so much PAPI nowadays but never a VASI anymore.." :wink: :D
There are three simple rules for making a perfect landing. Unfortunately, no one knows what they are.
I was flying in uniform when you were still in liquid form :wink:
User avatar
Hop Harrigan
Frequent AvComer
Posts: 878
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2010 7:55 pm

Re: Testing of Visual Glideslope & Go-Around Indicator

Unread post by Hop Harrigan » Mon Apr 16, 2018 10:27 pm

Hi Guys,
Sounds very interesting! May I ask a couple of non-forbidden questions please if you can answer without giving away the family jewels!
1) A kind of PAPI/VASI using fixed markers not lights sounds straightforward, but how do you arrange a ‘go-around indicator’?
2) Will it be legal to use such a device or will it need some sort of (CAA) certification?
Best of luck with your innovation!!
Hop
There is no gravity...the Earth sucks
John.com
Frequent AvComer
Posts: 614
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 5:34 pm
Closest Airfield: Aeroden

Re: Testing of Visual Glideslope & Go-Around Indicator

Unread post by John.com » Tue Apr 17, 2018 2:35 am

Hop Harrigan wrote:Hi Guys,
Sounds very interesting! May I ask a couple of non-forbidden questions please if you can answer without giving away the family jewels!
1) A kind of PAPI/VASI using fixed markers not lights sounds straightforward, but how do you arrange a ‘go-around indicator’?
2) Will it be legal to use such a device or will it need some sort of (CAA) certification?
Best of luck with your innovation!!
Hop
Greetings Hop,

Thank you for your well-intended questions. I do always enjoy a little humour, I must say :wink:

Although not having given away the family jewels, Piet Meyer did let a fairly large cat out of a fairly small bag! :lol: :lol:

Let me try my best to answer you . . .

To your first question, from 200 - 300m out from the designated point of touchdown a pilot will easily be able to determine an 'off-glideslope' condition, and the extent of that, which will indicate a 'go-around' decision to any pilot wanting to preserve the wellbeing of self and/or passengers and aircraft. In fact, even before this, if there are obstacles to clear on the approach, the device will indicate the need for a go-around.

The runway-side device is incredibly simple and really intuitive to use. Even non-pilots 'get it', without understanding the complexities that come with having to clear obstacles on approach, or maintain a glideslope in windy or turbulent conditions, or trying to gauge the effect of a sloping up or down runway on the 'runway geometry' we have imprinted /_\, or trying to calculate 5 x groundspeed in knots to determine rate of descent in feet per minute, all whilst trying to focus on everything else that is happening in the landing phase.

I have had a fairly broad circle of trusted, experienced and 'safe' pilot friends (some well-known, like Piet Meyer) review the device throughout the development phase and who have very kindly given their much-valued opinions. At this point, I can gladly report that there has been a 100% 'thumbs up', subject to testing and the necessary approvals, of course, which brings me to your second question.

We are currently engaged with CAA. The testing phase currently underway is intended to test the install/assembly and setting-of-glideslope processes and to derive some statistics on landing accuracy. I'll post pictures of the testing, along with the results, at a later stage.

Hopefully, that provides a little more information, whilst still preserving my crown jewels!

Today is a big day for us. Thank you to all those that have helped us get this far.

Kind regards
Last edited by John.com on Tue Apr 17, 2018 3:10 am, edited 1 time in total.
John Comley
John.com
Frequent AvComer
Posts: 614
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 5:34 pm
Closest Airfield: Aeroden

Re: Testing of Visual Glideslope & Go-Around Indicator

Unread post by John.com » Tue Apr 17, 2018 3:08 am

Thermalator wrote:
John.com wrote:After 18 months of development we are hopeful of a good result, and hopefully safer landings for all.
Safer in what way ? and what is the needs assessment ?
Greetings

Safer, in that a pilot will have a greater chance of missing any obstacles on the approach, along with a greater chance of landing at the intended point of touchdown, rather than a distance before or after the intended point of touchdown.

