Flysto

[Ed McDonald]

I use the DA62 for ME IFR training and it is invaluable as a teaching tool. Students do not have your full attention in the air but in the debrief they do and recreating the flight, honing in on where the errors occur and why enhances the training.
I concur with all of Russ’s posts but would also add that info such as threshold crossing speed, touchdown distance and numerous other tidbits of information are excellent review material. There are too many to describe here.
Here is a snippet of a recent student flight where he got caught in a “capture from above” of the ILS glide slope and how to recover. Unfortunately Flysto does not display landing gear and flap position which is part of the recovery.
The IF is DEBGA and the glidesplope altitude at that point is about 5500 ft but he chose to stay at 6000 ft and as soon as the loc and gs became alive we were high and fighting to capture the GS before 1000 ft above the runway (about 3300 ft).
https://www.flysto.net/logs/bwoxyr78?v ... ck=125uaqp

[Jetblast]

I have to agree with Ed about the high value as a debrief tool: I benefited first hand from Ed's debrief with that tool.

Since then I discovered a multitude of other parameters that makes me feel like Toto Wolff reviewing a car's performance.

At some point, I was planning a flight into a smaller airstrip so I reviewed the data to ensure that my landing and takeoff distance were compatible.

Great tool!

[dant]

Does anyone happen to know how flysto calculates the turbulence metric? A recent flight with my wife and son registered a 6 out of 10, and when I informed her of this she said "It gets worse?! We're not flying anywhere.'

I'm curious if the da40 airfoil might aggravate the experience of a 6/10 vs a plane with heavier wing loading.

[Rich]

I'm curious if the da40 airfoil might aggravate the experience of a 6/10 vs a plane with heavier wing loading.

It’s not wing loading in he traditional sense (lb/sqft). The DA40 is actually on par with a C-182. But the high-alpha airfoil and span loading are probably factors. An old Hershey-bar PA28 is less sensitive and has stubby wings (30 ft. Wingspan) with symmetrical airfoil.

[waynemcc999]

Does anyone happen to know how flysto calculates the turbulence metric? A recent flight with my wife and son registered a 6 out of 10, and when I informed her of this she said "It gets worse?! We're not flying anywhere.'

I'm curious if the da40 airfoil might aggravate the experience of a 6/10 vs a plane with heavier wing loading.

Good question... I suggest you send a Message to FlySto (letter icon at lower left). Patrick (I assume the lead guy; patrick@flysto.net) has been super responsive and helpful.
Wayne

[ingramleedy]

Does anyone happen to know how flysto calculates the turbulence metric? A recent flight with my wife and son registered a 6 out of 10, and when I informed her of this she said "It gets worse?! We're not flying anywhere.'

I'm curious if the da40 airfoil might aggravate the experience of a 6/10 vs a plane with heavier wing loading.

I’d like to understand this better too. I did look at the lateral and horizontal g forces in the parameters being logged which I think is how those are combined to determine a level of turbulence. I also was curious how this scale in G translates to levels like moderate, high, extreme to compare.


https://blahg.josefsipek.net/?p=471 shows how they calculate some of these parameters too.

[Boatguy]

I believe it's derived from the vertical acceleration data from the G1000 log, the field labeled NormAC, and vertical speed. See the attached definitions of the G1000 log fields.

Here's a screen shot of a particularly turbulent final approach into KJAC, and a few seconds of vertical acceleration data measured in G's: 0.36, -0.06, 0.16, 0.44, -0.04.

Since acceleration is the first derivative of speed, they may use vertical speed to calculate the turbulence index. It may also be that the G1000 does not have a G-meter at all, and Garmin simply takes the first derivative of vertical speed.

[Ed McDonald]

Although it might now be reported in the catalog, I am sure that the G1000 would measure acceleration as that is the basis of the AHRS that uses MEMS technology.

https://avionicswest.com/Articles/AHRS.html

Flysto reports the acceleration as a line graph for the entire flight and as a separate impact g at touchdown. It must be getting it directly from the AHRS. The csv file has lateral and normal g columns of data.

[austropilot]

Unfortunately Flysto does not display landing gear and flap position which is part of the recovery.

On the G1000 Flaps/Gear are not recorded. For some aircraft models, FlySto shows software derived Flaps/Gear. Example



We would need 20+ flights in FlySto + accurate (to the second) Gear/Flap actuation information for those flights to implement it for Diamonds.