incase your CAT I approach doesn't take you low enough on the approach !!!

[jamesm]

I see that Garmin has a HUD now. you might be able to get another 50 ft  to 100ft lower on the approach. I suspect it's for King Air types.

I am just a VFR guy who's ambition is in pursuit of my instrument rating for looong time.

https://www.garmin.com/en-US/p/151152

 

 

[Ragsf15e]

13 minutes ago, jamesm said:

I see that Garmin has a HUD now. you might be able to get another 50 ft  to 100ft lower on the approach. I suspect it's for King Air types.

I am just a VFR guy who's ambition is in pursuit of my instrument rating for looong time.

https://www.garmin.com/en-US/p/151152

 

 

I’ve seen/flown a bunch of approaches that let you use lower visibility minimums (although they are only applicable to some operators) if you have hud, flight director or autopilot to DA.  So, while nice, the hud might not get you much you don’t already have… unless it has a gunsight.  That I would pay for.

[Ragsf15e]

This one is the gps-13r at khio:

[dkkim73]

1 hour ago, Ragsf15e said:

I’ve seen/flown a bunch of approaches that let you use lower visibility minimums (although they are only applicable to some operators) if you have hud, flight director or autopilot to DA.  So, while nice, the hud might not get you much you don’t already have… unless it has a gunsight.  That I would pay for.

I made a joke to an A&P about about hard points on the Acclaim and got a blank look. 

Says the guy who's keeping his eyes out for people pulling Becker ADF boxes and fantasizing about a radar pod on the tail. 

[Ibra]

We have something similar under 800m RVR (or 1200m RVR) to get down to 550m RVR when flying mono-pilot. Funnily, it was never a hard law for private operations only a guidance (ATC still enforce it)

ATC: "Cleared for approach, Report going around"

PIC: "We are landing...runway vacated"

ATC: "How?"

PIC: "Using operator visibility credits" 

I think everyone forgot that they need another clearance to land (as approach clearance is not enough)

The guidance says you need coupled auto-pilot and HUD/EVS. In reality, it's Synthetic-Vision and slow speed on short final helps...

I think to get extra DH one has to seek operator approvals (I am keen on gunsight, I will STC one of these) 

 

 

Edited July 16 by Ibra

[Pinecone]

There is a thread over on BT that some people have been experimenting with 0 - 0 landings using synthetic vision.  And they have been successful.

One issue has been timing the flare.  Sounds like a perfect additional reason for a Landing Height System.

 

[Oscar Avalle]

On 7/15/2024 at 5:35 PM, jamesm said:

I see that Garmin has a HUD now. you might be able to get another 50 ft  to 100ft lower on the approach. I suspect it's for King Air types.

I am just a VFR guy who's ambition is in pursuit of my instrument rating for looong time.

https://www.garmin.com/en-US/p/151152

 

 

Nice--- but how much...

[Will.iam]

On 7/16/2024 at 9:04 AM, Pinecone said:

There is a thread over on BT that some people have been experimenting with 0 - 0 landings using synthetic vision.  And they have been successful.

One issue has been timing the flare.  Sounds like a perfect additional reason for a Landing Height System.

 

0-0 vis landing ironically is not about the landing as airline landing systems can land on the runway in true 0-0 vis its for taxiing after the landing. Problem is the autoland landing system can not taxi to the gate. And if true 0-0 vis neither can the pilot without risk of hitting taxi lights or taxiing off the taxiway. That’s why all cat IIII landings have a minimum RVR on the approach plate and that’s for pilots to be able to see taxiing once the airplane has landed on the runway for you. 

[Pinecone]

This is theoretical for a worse case situation where everything within range is 0-0, so you have a choice of landing (even if you cannot taxi) or doing a 0-0 off airport landing attempt.

And if it is really 0-0, you would be the only one on the runway.   But you can taxi with synthetic vision.