IFD Software Release 10.2.0.0

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.

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.

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.

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).

You didn't specify which year!

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

Word on the electronic street is that it is expected mid September, but we from prior experience know what prognostic value that has.

Do you have any status on your discussions regarding the Android app development?

* Orest

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

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

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)

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.

Jack

You just delayed it three weeks!