Print Page | Close Window

Suggestions for 10.3

Printed From: Avidyne
Category: Avidyne General
Forum Name: IFD 5 Series & IFD 4 Series Touch Screen GPS/NAV/COM
Forum Description: Topics on Avidyne's IFD 5 Series and IFD 4 Series Touch Screen GPS/NAV/COM
URL: http://forums.avidyne.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=1481
Printed Date: 14 Nov 2018 at 2:20am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Suggestions for 10.3
Posted By: AviSteve
Subject: Suggestions for 10.3
Date Posted: 14 Mar 2018 at 9:32am
Have a suggested improvement or bug fix for release 10.3?  Use this thread to put it out there. No promises on which suggestions will make it, but we're glad to have the feedback.  Have at it!

-------------
Steve Lindsley
Avidyne Engineering



Replies:
Posted By: paulr
Date Posted: 14 Mar 2018 at 11:38am
* Audible callouts for "approaching FAF" and "approaching MAP" when flying an active approach. (I'm not asking for vertical callouts for altitudes, as I understand that's a complex and liability-prone issue)
* Audible callouts for "approaching waypoint"-- any time the airplane is about to change course or a new altitude restriction is in the FMS, give me a noise, much like TOD works now
* audible tone any time a CAS caution/warning message appears (thanks to dmtidler for the suggestion)
* hit Foreflight with a stick until they support streaming from the IFD



Posted By: Gring
Date Posted: 14 Mar 2018 at 1:01pm
Hi Steve,

I'd like to revisit a few items I put in the database from the precertification testing

1) Direct-to from the MAP pages returns the page to split page requiring the user to unsplit the page and change back to the MAP page.  Really not necessary

2) On approaches where a procedure turn (hold) is included, I'd like a prompt for yes / no to fly the procedure turn rather than having to delete it from the flight plan.

3) Timer based on fuel used and fuel remaining.

4) * New * I think the Boeing banana needs to be more the one pixel wide, it gets lost on the screen

5) Traffic popup on the traffic so we can know more about it.  Active when pressed with a finger, like an airport popup.

6) Finish the traffic integration

7) A test screen for attached boxes like TAS, TWX670, etc. to show their status and test.

I think I have several others in the database, but cannot remember them now.  Great product as is!!!


Posted By: ac11
Date Posted: 14 Mar 2018 at 5:44pm
I like #2 a lot. When being vectored on an approach to the IAF with a procedure turn, the intention of ATC is not to do the procedure turn. It is a bit of a hassle to wait until crossing the fix, switching to FMS, select the appropriate leg and activating it, especially as the autopilot starts the procedure turn/holding pattern.


Posted By: Ibraham
Date Posted: 14 Mar 2018 at 11:42pm
Skytrax 100 Aural traffic alerts, with relative altitude and direction (like the Garmin GTX 345)


Posted By: 94S
Date Posted: 15 Mar 2018 at 11:36am
Data blocks on the Synthetic Vision page/tab with the ability to show/hide just like they are on the map page.


Posted By: FlyingCOham
Date Posted: 15 Mar 2018 at 1:05pm
EXTREMELY emphatic second!!


-------------
Jim Patton


Posted By: Handy1
Date Posted: 15 Mar 2018 at 1:20pm
Compatibility with the Garmin G5....


Posted By: jimmyz80
Date Posted: 16 Mar 2018 at 11:00pm
-Ability to load a SID/STAR without selecting a transition.
-Some way to make TRK and DTK more visible.  When I'm flying an approach, I get my CDI centered and then fly to keep TRK and DTK matching.  Then the needle will never move off center.  On Garmin GTNs, these are nice big numbers on the default nav screen.  The closest I've found on the IFD is to add those two data blocks, but the font is tiny.  Not conducive to a quick glance.


-------------
2006 Cirrus SR22 - IFD540 IFD440 DFC90 AXP322 MLB100


Posted By: Bob H
Date Posted: 17 Mar 2018 at 12:40am
Originally posted by Handy1 Handy1 wrote:

Compatibility with the Garmin G5....
I've seen a lot of discussion on the forum about support for the G5.  I have to say that I do not understand what is needed.  The discussion ranges from Garmin adding the IFDs to their STC and Avidyne adding the G5 to their STC.  Yet, lots of folks are flying with G5s and IFDs including me.

As long as both units are installed in accordance with their respective STCs and the interfacing handshaking is compatible, what else is necessary?  Hasn't it always been the case with avionics that as long as the communication protocols are compatible they can be interconnected and signed off?  Let me go one step further.  Through a moment of brain fog, Garmin left my aircraft off the G5 AML even though it meets all the requirements of the STC.  So, a field approval was done with the blessing of the local FSDO!  It was all very simple and straight forward.  BTW, my G5 is an AI, but I don't see what the difference might be with a G5 HSI.  I'm not an expert on this, so what am I missing?


-------------
Bob


Posted By: OliverBucher
Date Posted: 17 Mar 2018 at 8:11am
RF leg’s for approach

-------------
Oliver Bucher
Plane: DA40-180


Posted By: OliverBucher
Date Posted: 17 Mar 2018 at 8:16am
Visual approach guidance (please also for user airfields, cause I am flying on a small glider airfield in Germany)

Greetings Oliver

-------------
Oliver Bucher
Plane: DA40-180


Posted By: PA20Pacer
Date Posted: 17 Mar 2018 at 8:57am
Hi Jimmyz80-

As far as track and desired track information, I find the track arrow on the arc display much more useful than the digital display for the purpose you describe. Also, I believe there is a datablock that includes TRK, DTK and a CDI, but the font size may still be smaller than you like.

Regards,

Bob Siegfried, II 


-------------
Bob Siegfried, II
Brookeridge Airpark (LL22)
Downers Grove, IL


Posted By: rpostmo
Date Posted: 17 Mar 2018 at 8:38pm
Bob, I agree.
I'm flying with the IFD540 and the G5 (AI).   I find the combination works great.
I'm not sure what would be lacking.
Bob



Posted By: DavidBunin
Date Posted: 18 Mar 2018 at 11:24am
Originally posted by paulr paulr wrote:

* audible tone any time a CAS caution/warning message appears (thanks to dmtidler for the suggestion)

Originally posted by Ibraham Ibraham wrote:

Skytrax 100 Aural traffic alerts, with relative altitude and direction


Mark me down as a +1 for both of the above!




Posted By: bneub111
Date Posted: 18 Mar 2018 at 7:09pm
When the on-screen keyboard appears, for example in the FMS when entering a waypoint, have the numbers 1-0 across the top of the letters. This would be instead of the number button in the lower left that brings up the number pad.

My home airport is 2V5, the next airport west is 2V6. When entering my airport, I have to select the number button, select 2, select the letter button, select V, select the number button again, then select the 5.


Posted By: Gring
Date Posted: 18 Mar 2018 at 7:44pm
100% agree on the keyboard of the IFD540.  I don't think it would fit on the 440 size boxes though.


Posted By: MysticCobra
Date Posted: 19 Mar 2018 at 7:34am
Originally posted by jimmyz80 jimmyz80 wrote:

-Ability to load a SID/STAR without selecting a transition.

THIS!

Also, another vote for including numbers and letters on the on-screen keyboard simo.


Posted By: 94S
Date Posted: 19 Mar 2018 at 9:57am
Originally posted by bneub111 bneub111 wrote:

When the on-screen keyboard appears, for example in the FMS when entering a waypoint, have the numbers 1-0 across the top of the letters. This would be instead of the number button in the lower left that brings up the number pad.

My home airport is 2V5, the next airport west is 2V6. When entering my airport, I have to select the number button, select 2, select the letter button, select V, select the number button again, then select the 5.

+1


Posted By: Catani
Date Posted: 19 Mar 2018 at 10:15am
Originally posted by Gring Gring wrote:


2) On approaches where a procedure turn (hold) is included, I'd like a prompt for yes / no to fly the procedure turn rather than having to delete it from the flight plan.
I would like to see this done also.  I can't remember the last time ATC expected me to perform a procedure turn.  Having the ability to delete the turn with a routine system prompt that makes that task quick and simple would be a significant improvement I think.


Posted By: mgrimes
Date Posted: 19 Mar 2018 at 12:07pm
Originally posted by Gring Gring wrote:

2) On approaches where a procedure turn (hold) is included, I'd like a prompt for yes / no to fly the procedure turn rather than having to delete it from the flight plan.
+1


Posted By: ansond
Date Posted: 19 Mar 2018 at 4:51pm
Actually -1 for this feature request.

