540-440 integration

I am considering Dual IFD's by adding a 440 to my existing 540, but with a few questions.  The potential Dual-integration looks very tight, but I am wondering:

A great function for dual IFD users will be to move all of the route preview MAP functions to the second IFD.  This would include when hitting the PROC button, selecting arrivals, etc.  This way, one IFD becomes the data entry box, and the second box displays all of the MAP features with the larger real estate.

fritz wrote: Great idea.  How is this done?

With programming???

AviJake wrote: Depending on exactly what you are expecting, the answer is either a firm "Yes", or a "Sort of". In the Maintenance Mode pages, the unit data sharing ("CrossSync") can be turned off.  In that case, you have two completely independent IFDs. If that's too extreme, then the answer becomes "Sort Of".

Steve,

Thanks Steve.

Yikes.  I'll enter it in the candidate database but this is a large undertaking architecturally.  It's all a bunch of non-visible "under the hood" kind of work that has tentacles in many areas.

Temporary would actually be my preferred option. Based on your explanation on the scope of the selective change I don't think that should be high priority - if at all. 

The following is strictly hypothetical, sitting around a campfire drinking whiskey and telling stories but..... imagine a scenario where you had the full IFD software running on a tablet that is connected to the panel IFD via WiFi.  You could sever that WiFi connection, work up your what-if scenarios real-time on what sure looks and feels like an IFD, and when happy, reconnect the WiFi and send that new plan to the panel IFD.  Would that do the trick?

mgrimes wrote: Will this tablet APP have current nav data, charts, approaches? Would it require a separate subscription?

Understood.  One of the fundamental differences of the IFDs, especially dual IFDs, is that they are a dual instantiation of the same FMS.  This is a full-up FMS system and not two independent navigators.     That comes with huge advantages and as we can see in this scenario, some operational drawbacks from how folks have, or want to, use the system.

Instead of wasting developer time with hobbling the crosslink design, I think the far better solution for this is to create a MODIFY CURRENT ROUTE facility, that would allow for time and fuel figures and what if's, which could then be optionally activated.

oskrypuch wrote: Instead of wasting developer time with hobbling the crosslink design, I think the far better solution for this is to create a MODIFY CURRENT ROUTE facility, that would allow for time and fuel figures and what if's, which could then be optionally activated.

+1

That is how the CNX-80/GNS-480 work, and how most of the big iron FMSs work as well.  Note that there should be an easy way to make the default be that changes are not applied until executed.  This could probably be executed in the context of the IFDs by allowing the routes to reference "live" data to allow for the what if, then allowing the route to be activated and have it pick up in the right position automatically as the route is copied to the active flight plan (which I believe is largely the case today).

While on the topic, it would also be great if one could get full graphical viewing/editing when creating a flight plan through the route page just the same as it is available on the FPL page.  It is just more convenient to have there when working other routes (for example, a return trip route while enroute outbound).

Regards,
Neal

I would like the advantages of sync duel operations, but with the flexibility of being able to fully utilise the RMI capabilities of my Aspen pro and do "what if" planning on my #2 IFD without affecting the present navigation of the aircraft.
Teeth 6 suggested a one way traffic system - inputs to IFD 1 are synced to IFD 2 but not the other way around. This could be a good solution with some more thought. I see this as selectable, say, fully duel operations, partial duel operations (as Teeth 6) or independent operations.
Tom Wolf also eludes to a solution - inflight selection of duel operations or Independant operations. I am sure this might raise a few eyebrows with the FAA, however any confusion as to which mode was being operated could be mitigated with an alert of some sort.
The marvels of duel operations have some pretty inconvenient consequences. Flexibility, and user selectibility are surely the way to maximise the potential of this great equipment. Different strokes for different folks.

Not sure I see any conflict with FAA or other governing body with using IFD #2 as such - separate Un-Synched GPS.  For those of us with Aspen RMI capability, this is extremely easy and useful for position reporting and showing an RMI arrow to a "direct-to" target.

Vince,

"one of the changes I'd like to see is a way to have cross-sync turned on but to selectively choose what gets copied and in what direction - just like the Garmin 430 did, where I had cross-fill enabled in one direction only."
+1

Edited by NZFlyer - 22 Jan 2016 at 8:04pm

Tom:

My evolving conclusion on Synch vs Un-Synching dual X40 units is: