IFD Software Release 10.2.0.0 |
Post Reply | Page <1 56789 15> |
Author | ||
brou0040
Senior Member Joined: 13 Dec 2012 Location: KIYK Status: Offline Points: 720 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Understand, and with the IFD100, there is a lot of room to include datablocks. The problem I sometimes run into with scrolling is that when I scroll down to the block I want to see, then I don't see other blocks that I still want to see. I think it would be nicer to condense the blocks down and be able to toggle the functionality. I didn't expect this to land very high on the list, but figured I'd throw it out there and see what people thought about it. Thanks for considering it.
|
||
n7ifr
Senior Member Joined: 05 Aug 2013 Location: Scottsdale, Az Status: Offline Points: 470 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Steve,
As we wait by our computers for the release of this this incredable 10.2 and IFD100 upgrade, it occurred to me that the IFD100 may not be able to actually file a FP. So, using the IFD100 (from iPad at home) how do we "file" the FP without double data entry with our traditional FF or FltPlan Go, etc. and then in cockpit WiFi transfer to IFD540? In other words, will IFD100 have Direct FP filing capability, or perhaps indirectly by providing a link via our Home WiFi to transfer FP to our other software (FF or FltPln Go). Hopefully we can somehow file from the IFD100... Thanks for your insight. Tom Wolf
|
||
MysticCobra
Senior Member Joined: 29 Jan 2013 Status: Offline Points: 649 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
We've been told the IFD100 just acts like another x40. I wouldn't expect it to be able to file a flight plan any more than I'd expect my 540 to file a flight plan.
|
||
n7ifr
Senior Member Joined: 05 Aug 2013 Location: Scottsdale, Az Status: Offline Points: 470 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
... expecting and hoping are different. We are told that the IFD100 will allow home flight planning, and easy transfer to our panel IFD's.
Just wondering if double data entry might be avoided by having a WiFi link from the IFD100 perhaps to our FF or FltPln Go (just like panel IFD X'fer to same iPad Apps) from which we could then File the FP. Maybe just wishful thinking. Tom W.
|
||
brou0040
Senior Member Joined: 13 Dec 2012 Location: KIYK Status: Offline Points: 720 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
The real question is how (if at all) will the IFD100 be able to link to other tablets when not in the airplane. Will the IFD100 tablet create a wifi hotspot with the abcde.... password for the FltPlan Go tablet to connect to it? The IFD100 won't have sectionals, TACs, WACs, enroutes, etc so it's not really a home flight planning app that will replace your current app.
Edited by brou0040 - 12 Jun 2016 at 9:22pm |
||
MysticCobra
Senior Member Joined: 29 Jan 2013 Status: Offline Points: 649 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Sure: Entering the flight plan on the IFD100's FPM page in your living room, and then transferring it over to the panel-mounted IFD when you get into the cockpit. But that's all I've been led to expect by the Avidyne guys to date.
|
||
DavidBunin
Senior Member Joined: 20 May 2015 Location: Rockwall, TX Status: Offline Points: 742 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Here is what I see in my crystal ball. h=home, p=plane:
1h) I make and file a flight plan on FltPlan.com. 2h) I copy the flight log into my FltPlan Go app. 3p) With 10.2, I paste the flight plan from the app into the IFD-540. 4p) I follow along from the IFD-540 on Foreflight or the IFD100. On my last few trips, I have been doing part 4 with the Foreflight from 10.1.2.0. It has been working better than I expected. In other words, it is more useful than I thought it would be. I might start using Foreflight for steps 1 and 2 above, or I might not. David Bunin |
||
n7ifr
Senior Member Joined: 05 Aug 2013 Location: Scottsdale, Az Status: Offline Points: 470 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Nice David.
