IFD Software Release 10.2.0.0

I agree it will be done when it's done, and have no issue with that. But it would still be interesting to understand (even after that fact) what affects the speed of FAA approvals of this stuff, especially between aircraft and avionics design.

Without prejudice to Avidyne, it would sure be interesting to understand the underlying reasons why the FAA takes so long to approve a new software release while Piper can get approval of the M600 with a "clean sheet wing design" and G3000 avionics suite within 44 days! There probably isn't just one cause, but still ... the contrast is blatant.

Some possibilities?

- FAA staffing levels of different departments (aircraft vs avionics).

- FAA priorities (aircraft vs avionics ... not necessarily the same thing as the first point)

- FAA comfort zone approving airplane technology vs new electronic technology

- Avidyne tying 10.2 software approval to new hardware approval; i.e. not just a software release.

That said, the connection to this thread is that I am hopeful my two issues listed above will be addressed by 10.2.0

If you're just adding an indicator (additional to the original required equipment), you can add basically anything that is certified.

I am trying to decide between upgrading a 540 to a 550 versus the Garmin G5 or Dynon AI "replacements".  (Although, I'll be keeping a vacuum AI for redundancy).

Ken

* Orest

* Orest

You just delayed it three weeks! 

Jack

Loading two identical approaches is for IFR practice only, so it's doesn't sound like a real-world issue - at least to me anyway.  If you were actual IFR on a trip from OSH to MTW, you would load one approach and execute it to a landing unless the weather was close to or below minimums.  If the latter, before starting the approach you might add your alternate as the next waypoint after the missed approach hold, and be ready to execute the missed approach instructions that are often different from the missed approach procedure.  Or you might wait to load the alternate after starting the missed, whatever your preference is, and then picking an approach while enroute - again, whatever your preference.

Secondly, while you say the FMS "has you descend," unless it's somehow coupled to your autopilot you should remain at 3000 feet, assuming you've programmed your autopilot to climb to and maintain that altitude as you execute the missed.  The FMS will not bring you down to 2400, you have to do that, if I understand that correctly.  If you've not yet been cleared for the second practice approach, you stay in holding at 3000 until you do get clearance.  Again, even in practice, I don't see the real world issue.

By loading two identical approaches, what you've told the FMS is that you want to proceed to the MAP, and then commence the second approach.  The FMS doesn't know what ATC has told you, but it does sequence when you get there whether you are cleared or not.  If in a real-world IFR situation where your clearance limit is the IAF, and you have not been cleared further upon reaching, you are supposed to enter holding at the clearance limit/IAF until receiving clearance whether you've told the FMS not to sequence or not.  The FMS does not know what ATC has told you - you have to tell the FMS to hold and not sequence.  If you don't, it will sequence.  In your example, the FMS thinks you're going to fly the second approach upon reaching the IAF, unless you tell it not to sequence.  Since almost all of the time you are cleared before reaching the IAF, having it automatically sequence is the expected behavior.  Having the FMS routinely suspend itself upon reaching the IAF until further prompted to satisfy the atypical situation of multiple identical approaches may introduce bigger problems - like having it not sequence for the guy sliding down the final approach course trying to figure out how to get the FMS to catch up.

Maybe I did not understand the question properly, but this is my take on what I thought the question was.