Reason that I think it would not be good is that someone might get overly occupied and forget to answer "do I want a PT or not?"... in this case... what does the IFD do? Is a PT entered or is not?  

With the way things are now, the worst case is that you'll do a PT when you dont legally have to.  Worst case, you get confused as to why you cannot active the approach (i.e. you've not yet answered the "PT or not?" question) and get flustered. 

Maybe it would be better to have a longer set of selectable approaches to choose from? (i.e. RNAV 13, RNAV13 + PT, etc...) and then just activate it when cleared?  

Just a thought. 

Doug


Posted By: teeth6
Date Posted: 19 Mar 2018 at 6:39pm
Have the ability of the geo-referenced taxi diagrams to follow the aircraft.  When I had my EX500, the aircraft was always centered in the taxi diagram.  Now I have to continually move the display with my finger to keep the aircraft in view.


Posted By: ac11
Date Posted: 19 Mar 2018 at 9:45pm
Ansond,

I was thinking the current behavior is the default, which includes the PT. An LSK (maybe the top left one on a 540) would allow us to quickly remove PT from flight plan, leaving the waypoint in the plan.


Posted By: AzAv8r
Date Posted: 19 Mar 2018 at 11:00pm
On the SID/STAR without transition:  I'll fess up now I've not looked at this, but I'm struggling with how this would work.   Seems like a lot of functionality needs a complete route.  Perhaps you expect the logic that addresses approaches (and inserts gaps in the route) to be used here also? (I've not looked at what happens to the ETA datablock when there is a gap in the route due to selecting an approach.) 

 Seems to me (perhaps naively) it would be better to require input of an expected transition, then allow a change in transition with trivial effort, say by having a visual clue and button to select the SID/STAR in its entirety, and then enable selection of a new transition.

So how would this "without transition" work?  Gap, earliest enroute fix, latest enroute fix, max-flight-time fix, whatever...?  How would you expect to handle a change?


Posted By: Bob H
Date Posted: 20 Mar 2018 at 12:39am
Originally posted by AzAv8r AzAv8r wrote:

On the SID/STAR without transition:  I'll fess up now I've not looked at this, but I'm struggling with how this would work.   Seems like a lot of functionality needs a complete route.  Perhaps you expect the logic that addresses approaches (and inserts gaps in the route) to be used here also? (I've not looked at what happens to the ETA datablock when there is a gap in the route due to selecting an approach.) 

 Seems to me (perhaps naively) it would be better to require input of an expected transition, then allow a change in transition with trivial effort, say by having a visual clue and button to select the SID/STAR in its entirety, and then enable selection of a new transition.

So how would this "without transition" work?  Gap, earliest enroute fix, latest enroute fix, max-flight-time fix, whatever...?  How would you expect to handle a change?
I'm struggling as well.  The IFDs need a specific course to fly.  This suggestion seems equivalent to me of loading up all the transitions and IAFs for an approach, or loading up all the SID runway options.  At some point the actual course still needs to be selected.  Why is it necessary to load the SID/STAR prior to knowing the actual course to be flown?

The beauty of the IFDs is the ease and speed of selecting arrivals and approaches.  A couple button pushes and it's done.  Even a change to an arrival transition is simple and straight forward.  Why does it need to be done before it's known what specific course will be flown?  I'm very protective of the elegance of the current architecture.  It is very easy to get caught up in the gee whiz factor of technology and want to add even more "cool stuff".  Be careful what you wish for.  Adding another menu level or another decision may actually be to the detriment of human factors.

For me, the same applies to the PT option.  It is trivial to delete a PT.  Why put a decision point layer on top of the deletion where you have to answer yes or no and then let the system delete it for you.  These kinds of additions make the code more complex and bog down the processor with unnecessary steps, not to mention the human factors impact; will I now need to make a PT decision for every approach?  If not, will I then have to go to the PT option and select yes for skip the PT.  I'm hard pressed to understand how that is better than just "delete" with the current setup.




-------------
Bob


Posted By: ansond
Date Posted: 20 Mar 2018 at 1:13am
AH!  if removing the PT is simply a cleaner option, I'm game for it... thanks for the clarification!

Doug


Posted By: MysticCobra
Date Posted: 20 Mar 2018 at 8:09am
Originally posted by Bob H Bob H wrote:

Originally posted by AzAv8r AzAv8r wrote:

On the SID/STAR without transition:  I'll fess up now I've not looked at this, but I'm struggling with how this would work.   <snip>
So how would this "without transition" work?  Gap, earliest enroute fix, latest enroute fix, max-flight-time fix, whatever...?  How would you expect to handle a change?
I'm struggling as well.  The IFDs need a specific course to fly.  This suggestion seems equivalent to me of loading up all the transitions and IAFs for an approach, or loading up all the SID runway options.  At some point the actual course still needs to be selected.  Why is it necessary to load the SID/STAR prior to knowing the actual course to be flown?
Actually, this request is the opposite of what you're thinking about.  It's similar to loading an IAP with vectors to final instead of a full approach.  I'll give you an example for an arrival and a departure where this capability would be useful, and the workaround required because it isn't there.

Arrival example:  https://flightaware.com/resources/airport/GTU/STAR/BITER+SEVEN/pdf" rel="nofollow - BITER SEVEN .  If my route clearance is to WLEEE to join the BITER arrival, why am I forced to load a transition and include waypoints I'm not cleared for?  This is analogous to loading a VTF approach instead of a full approach.

For a departure, it's the reverse of that case:  If my route clearance is  https://flightaware.com/resources/airport/CXO/DP/INDUSTRY+NINE/pdf" rel="nofollow - IDU9.IDU , then some waypoint not on the IDU9 departure, why must I choose a transition I'm not cleared for and then work around it?

If I had the option to load IDU9 with no transition, then I would get the departure waypoints through IDU and no further, and could enter my flight plan as cleared.  Instead, the IFD forces me to select a transition, and that includes waypoints I am not cleared for.  Since the IFD won't let me delete those extra waypoints, my workaround is to duplicate the IDU VOR in my flight plan after the departure, and then when I get to the BOCCK>IDU leg of the departure, I manually select "Direct To" the later IDU waypoint in my plan to skip the transition waypoint(s) I'm not cleared for.

In each of these examples, there is no ambiguity in the route.  We're just pruning the branches that are not part of the clearance.

In my portable GPS, I'm able to load a departure or arrival and then delete individual waypoints from it.  That solution would also address this scenario.  In fact, it would be my preferred solution, but I think that's been discussed here before and has been ruled out as an option.


Posted By: Catani
Date Posted: 20 Mar 2018 at 11:33am
Originally posted by Gring Gring wrote:


2) On approaches where a procedure turn (hold) is included, I'd like a prompt for yes / no to fly the procedure turn rather than having to delete it from the flight plan.
Originally posted by ansond ansond wrote:

Actually -1 for this feature request.

Reason that I think it would not be good is that someone might get overly occupied and forget to answer "do I want a PT or not?"... in this case... what does the IFD do? Is a PT entered or is not?
"What does the IFD do?"  Easy: If you don't answer the question, the approach is not loaded or activated.  Like pressing the "PROC" button and then getting distracted with something else, the box will just keep on trucking to your next fix until you finally get around to it.  The IFD doesn't have its own AI to answer its own questions - yet.  When it can, we'll all be outsourced.

In the meantime, it's a big +1 for me.


Posted By: comancheguy
Date Posted: 20 Mar 2018 at 11:44am
My list hasn't changed a lot: 

1)  Animate weather.  XM weather radar - replay the last n shots in order.  My 496 does this.  WAY useful. 
2)  On SVS screen:  Let me pull up the data tab, like I can on Map.    I like having the SVS up on the second 540 when shooting an approach, but I like to have the FPL tab open and I need a data tab, too. 
SVS is great for situational awareness - "Where are we going for the missed?  etc."

3)  Competition for Jepp. 



Posted By: Bob H
Date Posted: 20 Mar 2018 at 1:15pm
Originally posted by MysticCobra MysticCobra wrote:


Actually, this request is the opposite of what you're thinking about.  It's similar to loading an IAP with vectors to final instead of a full approach.  I'll give you an example for an arrival and a departure where this capability would be useful, and the workaround required because it isn't there.
Thanks for the very thorough clarification on this request.  If ATC routinely bypasses transitions, then I can see how this is helpful.  For Arrivals, load from the point where all transitions come together.  For departures, load to the point where the departure diverts into transitions. There is then always clarity on what course is intended to be flown.  Having the option of "NONE" come up when asked for an Arrival or Departure transition is what could be done just like VTF comes up when asked for an approach transition.