The needs assessment? Based on what I have written above, I would suggest that the need is fairly self-evident. One only has to look at botched landings to realise that any device that can assist in helping a pilot verify that the planned approach is stable should be welcomed. Piloting an aircraft is a never-ending process of checks and balances, and so the intention of this device is most certainly NOT to reduce the requirement for a pilot to maintain the skill and experience needed to perform a safe landing, but rather as a final check that the skill and experience of the pilot to conduct a safe landing are 'validated' before the point at which the aircraft makes contact with terra firma (*words carefully chosen :wink: ).

Without necessarily wanting to point out any botched landings close to home, this montage (from somewhere in Brazil, I think), as one example, illustrates the need to be guided over a very unforgiving obstacle on approach . . .
Brazil.png
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
John Comley
User avatar
John Boucher
Too Tousand
Too Tousand
Posts: 2008
Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 10:51 pm
Closest Airfield: Mossel Bay - FAMO
Location: Mossel Bay (FAMO)

Re: Testing of Visual Glideslope & Go-Around Indicator

Unread post by John Boucher » Wed Apr 18, 2018 10:05 am

John... you have the attention of many and a nod of approval from some reputable folk in the industry.

I think it is a brilliant concept and wish you the very best with it!
My apologies if my spellchecker or grammatical error checker lets me down - no one is perfect!
User avatar
Thermalator
1k poster
1k poster
Posts: 1349
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 11:07 pm
Location: Pretoria

Re: Testing of Visual Glideslope & Go-Around Indicator

Unread post by Thermalator » Wed Apr 18, 2018 12:01 pm

John.com wrote:The needs assessment? Based on what I have written above, I would suggest that the need is fairly self-evident. One only has to look at botched landings to realise .....
Hmm unscientific and strong possibility of unintended consequence.

The example you provide is a poor one, the pilot was distracted or focusing on wrong place, as a result he did not see the obstacle...you want to ad MORE distractions ??. students need to train to use their eyes & brains correctly with out aid.
info junkie
User avatar
John Boucher
Too Tousand
Too Tousand
Posts: 2008
Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 10:51 pm
Closest Airfield: Mossel Bay - FAMO
Location: Mossel Bay (FAMO)

Re: Testing of Visual Glideslope & Go-Around Indicator

Unread post by John Boucher » Wed Apr 18, 2018 12:14 pm

I don't think the position of the device is a distraction, on the contrary.

But maybe some pilots that have "tested" the system can give their perception of it?
My apologies if my spellchecker or grammatical error checker lets me down - no one is perfect!
John.com
Frequent AvComer
Posts: 614
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 5:34 pm
Closest Airfield: Aeroden

Re: Testing of Visual Glideslope & Go-Around Indicator

Unread post by John.com » Wed Apr 18, 2018 12:20 pm

John Boucher wrote:I don't think the position of the device is a distraction, on the contrary.

But maybe some pilots that have "tested" the system can give their perception of it?
Hi JB,

All opinions are noted and respected.

I don’t really want to get into an open discussion at this stage. I’m sure there will be many more opinions in the months to come.

Regards
John Comley
User avatar
happyskipper
Tree Tousand
Tree Tousand
Posts: 3574
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 6:55 pm
Closest Airfield: FQNC
Location: In the cloud

Re: Testing of Visual Glideslope & Go-Around Indicator

Unread post by happyskipper » Wed Apr 18, 2018 12:28 pm

Perhaps we can wait for the official launch before shooting down the concept.
Despite the modern technology available, ships still use the "ancient" concept of leading lights to safely enter port in bad vis....
:roll:
"There are no new ways to crash airplanes"
User avatar
pietmeyer
Frequent AvComer
Posts: 947
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 7:37 am
Closest Airfield: FAWB
Location: Centurion Pretoria

