Landing Height System is now FAA Certified for all Pipers

[FLYZONE]

On a normal approach, 50’ is above the numbers so you already reached the runway

Yes, that should be good enough. An ILS beam takes you quite a bit down the runway so given this would be intended for instrument and minimum approaches it looks like it would work well. I hope it performs as advertised and you sell thousands

 

[FLYZONE]

What kind of servicing/maintenance might be required for this unit?

 

[GregKet]

The videos show call outs to 1’ but one of the FAQs seems to imply only down to 5’.
Which is accurate?

 

[Microkit]

What kind of servicing/maintenance might be required for this unit?

None required. It's recommended not to install the unit in the engine soot stream, otherwise an occasional wipe (dry or water) to clear the viewing window.

 

[Microkit]

The videos show call outs to 1’ but one of the FAQs seems to imply only down to 5’.
Which is accurate?

Part of the long period for the certification was having the FAA accept low value, initially they only wanted us to go down to 20' similar to most of the commercial airliners. We eventually managed to get it down to 5' as part of the installation steps and not part of the approval letter itself. In fact, there are more than 3000 landings confirmed and reported by many of our customers on experimental airplanes that the unit is spot-on for years down to 0.

So the limitation is not mentioned in the actual certification approval but only in the installation steps. The installer needs to select this option in the Wi-Fi.

The Piper airplane was converted to experimental category as part of the certification process, so it uses the SAME software that will be shipped.

The firmware shown in the video is the is the approved firmware that will be uploaded to every certified unit.

We know of some users who go into the software (using any phone via the WiFi) and enable the lower limits (2 & 1), but it's something "of course" we don't normally suggest or mention, it's up to the user.

 

[Microkit]

so given this would be intended for instrument and minimum approaches it looks like it would work well.

It not really intended for instrument and minimum approaches. Considering the initial callout is 70' (or 100') AGL, this is below the lowest minimum you can find on Part 23 aircrafts. Its a great aid. With almost a common theme in every feedback we receive; Night landings and visiting a wider than their regular runway.

There are many (and some are saying the majority) of GA (personal, non-professional) pilots only doing an average of 30 hrs a year of flying. That's less than 3 hrs a month. Which will probably come to 2 or 3 landings a month at most.

And those who did not fly for a while. The confidence level is low, only on the landing part. Not the takeoff, or straight & level. They are secretly worried if they are going to screw up the landing after some months of no flying.

Also, a weak landing light at pitch-black nights.

The FAA and many others have several articles about optical illusions listing contributing factors such as runway width & length, runway and terrain slope, Water refraction as rain on the windshield can create the illusion that you're flying at a higher altitude making a hard landing a real possibility and other factors such as haze and fog.

Many uses it to train themselves to hear 50 on top of the edge (or numbers) of the runway.

Others just want the perfect landing each time. Each develop their own technique, some told us they come with power, hear 5 reduce power slightly, hear 1, power out and flare. Others said they hear 70, put power at 10” MP and never have to touch again till 1, compared before where they keep playing with power more/less till the flare.

And there is also the personal confidence factor in general regardless of the training.

Here is an actual comment found on VAF forum from an RV customer in Australia:

“Obviously it doesn't replace technique, observation and knowing your aircraft but I think as a training aid it could be very useful. I used it when I flew into a RV event here in Australia at the old WW2 base at Temora. My local runway is narrow, the one at Temora is about three or more times the width, the system really helped with my confidence around the perspective issues (not wanting to bounce the length of the runway in front of a 1000 people)”

 

[Squito]

Sort of a radar altimeter lite (in terms of functionality, not technical operation)?

My question would be can it provide terrain awareness enroute (understanding its max range is 70 ft or 100 ft)? Can it be used for a float plane and detect water?

 

[Microkit]

My question would be can it provide terrain awareness enroute (understanding its max range is 70 ft or 100 ft)? Can it be used for a float plane and detect water?

Yes for terrain awareness. Or even the top of trees providing the tree tops are seen as a solid surface. One tree alone won't make it announce as even though the unit sees the top of the tree, but also sees the ground immediately after the tree at a different range and will skip it. But if a long line of trees, like a thick forest type is detected, it will announce that height.


It can't be used for float planes. Laser beams penetrate the water surface and detect the bottom surface when the water is crystal clear. If the water is choppy, the laser will detect that and bounce off the ripple and provide a reasonably accurate range. We do have another unit (so far experimental only) that uses different technology for water landings and works on both conditions. However, that experimental unit starts only from 15'.

 

[Tweety]

Way back when I was homebuilding and you could get one of those Polaroid distance sensing systems, I was considering building something like this for myself. The Polaroid sensors worked by ultrasonics and had a range of up to 70 feet, but I don't know how well they would have worked given the high ambient noise level of an aircraft. There are also newer radar-based sensors used with some collision avoidance systems in newer cars but they may be difficult to use over relatively non-reflective surfaces.

 

[cowboyfl]

Sounds interesting it would be nice if started the call outs at 200 above field elevation then 150 then you normalm100 down to touch down...you chose 100 because of the laser calibration? Or is the laser output limited ?