Avidyne Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > Avidyne General > IFD 5 Series & IFD 4 Series Touch Screen GPS/NAV/COM
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - TOD alert at wrong point of flight path
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

TOD alert at wrong point of flight path
 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
Message
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
compasst View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 22 Feb 2015
Location: Akron, OH
Status: Offline
Points: 169 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote compasst Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: TOD alert at wrong point of flight path
    Posted: 25 Aug 2016 at 12:22pm
During a practice RNAV 27 approach to KPOV yesterday, the TOD tone alert sounded as I was flying inbound to WINER on a DIRECT course that nearly perfectly aligned with the teardrop entry showing on the IFD. The alert showed "Begin Descent" but no countdown showed. I was at the prescribed 4000' altitude for the fix hold/crossing.

I have shot this approach several times since I got the IFD 540 18 months ago - KPOV is my base airport. I've not been on the exact course I was on yesterday, so I plan to go out again within the next several days and try to replicate this TOD annunciation.

Any ideas? Anybody else have this kind of experience with improper TOD annunciation?
Back to Top
pburger View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 26 Dec 2013
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 406 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pburger Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Aug 2016 at 2:59pm
YES, similar thing happened to me Tuesday evening.  I'm glad you posted, because I had forgotten about it.

Based on what you said, I assume you were SW of WHINR at 4000, and needed to do the course reversal.  However, it gave you the "Begin Descent" alert as if you were passing WHINR inbound.  Right?

In my case I was shooting the RNAV 18 at TS07 (a private approach so the plate is not available).

It's a very similar approach that has a HILPT.  I was heading to the IAF such that my hold entry was parallel, but otherwise the same situation.  The screen showed the parallel entry to the hold, so the box obviously knew what was going on.  As I came close to the fix, I got the Begin Descent alert.  I think I even got a countdown, but maybe not.  I was already at the proper altitude (2000' in my case), so I didn't need to descend.  Seems like a bug whereby the box was giving me the notification to begin my descent as if I was inbound at the fix, but I was entering the hold and therefore SHOULD NOT descend.  The box SHOULD NOT advise me to descend at that point.

AVIDYNE??  

I will probably try this on the sim to see what happens, but I would assume it will be the same result.




Edited by pburger - 25 Aug 2016 at 2:59pm
Back to Top
pburger View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 26 Dec 2013
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 406 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pburger Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Aug 2016 at 3:15pm
Tried the sim just now.  I was using the Windows version.  I couldn't adjust speed or altitude.  I thought there were sliders for that?  Maybe that's just the iPad version?

Anyway, I "flew" the approach - it set me up for a teardrop entry to the hold.  It DID NOT give me the "Begin Descent" alert.  I'll try again at home tonight on the iPad.  

Both my safety pilot and I noticed the "Begin Descent" message.  We flew the approach twice and it happened both times.


Edited by pburger - 25 Aug 2016 at 3:16pm
Back to Top
ac11 View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie
Avatar

Joined: 21 Aug 2016
Location: SF Bay Area
Status: Offline
Points: 98 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ac11 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Sep 2016 at 2:17pm
Any response from Avidyne?
Back to Top
pburger View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 26 Dec 2013
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 406 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pburger Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 May 2017 at 2:17pm
This problem is REAL.  I hope Avidyne will take a look at this and comment.

I flew the RNAV 18 at TS07, and was doing the published missed approach, which is "Climb to 800' then climbing RIGHT turn to 2000' direct DAUGG and hold."

After I made the right turn, and was proceeding direct to DAUGG,  the IFD showed the holding pattern and showed, "parallel entry" as expected.  Then it gave me the "Begin Descent..." warning message with the countdown.  I was level at 2000, and did not need to descend yet.  I was not established in the hold.  I was heading OUTBOUND doing a parallel entry into the hold.  I was on the missed approach, anyway, so it shouldn't try to sequence me for the approach at that point, anyway.

This is some kind of glitch where it sees me coming up on the FAF and tells me to descend.  

Please comment on this Avidyne.  It isn't correct.  I'm still on 10.1.1, by the way.