Re: Testing of Visual Glideslope & Go-Around Indicator

Unread post by pietmeyer » Wed Apr 18, 2018 2:51 pm

[quote="Thermalator...you want to ad MORE distractions ??. students need to train to use their eyes & brains correctly with out aid.[/quote]


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

SaraLima, HappySkipper and John

I made a mistake by indicating the following in my post as above
HS - "Speculation is encouraged so I speculate that students need to concentrate on other things and not glide slope"
SL - "You are only allowed to speculate if you actualy aviate"

It seems Thermalator should have been quoted. I am a man of vision. I just knew this would come up :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I agree with Thermalator, students must trust their eyes and brains...... but do they use their eyes and brains on the instrument panel also or should we remove those also? That ball that keeps slipping left and right can be a mayor distraction :roll: I will ask FAWB to swtich off those distracting white and red lights at the runway also. Very distracting :twisted:
ZU-DUU Jabi J400 (FAWB)
User avatar
pietmeyer
Frequent AvComer
Posts: 947
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 7:37 am
Closest Airfield: FAWB
Location: Centurion Pretoria

Re: Testing of Visual Glideslope & Go-Around Indicator

Unread post by pietmeyer » Mon Apr 23, 2018 4:33 am

All jokes aside

There are 2 of these installed. One at Tedderfield and one at Rhino Park. I flew out to go test it and the following is my opinion and how I experienced it.

The indicator can only ne clearly seen fairly close to the runway so when i came in a little fast at about 70kt, by the time I got to see the glide slipe I had to land already. Doing a few approaches and slowing down a bit I got to get a better understanding of the indicator and was actualy spot on withe the glode slope. So according to me, once you get used to it and know where to look, works well. For slow planes, STOL types etc it would work great at airfields with obstructions and one way in type of scenarios.

Maybe solar panel with LED ligts might help to see it a bit further and to help indication of how high or low you are. Landing into the sun also a slight problem with the sun behind the indicator it was difficult to see.

In all well thought up and job well done. This is still in design phase but i think this could work. Nicely done John.
ZU-DUU Jabi J400 (FAWB)
John.com
Frequent AvComer
Posts: 614
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 5:34 pm
Closest Airfield: Aeroden

Re: Testing of Visual Glideslope & Go-Around Indicator

Unread post by John.com » Mon Apr 23, 2018 8:09 am

pietmeyer wrote:All jokes aside

There are 2 of these installed. One at Tedderfield and one at Rhino Park. I flew out to go test it and the following is my opinion and how I experienced it.

The indicator can only ne clearly seen fairly close to the runway so when i came in a little fast at about 70kt, by the time I got to see the glide slipe I had to land already. Doing a few approaches and slowing down a bit I got to get a better understanding of the indicator and was actualy spot on withe the glode slope. So according to me, once you get used to it and know where to look, works well. For slow planes, STOL types etc it would work great at airfields with obstructions and one way in type of scenarios.

Maybe solar panel with LED ligts might help to see it a bit further and to help indication of how high or low you are. Landing into the sun also a slight problem with the sun behind the indicator it was difficult to see.

In all well thought up and job well done. This is still in design phase but i think this could work. Nicely done John.
Thanks for the really good feedback, Piet. I'm glad that you were able to be seconded to the Legend Sky team as a test pilot! :wink:

Increasing the size of the device is not a problem, although at present the device is visible from 1.5km out. It does take a little getting used to. Maybe an eye test? :lol: :lol: If we need to make it larger, we can most certainly do so.

With regard to LED lights, that is not the route we wanted to go, but remains a consideration. The idea was to keep the complexity of the device to a minimum to allow for deployment in the outback on runways where there is no reticulation. Also, and in particular in SA, anything electrical or electronic (solar panel and battery) would last less than 48 hours :shock:

Thanks again for making the effort to shoot some approaches and give some feedback.

What time were you at Rhino Park?
John Comley

Return to “General Aviation Chatter”