Gaps in FPL between STAR and approach |
Post Reply |
Author | |
jhbehrens
Senior Member Joined: 15 Dec 2012 Location: Netherlands Status: Offline Points: 128 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Posted: 12 Aug 2024 at 8:38am |
On recent flights, I have often noticed there was a gap in the flight plan between the same two waypoints, one the termination point of an arrival, and the other the IAF of the connecting departure. Moreover these could not be manually deleted or 'connected' with a softkey press as is often the case.
Some trial and error showed me the way to remove the gap, is to set the same altitude restriction on both waypoints. As soon as there is any difference, this gap is introduced. In Europe, there are quite a lot of examples where the published altitude restriction on the same waypoint, when in the START and when in the approach, is different. I know that doesn't make a lot of sense, but there you go. As a result of that, a gap is always introduced and can only be removed by tweaking the restrictions manually. Although I understand the logic behind this heuristic, I believe this is non optimal behaviour, as an unconnectable gap means you need to remember to manually sequence to the second instance of that waypoint when on the leg to the first instance, without any warning or prompt to say this is required. A better choice would be not to introduce this gap in the first place, or at least have some logic that forced the pilot to acknowledge or act on the gap. Can this be considered for an upcoming release? Edited by jhbehrens - 12 Aug 2024 at 8:39am |
|
AviSteve
Admin Group Joined: 12 Feb 2018 Location: Melbourne, FL Status: Offline Points: 2274 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
The IFD generates an alert when approaching a Gap In Route, which acts a a prompt to remind you that something needs to be done.
|
|
Steve Lindsley
Avidyne Engineering |
|
jhbehrens
Senior Member Joined: 15 Dec 2012 Location: Netherlands Status: Offline Points: 128 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I understand, I still think you can do better. The IFD doesn't seem to ever do 'at altitude', it's always 'at or above' even if the procedure says 'at'. So if the end of the STAR the IFD says 'Not below FL050' and at the beginning of the Approach the IFD says 'Not below 3800ft' (a real example I had last week landing at EDQM), why introduce the gap? These two values don't conflict.
Edited by jhbehrens - 15 Aug 2024 at 10:42am |
|
AviSteve
Admin Group Joined: 12 Feb 2018 Location: Melbourne, FL Status: Offline Points: 2274 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
There are underlying software design reasons for introducing that rule, but I understand what you're saying. Best I can offer is to say that we'll take it under advisement and see if there's some way we can tweak the design to support it.
|
|
Steve Lindsley
Avidyne Engineering |
|
AdmiralJanesTKirk
Newbie Joined: 04 Nov 2024 Location: Kgnv Status: Offline Points: 3 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I have, on several occasions, had the ifd440 fail to sequence from arrival to approach. Even when beyond arrival fixes, there is no way to activate an approach. I've had to use my 430w in #2 spot to fly the approach. It won't even permit visual approaches.
I'm wondering if this altitude data conflict is the reason... must the gaps be eliminated before an approach can be activated even if you've flown beyond the gap? Check kmia-- TTYLR4.TTYLR to 8L
Edited by AdmiralJanesTKirk - 10 Dec 2024 at 9:29am |
|
MysticCobra
Senior Member Joined: 29 Jan 2013 Status: Offline Points: 666 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
It's not clear from your post whether you are only concerned about the IFD auto-activating the approach, or if you are also unable to manually activate the approach as well. |
|
AdmiralJanesTKirk
Newbie Joined: 04 Nov 2024 Location: Kgnv Status: Offline Points: 3 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Exactly! There is no "Activate Approach" button available... Even if I try to load other approaches... while on approach :/
Interestingly, this only happens when an arrival is loaded. Am I missing something? or is the box faulty? Edited by AdmiralJanesTKirk - 10 Dec 2024 at 1:53pm |
|
AviSteve
Admin Group Joined: 12 Feb 2018 Location: Melbourne, FL Status: Offline Points: 2274 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
It's not a faulty box. I couldn't find KMIA TTYLR4 anywhere. Have you got a link to a chart?
|
|
Steve Lindsley
Avidyne Engineering |
|
AdmiralJanesTKirk
Newbie Joined: 04 Nov 2024 Location: Kgnv Status: Offline Points: 3 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Ooops. My bad... TTYLR4 is for KPBI/KLNA. At KMIA it is PALMZ2.PALMZ for 8L.
In both cases, with the arrival loaded, sequence to approach does not seem to work.
|
|
dmtidler
Senior Member Joined: 12 Feb 2016 Location: USA Status: Offline Points: 619 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
This is normal gap behavior for the IFD. The “Activate
Approach” LSK 4 hook will show up on the FMS FPL tab when the IFD active
waypoint is followed by a gap before the approach. On the PALMZ2.PALMZ for 8L
arrival, the Activate Approach LSK 4 hook shows up upon crossing COOFS when DHP
becomes the IFD active waypoint. With all FMS’s I have used, some pilot action needs to be
taken to get the FMS to navigate to an active waypoint on the other side of a route
discontinuity (gap). In the IFD’s case, all “Activate Approach” is gets the IFD
active waypoint to cross the gap between the arrival and approach by performing
a direct to the first point of the approach (PABOY in the case of KMIA LOC 8L).
There are other ways to get the IFD active waypoint to cross the gap without waiting
for or using the Activate Approach LSK. For instance, if at any point on the PALMZ2
arrival, ATC instructions are to proceed direct to PABOY, just perform a direct
to PABOY on the IFD using the direct to button. The IFD active waypoint is now
on the approach side of the gap and the IFD will give proper guidance for the
approach. Alternatively, if ATC instructions are to fly an assigned heading to intercept
the LOC 8L final approach course while on the arrival, either an Activate Leg
to LICEY or a direct to PABOY with a subsequent setting of an OBS course of 092
to PABOY would get the IFD active waypoint on the approach side of the gap with
subsequent proper approach guidance. Essentially, the “Activate Approach” LSK
is not at all necessary on the IFD like it was on the GNS system. |
|
Post Reply | |
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 |