Edited by pburger - 01 May 2017 at 2:18pm
Back to Top
brou0040 View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 13 Dec 2012
Location: KIYK
Status: Offline
Points: 720 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote brou0040 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 May 2017 at 10:43pm
The IFD has several issues with holds and vertical information, but there has yet to be any response.  Others have said you should ignore all vertical information (unless it is a glideslope) and rely solely on paper charts for vertical information.  I disagree, but no useful feedback has been provided in almost 2 years...
Back to Top
Catani View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 21 Jan 2016
Status: Offline
Points: 362 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Catani Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 May 2017 at 12:22pm
Originally posted by brou0040 brou0040 wrote:

...Others have said you should ignore all vertical information (unless it is a glideslope) and rely solely on paper charts for vertical information...
I doubt anybody is using paper charts these days, but probably everyone flying actual IFR relies on charts in digital form on some device.  Who flying actual IMC to minimums doesn't use them?  And need this be said?: Charts have important info like altitudes, minimums, routes, missed approach instructions, etc.  If the chart says your FAF altitude is 1500, and the IFD vertical alert says it's something else, the chart controls.  That goes for final approach courses, minimum safe altitudes, obstacles, decision heights, and just about every other piece of information displayed on it that may be in conflict with what you see on or hear from your FMS.  I don't think prioritizing the chart and relying upon its information as primary is a technique, I think it's mandatory.  It's technique to memorize the essential information, but if not at least have the chart in view while shooting the approach, and fly the approach in accordance with the chart.

Having said that, if there's a problem with the IFD that causes it to provide info contrary to an approach chart, it should be fixed.  But's that's a repair issue, not a question of whether the chart's information is primary.  Fly the chart.
Back to Top
brou0040 View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 13 Dec 2012
Location: KIYK
Status: Offline
Points: 720 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote brou0040 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 May 2017 at 10:55pm
Originally posted by Catani Catani wrote:

Originally posted by brou0040 brou0040 wrote:

...Others have said you should ignore all vertical information (unless it is a glideslope) and rely solely on paper charts for vertical information...
I doubt anybody is using paper charts these days, but probably everyone flying actual IFR relies on charts in digital form on some device.

You don't think anybody uses paper anymore...?  My complaint is that the IFD should display information accurately and others have said it is of little consequence since you shouldn't pay any attention to that information.  I say if it is going to be displayed, it needs to be accurate.  I also believe that the information regardless of being displayed on the IFD or on a chart comes from the same source and again, if the IFD is going to show it, it needs to accurately represent the source information.  The IFD currently inaccurately displays data in several situations.
Back to Top
oskrypuch View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 09 Nov 2012
Location: CYFD
Status: Offline
Points: 3058 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote oskrypuch Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 May 2017 at 11:47pm
Originally posted by brou0040 brou0040 wrote:

...The IFD currently inaccurately displays data in several situations.

What are the situations?

* Orest



Edited by oskrypuch - 03 May 2017 at 8:46am
Back to Top
Catani View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 21 Jan 2016
Status: Offline
Points: 362 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Catani Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 May 2017 at 12:47am
Originally posted by brou0040 brou0040 wrote:

...My complaint is that the IFD should display information accurately and others have said it is of little consequence since you shouldn't pay any attention to that information...
Of course it should, but it's only a repair issue.  And it's quite clear that was your complaint, no need to clarify.  My comment was in response to your dismissing the idear of using "paper" charts.  If you're using a chart as you should, the FMS error is only a disappointment, not getting what you paid $$$ for.  Certainly something worthy of complaints to your installer and Avidyne till it gets right.  But in no way should you be relying on the fancy gizmo instead of your chart (paper or digital, whatever floats your boat) for primary authoriative information on something as critical as altitudes, courses, headings, etc. on an IMC instrument approach, in my opinion.

And no, I didn't say nobody uses paper charts anymore.  Some people can't afford the digital devices.  Some people just prefer paper, but not many.  It's just that you referenced "paper" in your post as if it were backward to refer to charts, which I thought was backward.
Back to Top
Catani View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 21 Jan 2016
Status: Offline
Points: 362 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Catani Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 May 2017 at 12:47am
Originally posted by oskrypuch oskrypuch wrote:

Originally posted by brou0040 brou0040 wrote:

[QUOTE=Catani]...The IFD currently inaccurately displays data in several situations.

What are the situations?

* Orest

Would appreciate Orest if you corrected your post.  I did not say what you quoted. Thanks.
Back to Top
oskrypuch View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 09 Nov 2012
Location: CYFD
Status: Offline
Points: 3058 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote oskrypuch Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 May 2017 at 8:47am
Originally posted by Catani Catani wrote:

Would appreciate Orest if you corrected your post.  I did not say what you quoted. Thanks.

Sorry, snipping the quote left one extra tag in, corrected.

