RNAV glidepath issues

[Bert Pieke 7,584]

Has anyone spent any time with this?

At some airports, the RNAV glidepath is so low that the GS marker on the G1000 is pegged to the bottom the entire time when flying the Approach.

At some others it works OK, and you can fly a coupled LPV landing.

Cannot really see any pattern..  Can anyone shed some light on this? 🙂

Edited August 29, 2020 by Bert Pieke

[Adrian123 1,015]

Yes, I have noticed it on LPV approaches G1000. No Bert, no light to shed. Reckon its another bug.

[sd_flyer 6,039]

I don't think RNAV approaches work at the moment.

[Adrian123 1,015]

Just now, sd_flyer said:

I don't think RNAV approaches work at the moment.

They do work. I just used one with the TBM into KDSM rwy31 LPV. Worked perfect. Doing it agin and watching the Diamond GS path indicator working, this time anyway.

Edited August 29, 2020 by Adrian123

[sd_flyer 6,039]

Just now, Adrian123 said:

They do work. I just used one with the TBM into KDSM rwy31 LPV. Worked perfect.

I gotta check it again! When I tried I only got lateral navigation, no vertical guidance 

[Adrian123 1,015]

Just now, sd_flyer said:

I gotta check it again! When I tried I only got lateral navigation, no vertical guidance 

Are you familiar with the GTN or 530's etc in FS or XP? Rnav approaches are about all I use anymore. They are available at just about every small airport.

Edited August 29, 2020 by Adrian123

[sd_flyer 6,039]

1 minute ago, Adrian123 said:

Are you familiar with the GTN or 530's etc in FS or XP? Rnav approaches are about all I use anymore. They are available at just about every small airport.

I flew with GTN and I love then. But airplane  flight instruct in mostly equipped with 530W and 430W. I have 430W installed in my airplane as well. I do GPS approaches once in a while for proficiency. So yeah I kind of familiar with them.

[Adrian123 1,015]

I apologies I wasn't meaning to question your knowledge. You qualify. 🙂

[sd_flyer 6,039]

1 minute ago, Adrian123 said:

I apologies I wasn't meaning to question your knowledge. You qualify. 🙂

That is ok question! No worries!

[cwburnett 1,809]

1 hour ago, Bert Pieke said:

Has anyone spent any time with this?

The only thing I can figure is that the vertical profile data is not complete in some of these procedures in the nav data in sim. Since many of the procedures don't actually show the proper fix names, like a 'real' device would (or like the proper ones in P3D), that could be another symptom of the same problem. I haven't focused on finding commonality, I've just accepted it for now and reported it via zendesk. Some clarity is still needed on nav data, updates and completeness.

[norman_99 209]

Not all RNAV approaches have vertical guidance. If that’s the case, the height programmed into the GPS for each leg is most likely the minimum altitude that provides terrain clearance. It is not the optimum decent path.

[cwburnett 1,809]

10 minutes ago, norman_99 said:

Not all RNAV approaches have vertical guidance. If that’s the case, the height programmed into the GPS for each leg is most likely the minimum altitude that provides terrain clearance. It is not the optimum decent path.

At least the ones that I'm referring are published with LPV minimums, so should have vertical guidance. I know Bert also knows the difference, so he's likely reporting the same.

[hangar 661]

If it's plate says "waas" in upper left window then it should provide a glideslope.

[Adrian123 1,015]

Just completed 4 RNAV approaches. All worked flawless. Though activation isn't quite the same or realistic compared to the Garmin Trainer, but they all worked well. KCID, KDSM, KOMA and KLNK. I was surprised really.

[Bert Pieke 7,584]

1 hour ago, cwburnett said:

The only thing I can figure is that the vertical profile data is not complete in some of these procedures in the nav data in sim. Since many of the procedures don't actually show the proper fix names, like a 'real' device would (or like the proper ones in P3D), that could be another symptom of the same problem. I haven't focused on finding commonality, I've just accepted it for now and reported it via zendesk. Some clarity is still needed on nav data, updates and completeness.

I was trying to blame it on the airplane avionics, but you may well be right in questioning the navdata..

That would explain why some approaches work, and some do not 🙂