Suggestions for 10.3

* 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)

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.

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

Compatibility with the Garmin G5....

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.

Visual approach guidance (please also for user airfields, cause I am flying on a small glider airfield in Germany)

Greetings Oliver

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

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.

jimmyz80 wrote: -Ability to load a SID/STAR without selecting a transition.

Edited by MysticCobra - 19 Mar 2018 at 7:37am

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.

Actually -1 for this feature request.

Edited by ansond - 19 Mar 2018 at 4:59pm

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.

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?

Bob H wrote: 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?

Edited by MysticCobra - 20 Mar 2018 at 8:24am

My list hasn't changed a lot: 

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.

ac11 wrote: 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.

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.

Edited by AviSteve - 21 Mar 2018 at 12:09pm

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.

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.

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.

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

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!

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.