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 - Suggestions for 10.3
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Suggestions for 10.3

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 4>
Author
Message
AviSteve View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group
Avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2018
Location: Melbourne, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 425
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote AviSteve Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Suggestions for 10.3
    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
Back to Top
paulr View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 24 Jan 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 292
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote paulr Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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

Back to Top
Gring View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 30 Dec 2011
Location: Kingston, NY
Status: Offline
Points: 535
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (2) Thanks(2)   Quote Gring Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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!!!
Back to Top
ac11 View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie
Avatar

Joined: 21 Aug 2016
Location: SF Bay Area
Status: Offline
Points: 90
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (2) Thanks(2)   Quote ac11 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
Ibraham View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 21 May 2016
Location: KHWO
Status: Offline
Points: 228
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Ibraham Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Mar 2018 at 11:42pm
Skytrax 100 Aural traffic alerts, with relative altitude and direction (like the Garmin GTX 345)
Back to Top
94S View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 06 Mar 2014
Location: Bismarck, ND
Status: Offline
Points: 140
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote 94S Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.

Edited by 94S - 15 Mar 2018 at 11:37am
Back to Top
FlyingCOham View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie
Avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2015
Location: COS (KFLY)
Status: Offline
Points: 61
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote FlyingCOham Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Mar 2018 at 1:05pm
EXTREMELY emphatic second!!
Jim Patton
Back to Top
Handy1 View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: 15 Mar 2018
Status: Offline
Points: 1
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Handy1 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Mar 2018 at 1:20pm
Compatibility with the Garmin G5....
Back to Top
jimmyz80 View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie
Avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2016
Location: Apex, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 61
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jimmyz80 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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
Back to Top
Bob H View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie


Joined: 26 Jan 2018
Location: NH - KMHT
Status: Offline
Points: 98
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bob H Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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
Back to Top
OliverBucher View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie
Avatar

Joined: 12 Dec 2016
Location: Germany EDDS
Status: Offline
Points: 33
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote OliverBucher Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Mar 2018 at 8:11am
RF leg’s for approach
Oliver Bucher
Plane: DA40-180
Back to Top
OliverBucher View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie
Avatar

Joined: 12 Dec 2016
Location: Germany EDDS
Status: Offline
Points: 33
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote OliverBucher Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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
Back to Top
PA20Pacer View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 07 Mar 2012
Location: Illinois (LL22)
Status: Offline
Points: 137
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote PA20Pacer Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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
Back to Top
rpostmo View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: 20 Jul 2015
Status: Offline
Points: 24
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote rpostmo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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

Back to Top
DavidBunin View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 20 May 2015
Location: Rockwall, TX
Status: Offline
Points: 729
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote DavidBunin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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!


Back to Top
bneub111 View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: 16 Feb 2015
Status: Offline
Points: 31
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote bneub111 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
Gring View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 30 Dec 2011
Location: Kingston, NY
Status: Offline
Points: 535
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Gring Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
MysticCobra View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Jan 2013
Status: Offline
Points: 505
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote MysticCobra Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.


Edited by MysticCobra - 19 Mar 2018 at 7:37am
Back to Top
94S View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 06 Mar 2014
Location: Bismarck, ND
Status: Offline
Points: 140
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote 94S Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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
Back to Top
Catani View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 21 Jan 2016
Status: Offline
Points: 251
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Catani Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
mgrimes View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie
Avatar

Joined: 22 Sep 2015
Location: Lakeland FL
Status: Offline
Points: 26
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote mgrimes Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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


Edited by AviSteve - 19 Mar 2018 at 12:16pm
Back to Top
ansond View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie


Joined: 12 Nov 2009
Location: Austin, Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 80
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ansond Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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


Edited by ansond - 19 Mar 2018 at 4:59pm
Back to Top
teeth6 View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 10 Mar 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 465
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote teeth6 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
ac11 View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie
Avatar