I also have found easy transfer from FF and/or FltPln Go from IFD. So, with 10.2, expect should be great To/From IFD's. Assume the process will be: 1.(H) Create FP on iPad FltPln Go or FF, and File if needed. 2. (H) Maybe a Copy/Paste (or direct WiFi X'fer better if possible) into IFD100 at Home. 2.(P) X'fer into IFD 540 and IFD100 if #2 not possible at home. Tom W. |
||
brou0040
Senior Member Joined: 13 Dec 2012 Location: KIYK Status: Offline Points: 720 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
I think David is probably correct, but I think it would be more of an upload from FF to IFD540, then 2-way sync with both FF (or FPG) and IFD100. I don't see the need for a transfer at home from FF or FPG to the IFD100.
|
||
chflyer
Senior Member Joined: 24 Jan 2013 Location: LSZK Status: Offline Points: 1022 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Are you guys assuming IFD100 and FF or FltPlan Go on different tablets? I sort of though that both apps would be running on the same device and any transfer could be internal, not needing wifi.
|
||
Vince
|
||
brou0040
Senior Member Joined: 13 Dec 2012 Location: KIYK Status: Offline Points: 720 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Personally, I think I'd have them on separate dedicated tablets. I don't think anything would change regarding my thoughts on how it would work if the apps are on the same tablet. |
||
pburger
Senior Member Joined: 26 Dec 2013 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 406 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Back on April 1, 10.2 was "in final company testing".
Where is 10.2 in the approval process now? Is it still being tested by Avidyne internally? Has it been submitted to the FAA for approval? Does the FAA have to flight test it? Are we just waiting for the bureaucratic process?
Any estimate at all? Before Oshkosh? |
||
chflyer
Senior Member Joined: 24 Jan 2013 Location: LSZK Status: Offline Points: 1022 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
The last "hint" that I've seen from Avidyne was agreement that sometime in Q3 would be reasonable, in response to someone's query/suggestion of Q3. That could be anywhere from July 1 to Sept 30. Also, they've indicated that 10.2 and the new IFD550 and IFD100 will be available at the same time so the approval of the two may be linked and not just dependent on the new software alone.
During the IFD540 approval process, about which Steve was extremely transparent, there was a lot of back and forth between Avidyne and the FAA especially near the end. If this is similar, submission to the FAA for approval wouldn't say much about the timeline because they could approve or send back for changes or more documentation or more testing, etc, etc. Given past issues with the FAA approval timelines, Steve has been understandably (and correctly, in my opinion) steadfast in refusing to provide any real estimate this time around. I'd be surprised if you get something this time around, but who knows. |
||
Vince
|
||
pburger
Senior Member Joined: 26 Dec 2013 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 406 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Vince,
Thanks for the history and your take on the situation. I have been on this forum for 2.5 years now, so I get it. I was simply asking for an update on where things stand. On April 1, 10.2 was "in final company testing". It's been over two months, so I was wondering where we are in the process now. I don't think that is an unreasonable question. I guess I missed where Avidyne had linked the release of 10.2 to the release of the IFD-550. Maybe that was stated in the April 1 post, but I guess I'll have to go re-read it. They have announced Q3 for IFD-550, so I guess time will tell. I was hoping to upgrade to 10.2 and get a feel for it before making the decision to buy the upgrade coupon for the IFD-550. But if they are released at the same time, then that option is out. I'd sure like Avidyne to confirm whether or not the release of 10.2 will be tied to the release of the IFD-550. |
||
Gring
Senior Member Joined: 30 Dec 2011 Location: Kingston, NY Status: Online Points: 722 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Yes, but..., I don't think 10.2 is dependent on the IFD550, but the 550 is dependent on 10.2.
|
||
chflyer
Senior Member Joined: 24 Jan 2013 Location: LSZK Status: Offline Points: 1022 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
But Steve did say that 10.2 would not be released before IFD550. 10.2 is first IFD550 release and they can't be certain 10.2 is finished until IFD550 is cert'd by FAA.
|
||
Vince
|
||
pburger
Senior Member Joined: 26 Dec 2013 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 406 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Steve - please confirm above statement that v10.2 will not be released prior to the IFD-550. I cannot find that statement in any posts. (I guess it makes sense, but I really was hoping to get a taste of 10.2 prior to making my upgrade decision). |
||
AviSimpson
Senior Member Joined: 31 Mar 2015 Location: Lincoln, MA Status: Offline Points: 765 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Steve is on vacation. He will be back in a few weeks, so his response will be delayed.
|
||
Simpson Bennett
Avidyne Corporation Product Manager |
||
DavidBunin
Senior Member Joined: 20 May 2015 Location: Rockwall, TX Status: Offline Points: 742 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
I hope he has a good vacation. He certainly deserves one.
