Feedback on Aviaworx Flight Monitor

[marcom 139]

aviaFlightMonitor uses the Glideslope-antenna's abeam position as the aiming point.

1000ft from that point is your touchdown zone. Landing beyond that point will reduce points.

[C2615 319]

For Boeing's view Airdistance for landing is 1500ft. normally we aim for 1000' and flare another 500' to land right on 1500'

BTW, can I have the landing information of touchdown airspeed(in IAS) and Pitch angle? that's quite nice pice of infor I get from LRM, but if you could proved that I would not need more than one things for just landing monitiroing....

Better, I would love to have some detailed graph for RA/Decent rate/Airspeed/Distance change after threshold or under 50'RA, to futher improve my flare behaior (eg. if my decent rate gose down too much then start to incrase before touchdown, rarther than continuous reduce.)

[BlueStar 323]

There is a lot of good information provided, but some of the things that I would like to see improved are - 

1.  Over All Risk Assessment - a real distraction and provides no useful value.

2.  Airspeed Deviation beyond limit - 5 kts is not a realistic limit.  With a 30 kt. crosswind and 10 kt. spread, no pilot will be able to keep the airspeed within 5 kts.

3.  Distance from Touchdown/Crosstrack Error - 15 feet is not a realistic error.  Again with a 30 kt crosswind and the ability to only have about 3 degrees bank angle without scraping a pod, there is going to be a some crab angle/side load at touch down.  The landing gear on a commercial aircraft is designed to take a lot of sideload.    

4.  Vertical Speed beyond limit - in final landing configuration for a B747 at mglw, the approach speed will be about 150 kias  (no wind) results in a descent rate of approximately 850fpm.  

4. The one thing i would like to have is a text file with the raw data so i can track my landings over time.

Overall I like the program and think it has a lot of potential.  

I did purchase a copy of this program. 🙂

 

Edited September 25, 2020 by BlueStar

[marcom 139]

On 9/19/2020 at 5:32 AM, C2615 said:

For Boeing's view Airdistance for landing is 1500ft. normally we aim for 1000' and flare another 500' to land right on 1500'

BTW, can I have the landing information of touchdown airspeed(in IAS) and Pitch angle? that's quite nice pice of infor I get from LRM, but if you could proved that I would not need more than one things for just landing monitiroing....

Better, I would love to have some detailed graph for RA/Decent rate/Airspeed/Distance change after threshold or under 50'RA, to futher improve my flare behaior (eg. if my decent rate gose down too much then start to incrase before touchdown, rarther than continuous reduce.)

Hi,  yes those are some good ideas - I will consider them for the next version

[marcom 139]

On 9/25/2020 at 10:31 PM, BlueStar said:

There is a lot of good information provided, but some of the things that I would like to see improved are - 

1.  Over All Risk Assessment - a real distraction and provides no useful value.

2.  Airspeed Deviation beyond limit - 5 kts is not a realistic limit.  With a 30 kt. crosswind and 10 kt. spread, no pilot will be able to keep the airspeed within 5 kts.

3.  Distance from Touchdown/Crosstrack Error - 15 feet is not a realistic error.  Again with a 30 kt crosswind and the ability to only have about 3 degrees bank angle without scraping a pod, there is going to be a some crab angle/side load at touch down.  The landing gear on a commercial aircraft is designed to take a lot of sideload.    

4.  Vertical Speed beyond limit - in final landing configuration for a B747 at mglw, the approach speed will be about 150 kias  (no wind) results in a descent rate of approximately 850fpm.  

4. The one thing i would like to have is a text file with the raw data so i can track my landings over time.

Overall I like the program and think it has a lot of potential.  

I did purchase a copy of this program. 🙂

 

Hi,

1 - hmm I agree this might need some more fine.tuning, but I think an overall rating is not bad, kind of like an exec summary. Especially if the tool is used for (virtual) training purposes.

2 - the airspeed deviation has been increased. This is tricky anyway, since I don't have access to any real Vref value.

3 - the maximum allowed crosstrack error at touchdown is based on runway width. What's your opinion - how far off the centerline can the nose gear be?

4 - this should work fine. The tolerances have been updated and up to 50ft AGL, a descent rate of 1200 fpm is deemed acceptable.

5 - hmm, how would you use the raw data?

Thanks for the feedback!

[BlueStar 323]

4 hours ago, marcom said:

Hi,

1 - hmm I agree this might need some more fine.tuning, but I think an overall rating is not bad, kind of like an exec summary. Especially if the tool is used for (virtual) training purposes.

2 - the airspeed deviation has been increased. This is tricky anyway, since I don't have access to any real Vref value.

3 - the maximum allowed crosstrack error at touchdown is based on runway width. What's your opinion - how far off the centerline can the nose gear be?

4 - this should work fine. The tolerances have been updated and up to 50ft AGL, a descent rate of 1200 fpm is deemed acceptable.

5 - hmm, how would you use the raw data?

Thanks for the feedback!

The nose gear should be pretty much on the center line with no wind, but with a 30 knot direct crosswind in a B747, it could easily be 30 feet or more.  The crosstrack will vary based on the aircraft type and wind speed.  

I would use the raw data in an Excel spreadsheet, nothing fancy.  Any format that could be imported or manually copied into Excel would be great.  If the data can be read by Notepad++, then it would be good with me.  So much of a landing is subjective and open to interpretation that putting a grade on it is very difficult.  

Again, the program has lots of potential and I use it for every landing.  

[marcom 139]

4 minutes ago, BlueStar said:

The nose gear should be pretty much on the center line with no wind, but with a 30 knot direct crosswind in a B747, it could easily be 30 feet or more.  The crosstrack will vary based on the aircraft type and wind speed.  

I would use the raw data in an Excel spreadsheet, nothing fancy.  Any format that could be imported or manually copied into Excel would be great.  If the data can be read by Notepad++, then it would be good with me.  So much of a landing is subjective and open to interpretation that putting a grade on it is very difficult.  

Again, the program has lots of potential and I use it for every landing.  

Ah I think I understand where you are coming from.

I'm not measuring the nose gear's crosstrack error. I'm measuring the aircraft's geometric center (let's call it the center of the aircraft) crosstrack error. So a long A340-600 in a strong crosswind should still be fine as the center of the aircraft is (hopefully) not going to be too far off the centerline,

[marcom 139]

Folks,

there has been a 'silent' update that addresses many of the feedback points regarding aviaFlightMonitor.

Additionally, you can modify parameters in a new settings menu to have full control over stabilized flight criteria.

The landing report has been extended to give a better picture of your touchdown.

[C2615 319]

23 hours ago, marcom said:

Folks,

there has been a 'silent' update that addresses many of the feedback points regarding aviaFlightMonitor.

Additionally, you can modify parameters in a new settings menu to have full control over stabilized flight criteria.

The landing report has been extended to give a better picture of your touchdown.

It's a good update, why make it slient then?

[marcom 139]

1 hour ago, C2615 said:

It's a good update, why make it slient then?

Most updates are silent - ie the application automatically updates itself in the background and you will automatically benefit from the improvements.

Silent simply means there was no newsletter associated with it. These are typically reserved for major updates (like new additions). But yes, a future newsletter will refer to this update as well.

Regards

Mark

[DJ Rosko 33]

On 9/10/2020 at 5:45 PM, marcom said:

aviaFlightMonitor uses the Glideslope-antenna's abeam position as the aiming point.

1000ft from that point is your touchdown zone. Landing beyond that point will reduce points.

So I’ve been told 1000-1500’ is ideal for commercial jets, but even 2000’ can happen depending on conditions.  If “the bricks” aka the aim point is 1000’ and the two sets of two hash marks equal 1500/2000’ could you update it to start taking points say the further from the 1500’ mark you go?  In heavy jets there’s a float in the ground effect and you can see that evidenced here as the A321 touches down between 1500’ and 2000’  In the video below the A321 touches down between 1500/2000’ at the taxiway E intersection which I highlighted in yellow along with the 1000’ 1500’ 2000’ and 2500’ (in red) marks.  

https://youtu.be/KCRFrr0zAvE

 

On 10/27/2020 at 7:08 AM, marcom said:

Most updates are silent - ie the application automatically updates itself in the background and you will automatically benefit from the improvements.

So my two approach reports so far dinged me for vertical speed over -600 when my Vapp was 135kt+ and certainly in a loaded A321 or 737-800/900 you’re going to be up at 140-150kt+ depending on wind which results in a higher speed-should I download that August update?  I just got aviaserver today specifically for the approach monitor-loving it so far!    Just came here tonight to figure out how to “set” the vertical speed and was wondering how it dinged me for a 1.08 dot deviation at the 500’ mark as I was on a visual approach and it seemed the only time I was over a dot off was at the beginning of the approach on my base to final leg as you see here at ~3000’ or so 

On 10/5/2020 at 4:47 AM, marcom said:

This is tricky anyway, since I don't have access to any real Vref value.

 

Amongst the P3D community, we can probably get the appropriate Vref/Vls values for popular Boeing/Airbus addons for you.  Certainly take a peek at this Airbus performance chart for a ballpark-I also have Vref charts for a lot of Boeing aircraft saved on my iCloud Drive for reference 

Edited November 5, 2020 by DJ Rosko

[C2615 319]

Just wonder How and When the airport data would update. Today I just landed on the fresh RWY01R at ZUGY, opend just 12 hours ago, all my flight planning tool and FMS with Navigraph data 2012 works fine with it, but Aviaworx told me I have landed 1000 feet away from the old runway then....

[DJ Rosko 33]

So after adjusting the values in the settings, it seems like I may have either adjusted incorrectly or in the wrong direction...  Could use some help on this @marcom

As you can see I put the limit initially at -850 fpm and then bumped it to -1200fpm just to try to not get dinged-but on both approaches-the VS was within that limit... 

I’m not at my PC now, but I also noticed that some of the values seem to be the same-there’s three upper limit and one lower limit iirc-I will report back on that tonight.  Again-absolutely loving the app but trying to figure out how to set it up to read the correct values for the aircraft that I’m flying    

[disco79stu 15]

On 8/31/2020 at 2:36 PM, marcom said:

Gentlemen,

thanks a lot for your comments.

I have prepared an interim version that addresses these issues:

http://www.aviaworx.com/files/not_released/aviaserver_25-aug-20-160722.zip

It's not fully tested yet, so I haven't released it but it would be great to get your feedback on this version.

- Vertical Speed limits have been changed.

- Airspeed limits are more generous

- Minimum N1 has been reduced for Turbojet aircraft

Hi Marc,

is this still the latest version I need to download?

br

stu

[marcom 139]

16 hours ago, disco79stu said:

Hi Marc,

is this still the latest version I need to download?

br

stu

Hi Stu,

no, the latest official version has all the updates.