That’s kinda weird. I wonder how anyone can use them in real life then. Are they not there to get you into the correct position and height to commence the visual approach. Even visual approaches are supposed to follow airport procedures. They are marked on the published approach plate, so they must exist and have a lat-long even if it is not indicated. So what is the point of them if they can’t be referenced. While most of the waypoints are on identifiable islands, two are out at sea. Glad I don’t have to deal with that for real.
The only way to use those waypoints in an FMS or GPS would be to create custom waypoints using the latitude/longitude for each. There is no way the waypoints could appear in any standard navigation database based on ARINC 424, because the waypoint identifiers are much too long.
TFFJ is a VFR only airport. The “approach” chart is not an IFR Visual approach. It is a map of several local landmarks that can be easily identified without needing a GPS or navigation radio. The point is that as an aircraft approaches the airport and announces their position, other pilots know exactly where that aircraft is.
In the US, VFR sectional charts show a little red flag indicating a VFR reporting point or “visual waypoint”. These reporting points are labeled in black and are named what they are. For example, the visual reporting point “CHAPEL HILL” is a stadium in Chapel Hill. There isn’t a waypoint named “CHAPEL HILL” in any FMS, not because it is longer than 5 characters but because it is VFR only, not used to fly instrument approaches.
Because of the popularity and availability of GPS in GA aircraft, it is often used for VFR flying. In order to accommodate the growing use of GPS, there are now published VFR waypoints (5 characters, start with “VP”) for the GPS input of visual flight plans. These new visual waypoints often overlay the existing “red flag” visual reporting points. “CHAPEL HILL” has a visual waypoint of VP760.
3 Likes
Yeah I realise all that, but if you select a visual approach for say runway 28 in the Garmin, either straight or vectors to final, it will direct you right through a hillside on an approach that is nothing like the chart. So I was wondering how a real Garmin handles this.
The only thing you said that I would take issue with is the statement “It is a map of several local landmarks that can be easily identified”. Two of them are out at sea with no visual reference point. Perhaps we need a sextant to navigate to them 
This is only a talking point by the way, because I think it raises some interesting questions.
The same way. 
Garmin Visual Approaches are not IFR procedures and are also not related to any visual approach charts an airport may have. They will happily fly you right through a hill, which is why they come with a warning when you load them. It is up to the pilot to maintain adequate obstacle clearance.
Visual approach charts are for reference only, and I’m not aware of a GPS unit that loads them like an IFR procedure, as they don’t appear in the ARINC navdata. You’re not really meant to fly them coupled on AP as if they were real procedures, they’re meant to impart quick basic familiarity and general guidance to a pilot who may only cursorily know the area.
4 Likes
Actually the checkpoints for the “VFR circuit” at TFFJ / St. Barth’s are several small islands or rock outcroppings (I would argue in real life they are smaller than depicted in the sim at least based on cockpit videos openly available in sharing sites) - Grouper, Fregate, etc. I “flew” this circuit several times to try and self-certify in the sim since IRL you need a locally certified FI to sign you off on the approach. It’s safe to assume as part of that local certification, the FI assures you know all of those mandatory altitude and radio call checkpoints and can identify them without issue.
For the infamous RWY10 approach over the hillside, you need to be at 1000’ above the rock outcropping known as Pain De Sucre (Sugar Bread) on 103M. After that, it’s a six degree GS at your best low speed and a little bit of prayer.
Visual Approach clearly states obstacle clearance not taken into account. All it does is generate a 3NM file at 3 degrees GS. TFFJ is definitely one of those vertical and vertical approaches that’s a corner case. Even marking those check points as user points on the NXi wouldn’t honestly help much. St. Bart’s is very much a hand flown circuit IRL and certainly in the sim.
1 Like
Well it is certainly an interesting place to fly into and very scenic especially with Superspuds mods, Bijan’s trees and the Global AI Shipping addon.
1 Like
To be fair, one of the SU11 changes was to remove the trees right before RWY10 at St. Barth’s. Good timing, as I literally crashed during one of my qualifying approaches thanks to that outcropping. Back to NXi! 
Please post this in SU11 Beta. This discussion thread is for current SU version only. Thanks.
It sounds like it was a pre-SU11 condition since you said “…is still…” - is that the case? Then it can’t be Day One, no? Is there an existing #bugs-and-issues report? If not, you can file one there but please use a lot of detail to enable repro. That’s usually the fastest way it’ll get enough traction to be logged.
Ok - could you please point to the posts you made in #bugs-and-issues or a Zendesk Ticket number? That way folks could participate and vote on it, and potentially the WT team could look at it from there.
I am REALLY glad you have never seen me fly NXi-created visual approaches with VNAV enabled all the way down to the threshold like I’m in an airliner on ILS
It’s not the descent that’s the problem - it’s the sudden stop with no autoflare. 
I did that once in what should have been a Cat 2 ILS somewhere around SU7 / 8 in the mid-West.
@Bishop398 The wind data still displaying wind components in true headings instead of magnetic headings like the real NXi. When do you think this will be fixed? You can find more information on why wind components should be displayed in magnetic headings here: https://airplaneacademy.com/are-winds-reported-in-true-or-magnetic-headings/
“wind components presented by a PFD (primary flight display) like in the G1000 …, for example, are in magnetic headings because it’s all in relation to what direction the aircraft is flying, which is a magnetic heading.”
We’re pretty aware of why wind indications would be in magnetic, but appreciate the information.
We have yet to confirm this bug, but even so, we don’t give specific timelines on specific bugs or features. But we will certainly log it and investigate.
3 Likes
I was under the impression the Garmin 1000 NXI would switch to the ILS frequency loacalizer and approach without my intervention. It’s been a while since I’ve used the 1000 and quite frankiy I’ve forgotten.
Basically true if you’ve set up an IFR flight plan and selected an ILS approach, the nav radio should change to the localizer freq, and the CDI should switch to the nav indicator (LOC). Hit the appr button when you have the LOC locked and the GS indicator near the top of the indicator, and the NXi will take you down.
Which aircraft/airport/approach are you having problems with? I’d like to give it a test and see what happens.
Regards
I was flying into KUNI RWY 25. However, I think you solved my problem; i still have to push the APR button.
1 Like
Hello,
So it seems the G1000 got a major overhaul, which is absolutely amazing. However, I am running into a small issue when planning a route.
I can select an origin and a destination, however the G1000 doesn’t seem to accept any waypoints.
As you can see in the screenshot, I’m going from Kahului to Kalaupapa, but if I try to enter a waypoint, it keeps saying the waypoint doesn’t exist. Even though you can clearly see the waypoint on the map screen.
I’m probably doing something wrong so does anyone know how to correctly enter waypoints in the G1000?
Thanks!
Are you using Navigraph nav data? There’s a known bug that causes an incompatibility between some bits of the new G1000 NXi and some bits in the Navigraph nav data; it’s listed as fixed in the SU11 beta release notes.