|
||
Awful Charlie
Groupie Joined: 24 Oct 2013 Location: LFGB Status: Offline Points: 53 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Well, my bird is in the shop now for the next two weeks getting 540/440/340 installed (alas without 605->605A), so it would be great if it can come along before 1st Aug. Fingers crossed!
|
||
ddgates
Senior Member Joined: 12 Aug 2011 Location: Deer Valley Status: Offline Points: 1100 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Charlie:
You didn't specify which year!
|
||
David Gates
|
||
ddgates
Senior Member Joined: 12 Aug 2011 Location: Deer Valley Status: Offline Points: 1100 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
I see convincing evidence of activty leveraging 10.2 by third party vendors.
FltPlan Go's most recent release references bidirectional data flow between app and the IFD. (It's in the app release notes, no secrets divulging). Their control panel for the IFD is interesting and raises questions about what functionalities are future opportunities vs functions ready to go with 10.2. Another vendor has bidirectional functionalities also ready to go within its app as soon as 10.2 is released and enabled. So 10.2 release won't have the aura of a party with no attendance.
|
||
David Gates
|
||
DH82FLYER
Groupie Joined: 15 Dec 2012 Location: Queensland Status: Offline Points: 88 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
AvPlan is another software vendor who has just released support for the IFD's.
Their software works in the South Pacific, North America, Europe etc etc See them at Oshkosh... http://us4.forward-to-friend.com/forward/preview?u=05e2c7aac13473c15d99e90f2&id=fc930b6770 Thomas |
||
AviJake
Admin Group Joined: 26 Mar 2009 Location: Lincoln MA Status: Offline Points: 2815 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Right.
AvPlan Foreflight FltPlan.com Seattle Avionics FlyQ Jepp Mobile Flight Deck AeroGlass CloudAhoy all now have functional apps that take advantage of the 2-way wifi/datalogging capability. More should be coming.
|
||
Steve Jacobson
sjacobson@avidyne.com |
||
Ibraham
Senior Member Joined: 21 May 2016 Location: KHWO Status: Offline Points: 357 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
David
We had GNS 430W on the old airplane with Garmin Flightstream 210, we were able to upload full SAR patterns from Foreflight to the GNS 430. I hope with Release 10.2 we should be able to do the same as it may have 2 way flight plan transfer. Then you could have all the standard SAR patterns saved on the iPad and loaded up to the IFD as needed. Ibrahim
|
||
comancheguy
Senior Member Joined: 24 Aug 2011 Location: Maryland Status: Offline Points: 160 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Very excited about the WX-500 stormscope test page in 10.2.
Flew home around a BUNCH of weather this weekend, and realized last night that I saw, not one lightning bolt, on the screen. Hmm.... It's the kind of thing that you don't see until you NEED it. Ken
|
||
Warrenwhis
Groupie Joined: 20 Mar 2016 Location: 37388 Status: Offline Points: 43 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
I had read it would support RDS81 & 82
|
||
n7ifr
Senior Member Joined: 05 Aug 2013 Location: Scottsdale, Az Status: Offline Points: 470 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
... anticipating v10.2... so does anybody know - will we be able to do our own software download & update to our X40's, or must it be accomplished at a dealer??
Tom Wolf
|
||
ddgates
Senior Member Joined: 12 Aug 2011 Location: Deer Valley Status: Offline Points: 1100 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Tom:
Word on the electronic street is that it is expected mid September, but we from prior experience know what prognostic value that has.
|
||
David Gates
|
||
DavidBunin
Senior Member Joined: 20 May 2015 Location: Rockwall, TX Status: Offline Points: 742 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
In between those two. If they follow past practice, the upgrade (which is an alteration to the product) must be done by either a repair station (i.e. avionics shop/dealer) or by an A&P. That said, an A&P has the ability/authority to supervise work, so if your A&P is comfortable with it, he might agree to supervise you doing the work and then make the required log entry for the activity. David Bunin |
||
brou0040
Senior Member Joined: 13 Dec 2012 Location: KIYK Status: Offline Points: 720 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Do you have any status on your discussions regarding the Android app development?
|
||
AviJake
Admin Group Joined: 26 Mar 2009 Location: Lincoln MA Status: Offline Points: 2815 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
We have a bid to do the Android work that is being re-worked by the bidder. If that comes back attractive, we'll pull the trigger. I met with him at Oshkosh and we're both optimistic. We'll see.
|
||
Steve Jacobson
sjacobson@avidyne.com |
||
Awful Charlie
Groupie Joined: 24 Oct 2013 Location: LFGB Status: Offline Points: 53 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Yay! Good news (hopefully!) Ben (another non fruity owner) |
||
MysticCobra
Senior Member Joined: 29 Jan 2013 Status: Offline Points: 649 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Indeed--thanks for the update. Fingers crossed...
|
||
oskrypuch
Senior Member Joined: 09 Nov 2012 Location: CYFD Status: Offline Points: 3058 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Yes, that all is very good to hear.
* Orest |
||
brou0040
Senior Member Joined: 13 Dec 2012 Location: KIYK Status: Offline Points: 720 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Can you expand on what this means? I'm wondering if this will fix an issue I've posted a few times. The issue I've seen is when you have a Missed Approach hold coincident with the IAF of a subsequent approach. To make the point a bit more clear from my previous example try this: Route: KMTW, OSH, VOR RWY 17 KMTW, VOR RWY 17 KMTW simulating that you are going to reattempt the VOR RWY 17 approach into KMTW for some reason. The missed from the first attempt in the IFD properly has you climb to 2000, then climbing turn to 3000 direct to MTW VOR/DME - then it is simply wrong. It has you descend to 2400 for the Missed Approach hold! The published Missed approach hold altitude is 3000 so it has you 600 feet lower than you should be! What I think is actually happening is that the IFD is deleting what it thinks are duplicate waypoints and is therefore deleting the Missed Approach hold and keeping the IAF waypoint for the next approach. You can see that it says (IAF) next to the VOR in the waypoint name, but it is still listed as part of the Missed Approach in the procedure label - which is obstructed by the MAP tab (please remove). However, it is not just eliminating duplicate waypoints by keeping one hold instead of another, because the MTW IAF is not a hold for the approach, it is simply messing it up. Either way, either the IFD has the wrong Missed Approach hold altitude (lower than published - why no AD?) or it simply deleted the Missed Approach hold altogether and incorrectly moved the IAF hold into the missed approach (again - why no AD?). If the Improved Published Holds listed above addresses this issue, I hope it allows the option to keep redundant waypoints and doesn't force you to pick one. I also hope it stops moving the IAF out of the approach procedure and moving it to the previous procedure.
|
||
oskrypuch
Senior Member Joined: 09 Nov 2012 Location: CYFD Status: Offline Points: 3058 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
The inability to have two contiguous instances of the same waypoint in the flightplan creates a number of issues, including the serious one mentioned above, and the restriction is unusual for an FMS.
I don't see why you can't allow such, and just force a discontinuity between the two waypoints. The only way around this now, is to insert a bogus different waypoint between the two instances, and being careful to allow for the separator in your navigation. And actually, that will not fix the issue that brou0040 brought up. * Orest |
||
DavidBunin
Senior Member Joined: 20 May 2015 Location: Rockwall, TX Status: Offline Points: 742 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
If you have the same waypoint twice in a a row in the flight plan (but at different altitudes) what is the navigator supposed to do after you pass the waypoint the first time (at, we hope, the first altitude)? Is there a holding pattern at that waypoint while you climb or descend to the new altitude? In that case wouldn't a holding pattern between the waypoints make more sense than a discontinuity? On the other hand, how does the (lateral) navigator know when you've made the right number of turns in the holding pattern and that your next pass at the holding fix is in fact the exit waypoint?
Just seems like more questions than answers to me. In response to why this isn't an AD, I would say that if 2400' is a safe altitude for an IAF, why wouldn't it also be a safe altitude at the same location on the miss? Sure, there could be a traffic conflict but there should not be a terrain or obstacle problem. And if we're worried about traffic, well I'm not exactly comfortable holding at 3000' while other airplanes are flying the approach only six hundred feet below me. Especially if you consider that 2400' is probably a MINIMUM altitude at the IAF, not a mandatory altitude. |
||
oskrypuch
Senior Member Joined: 09 Nov 2012 Location: CYFD Status: Offline Points: 3058 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
The navigator would just command wings level, as for any other discontinuity, what to do then is above its pay grade.