Joined: 21 Aug 2016
Location: SF Bay Area
Status: Offline
Points: 90
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote ac11 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
AzAv8r View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 06 Dec 2011
Location: Arizona
Status: Offline
Points: 147
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AzAv8r Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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?
Back to Top
Bob H View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie


Joined: 26 Jan 2018
Location: NH - KMHT
Status: Offline
Points: 98
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bob H Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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
Back to Top
ansond View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie


Joined: 12 Nov 2009
Location: Austin, Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 80
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ansond Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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
Back to Top
MysticCobra View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Jan 2013
Status: Offline
Points: 505
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote MysticCobra Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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:  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 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.


Edited by MysticCobra - 20 Mar 2018 at 8:24am
Back to Top
Catani View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 21 Jan 2016
Status: Offline
Points: 251
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Catani Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.


Edited by Catani - 20 Mar 2018 at 11:35am
Back to Top
comancheguy View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 24 Aug 2011
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Points: 131
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote comancheguy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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. 

Back to Top
Bob H View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie


Joined: 26 Jan 2018
Location: NH - KMHT
Status: Offline
Points: 98
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bob H Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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
Back to Top
luchetto View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 10 Dec 2015
Location: Switzerland
Status: Offline
Points: 119
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote luchetto Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
ac11 View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie
Avatar

Joined: 21 Aug 2016
Location: SF Bay Area
Status: Offline
Points: 90
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ac11 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
Bob H View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie


Joined: 26 Jan 2018
Location: NH - KMHT
Status: Offline
Points: 98
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bob H Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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
Back to Top
ansond View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie


Joined: 12 Nov 2009
Location: Austin, Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 80
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ansond Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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?
Back to Top
ac11 View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie
Avatar

Joined: 21 Aug 2016
Location: SF Bay Area
Status: Offline
Points: 90
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ac11 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
Bob H View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie


Joined: 26 Jan 2018
Location: NH - KMHT
Status: Offline
Points: 98
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bob H Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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
Back to Top
AviSteve View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group
Avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2018
Location: Melbourne, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 425
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AviSteve Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.



Edited by AviSteve - 21 Mar 2018 at 12:09pm
Steve Lindsley
Avidyne Engineering
Back to Top
Catani View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 21 Jan 2016
Status: Offline
Points: 251
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Catani Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
Bob H View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie


Joined: 26 Jan 2018
Location: NH - KMHT
Status: Offline
Points: 98
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bob H Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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
Back to Top
ac11 View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie
Avatar

Joined: 21 Aug 2016
Location: SF Bay Area
Status: Offline
Points: 90
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ac11 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
Catani View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 21 Jan 2016
Status: Offline
Points: 251
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Catani Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
Catani View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 21 Jan 2016
Status: Offline
Points: 251
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Catani Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
ac11 View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie
Avatar

Joined: 21 Aug 2016
Location: SF Bay Area
Status: Offline
Points: 90
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ac11 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
paulr View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 24 Jan 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 292
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote paulr Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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 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)
Back to Top
Bob H View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie


Joined: 26 Jan 2018
Location: NH - KMHT
Status: Offline
Points: 98
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bob H Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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

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!

 



Edited by Bob H - 22 Mar 2018 at 10:35am
Bob
Back to Top
Catani View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 21 Jan 2016
Status: Offline
Points: 251
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Catani Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.

Back to Top
Flying_Monkey View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: 27 Mar 2017
Location: CA
Status: Offline
Points: 30
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Flying_Monkey Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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!
Back to Top
oskrypuch View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 09 Nov 2012
Location: CYFD
Status: Offline
Points: 2414
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote oskrypuch Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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



Edited by oskrypuch - 23 Mar 2018 at 9:12am
Back to Top
ac11 View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie
Avatar

Joined: 21 Aug 2016
Location: SF Bay Area
Status: Offline
Points: 90
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ac11 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 4>
  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 0.105 seconds.