* Orest



Edited by oskrypuch - 03 May 2017 at 8:47am
Back to Top
brou0040 View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 13 Dec 2012
Location: KIYK
Status: Offline
Points: 720 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote brou0040 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 May 2017 at 9:21am
Originally posted by oskrypuch oskrypuch wrote:

Originally posted by brou0040 brou0040 wrote:

...The IFD currently inaccurately displays data in several situations.

What are the situations?

* Orest


I've posted many times over the years, here are a few.  The 3rd link is how I first noticed this behavior, the 4th was some suggestions to fix it.  The 1st and 2nd are additional examples.





Perhaps I'm way off on this.  I believe this to be more than a repair issue.  This is a certified panel mount GPS that is providing distracting inaccurate information.  I'd like to see what their take on the issue is.

BTW, if you look at my 3rd link, this is more than just an displayed altitude issue.  If you don't hit the correct button at the correct time, you cannot recover positive lateral guidance without an advanced understanding how the system combines approaches.  We all make mistakes and it shouldn't be so difficult to recover from them.
Back to Top
oskrypuch View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 09 Nov 2012
Location: CYFD
Status: Offline
Points: 3058 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote oskrypuch Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 May 2017 at 11:02am
Originally posted by brou0040 brou0040 wrote:

Perhaps I'm way off on this.  I believe this to be more than a repair issue.  This is a certified panel mount GPS that is providing distracting inaccurate information.  I'd like to see what their take on the issue is.


Yes, this appears to be the merging together of same waypoints together, that you see in a variety of situations, and also the blocking of having two consecutive instances of the same waypoint which might be needed operationally occasionally, example an airport where you want to add two consecutive approaches. You have to add the airport, then the procedure for the first, then the airport again.

It would be preferable if the system just inserted a discontinuity (GAP), and left two instances of the waypoint (one in the missed, and the other the IAF for example) separate. That is typical behavior for an FMS, like a Honeywell. Then you could manage the flight as you needed. What really compounds this is when it comes to the approach segment, as the approach waypoints cannot be individually altered.

I've learned to insert some other waypoint, any waypoint, between such instances when they crop up. It acts as a discontinuity.

* Orest



Edited by oskrypuch - 03 May 2017 at 7:15pm
Back to Top
Catani View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 21 Jan 2016
Status: Offline
Points: 362 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Catani Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 May 2017 at 3:26pm
Originally posted by brou0040 brou0040 wrote:

...I've posted many times over the years, here are a few.  The 3rd link is how I first noticed this behavior, the 4th was some suggestions to fix it.  The 1st and 2nd are additional examples....
Perhaps I'm way off on this.  I believe this to be more than a repair issue.  This is a certified panel mount GPS that is providing distracting inaccurate information.
I took a look at the first of your examples and found it was discussed in great detail here: 

http://forums.avidyne.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=693&KW=clarity&PID=7324&title=kptv-approach-confusion#7324

This is not a repair issue, nor is it an inaccuracy issue.  It's an operational issue, as said before in the above-cited thread.  As I said there, you prefer the box logic to work one way, others don't, including myself.  Obviously, Avidyne can't please us all, so somebody is going to have to yield.  I would not want Avidyne to change the logic to suit your preferences, but if they did, I'd learn how the box works and behave accordingly.  Years ago I found Garmin's 430 logic ridiculous, i.e., not a repair issue, not an inaccuracy issue, but a operational issue.  But with practice, I learned it anyway.  No FMS can read your mind - you have to learn to read it's mind by reading the manual and practicing to the point of familiarity.  I'm sure you'd have less frustration if you accepted this necessity.  Garmin and Avidyne logic, for instance, are quite different.  Somebody used to Garmin logic will think Avidyne logic is flawed, and vice versa, until practice builds familiarity.  Then all is well, unless you have a defective unit.

Not sure if your other links are raising the same issue again or not, but I assume since you grouped them all together and described them as related.  This thread then appears to be a re-hash, already discussed.  If there is a new issue here, please say what it is.

One thing you might do to help get over your frustration is spend some time with a CFI who knows the IFD inside and out, who can explain the logic of it to you, and why it only appears confusing because of assumptions you've made.  I know I would never have learned the Garmin 430 without hours of time with a simulator and more hours with a CFI in the plane.  I don't think the learning curve with Avidyne logic is so steep, but it's there.
Back to Top
brou0040 View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 13 Dec 2012
Location: KIYK
Status: Offline
Points: 720 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote brou0040 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 May 2017 at 4:00pm
Catani, my response was for Orest.  I do not plan to comment on this further with you.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.01
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.117 seconds.