Another place where this is an annoyance is where you are flying simulated approaches, and load up the ILS on one runway, then the LOC on the other end. Usually the IAF for the LOC is the same waypoint for the hold on the ILS missed. What you have to do is load the ILS, then put in any waypoint after the missed, and only then add another instance of the airport and add the LOC to that one. If you don't add the "fake" waypoint, then it won't work. You have to be careful to transition past the fake waypoint before that leg becomes active. * Orest |
||
brou0040
Senior Member Joined: 13 Dec 2012 Location: KIYK Status: Offline Points: 720 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
This is simply one example that describes IFD behavior. What if the Missed Approach hold was in a different direction than the PT where you may need different altitudes for the protected airspace due to terrain, towers, etc? When you fly the VOR RWY 9 into RAL then the VOR into AJO, it completely deletes the Missed Approach hold. It maintains the HILPT for the next approach, but this time it is 1500 feet lower than it is supposed to be, and the hold is on a different heading (although not by much) meaning the protected airspace is not the same.
I don't think it would be too difficult to figure out something to do with duplicate waypoints - what do other systems do? If nothing else, have a gap and require manual sequence. I still stand by my statement I made in June of last year on this topic. "I think it would be appropriate to have all of the approaches fully populated and stand alone. Sure, this may show redundant points, but you are actually using redundant points as part of your flight plan, so it would be intuitive. Meaning, the missed should have stayed the way it was and not included the IAF of the next approach in the missed. The VOR approach should have included TTE as the IAF in the procedure. This would eliminate the issue I was having and I believe would be more intuitive. All I would have had to do was hit direct to the IAF (which is what I was trying to do)." My quote was based on a different example regarding the VOR approach, but the context is similar. Regardless, what it is doing is unsafe. See my link for another reason I think this should be an AD. If you miss the window to exit the hold, you cannot go direct to the IAF to get back on track because the IFD moved the IAF to the missed of the previous approach. You end up very confused and it is not intuitive that you have to back up in the flight plan and delete a previous approach to a previous airport to resolve your current issue.
|
||
chflyer
Senior Member Joined: 24 Jan 2013 Location: LSZK Status: Offline Points: 1022 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Well, just over 3 weeks now until the end of Q3 and 6 months since this chain was started on 10.2.0.0 to get all our mouths watering, pending "only" FAA approval.
It seems that the FAA has their personnel priorities elsewhere because Piper managed to get an entirely new aircraft certified in 40-some days compared to a new avionics software release taking 6 months. Perhaps Piper has connections in the FAA that Avidyne lacks? (I know, not the same department) Perhaps we'll all get lucky and 10.2.0.0 will be released in time for Christmas..... now "that" would be a nice year-end present! |
||
Vince
|
||
M20J
Newbie Joined: 15 Nov 2015 Location: CZBA Status: Offline Points: 32 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
My pitot/static is due at the end of September, I'm hoping that 10.2 will be ready by then and I can get it all done with one visit to the shop. Wishful thinking??
