Suggestions for 10.3

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!