Feature Request: better highlight of next waypoint

+1

* Orest

I'm a little puzzled by this request.  In the old days, we often had to time non-precision approaches in order to know when to go missed.  But now, with GPS to tell us exactly where we are, the need for the GPS to tell us the time elapsed is a much less precise way for the GPS to tell us we are getting close to, or upon, or past, the missed approach point.  In fact, no matter what the timing says based upon estimates of groundspeed over time, when the GPS says you're at the missed approach point you go missed.  And if you're wondering how close you are to that point, look at the distance the GPS tells you is left to go.

Now many pilots will continue to monitor the time after the FAF just like the old days out of habit, if for no other reason than to guard against the possibility the GPS might fail half way down final.  If you knew your time and were using a VOR or LOC or ADF for your final approach guidance, you could continue the approach even after such failure.  If you weren't monitoring your time and were relying upon the now-failed GPS to identify the missed approach point, you'd have to go missed.  But in that scenario, having the GPS keep track of your time would do you no good, as now it's busted.  Better to do it on your watch or clock, which presumably would allow you to complete the approach after GPS failure.  Again, however, if the GPS remains in good working order, who needs to know the time?  In other words, keeping track of time is for your watch; keeping track of the distance to go is for your GPS.  At least, this is how I see it, for what it's worth.

If the Waypoint data block had the ETE in minutes and seconds, this would give you the time to the MAP (assuming you aren't past it and the next waypoint is the missed holding fix). Perhaps the destination ETE in MM:SS would work.  Right now all ETEs are HH:MM.

Topic: Feature Request: better highlight of next waypoint

* Orest

ADDED!

(a bit ago)