|
||
Catani
Senior Member Joined: 21 Jan 2016 Status: Offline Points: 362 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Loading two identical approaches is for IFR practice only, so it's doesn't sound like a real-world issue - at least to me anyway. If you were actual IFR on a trip from OSH to MTW, you would load one approach and execute it to a landing unless the weather was close to or below minimums. If the latter, before starting the approach you might add your alternate as the next waypoint after the missed approach hold, and be ready to execute the missed approach instructions that are often different from the missed approach procedure. Or you might wait to load the alternate after starting the missed, whatever your preference is, and then picking an approach while enroute - again, whatever your preference. Secondly, while you say the FMS "has you descend," unless it's somehow coupled to your autopilot you should remain at 3000 feet, assuming you've programmed your autopilot to climb to and maintain that altitude as you execute the missed. The FMS will not bring you down to 2400, you have to do that, if I understand that correctly. If you've not yet been cleared for the second practice approach, you stay in holding at 3000 until you do get clearance. Again, even in practice, I don't see the real world issue. By loading two identical approaches, what you've told the FMS is that you want to proceed to the MAP, and then commence the second approach. The FMS doesn't know what ATC has told you, but it does sequence when you get there whether you are cleared or not. If in a real-world IFR situation where your clearance limit is the IAF, and you have not been cleared further upon reaching, you are supposed to enter holding at the clearance limit/IAF until receiving clearance whether you've told the FMS not to sequence or not. The FMS does not know what ATC has told you - you have to tell the FMS to hold and not sequence. If you don't, it will sequence. In your example, the FMS thinks you're going to fly the second approach upon reaching the IAF, unless you tell it not to sequence. Since almost all of the time you are cleared before reaching the IAF, having it automatically sequence is the expected behavior. Having the FMS routinely suspend itself upon reaching the IAF until further prompted to satisfy the atypical situation of multiple identical approaches may introduce bigger problems - like having it not sequence for the guy sliding down the final approach course trying to figure out how to get the FMS to catch up. Maybe I did not understand the question properly, but this is my take on what I thought the question was. |
||
brou0040
Senior Member Joined: 13 Dec 2012 Location: KIYK Status: Offline Points: 720 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Thanks Catani for the thoughts. I agree the identical approaches isn't the greatest real-world issue, but it definitely could be. I know I've shot 2 approaches in IMC into the same airport in order to get my 6 in 6. Also, this is just a simple example of something I think the IFDs are doing wrong. Did you see my post a few up that had an approach into RAL then an an approach into AJO, that put the hold 1500 feet lower than it should have? Regarding the altitudes, the FMS would be having you descend if it was coupled to an autopilot. Even it wasn't coupled, it would be giving you incorrect altitude guidance. It shows this information in the flight plan.
|
||
Catani
Senior Member Joined: 21 Jan 2016 Status: Offline Points: 362 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Did not see your post on RAL/AJO, but still don't agree the FMS is doing anything wrong. You don't get holding altitudes from the FMS, you get them from charts. Also, I've got an STec 55X and it definitely does not take input from the FMS for altitudes. The autopilot either levels off when I hit "ALT HOLD" or it follows bugs I set on the PFD for altitude -- and definitely not anything the FMS says. The FMS is a horizontal guidance device only, as far as the autopilot is concerned. And if you're hand flying, the FMS is not where you get your altitude information either - that comes from charts. The IFD FMS has bells and whistles for "begin descent" reminders, but that's all they are. If they are wrong, don't follow them - but understand why they are wrong so you know what the box is doing. It's not the FMS's primary function to tell you what altitude you should be at, and most of the time it doesn't even care. Not so for you.
|
||
brou0040
Senior Member Joined: 13 Dec 2012 Location: KIYK Status: Offline Points: 720 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
I hear what you are saying and agree that you need to verify the waypoints including altitudes, but I disagree that the chart is the only place for altitude information. The FMS gets altitude information from an IFR approved database (which has the correct information), but the IFD is presenting that information to the pilot incorrectly. We should be able to expect (but verify) the vertical and lateral information to be correct, or it should not be displayed. To be clear, I'm talking about the altitudes constraints listed on the FPL tab in the flight plan and that are displayed with the standard above/below bars, not the VSR or TOD reference altitudes.
Edited by brou0040 - 09 Sep 2016 at 12:08am |
||
Jack Seubert
Groupie Joined: 17 Aug 2012 Location: Memphis, TN Status: Offline Points: 53 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
It sure has been quiet on Avidyne Live, I wonder if that means software release 10.2.0.0 is getting close, I hope!
Jack
|
||
Jack Seubert
|
||
sikhpilotmd
Groupie Joined: 08 Oct 2014 Location: KISP Status: Offline Points: 69 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Or the whole thing was a big joke.......
I'm perfectly happy with things the way they are. I know what buttons to press and how to load approaches etc. never used the keyboard either. |
||
pburger
Senior Member Joined: 26 Dec 2013 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 406 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
You just delayed it three weeks!
|
||
oskrypuch
Senior Member Joined: 09 Nov 2012 Location: CYFD Status: Offline Points: 3058 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Try it, you'll like it! Really. I have mine mounted on top of my yoke. It's perfect! * Orest Edited by oskrypuch - 15 Sep 2016 at 9:38pm |
||
Post Reply | Page <1 56789 15> |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |