TOD alert at wrong point of flight path |
Post Reply |
Author | ||
compasst
Senior Member Joined: 22 Feb 2015 Location: Akron, OH Status: Offline Points: 176 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Posted: 25 Aug 2016 at 12:22pm |
|
During a practice RNAV 27 approach to KPOV yesterday, the TOD tone alert sounded as I was flying inbound to WINER on a DIRECT course that nearly perfectly aligned with the teardrop entry showing on the IFD. The alert showed "Begin Descent" but no countdown showed. I was at the prescribed 4000' altitude for the fix hold/crossing.
I have shot this approach several times since I got the IFD 540 18 months ago - KPOV is my base airport. I've not been on the exact course I was on yesterday, so I plan to go out again within the next several days and try to replicate this TOD annunciation. Any ideas? Anybody else have this kind of experience with improper TOD annunciation?
|
||
pburger
Senior Member Joined: 26 Dec 2013 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 406 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
YES, similar thing happened to me Tuesday evening. I'm glad you posted, because I had forgotten about it.
Based on what you said, I assume you were SW of WHINR at 4000, and needed to do the course reversal. However, it gave you the "Begin Descent" alert as if you were passing WHINR inbound. Right? In my case I was shooting the RNAV 18 at TS07 (a private approach so the plate is not available). It's a very similar approach that has a HILPT. I was heading to the IAF such that my hold entry was parallel, but otherwise the same situation. The screen showed the parallel entry to the hold, so the box obviously knew what was going on. As I came close to the fix, I got the Begin Descent alert. I think I even got a countdown, but maybe not. I was already at the proper altitude (2000' in my case), so I didn't need to descend. Seems like a bug whereby the box was giving me the notification to begin my descent as if I was inbound at the fix, but I was entering the hold and therefore SHOULD NOT descend. The box SHOULD NOT advise me to descend at that point. AVIDYNE?? I will probably try this on the sim to see what happens, but I would assume it will be the same result.
Edited by pburger - 25 Aug 2016 at 2:59pm |
||
pburger
Senior Member Joined: 26 Dec 2013 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 406 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Tried the sim just now. I was using the Windows version. I couldn't adjust speed or altitude. I thought there were sliders for that? Maybe that's just the iPad version?
Anyway, I "flew" the approach - it set me up for a teardrop entry to the hold. It DID NOT give me the "Begin Descent" alert. I'll try again at home tonight on the iPad. Both my safety pilot and I noticed the "Begin Descent" message. We flew the approach twice and it happened both times.
Edited by pburger - 25 Aug 2016 at 3:16pm |
||
ac11
Groupie Joined: 21 Aug 2016 Location: SF Bay Area Status: Offline Points: 98 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Any response from Avidyne?
|
||
pburger
Senior Member Joined: 26 Dec 2013 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 406 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
This problem is REAL. I hope Avidyne will take a look at this and comment.
I flew the RNAV 18 at TS07, and was doing the published missed approach, which is "Climb to 800' then climbing RIGHT turn to 2000' direct DAUGG and hold." After I made the right turn, and was proceeding direct to DAUGG, the IFD showed the holding pattern and showed, "parallel entry" as expected. Then it gave me the "Begin Descent..." warning message with the countdown. I was level at 2000, and did not need to descend yet. I was not established in the hold. I was heading OUTBOUND doing a parallel entry into the hold. I was on the missed approach, anyway, so it shouldn't try to sequence me for the approach at that point, anyway. This is some kind of glitch where it sees me coming up on the FAF and tells me to descend. Please comment on this Avidyne. It isn't correct. I'm still on 10.1.1, by the way. Edited by pburger - 01 May 2017 at 2:18pm |
||
brou0040
Senior Member Joined: 13 Dec 2012 Location: KIYK Status: Offline Points: 720 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
The IFD has several issues with holds and vertical information, but there has yet to be any response. Others have said you should ignore all vertical information (unless it is a glideslope) and rely solely on paper charts for vertical information. I disagree, but no useful feedback has been provided in almost 2 years...
|
||
Catani
Senior Member Joined: 21 Jan 2016 Status: Offline Points: 362 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Having said that, if there's a problem with the IFD that causes it to provide info contrary to an approach chart, it should be fixed. But's that's a repair issue, not a question of whether the chart's information is primary. Fly the chart.
|
||
brou0040
Senior Member Joined: 13 Dec 2012 Location: KIYK Status: Offline Points: 720 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
You don't think anybody uses paper anymore...? My complaint is that the IFD should display information accurately and others have said it is of little consequence since you shouldn't pay any attention to that information. I say if it is going to be displayed, it needs to be accurate. I also believe that the information regardless of being displayed on the IFD or on a chart comes from the same source and again, if the IFD is going to show it, it needs to accurately represent the source information. The IFD currently inaccurately displays data in several situations.
