Problems

For the reading community, we had a good and frank discussion with David at SnF on some of these topics.   His reports are very credible.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* Orest

I'm getting airspace warnings when it doesn't affect me at my altitude. Fixing that seems more important to me. If I'm going to fly under an airspace with a reasonable cushion, say at 5'000 ft under an airspace that has a 7'500 ft floor, then it is only a bother to repeatedly get an airspace warning.

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

Bob, is that the approach into Sidney, NY you are referring to?

Bob
Thanks for the reply. The example you give is certainly one that sounds like it could get a lot of pilots in trouble and that the FAA needs to recheck the approach in question. You state that that danger exists "below" MDA. At that point, no matter how you got to MDA you need to be visual anyways. Historical data has proven that "dive and drive" to MDA are less safe than a stabilized glide path. Because of this, the company that I fly for has eliminated "dive and drive" approaches. We must always follow a "glideslope".

+3 in regards to this discussion strayed from the purpose of this forum. The intent of "+V" was to make non precision approaches safer.....you certainly do not have to use it as you are protected either way to MDA. To return to topic my point was simply "+V" was available with my old Garmin, was advertised to work with the Avidyne and currently does not. I am glad to hear that 10.1 will fix.....

310pilot wrote: The intent of "+V" was to make non precision approaches safer.....you certainly do not have to use it as you are protected either way to MDA..

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

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

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

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

Edited by oskrypuch - 15 Jun 2015 at 6:15pm