-------------
Bob


Posted By: luchetto
Date Posted: 20 Mar 2018 at 3:45pm
Bob, will a G5 Avidyne combo drive a KFC auropilot? I know it can do NAV tracking and LPV precision approaches, but what about ILS. Will the G5 HSI show the GS on an ILS and will the G5 show the FD in the AI mode?

If all of this is a yes I am with you.


Posted By: ac11
Date Posted: 20 Mar 2018 at 9:53pm
Originally posted by ansond ansond wrote:

AH!  if removing the PT is simply a cleaner option, I'm game for it... thanks for the clarification!

Doug


If the PT is part of the approach, then it currently cannot be removed. The request is to add the ability to remove it for situations where ATC clears me to the fix and states not to fly the PT.


Posted By: Bob H
Date Posted: 20 Mar 2018 at 11:41pm
Originally posted by ac11 ac11 wrote:

Originally posted by ansond ansond wrote:

AH!  if removing the PT is simply a cleaner option, I'm game for it... thanks for the clarification!

Doug
If the PT is part of the approach, then it currently cannot be removed. The request is to add the ability to remove it for situations where ATC clears me to the fix and states not to fly the PT.
Well, that's interesting.  Before my statement that resulted in the above reply, I checked the simulator to ensure that it could indeed be deleted.  I found that it was the only portion of the approach that could be deleted.  I checked many approaches and ALL the course reversals I checked could be deleted.  After your post, I went back and checked again, and again, and again.  What I found is that a hold in lieu of a PT could indeed be deleted, but a standard PT could not.  So, the IFD is inconsistent at best in the ability to delete an approach course reversal.  Some can.  Some can't.  Thanks for having me check further.




-------------
Bob


Posted By: ansond
Date Posted: 21 Mar 2018 at 12:05am
Interesting Bob... just so that I understand... there are some approaches which you cannot delete the PT segment?

That is indeed interesting - all of the approaches I've done thus far on my IFD where a PT was optioned were deletable... when deleted both my IFDs as well as my PFD and MFD all update to show the new approach path without the hold/PT drawn. 

Wonder if this is a Jeppesen issue?


Posted By: ac11
Date Posted: 21 Mar 2018 at 12:21am
Last week I was doing the RNAV 29 approach into O69, and I didn't see a way to remove the hold in lieu of PT. Now on the PC simulator, I do see the ability to remove the hold. I'm pretty darn sure it wasn't presented as a separate box, but I'm now doubting myself. The approaches were done in actual IMC with 45 knot winds on that part of the segment, so maybe it didn't have my full attention. The PC simulator data is not the same as actual though.


Posted By: Bob H
Date Posted: 21 Mar 2018 at 11:59am
Originally posted by ac11 ac11 wrote:

Last week I was doing the RNAV 29 approach into O69, and I didn't see a way to remove the hold in lieu of PT. Now on the PC simulator, I do see the ability to remove the hold. I'm pretty darn sure it wasn't presented as a separate box, but I'm now doubting myself. The approaches were done in actual IMC with 45 knot winds on that part of the segment, so maybe it didn't have my full attention. The PC simulator data is not the same as actual though.
I just checked this on the IFD100 and got the same results.  Hold in lieu of PT can be deleted.  The standard PT cannot.  It should be consistent and I think having the ability to delete them both would be fine.  I'd just rather not add another option that I have to select for every approach with a course reversal.  Just let me delete it myself if I deem it appropriate.

-------------
Bob


Posted By: AviSteve
Date Posted: 21 Mar 2018 at 12:08pm
It's not a Jepp issue, it's by design.  The current design allows you to delete a holding pattern within an approach unless the hold leg is identified as the FAF.

Allowing procedure turns to be deleted is not as straightforward as one may think, but we'll consider it.



-------------
Steve Lindsley
Avidyne Engineering


Posted By: Catani
Date Posted: 21 Mar 2018 at 5:26pm
Originally posted by AviSteve AviSteve wrote:

It's not a Jepp issue, it's by design.  The current design allows you to delete a holding pattern within an approach unless the hold leg is identified as the FAF.

Allowing procedure turns to be deleted is not as straightforward as one may think, but we'll consider it.

I don't know that deleting a PT segment from the procedure as loaded in the box is either legal or safe.  But you can safely skip initial fixes on an approach and proceed to later fixes without deleting any portion of the part skipped.  I think the request is to make it a little easier to skip the PT portion of the approach in terms of sequencing, without actually deleting the PT from the procedure.  Frankly, while I'm in favor of a simplified method of skipping the PT (since that's what ATC often instructs you to do), I'm not in favor of deleting any part of the approach loaded in the IFD, in case I change my intentions prior to passing the FAF, or in case ATC asks if I can go back to an earlier fix or segment of the approach for some reason.  For similar reasons, I don't use the "vectors to final" approach option very much - the fixes prior to the FAF disappear.


Posted By: Bob H
Date Posted: 21 Mar 2018 at 11:42pm
Originally posted by luchetto luchetto wrote:

Bob, will a G5 Avidyne combo drive a KFC auropilot? I know it can do NAV tracking and LPV precision approaches, but what about ILS. Will the G5 HSI show the GS on an ILS and will the G5 show the FD in the AI mode?

If all of this is a yes I am with you.
My comment was really about the approvals for connecting the G5 with an IFD.  Some folks were waiting for Garmin or Avidyne to bless the connection.  I don't think it's necessary and others seem to agree with me since there are plenty of G5s out there flying around with IFDs.

I can't speak to specific equipment interconnections, hence my comment that if the communication protocols are compatible, then there is no reason the equipment can't be hooked up. If there is specific equipment not currently supported by the IFD that you want supported, that is a different topic that I wasn't addressing.  Up-thread was the comment in regard to suggestions for 10.3: "compatibility with the G5".  That's too vague to mean anything other than: "give me permission to connect a G5 to an IFD", and that's how I interpreted it.

I will say though that an HSI doesn't know the difference between an LPV and an ILS.  It just receives deviation signals and doesn't know or care about the source generating those signals.


-------------
Bob


Posted By: ac11
Date Posted: 22 Mar 2018 at 12:57am
Originally posted by Catani Catani wrote:

Originally posted by AviSteve AviSteve wrote:

It's not a Jepp issue, it's by design.  The current design allows you to delete a holding pattern within an approach unless the hold leg is identified as the FAF.

Allowing procedure turns to be deleted is not as straightforward as one may think, but we'll consider it.



I don't know that deleting a PT segment from the procedure as loaded in the box is either legal or safe.  But you can safely skip initial fixes on an approach and proceed to later fixes without deleting any portion of the part skipped.  I think the request is to make it a little easier to skip the PT portion of the approach in terms of sequencing, without actually deleting the PT from the procedure.  Frankly, while I'm in favor of a simplified method of skipping the PT (since that's what ATC often instructs you to do), I'm not in favor of deleting any part of the approach loaded in the IFD, in case I change my intentions prior to passing the FAF, or in case ATC asks if I can go back to an earlier fix or segment of the approach for some reason.  For similar reasons, I don't use the "vectors to final" approach option very much - the fixes prior to the FAF disappear.


What is legal and safe to me is to be able to program the flight plan to match my clearance. I think ATC instructions take precedence over a database. I'm happy to get more waypoints in the FMS if I'm allowed to remove them to match my clearance. But if I'm not allowed to do so, then I feel I am fighting the box and figuring out how to work through the limitations. A flight to Whiteman (KWHP) from Gorman VOR using the RNAV-C approach means I need to put in the IAF, FIM or VTU, as a transition and remember to skip over it at the right time instead of being able to remove FIM to match the clearance to the IF, NODUQ. I guess I can add the IF as an additional waypoint and then go direct to the correct copy of that fix when headed that way.


Posted By: Catani
Date Posted: 22 Mar 2018 at 1:17am
Originally posted by ac11 ac11 wrote:

What is legal and safe to me is to be able to program the flight plan to match my clearance.  I think ATC instructions take precedence over a database. 
That's motherhood and apple pie stuff right there.  Could not agree more, and ATC instructions always take precedence except in emergencies (although not sure how an ATC instruction could conflict with a database).

Originally posted by ac11 ac11 wrote:

I'm happy to get more waypoints in the FMS if I'm allowed to remove them to match my clearance. But if I'm not allowed to do so, then I feel I am fighting the box and figuring out how to work through the limitations...
I prefer that the fixes that are part of the published approach remain in the FMS and on the MFD/Map where I can see them, in case I need them.  And if I don't, they're behind me and out of mind.  I have no problem activating legs as necessary to skip segments (it's what I do now to skip the PT almost every time), without needing anything to disappear.  Just personal preference.


Posted By: Catani
Date Posted: 22 Mar 2018 at 3:23am
Originally posted by ac11 ac11 wrote:

I like #2 a lot. When being vectored on an approach to the IAF with a procedure turn, the intention of ATC is not to do the procedure turn. It is a bit of a hassle to wait until crossing the fix, switching to FMS, select the appropriate leg and activating it, especially as the autopilot starts the procedure turn/holding pattern.
It seems you might be taking some extra steps here, if I'm reading you correctly (if I'm not, forget the rest of this).  Upon being informed you will be getting vectors to final, select the second/last instance of the FAF fix (if a typical PT that commences at the FAF) and activate that leg.  The PT and prior fixes remain in the box, but the leg towards the FAF inbound becomes active.  Then when ATC assigns the intercept heading inbound, fly the assigned heading and intercept.  There is no need to "wait until crossing the fix" or waiting until "the autopilot starts the PT ..." before doing any of this.  You can activate the inbound leg as soon as you know the PT will be skipped.

If upon selecting the approach the box asked "PT yes/no" I'd select No and I would not have to activate the inbound leg to the FAF - it would become active automatically, and ATC's vector to final would intercept it.  All segments of the approach would still be on the map and in the FPL page routing, but only the segment inbound to the FAF would be colored magenta.

The only problem I see is if you don't know whether you are going to get vectors to final when loading the approach.  In that case, you'd have to say No to the prompt, and then activate the inbound leg when ATC tells you to expect vectors to final.  If that turns out to be a frequent occurrence, then the prompt could slow you up more than it would help.


Posted By: ac11
Date Posted: 22 Mar 2018 at 5:04am
I feel a little bad for taking up so much space in this feature request forum, but I really like the discussion, especially if it could sway the powers that be to allow us more control over the flight plan. In my initial case, I was cleared to the fix with the hold and not given vectors. Normally, that would require the HILOPT, but the controller gave me the option to skip the hold, and I accepted. Perhaps I could have removed the hold, according to the sim. When I get back to the plane, I will check this. Having it show up as a step in the flight plan that can be removed is much better than a prompt.

Maybe this request is better asked as
1) Please include intermediate fixes as transition options in approaches
2) Allow departure/arrival procedure selections without requiring transitions
3) Please allow procedure turns to be removable from the flight plan

All of these are real world clearances by controllers, so we should be able to set them directly as such.


Posted By: paulr
Date Posted: 22 Mar 2018 at 5:41am
Originally posted by jimmyz80 jimmyz80 wrote:

-Ability to load a SID/STAR without selecting a transition.

Yes please. I run into this all the time when flying into metro Atlanta from KHSV. There are several arrivals that can only be assigned by ATC. It's very common for me to file direct KHSV-KRYY (for example) and get "direct SWTEE for the http://https://download.aopa.org/ustprocs/current/SE-4/swtee_one_rnav_star.pdf" rel="nofollow - SWTEE arrival " while I'm in the air. Occasionally I'll get BIZKT instead, but have never gotten LIPTN because I'm already well past that waypoint by the time I get the amendment.

What I do now is load the arrival with one of the transitions and then activate the leg direct to whatever fix they give me.

What I'd like to do is load the arrival with no transition (as I can in Foreflight) and handle the sequencing myself.

(Side note: I seem to remember that when I load the procedure I don't get the crossing restriction of 5000' at SWTEE automatically, but I can't confirm that at the moment)


Posted By: Bob H
Date Posted: 22 Mar 2018 at 10:15am
Discussion is always good.  We all learn things and get clarity on how best to do things. 

My entire struggle with the discussion about PT is:  Isn’t it really simple to just activate the leg that you want to fly?  Doesn’t the barber pole show that a PT is next in line to be flown?  So, just skip it with ‘Click’ ‘Activate’.  Why complicate the menu for that? 

We already have a list of transitions when loading an approach.  It’s abhorrent to me to add a PT option and intermediate fix options on top of all that.  Do you really want such a LONG list of options when loading an approach?  Can you imagine selecting from such a long list during nasty IMC and trying to find the one you want?  Isn’t it much easier to load the whole approach and then go ‘Direct To’ the place you will enter the approach or just activate the pertinent leg?  Many folks don’t use VTF because they don’t want to lose the situational awareness or available options that disappear when the waypoints not being flown are deleted.  Making intermediate waypoints ‘transitions’ will also delete earlier waypoints.  Finally, intermediate waypoints are not transitions and they shouldn’t be treated as such by putting them in a list with transitions.  Because EVERYTIME those intermediate waypoints are listed like a transition, someone will consider those to always be available options even though, in some situations, they might be a violation of TERPS.

The more approach options we are asked for, the more complex the user interface and the more heads down we are.  If we end up with a huge menu of options, we become button pushers which disconnects us from the flying and we lose situational awareness.  Essentially, select your options and let GPSS fly the approach.  Not Good!  Button pushers always end up asking the question, “What’s it doing now?”  rather than being in the loop and having clearly and knowingly given the system the instructions that they want.  Seeing the layout on the map and selecting the leg or waypoint you want is much easier than selecting options from a long list, and your brain instantly gets a visualization of your situation. 

You want to be able to delete a course reversal, fine.  But do not give me more options on a list that I have to wade through when there are simpler methods already available with the current software.  Right now, I can tell the IFD what I want it to do.  I don’t need the IFD to ask me twenty questions to get it to do what I want.

We’ve all seen pilots trying to program EVERYTHING into their GPS.  Sometimes the simplest thing to do is to just disconnect from it, revert to VOR or just fly a heading.  See here for a great discussion on automation dependency:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pN41LvuSz10" rel="nofollow - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pN41LvuSz10

Also, consider that the IFD must safely serve both seasoned career professionals and freshly minted IFR pilots.  The new IFR pilot won't have the system experience, knowledge, and savvy that some on this forum have.

Yes, I have a strong opinion about this!  The architecture of the IFD is elegant and I think it important that we don’t screw it up!

 



-------------
Bob


Posted By: Catani
Date Posted: 22 Mar 2018 at 3:27pm
Originally posted by Bob H Bob H wrote:

My entire struggle with the discussion about PT is:  Isn’t it really simple to just activate the leg that you want to fly? ... Isn’t it much easier to load the whole approach and then go ‘Direct To’ the place you will enter the approach or just activate the pertinent leg? ... 

You want to be able to delete a course reversal, fine.  But do not give me more options on a list that I have to wade through when there are simpler methods already available with the current software...

Yes, I have a strong opinion about this!  The architecture of the IFD is elegant and I think it important that we don’t screw it up!

I came around to that view last night when I realized I often load the approach before knowing for sure that I will get vectors, which means loading the entire approach, not just the latter pieces. Your argument Bob is excellent, and I now agree with it.  I withdraw my +1 for asking for a PT prompt.  It's just too easy to select the active leg, if that's what you get from ATC.  Not worth adding any complexity.



Posted By: Flying_Monkey
Date Posted: 22 Mar 2018 at 7:30pm
Would it be possible to have fuel timers based on fuel used (as sent from the engine monitor). It would be much more useful to have a fuel reminder when 10 gallons is burned rather than a time parameter. Those of us with engine monitors and fuel flow like to manage the tanks by gallons used and remaining and not time. Would be a much more accurate way to manage fuel tanks! Please!


Posted By: oskrypuch
Date Posted: 22 Mar 2018 at 8:39pm
Originally posted by Flying_Monkey Flying_Monkey wrote:

... Those of us with engine monitors and fuel flow like to manage the tanks by gallons used and remaining and not time. 

Not sure that is generally true. I have all that, and always use time -- but then I only have two tanks.

But, I can see it would be useful, especially for a four tanker.

* Orest



Posted By: ac11
Date Posted: 22 Mar 2018 at 8:57pm
Bob H, I think you are missing what I'm asking for. I also do not want the PT to be a separate choice or menu option. No problem having that added to the flight plan. I would like the ability to remove it if it doesn't apply to my clearance though.

Adding intermediate fixes I think should be added as transition options, and can be identified clearly as "(IF)". If a controller can give it to me, then I want that choice. This happens a lot whereby I get a clearance to an IF, and I currently have to pick an IAF that doesn't apply, and can't be removed, in order to be able to fly my clearance. I disagree that this would make the list LONG. Typically, approaches have just one IF.

The request for the three aforementioned choices would reduce button pushing. We would no longer have to focus on what needs to be skipped, and when, if we had the option to just select what is appropriate. I like to set up my approach in advance to minimize workload, and disagree with the notion that just loading everything is a good idea. If I can't make it match my clearance, then it becomes more button pushing, heads-down watching and verification that I need to do something to make it right. I also do not use VTF, as I want the pertinent fixes displayed. In terms of selecting an IF in violation of TERPS, then you've got a bad clearance and need to query the controller.

Seems to me to be a lot safer to put in the clearance as given where it can be reviewed/validated in a lower workload phase of flight rather than worrying about the activate leg or direct to buttons when things are busy. You are correct that these options are useful and occasionally necessary, but I'd prefer them not to be mandatory to get the job done.



Posted By: guenter_ms
Date Posted: 23 Mar 2018 at 5:55am
Hi,

Load a SID to replace a missed approach procedure on any destination airports. 

"After low approach follow xyz SID Departure" is the most common procedure on IFR training.

SID can only be loaded on the Origin Waypoint. Thats very complicated in flight.

Regards Guenter  


Posted By: guenter_ms
Date Posted: 23 Mar 2018 at 6:26am
Hi,

don't activate a SID when on ground. Today this leads to a senseless circle, depending on actual heading e.g. at runway holding position. To correct that, you have to line up on runway and make a "direct to" to the 1st waypoint in SID, to get a straight magenta line on the runway. This is very uncomfortable in this critical phase of the flight especially when ATC asks for a rolling takeoff. See picture and try on the simulator app.

Regards Guenter




Posted By: Bob H
Date Posted: 24 Mar 2018 at 1:06am

Hi AC11 – I’ve given this topic a lot more thought.  When providing approach guidance, Avidyne and Jepp must provide a level of clarity and consistency that applies to all flight situations and all users.

Originally posted by ac11 ac11 wrote:

In terms of selecting an IF in violation of TERPS, then you've got a bad clearance and need to query the controller.
A pilot selecting an IF in violation of TERPS is not at all about a bad clearance from ATC.  ATC provides approach clearances in non-radar environments and can even provide “Cleared for the Approach” without specifying the approach to be flown – leaving it up to the pilot.  If given an IF choice along with IAF and other transition choices, many pilots will automatically think that it is an acceptable entry regardless of circumstances, which might lead to an unapproved approach entry.  At the very least, it sets up confusion to have the approach plate differ from the nav data.  So, it just doesn’t make sense for Avidyne and Jepp to provide an IF choice for ALL approaches that should only be flown some of the time.  Whereas the approach transition choices now can all be flown under any circumstances in accordance with the published chart.  So, I don’t think Avidyne and Jepp have any other choice but to provide the procedure to the pilot exactly as charted.  I suspect the FAA wouldn’t approve anything else either.
Originally posted by ac11 ac11 wrote:

We would no longer have to focus on what needs to be skipped, and when, if we had the option to just select what is appropriate. I like to set up my approach in advance to minimize workload, and disagree with the notion that just loading everything is a good idea. If I can't make it match my clearance, then it becomes more button pushing, heads-down watching and verification that I need to do something to make it right.
As far as making the IFD match your clearance, ATC clears us all the time Direct to Waypoints down the line.  When that happens, what’s in the IFD no longer matches our clearance.  I doubt many pilots delete those intervening waypoints to get them to match.  They just focus on the current waypoint and beyond and ignore the waypoints not being flown.  This is easily done and applies just as well when on an approach. 

Setting up an approach in advance to minimize workload is always great, but with the IF option, we often don’t have the info about where ATC will put us on the approach all that far in advance, so you may need to delay loading the approach until you know.  I feel activating a leg or going Direct To is trivial with minimal heads-down, and given the above, I prefer that option. 

The world would be quite boring if we all had the same opinion.  I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree and let Avidyne sort it out.



-------------
Bob


Posted By: oskrypuch
Date Posted: 24 Mar 2018 at 9:43am
Well, that is why we have 29 flavors of ice cream.

You can be cleared, and you can fly to an IF to start an approach, but as BobH says, not in every circumstance. (interception angle is the biggie) That may well be why they are not accessible when selecting the approach. 

After adding an approach, very easy to then just select a direct to (IF), when permitted, to an IF. I don't see the point of removing the other waypoints, myself, either.

* Orest



Posted By: dmtidler
Date Posted: 24 Mar 2018 at 11:42am
I'm not sure I understand the desire to be able to delete the PT. If the PT is part of the selected transition, then it is a required part of the procedure. It seems to me that if you are being vectored for an approach there are several easy options:

1) Select the "Vectors" transition for VTF operation if expecting vectors to just outside the FAF

2) Select an appropriate transition that includes any fix(s) outside the FAF where you expect to intercept the approach. If this transition includes a "Hold (crs rev)" that you don't expect to fly, those holds can be cleared from the active FPL by highlighting the "Hold (crs rev)" fix in the FPL then pushing the CLR key. When actually getting vectored to the approach course, Activate Leg to the fix you expect to intercept the approach course just outside of. This technique also works for for the FAF if you aren't using VTF.

3) If you select a transition with a procedure turn but are in fact not flying that transition procedure because you are being vectored to a straight in approach course for instance; once on vectors simply Activate Leg to the fix just below the ProcTurn fix in the FPL if that will be the next fix crossed. Otherwise choose another more appropriate FPL fix below the ProcTurn fix to Activate Leg to.

Keep in mind, any time Activate Leg is used, the magenta line starts at the FPL fix just prior to the active FPL fix. Even though the magenta line may not extend to the aircraft's current location, IFD course deviation and CDI indications are still valid for the extended leg to the active fix.

I too would would like to see the "No Via" option for SIDs and STARs in order to fly just the common route. Every other FMS/FMC/FMGC I have worked with has this option for SIDs and STARs. I am not in favor of having a via from every point within each SID and STAR transition as I think this could make it much more cumbersome to find the correct fix on the more complicated STARs.




Posted By: Bob H
Date Posted: 24 Mar 2018 at 12:42pm
Originally posted by dmtidler dmtidler wrote:

I'm not sure I understand the desire to be able to delete the PT. If the PT is part of the selected transition, then it is a required part of the procedure.
Not always.  From the AIM: Pilots are also expected to fly the straight−in approach when ATC provides radar vectors and monitoring to the IF/IAF and issues a “straight-in” approach clearance; otherwise, the pilot is expected to execute the HILPT course reversal.
Originally posted by dmtidler dmtidler wrote:

2) Select an appropriate transition that includes any fix(s) outside the FAF where you expect to intercept the approach. If this transition includes a "Hold (crs rev)" that you don't expect to fly, those holds can be cleared from the active FPL by highlighting the "Hold (crs rev)" fix in the FPL then pushing the CLR key.
Not so, as I and others have recently learned.  A standard procedure turn can’t be deleted.  See AviSteve’s statement up-thread: "The current [IFD] design allows you to delete a holding pattern within an approach unless the hold leg is identified as the FAF.  Allowing procedure turns to be deleted is not as straightforward as one may think, but we'll consider it."
Originally posted by dmtidler dmtidler wrote:

3) If you select a transition with a procedure turn but are in fact not flying that transition procedure because you are being vectored to a straight in approach course for instance; once on vectors simply Activate Leg to the fix just below the ProcTurn fix in the FPL if that will be the next fix crossed. Otherwise choose another more appropriate FPL fix below the ProcTurn fix to Activate Leg to.
The IFD is flexible enough to accommodate all these scenarios.  I’m perfectly fine with just activating the leg beyond the course reversal.  However, others might call these workarounds and just feel that it would be simpler to just delete the Course Reversal and not have to consider what leg to activate when.  I don’t have a preference either way but understand why some folks do.  However, I do not want under any circumstances to be prompted on every approach about whether I will be executing the course reversal.



-------------
Bob


Posted By: dmtidler
Date Posted: 24 Mar 2018 at 1:55pm
Originally posted by Bob H Bob H wrote:

Originally posted by dmtidler dmtidler wrote:

I'm not sure I understand the desire to be able to delete the PT. If the PT is part of the selected transition, then it is a required part of the procedure.
Not always.  From the AIM: Pilots are also expected to fly the straight−in approach when ATC provides radar vectors and monitoring to the IF/IAF and issues a “straight-in” approach clearance; otherwise, the pilot is expected to execute the HILPT course reversal.

Thanks for the AIM reference; where did I reference HILPTs above? I was referring to standard PTs.

Originally posted by Bob H Bob H wrote:

Originally posted by dmtidler dmtidler wrote:

2) Select an appropriate transition that includes any fix(s) outside the FAF where you expect to intercept the approach. If this transition includes a "Hold (crs rev)" that you don't expect to fly, those holds can be cleared from the active FPL by highlighting the "Hold (crs rev)" fix in the FPL then pushing the CLR key.
Not so, as I and others have recently learned.  A standard procedure turn can’t be deleted.  See AviSteve’s statement up-thread: "The current [IFD] design allows you to delete a holding pattern within an approach unless the hold leg is identified as the FAF.  Allowing procedure turns to be deleted is not as straightforward as one may think, but we'll consider it."

In this quote I actually was referencing HILPTs, not standard PTs. Nowhere did I imply that I thought standard PTs could be deleted. Non-FAF HILPTs, however, can easily be deleted from the FPL.

Originally posted by Bob H Bob H wrote:

Originally posted by dmtidler dmtidler wrote:

3) If you select a transition with a procedure turn but are in fact not flying that transition procedure because you are being vectored to a straight in approach course for instance; once on vectors simply Activate Leg to the fix just below the ProcTurn fix in the FPL if that will be the next fix crossed. Otherwise choose another more appropriate FPL fix below the ProcTurn fix to Activate Leg to.
The IFD is flexible enough to accommodate all these scenarios.  I’m perfectly fine with just activating the leg beyond the course reversal.  However, others might call these workarounds and just feel that it would be simpler to just delete the Course Reversal and not have to consider what leg to activate when.  I don’t have a preference either way but understand why some folks do.  However, I do not want under any circumstances to be prompted on every approach about whether I will be executing the course reversal.



I absolutely agree and think we are essentially saying the same thing.

I would be careful about always "activating the leg beyond the course reversal." Many RNAV (GPS) approach have IF/IAFs that are HILPTs that are noted as NoPT depending the direction the fix is approached from. When selecting one of these approaches, the IFD always loads includes the HILPT regardless of the direction it is approaching from. If approaching the IF/IAF from a NoPT direction, the hold needs to be cleared from the FPL in order for the IFD to retain the direct to the IF/IAF and sequence to the next fix properly without the HILPT.

I am also fine with how the IFD currently handles these situations.


Posted By: Bob H
Date Posted: 24 Mar 2018 at 7:52pm
Hi dmtidler - I went back and re-read your post after seeing your comments and I can see that I did not read as precisely as you wrote.  You were certainly VERY specific in describing the conditions under which deletions and others action can and should be taken.  I tended to merge some of your course reversal types together.  We have had a lot of discussion in this thread about deleting all course reversals that I missed the subtle distinctions that you were making in regard to deleting only a specific type of course reversal.  Sorry for my misunderstanding.

I agree. We certainly  are on the same page and saying the same thing.  


-------------
Bob


Posted By: dmtidler
Date Posted: 24 Mar 2018 at 8:54pm
Bob,

Thanks!

I had the feeling that my comments were misread as I tried to be as factual and specific as possible. In my view, the IFD handling of FPL PTs vs HILPTs are two entirely different animals and and may necessitate two different albeit simple methods of dealing with if the approach is not being flown utilizing a procedurally loaded PT or HILPT (I.e. straight-in).

I’ve also followed this thread and others carefully regarding this issue and finally decided to add my two cents as I personally don’t see this as a limiting issue in the current IFD operation.

I too, think we are on the same page and saying the same thing.

Regards


Posted By: Bob H
Date Posted: 25 Mar 2018 at 10:54pm
These pictures are off the simulator.  Note the Delete Hold and Skip Hold in the lower left.  The Delete Hold changed to Skip Hold as the aircraft approached the hold.  I post them as an FYI as I can't speak to any criteria that would have them show up or if it accurately represents how the panel mount unit behaves, but I found it interesting after all this discussion that here is an LSK with a passive option.



-------------
Bob


Posted By: PA20Pacer
Date Posted: 27 Mar 2018 at 11:10am
Garmin has the ability to load two databases in the 650/750 series. That is, a new database can be loaded prior to its effective date. The old database is still used until the database rollover time, at which time the unit automatically switches to the new database.

This would be a valuable feature that would ensure a current database when in the air at the rollover time, as well as adding convenience when on a long trip. I know this has been discussed in the past, but I think it would be worth revisiting as a potential feature in the next major update.

Regards,

Bob


-------------
Bob Siegfried, II
Brookeridge Airpark (LL22)
Downers Grove, IL


Posted By: FlyingCOham
Date Posted: 27 Mar 2018 at 11:13am
I still have an email from an Avidyne executive that claimed the reason the IFD couldn't do that is a Jepp problem.  ????


-------------
Jim Patton


Posted By: Royski
Date Posted: 27 Mar 2018 at 11:51am
I'd like the ability for the IFD to receive and display ADS-B weather (and possibly traffic) via WiFi from a portable device like the Stratus.  At Oshkosh last year I mentioned this to an Avidyne rep who said that it was a possibility but might be a paid software unlock.  Perhaps Avidyne would want to assess interest?  I'd be willing to pay a certain amount for this feature.


Posted By: bneub111
Date Posted: 27 Mar 2018 at 1:54pm
Originally posted by PA20Pacer PA20Pacer wrote:

Garmin has the ability to load two databases in the 650/750 series. That is, a new database can be loaded prior to its effective date. The old database is still used until the database rollover time, at which time the unit automatically switches to the new database.

This would be a valuable feature that would ensure a current database when in the air at the rollover time, as well as adding convenience when on a long trip. I know this has been discussed in the past, but I think it would be worth revisiting as a potential feature in the next major update.

Regards,

Bob


That’s an awesome idea!


Posted By: MysticCobra
Date Posted: 27 Mar 2018 at 2:03pm
Originally posted by bneub111 bneub111 wrote:

Originally posted by PA20Pacer PA20Pacer wrote:

Garmin has the ability to load two databases in the 650/750 series. That is, a new database can be loaded prior to its effective date. The old database is still used until the database rollover time, at which time the unit automatically switches to the new database.

That’s an awesome idea!
I agree, and would love to see this.  However, I remember it being discussed before, and at that time I think it was AviJake who said it would be a significant amount of work to implement and was essentially a non-starter.


Posted By: oskrypuch
Date Posted: 27 Mar 2018 at 2:06pm
Originally posted by PA20Pacer PA20Pacer wrote:

Garmin has the ability to load two databases in the 650/750 series....

Don't believe the GTNs do that. Correct me if I'm wrong, but although you can have more than one database on the SD card, you have to take the unit out of service briefly to select, load and swap over to the new database.

So that is not any different than taking an IFD out of service briefly, and sliding in the USB key and doing an update.

The old CNX80 would allow you to upload the new upcoming database, keep the old database still active, and then it would switch over automatically for you -- but what didn't the CNX80 do?!

* Orest



Posted By: LANCE
Date Posted: 28 Mar 2018 at 10:55am
Originally posted by Royski Royski wrote:

I'd like the ability for the IFD to receive and display ADS-B weather (and possibly traffic) via WiFi from a portable device like the Stratus.  At Oshkosh last year I mentioned this to an Avidyne rep who said that it was a possibility but might be a paid software unlock.  Perhaps Avidyne would want to assess interest?  I'd be willing to pay a certain amount for this feature.

I don't think that's ever going to happen. You would be taking weather from an uncertified device and putting it on a certified device. I'm just happy that they let us take weather from the IFD and put it on an iPad.


Posted By: chflyer
Date Posted: 27 Apr 2018 at 4:21pm
Originally posted by OliverBucher OliverBucher wrote:

RF leg’s for approach


+5

Since per Steve the capability is already there and this just needs the flight tests to get FAA signoff on the paperwork so it can be turned on, this could even be a candidate for a 10.2.2 rather than waiting a year for 10.3.

2 of 3 RNAV approaches where I fly home have RF legs that substantially shorten and lower the approach (4000') vs the 3rd RNAV or ILS being the current choices (6000'). They can do this by avoiding a mountain on the straight in that keep the IAF/IF on the currently flyable approaches up high.


-------------
Vince


Posted By: chflyer
Date Posted: 01 May 2018 at 3:26am
Here are a couple more suggestions, or perhaps there is a way of doing this but I just don't know how.

1) For ILS/LOC approaches, either default or have a user setup option that changes nav source guidance from GPS to VLOC as soon as VTF is activated for an approach, provided VLOC is armed (blue).
- I did 2 practice ILS approaches today, both using VTF. One switched from GPS to VLOC quite early, which changed the HSI source from GPS to VHF LOC so I had an ILS CDI quite some time before intercept. On the other VTF approach, VLOC was armed (blue) but the HSI CDI source remained on GPS until I was actually on the localizer. This was quite disconcerting. I know the criteria for the switch from GPS to VLOC guidance as described in the PG, but the GPS guidance doesn't have any glideslope so I have no indication the glideslope is alive until the GPS->VLOC swap takes place.

2) IF one wants to add a new approach after the missed holding fix, the new wpt block that appears at the cursor following ENTER / Waypoint is mostly concealed by the FMS/MAP/AUX soft buttons at the bottom. The wpt entry field is not visible. This wpt entry field can easily propose a wpt which is not the airport that one wants. While it is true that any tap on the screen will bring up the keyboard, I would suggest that in a case like this, the FPL be shifted up far enough to show the entire block and not just the very top edge. In this case, I pushed ENTER Waypoint and the block was created to allow wpt name entry. However only the top edge of the block is visible. This is a bit unnerving in flight. If one touches ENTER again or the soft key on the left, then the default/proposed wpt is created which may not be the one wanted as in this case where an airfield right under the hold was chosen.

P.S. I tried to upload a screenshot of an example, but it seems that the image upload isn't working.





-------------
Vince


Posted By: Rangemaster_Tango
Date Posted: 02 May 2018 at 9:45am
I posted this before, but I think the server issue deleted/lost it.

Never going to happen in 10.3, but since the IFD550 has an ARS, I want it to act as an autopilot.  :-)


Posted By: 94S
Date Posted: 03 May 2018 at 9:32am
I would like that when you enter into a popup that is expecting text that the keyboard would auto-popup as well.  For example, currently when entering a waypoint I push Enter which pops up the list of choices, in which Waypoint is the first.  So I push enter again to select Waypoint entry.  That's all good.  Then, it pops up the waypoint entry text box with a best guess at a waypoint that I might want.  That best guess is most often not the waypoint I want, so then I have to tap on the text box to bring up the keyboard.  Which is the step I'd like to see eliminated.  Make it so that when the text box pops up, it could still have the best guess waypoint suggested, but also open the keyboard so it's immediately available to change the text.  Then I can start typing out the new text, or hit enter to select the best guess if in fact that's what I'm looking for.  I would suggest this for any and all text or number fields, that when the entry field is opened, that the appropriate keyboard opens as well.
Thanks,
David


Posted By: PA20Pacer
Date Posted: 04 May 2018 at 8:31am
Originally posted by 94S 94S wrote:

I would like that when you enter into a popup that is expecting text that the keyboard would auto-popup as well.  For example, currently when entering a waypoint I push Enter which pops up the list of choices, in which Waypoint is the first.  So I push enter again to select Waypoint entry.  That's all good.  Then, it pops up the waypoint entry text box with a best guess at a waypoint that I might want.  That best guess is most often not the waypoint I want, so then I have to tap on the text box to bring up the keyboard.  Which is the step I'd like to see eliminated.  Make it so that when the text box pops up, it could still have the best guess waypoint suggested, but also open the keyboard so it's immediately available to change the text.  Then I can start typing out the new text, or hit enter to select the best guess if in fact that's what I'm looking for.  I would suggest this for any and all text or number fields, that when the entry field is opened, that the appropriate keyboard opens as well.
Thanks,
David

Hi David-

I can see your suggestion as being very convenient for someone that typically uses the touch screen for text entry. However, that behavior would be somewhat annoying for those of us that typically use the knobs to enter text. Perhaps an automatic pop-up keyboard could be a user-selectable option. I guess flexibility breeds complexity.

Regards,

Bob


-------------
Bob Siegfried, II
Brookeridge Airpark (LL22)
Downers Grove, IL


Posted By: 94S
Date Posted: 04 May 2018 at 9:45am
Bob,

I guess I don't see where having the keyboard displayed on the screen would affect the use of the knobs, but like you say maybe it could be a user option.

David


Posted By: HenryM
Date Posted: 04 May 2018 at 10:47am
You can use the knobs exactly as before to change the waypoint name, but the waypoint block is obscured, so you can't just use the knobs or tap on one of the options (like an arrival or approach procedure) to enter it. 

I am in the camp where I prefer the knob interface first. I do use the keyboard, but only in calm air or on the ground. If there is even a little turbulence, I find using the knobs easier. If I have to use the knobs because of turbulence, dismissing the keyboard would be harder than opening the keyboard in smooth conditions. Thus defaulting to knobs first makes sense to me. I open the keyboard when I want it. Of course a user option lets everyone set up their preferred way, so that would work for me too.


Posted By: FlyingCOham
Date Posted: 04 May 2018 at 6:05pm
or...  one twist of the knob and the keyboard goes away -- just saying.


-------------
Jim Patton


Posted By: oskrypuch
Date Posted: 05 May 2018 at 10:40am
I find the keyboard auto-popup annoying (like when touching the freq indicator), would not want it as default behavior, it obstructs the screen.

I use the remote keyboard for 95% of my entries. I'm surprised more folks don't use it. I have it mounted on my yoke. 

* Orest 


Posted By: PA20Pacer
Date Posted: 06 May 2018 at 8:31am
Hi Orest-

Interesting comment about the use of the keyboard. I also mounted mine on the yoke, but I am finding that I use it mainly for entering a flight plan on the ground. I think that if the 540 was over to my right in the radio stack I might use the keyboard more, but I have gotten used to using the knobs, as that seems easier in turbulence. I suspect that the more I used the keyboard, the more useful I would find it.

Regards,

Bob


-------------
Bob Siegfried, II
Brookeridge Airpark (LL22)
Downers Grove, IL


Posted By: nrproces
Date Posted: 06 May 2018 at 8:57am
I have my keyboard mounted, by using a piece of velcro, it allows me to put it in different places based on my flight parameters. On the ground it is mounted near my elevator trim by my knee, during cruise I keep it on the yoke. Just my technique, but it works well for me.


-------------
Sauce


Posted By: oskrypuch
Date Posted: 06 May 2018 at 11:04am
I even use the remote keyboard for freq flips.

COM 2 7 ^

127.00 is done! 

Granted you need a spot to put it, but I think it is one of the most underutilized advantages of the IFDs. 

* Orest 


Posted By: GBSoren71965
Date Posted: 06 May 2018 at 12:13pm
For those using the bluetooth keyboard, are you also using the IFD100? 

I have Garmin pilot on my Ipad mini yoke mount, and the IFD100 on my Ipad pro, mounted on the seat rail mount. I almost always use the IFD100 for everything other than swapping frequencies. I can't seem to find a good use for my bluetooth keyboard. 


Posted By: HenryM
Date Posted: 06 May 2018 at 3:27pm
I still haven’t been able to get my IFD 100 to work with my cellular iPad Pro. The iPad connects to the IFD-540 network. I can even transfer flight plans to ForeFlight. However, the IFD-100 doesn’t seem to connect. I’ve tried putting the iPad in airplane mode and manually turning on WiFi and Bluetooth, then starting the IFD-100 with no other apps running. The app says it is not connected to the com radios and doesn’t get a GPS position. The GPS on the upper right is yellow. 

The NavData and Obstacles databases are the same in the IFD-540 and IFD-100. However, the IFD-540 has an older charts database that I can’t get rid of or get a copy for the IFD-100. 

The IFD-100 has NAmerica and Europe terrain databases that aren’t explicitly listed on the IFD-540. It also lists Worldwide MapData that is not listed on the 540. 

Any ideas what I can try to get this working?


Posted By: AviSteve
Date Posted: 06 May 2018 at 4:43pm
Originally posted by HenryM HenryM wrote:

I still haven’t been able to get my IFD 100 to work with my cellular iPad Pro. The iPad connects to the IFD-540 network. I can even transfer flight plans to ForeFlight. However, the IFD-100 doesn’t seem to connect. I’ve tried putting the iPad in airplane mode and manually turning on WiFi and Bluetooth, then starting the IFD-100 with no other apps running. The app says it is not connected to the com radios and doesn’t get a GPS position. The GPS on the upper right is yellow. 

The NavData and Obstacles databases are the same in the IFD-540 and IFD-100. However, the IFD-540 has an older charts database that I can’t get rid of or get a copy for the IFD-100. 

The IFD-100 has NAmerica and Europe terrain databases that aren’t explicitly listed on the IFD-540. It also lists Worldwide MapData that is not listed on the 540. 

Any ideas what I can try to get this working?
Try turning off cellular data.


-------------
Steve Lindsley
Avidyne Engineering


Posted By: HenryM
Date Posted: 06 May 2018 at 10:26pm
I did. I put the iPad in airplane mode, so had no cellular connection at all. I then turned on Bluetooth and WiFi manually. That didn’t help. 

It just occurred to me writing this that there is also a cellular data switch. I will try that one next time. Wouldn’t being in airplane mode without a cellular connection do the same thing?


Posted By: teeth6
Date Posted: 08 May 2018 at 7:21am
Originally posted by oskrypuch oskrypuch wrote:

I even use the remote keyboard for freq flips.

COM 2 7 ^

* Orest 


Totally agree.  I love the remote keyboard and use it almost exclusively on my top 540.  I believe, however, that bluetooth is an option and not everyone has the use of the remote keyboard.  Is this right?   On my botton 540, I change frequencies on the IFD 100.  Really easy.


Posted By: Gring
Date Posted: 08 May 2018 at 8:02pm
Only the early adopters got the Bluetooth unlock with their unit.


Posted By: HenryM
Date Posted: 08 May 2018 at 9:27pm
I got the keyboard for the IFD-540 last October. I had to register the IFD, which the previous owner had not done. I was not an early adopter.  I think the IFD-440might have required a separate Bluetooth unlock. 


Posted By: MysticCobra
Date Posted: 09 May 2018 at 8:09am
Originally posted by oskrypuch oskrypuch wrote:

I use the remote keyboard for 95% of my entries. I'm surprised more folks don't use it. I have it mounted on my yoke.
Too many gizmos, not enough room.  I don't need the keyboard frequently enough to mount it somewhere where it's always handy--there just isn't a spot for it that wouldn't displace something else I use more frequently.  The yoke is reserved for a tablet that gets far more frequent use.  

I do use the keyboard, but generally only at the start of a flight when I'm building the flight plan.  After that, it gets tucked in a pocket and mostly isn't used again until the next flight starts.  (But I do really like having it for that usage.)


Posted By: chflyer
Date Posted: 16 May 2018 at 6:17pm
Originally posted by 94S 94S wrote:

I would like that when you enter into a popup that is expecting text that the keyboard would auto-popup as well.  For example, currently when entering a waypoint I push Enter which pops up the list of choices, in which Waypoint is the first.  So I push enter again to select Waypoint entry.  That's all good.  Then, it pops up the waypoint entry text box with a best guess at a waypoint that I might want.  That best guess is most often not the waypoint I want, so then I have to tap on the text box to bring up the keyboard.  Which is the step I'd like to see eliminated.  Make it so that when the text box pops up, it could still have the best guess waypoint suggested, but also open the keyboard so it's immediately available to change the text.  Then I can start typing out the new text, or hit enter to select the best guess if in fact that's what I'm looking for.  I would suggest this for any and all text or number fields, that when the entry field is opened, that the appropriate keyboard opens as well.
Thanks,
David

There is a neat way to sort of solve this today, using the KB. I've discovered (I can't find this anywhere in the manual), that if you start typing a waypoint on the KB, the first key struck opens the new waypoint entry mode along with the entry text box (and the on-screen keyboard). So 1 single keystroke on the KB gets you to where you want to be as you describe above, with the first letter of the waypoint you want already entered ..... really neat!!

Like Orest, I also have my KB mounted on the yoke, so this is super simple with one hand without even removing it from the yoke or having to reach over to the IFD. If the proposed waypoint happens to be the desired one, then the 2nd keystroke on the KB is the enter key. Two strokes and done. Multiple waypoints can be entered very quickly this way.


-------------
Vince


Posted By: oskrypuch
Date Posted: 16 May 2018 at 6:33pm
I discovered this quick KB waypoint entry as well, quite by accident, and love it. Use it all the time.

* Orest



Posted By: 94S
Date Posted: 17 May 2018 at 9:16am
I don't use the BTKB.  For me using the IFD is easy enough (except for the fact that I have to tap inside the already active text field to bring up the onscreen keyboard), and my yoke is occupied by my iPad.  From the first time I saw the IFD, way back before it was certified, I've thought the onscreen keyboard is one of the many things that set it apart from the knob twisting on G's products.  I use the knob twisting when necessary in turbulence, but the onscreen keyboard is my first preference.  I just wish it would automatically come up when I'm in a text entry field so I don't have to tap the screen to get it. 


Posted By: jhbehrens
Date Posted: 19 May 2018 at 5:07am
Traffic and obstacles look too similar on the map with the same blue colour and the same font for altitude. Close to airports they often overlap and I can’t see which is which.  Can the fonts be made thinner/smaller? Can the colours be made even slightly different?


Posted By: AviSteve
Date Posted: 19 May 2018 at 9:32am
Originally posted by jhbehrens jhbehrens wrote:

Traffic and obstacles look too similar on the map with the same blue colour and the same font for altitude. Close to airports they often overlap and I can’t see which is which.  Can the fonts be made thinner/smaller? Can the colours be made even slightly different?
We have a limited allowable color pallette in that arena.  We can take a look, but it would likely be in the lower half of the priority list.


-------------
Steve Lindsley
Avidyne Engineering


Posted By: msflygood
Date Posted: 28 May 2018 at 12:30am
Please add a User Selectable FIRST Chart View to 10.3.  Right now, the ALL view comes up last requiring me to push the VIEW button 4 times, which is annoying.  Given the great slewing features of the 540, I'd prefer to see the whole chart (ALL) as the FIRST view that comes up so I can quickly  look at what I want to see, be it the minimums sections, or the profile, etc.  After the ALL view, then, you can rotate through the other options.  If this is user selectable, then everyone is happy.  


Posted By: CubedRoot
Date Posted: 28 May 2018 at 1:06am
I would REALLY like to see some compatibility from my IFD540 / Skytrax to my Aspen so I can see ADS-B weather/traffic on it.   


Posted By: nrproces
Date Posted: 28 May 2018 at 10:43am
"I would REALLY like to see some compatibility from my IFD540 / Skytrax to my Aspen so I can see ADS-B weather/traffic on it."



I agree with the "cubed root" above, I would like my Aspen system to be able to take advantage of the great stuff my 540 has....JMO   


-------------
Sauce


Posted By: ddgates
Date Posted: 28 May 2018 at 8:29pm
+1 - I know of at least several of us with Aspens, IFDs, and Skytrax units who would like to see interoperability - but suspect that topic is dead given that Navworx is.

Only hope would be that Avi makes reasonable allowance for that and recognizes its Skytrax adopters with its follow on product - and that they make that product interoperable with our Aspens.


-------------
David Gates


Posted By: tommy
Date Posted: 29 May 2018 at 7:58am
I only had IFD440 for a short while so these suggestions might already be in 10.2 if so please excuse my ignorance.

1) When tune for radio by turning the left large knob, can you add an additional tab called "Saved" that lists out the frequency saved in AUX page?
2) options to select and deselect warnings. I have found myself constantly needing to press clear for messages. 

Thanks




Posted By: Awful Charlie
Date Posted: 19 Jun 2018 at 2:08am
+1 on RF legs



Posted By: DH82FLYER
Date Posted: 10 Jul 2018 at 9:27am
Suggestion:
Early in the development of the IFD's, it was recognised that the Map Compass Rose significantly contributed to map clutter and was of mixed benefit.
This resulted in the option to turn off the Compass Rose. However this option also results in the loss of the "Projected Track Line", a valuable instantaneous track vector, which has many useful functions independent of the Compass Rose eg intercepting the DTK etc. Therefore I (and others I've talked to) believe that it would be advantageous to separate these two items, ie the option to turn off the Compass Rose, thus significantly decluttering the map, but keeping the "Projected Track Line".

Thomas


Posted By: Cameron
Date Posted: 11 Jul 2018 at 6:37pm
Garmin has had the G5’s on version 5.2 of software for a while, but in some circumstances depending on how an install is done they get a "communication error" annunciation in v5.2. They are aware of these errors, and the only way to solve them short of an entire avionics re-wire for CAN BUS start and end points is to upgrade the G5's to v5.3 software. At the time of this writing, that software is already available for experimental. I have spoken with Garmin reps about 5.3, and that same software should be available for certified aircraft by the end of this month.

There is a problem that occurs when 5.3 is installed that was not there in 5.2 on the Avidyne IFD itself, and that is that once I upgrade to 5.3 on the G5’s (and I suppose the update that it then installs into the GAD 29), the Avidyne then seems to popup an AUX warning that states the "GAD 42 needs servicing". The kicker here is I do not have a GAD 42, and despite the error things work as they should…except now I have a very annoying bright blue light shining in my eyes that I cannot dismiss.

My theory on what’s happening here is that Garmin has basically recycled some of their software and hardware components/principals from the GAD 42 and made the GAD 29B with the same concepts, so the IFD thinks it’s there when it’s not.

It would be great if we could have a config option where we select if a GAD 42 is present, and if we select no then this warning will simply be ignored and my AUX will stay nice and white.




Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net