|
||
oskrypuch
Senior Member Joined: 09 Nov 2012 Location: CYFD Status: Offline Points: 3061 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
What are the situations? * Orest Edited by oskrypuch - 03 May 2017 at 8:46am |
||
Catani
Senior Member Joined: 21 Jan 2016 Status: Offline Points: 362 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
And no, I didn't say nobody uses paper charts anymore. Some people can't afford the digital devices. Some people just prefer paper, but not many. It's just that you referenced "paper" in your post as if it were backward to refer to charts, which I thought was backward.
|
||
Catani
Senior Member Joined: 21 Jan 2016 Status: Offline Points: 362 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
|
||
oskrypuch
Senior Member Joined: 09 Nov 2012 Location: CYFD Status: Offline Points: 3061 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Sorry, snipping the quote left one extra tag in, corrected. * Orest Edited by oskrypuch - 03 May 2017 at 8:47am |
||
brou0040
Senior Member Joined: 13 Dec 2012 Location: KIYK Status: Offline Points: 720 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
I've posted many times over the years, here are a few. The 3rd link is how I first noticed this behavior, the 4th was some suggestions to fix it. The 1st and 2nd are additional examples. Perhaps I'm way off on this. I believe this to be more than a repair issue. This is a certified panel mount GPS that is providing distracting inaccurate information. I'd like to see what their take on the issue is. BTW, if you look at my 3rd link, this is more than just an displayed altitude issue. If you don't hit the correct button at the correct time, you cannot recover positive lateral guidance without an advanced understanding how the system combines approaches. We all make mistakes and it shouldn't be so difficult to recover from them.
|
||
oskrypuch
Senior Member Joined: 09 Nov 2012 Location: CYFD Status: Offline Points: 3061 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Yes, this appears to be the merging together of same waypoints together, that you see in a variety of situations, and also the blocking of having two consecutive instances of the same waypoint which might be needed operationally occasionally, example an airport where you want to add two consecutive approaches. You have to add the airport, then the procedure for the first, then the airport again. It would be preferable if the system just inserted a discontinuity (GAP), and left two instances of the waypoint (one in the missed, and the other the IAF for example) separate. That is typical behavior for an FMS, like a Honeywell. Then you could manage the flight as you needed. What really compounds this is when it comes to the approach segment, as the approach waypoints cannot be individually altered. I've learned to insert some other waypoint, any waypoint, between such instances when they crop up. It acts as a discontinuity. * Orest Edited by oskrypuch - 03 May 2017 at 7:15pm |
||
Catani
Senior Member Joined: 21 Jan 2016 Status: Offline Points: 362 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
http://forums.avidyne.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=693&KW=clarity&PID=7324&title=kptv-approach-confusion#7324 This is not a repair issue, nor is it an inaccuracy issue. It's an operational issue, as said before in the above-cited thread. As I said there, you prefer the box logic to work one way, others don't, including myself. Obviously, Avidyne can't please us all, so somebody is going to have to yield. I would not want Avidyne to change the logic to suit your preferences, but if they did, I'd learn how the box works and behave accordingly. Years ago I found Garmin's 430 logic ridiculous, i.e., not a repair issue, not an inaccuracy issue, but a operational issue. But with practice, I learned it anyway. No FMS can read your mind - you have to learn to read it's mind by reading the manual and practicing to the point of familiarity. I'm sure you'd have less frustration if you accepted this necessity. Garmin and Avidyne logic, for instance, are quite different. Somebody used to Garmin logic will think Avidyne logic is flawed, and vice versa, until practice builds familiarity. Then all is well, unless you have a defective unit. Not sure if your other links are raising the same issue again or not, but I assume since you grouped them all together and described them as related. This thread then appears to be a re-hash, already discussed. If there is a new issue here, please say what it is. One thing you might do to help get over your frustration is spend some time with a CFI who knows the IFD inside and out, who can explain the logic of it to you, and why it only appears confusing because of assumptions you've made. I know I would never have learned the Garmin 430 without hours of time with a simulator and more hours with a CFI in the plane. I don't think the learning curve with Avidyne logic is so steep, but it's there.
|
||
brou0040
Senior Member Joined: 13 Dec 2012 Location: KIYK Status: Offline Points: 720 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Catani, my response was for Orest. I do not plan to comment on this further with you.
|
||
Post Reply | |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |