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 - Problems
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Problems

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
Message
310pilot View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie
Avatar

Joined: 13 Apr 2015
Location: Louisville, KY
Status: Offline
Points: 99
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote 310pilot Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Problems
    Posted: 05 Jun 2015 at 7:54pm
I wanted to compile a list of IFD problems I have experienced to make sure you are aware of them and/or have any fixes. The first three I consider safety related.

-Direct to FAF, no OBS (addressed by AD)
-No Glideslope on several GPS approaches when Garmin gave glideslope on these approaches
-No "Traffic Not Avail" when using TIS-A and outside of coverage area
--not compatible with Freeflight RANGR Adsb-In when advertised to use "Capstone Interface"
-VSR does not work
-Does not provide groundspeed properly to Garmin 330 transponder therefore transponder will Not automatically goto STBY Mode
-intermittently unable to acquire GPS signal on startup, must reboot to fix
-when pressing on airspace, displays altitudes but does not highlight section of airspace those altitudes pertain to

Back to Top
AviJake View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group


Joined: 26 Mar 2009
Location: Lincoln MA
Status: Offline
Points: 2815
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AviJake Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Jun 2015 at 9:14pm
For the reading community, we had a good and frank discussion with David at SnF on some of these topics.   His reports are very credible.

Direct to FAF - agree in that it's addressed by Emer AD.   FAA tells us to expect cert this coming week.

No glideslope on several GPS approaches when Garmin provided them - David needs to remind me of the specific approaches but if I remember correctly, we determined that it wasn't actually a problem but instead, was masked by the other GPS issues resolved in 10.1.  BUT, let's re-confirm that my memory is correct by sending the approaches affected.

No "Traffic Not Avail" message when using TIS-A outside of coverage area - David was the first guy to highlight that issue to us.  To date, we have not resolved that since 10.1 was in the hopper a long time ago with the FAA.

Not Compatible with RANGR despite the Capstone "standard" interface - not addressed now, or possibly anytime soon/ever based on the fact that a Capstone standard is actually a complete fallacy and there is no true standard.  It might happen but I'm not optimistic.

VSR does not work - I forgot what David described his specific problem was but I bet this is totally resolved in Rel 10.1.

330 transponder problem - beats me.  I should probably generate a better answer and may get in trouble for this but....I'm sick of trying to make something work with Garmin.

Sometimes unable to lock onto GPS at startup - fixed by 10.1, I promise.

Airspace does not highlight - true.  I know  the GTN does it and I agree it's a good feature. But it hasn't risen high enough on our priority list to find itself in a release definition yet.
Steve Jacobson
sjacobson@avidyne.com
Back to Top
310pilot View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie
Avatar

Joined: 13 Apr 2015
Location: Louisville, KY
Status: Offline
Points: 99
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote 310pilot Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Jun 2015 at 9:53pm
Thanks Jake. Best part of the IFD are the people supporting it (except for the person that decided not to integrate with Freeflight after saying you would :) )
I am hopeful 10.1 will indeed address most of these items.
Back to Top
oskrypuch View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 09 Nov 2012
Location: CYFD
Status: Offline
Points: 3057
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote oskrypuch Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Jun 2015 at 10:26pm
Originally posted by AviJake AviJake wrote:

... - agree in that it's addressed by Emer AD.   FAA tells us to expect cert this coming week.


Of course it may not happen, but if it does - - do you mean the full 10.1 update, or just a single fix addressing the AD, a 10.0.4.0 type of thing?

* Orest
Back to Top
mkellock View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2015
Location: Tampa, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 25
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote mkellock Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Jun 2015 at 10:24am
Originally posted by AviJake AviJake wrote:

Airspace does not highlight - true.  I know  the GTN does it and I agree it's a good feature. But it hasn't risen high enough on our priority list to find itself in a release definition yet.

I'd really like to see this feature.
Piper Archer II
PA28-181
Tampa, FL
Back to Top
chflyer View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 24 Jan 2013
Location: LSZK
Status: Offline
Points: 1022
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote chflyer Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Jun 2015 at 3:52pm
I'm getting airspace warnings when it doesn't affect me at my altitude. Fixing that seems more important to me. If I'm going to fly under an airspace with a reasonable cushion, say at 5'000 ft under an airspace that has a 7'500 ft floor, then it is only a bother to repeatedly get an airspace warning.
Vince
Back to Top
AviJake View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group


Joined: 26 Mar 2009
Location: Lincoln MA
Status: Offline
Points: 2815
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AviJake Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Jun 2015 at 5:54pm
We did tweak the airspace alert warning algorithm in Rel 10.1. It will be interesting to hear if you see a meaningful improvement.
Steve Jacobson
sjacobson@avidyne.com
Back to Top
KIM View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie
Avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Status: Offline
Points: 62
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote KIM Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Jun 2015 at 7:35am
Originally posted by mkellock mkellock wrote:

Originally posted by AviJake AviJake wrote:

Airspace does not highlight - true.  I know  the GTN does it and I agree it's a good feature. But it hasn't risen high enough on our priority list to find itself in a release definition yet.

I'd really like to see this feature.

+1
Klaus
Back to Top
BobsV35B View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 24 Aug 2011
Location: Downers Grove,
Status: Offline
Points: 131
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote BobsV35B Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Jun 2015 at 8:45pm

Good Evening 310 pilot,

Are the glide paths you are missing the Plus V ones?

Are you aware that the "plus V" glide paths have no official FAA standing and that if you follow such a glide path below the MDA without first determining that you have the required visibility and/or required runway components in sight you are in violation of the applicable regulations. There is at least one Plus V approach in the database which will take you into trees on the approach if flown below the MDA.

Those are non precision approaches and need to be flown as such.

Happy Skies,

Old Bob

Old Bob, Ancient Aviator
Back to Top
Gring View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 30 Dec 2011
Location: Kingston, NY
Status: Offline
Points: 720
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Gring Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Jun 2015 at 8:49pm
Bob, is that the approach into Sidney, NY you are referring to?
Back to Top
BobsV35B View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 24 Aug 2011
Location: Downers Grove,
Status: Offline
Points: 131
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote BobsV35B Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Jun 2015 at 8:54pm

That's the one!

Happy Skies,

Old Bob

Old Bob, Ancient Aviator
Back to Top
310pilot View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie
Avatar

Joined: 13 Apr 2015
Location: Louisville, KY
Status: Offline
Points: 99
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote 310pilot Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Jun 2015 at 10:43am
Bob
Thanks for the reply. The example you give is certainly one that sounds like it could get a lot of pilots in trouble and that the FAA needs to recheck the approach in question. You state that that danger exists "below" MDA. At that point, no matter how you got to MDA you need to be visual anyways. Historical data has proven that "dive and drive" to MDA are less safe than a stabilized glide path. Because of this, the company that I fly for has eliminated "dive and drive" approaches. We must always follow a "glideslope".
Back to Top
BobsV35B View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 24 Aug 2011
Location: Downers Grove,
Status: Offline
Points: 131
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote BobsV35B Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Jun 2015 at 3:11pm
Old Bob, Ancient Aviator
Back to Top
BobsV35B View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 24 Aug 2011
Location: Downers Grove,
Status: Offline
Points: 131
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote BobsV35B Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Jun 2015 at 3:14pm
Do NOT believe this is the right place for this discussion, but I do believe 310pilot fails to understand the difference between an ILS or LPV approach and one of those things NOT BLESSED BY the FAA called LNAV + V approaches. That is NOT a glideslope and following it below the MDA is not only not legal, but can lead to contact with obstacles. I will happily argue concerning the relative safety of various types of approaches, but this is NOT the venue for that discussion.

Further discussion at BobsV35B@aol.com?
 
Happy Skies,
 
Old Bob
Old Bob, Ancient Aviator
Back to Top
AviJake View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group


Joined: 26 Mar 2009
Location: Lincoln MA
Status: Offline
Points: 2815
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AviJake Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Jun 2015 at 3:30pm
All interesting points.    I do know 310pilot personally and know that he is a Professional pilot flying big iron for a major carrier so I bet he's well versed in those distinctions.

I say this just to help shine some perspective light and hopefully as Bob notes, keep that kind of dialog/debate out of this forum.
Steve Jacobson
sjacobson@avidyne.com
Back to Top
310pilot View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie
Avatar

Joined: 13 Apr 2015
Location: Louisville, KY
Status: Offline
Points: 99
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote 310pilot Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Jun 2015 at 4:14pm
+3 in regards to this discussion strayed from the purpose of this forum. The intent of "+V" was to make non precision approaches safer.....you certainly do not have to use it as you are protected either way to MDA. To return to topic my point was simply "+V" was available with my old Garmin, was advertised to work with the Avidyne and currently does not. I am glad to hear that 10.1 will fix.....
Back to Top
BobsV35B View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 24 Aug 2011
Location: Downers Grove,
Status: Offline
Points: 131
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote BobsV35B Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Jun 2015 at 4:23pm

We are beating a dead horse here, but my IFD 540 (installed last October) does bring up most +V approaches just as did the Garmin and UPSAT box.  The difference is that Avidyne has provided the capability to not show them for those of us who prefer to only have real glidepaths shown, not those that have no standing with the FAA.

Is there any possibility that you have deactivated the +V approaches on your 540?

Happy Skies,

Old Bob

Old Bob, Ancient Aviator
Back to Top
roltman View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 04 Aug 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 173
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote roltman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Jun 2015 at 4:34pm
Originally posted by 310pilot 310pilot wrote:

The intent of "+V" was to make non precision approaches safer.....you certainly do not have to use it as you are protected either way to MDA..


I also agree it doesn't belong here, but couldn't let it end with such a dangerous and false statement.  The TERPS do not make provisions for +V as it is defined as "advisory guidance".  It will not guarantee you are protected from MDA and please don't spread the thought that it does.  I think this what Bob and now me are trying to drive home.  +V guidance can and has driven people into obstacles.

Quoting from a Garmin Blog:
"Garmin defines LNAV+V as Lateral Navigation with Advisory Vertical Guidance. This is an LNAV approach with an advisory vertical guidance, which is usually in the 3 degree range and is provided to assist the pilot in maintaining a constant vertical glidepath. Because it is advisory in nature and not an approach minimum the pilot is responsible for maintaining approach step down altitudes and obstacle clearance."

Back to Top
310pilot View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie
Avatar

Joined: 13 Apr 2015
Location: Louisville, KY
Status: Offline
Points: 99
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote 310pilot Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Jun 2015 at 4:35pm
The advisory glideslope in my circumstance was determined not to display correctly because it needs corrected pressure altitude. 10.1 will allow the IFD to use GPS derived altitude and therefore will correctly display the glideslope.
Back to Top
310pilot View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie
Avatar

Joined: 13 Apr 2015
Location: Louisville, KY
Status: Offline
Points: 99
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote 310pilot Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Jun 2015 at 4:39pm
Please read my post more closely. You are protected TO MDA irregardless how you descend prior to the MAP. I never said in any circumstance are you protected FROM MDA unless you meet the FAR requirements associated with descending FROM MDA
Back to Top
roltman View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 04 Aug 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 173
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote roltman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Jun 2015 at 4:51pm
Originally posted by 310pilot 310pilot wrote:

Please read my post more closely. You are protected TO MDA irregardless how you descend prior to the MAP. I never said in any circumstance are you protected FROM MDA unless you meet the FAR requirements associated with descending FROM MDA


I guess what I'm saying is you are not protected from hitting obstacles when using the "+V" advisory glidepath prior to reaching the MDA on an LNAV+V approach.
Back to Top
oskrypuch View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 09 Nov 2012
Location: CYFD
Status: Offline
Points: 3057
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote oskrypuch Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Jun 2015 at 5:47pm
Originally posted by roltman roltman wrote:


I guess what I'm saying is you are not protected from hitting obstacles when using the "+V" advisory glidepath prior to reaching the MDA on an LNAV+V approach.

OK, you need to explain what you're thinking there. As long as you are above the MDA, and past the FAF (and any stepdown fixes), then you are protected by definition (and then some), as you remain above the MDA.

The +V construct is a very useful yardstick to help you descend in an orderly fashion to the MDA. Of course you may choose to descend a little faster, so you can linger at the MDA. But, in the absence of the +V guidance you would need to do some math to compute a CDAP profile to stay at, or below. But even then, Avidyne has it covered, with a VSR computed on all NPA.

Of note, in Canada, now on a flight test you MUST use a CDAP type method to assist in flying a NPA.

The +V is just another tool, and needs to be used correctly. Any tool, used incorrectly, can lead you into trouble.

* Orest



Edited by oskrypuch - 15 Jun 2015 at 6:15pm
Back to Top
roltman View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 04 Aug 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 173
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote roltman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Jun 2015 at 7:55pm
Orest, 310pilot, et al.

I actually spoke too soon prior to checking the latest TERPs.  +V "advisory" guidance should be implemented per the TERPs definition for the Visual Descent Angle (VDA).

It appears in 2009 there was a correction to 8260.3b concerning VDA calculations where intermediate step down altitudes could be busted prior to the MDA.

I failed to keep up with the snail pace of our FAA in the case.

Sorry guys for any problems.
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 0.145 seconds.