Where I got messed up is that after flying the hold at TTE, I wasn't sure how to get out of the hold and onto the procedure turn (they are both based on the TTE VOR).  I selected the procedure turn in the flight plan and hit direct to and it all went to heck.  Going slower in the sim I see that it did say that it would go direct to the VOR, not then do a procedure turn, but the only guidance it gave me was to the VOR then went into nothing.  I tried hitting the PROC button and reselecting the approach, but this only works some of the time in the sim.  It seems that there really isn't a good way to recover once you messed up.  If I would had simply hit exit hold at the missed all would have been good, but I didn't expect things to be so difficult to recover after an error.

What I did was fly the headings of the procedure turn then I was able to get it to respond properly when flying inbound towards TTE.  It seems like I had to manually put the airplane in a position for the GPS to figure out what I wanted to do, meaning I don't think there would be a way to recover without flying manually if had been using GPSS.

Any suggestions?  It seems like I've got to be missing something stupid.

I think I found the issue and I'd like to suggest a change to the FPL code.  I'm not sure this is a new feature since this is all already part of the system, I'd just like to see it modified (fixed).

When you select the VOR approach to PTV with TTE as the transition, it loads the approach as expected.

TTE (IAF), PT, TTE (FAF) MARCD (MAP)

The missed approach from DLO terminates in a hold at TTE and loads as expected. 

RW32 (MAP), KDLO, Fly 320 Climb to 716, TTE, hold Southwest of TTE

When you have the DLO GPS 32 missed going into the PTV VOR approach with TTE as the IAF, you get:

VOR Approach into PTV: PT, TTE (FAF), MARCD (MAP)

Notice how it put the IAF of the approach into PTV into the missed approach from DLO and removed the IAF from the PTV approach?  It probably does this because they are both based on TTE.  The issue is, once you aren't on the missed, you can't go direct to a point in the missed (or at least not in this case), meaning I can no longer go direct to the IAF.  To me, this seems like a major flaw that "crashes" (no positive guidance) the flight plan, which is not easy to resolve without some major flight plan editing, which cannot be expected from a pilot while flying the approach.

I think it would be appropriate to have all of the approaches fully populated and stand alone.  Sure, this may show redundant points, but you are actually using redundant points as part of your flight plan, so it would be intuitive.  Meaning, the missed should have stayed the way it was and not included the IAF of the next approach in the missed.  The VOR approach should have included TTE as the IAF in the procedure.  This would eliminate the issue I was having and I believe would be more intuitive.  All I would have had to do was hit direct to the IAF (which is what I was trying to do).

The flight plan using my suggestions will look like this:

Additionally, I'd like to be able to add points BETWEEN procedures.  It seems like the unit thought I was trying to modify either the prior or latter procedure so I couldn't insert a waypoint although the cursor was between the approaches.  I was trying to add TTE between the missed and the approach thinking that would have helped, I'm not sure if it would have, but there is no reason I shouldn't have been able to do that.

I see this as a real problem and not just an inconvenience like a lot of the bells and whistles.  This one tosses all positive guidance and forces you to rebuild the flight plan.

When I was flying these practice approaches, I was being vectored all over for traffic.  I told them I could just shoot the published approach (so I'd know what to expect) and that worked great for their timing.  I'd hate to say "nevermind, I'm not sure what my GPS is doing, I'll need that vector now."

When you're in the hold at TTE, you should get prompts (FMS Butler) on the FMS for "continuing hold" or to "exit hold". When you select "Exit Hold" it should sequence the next way point, TTE in this case, and the rest of the approach.

I think the challenge with this is that the approach that is selected is both the hold waypoint AND the IAF for the next approach. The FMS butler will sequence them correctly. 

Additionally, you can delete the previous approach (hold and all). When you are on the FMS page, select the airport that you just completed the approach at, a LSK (line select key) should appear as "Delete Approach". Select that and the previous approach will be removed, leaving you with the just the next approach waypoints.

The problem is that if you are not on the FMS tab, you don't have the continue/exit hold soft keys.  If I hit exit hold, everything works.  The problems if you do anything but that, the whole thing goes to heck.  Trying to find the right way to rebuild the flight plan is not acceptable.

Please seriously consider putting waypoints in the approach they belong to, I think moving the IAF to the missed of another approach is a really bad idea.

Maybe remove it when the flight plan is expanded and allow us to swipe to close?  Maybe shift the flight plan to the right, it seems like there is some dead space in the darker gray on the right that isn't being utilized.  I've found myself having to scroll the flight plan up and down to see what the procedure label says.

I was under the impression that it hid the labels across the bottom such as FPL, ROUTE, INFO, etc.  I'm talking about the vertical MAP label when the flight plan is expanded to full screen.  Does that also hide?

With the quietness here, do you think this isn't a concern or are you looking into it?  I'm wondering if people understand the issue given my long posts and needing to set up the sim to see the issue for themselves.  I'm thinking about creating a new post to focus on the issue of how waypoints from one procedure are currently moved to other procedures - I think this is an error and not an inconvenience.

I think this issue needs more clarity, what you said is true compared to what I said.  What is not true and I find is the error, is that the procedural points (hopefully this is clear) are NOT correct.  The IAF from the VOR approach into PTV being moved to the missed approach of the GPS approach into DLO is an error.  A user should not be expected to know to delete the procedure to another airport in order to be able to properly reload an approach into their current destination.  I don't see this as an exercise either.  With how the marine layer on the west coast is very localized, it is very realistic to use a nearby airport that may have overlapping procedural points with the original destination's missed approach as an alternate.

Another way to realize this is an error, from this flight plan, what altitude would you fly the hold at after going missed from KDLO if the controller told you to fly the published missed?  When you check the plates, you realize that it's using the PTV IAF altitude for the DLO missed approach hold...

I'm going to try again at uploading figures.  Inserting a picture with a shared link doesn't seem to work so I'll try as a hyperlink.  Notice that the proposed image also removes the MAP label since it clutters the view of the procedures and I feel adds zero value, it's obvious that the flight plan is full screen.

CURRENT:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzA3KwTtSO_sUFBlaWtmSFhpTzQ/view?usp=sharing" rel="nofollow - https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzA3KwTtSO_sUFBlaWtmSFhpTzQ/view?usp=sharing

PROPOSED: (I should have removed the "Hold Southwest of" label on the IAF)

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzA3KwTtSO_sQlROcGlVcGZJLUk/view?usp=sharing" rel="nofollow - https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzA3KwTtSO_sQlROcGlVcGZJLUk/view?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzA3KwTtSO_sOWxha1pTNEl4QjQ/view?usp=sharing" rel="nofollow - https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzA3KwTtSO_sOWxha1pTNEl4QjQ/view?usp=sharing

BTW, the example above is trying to load a waypoint between the missed approach from the GPS approach into KDLO and the VOR approach into KPTV.

* Orest

I earlier proposed a swipe to close.  I know it'll be different than the MAP page, but I think it would be better to let them be different and have clear labels rather than having the FPL and MAP pages have the same buttons and have unclear procedure labels.  I assume this wouldn't have been a problem with the old FPL+ design since it would have been a different tab, but I like the current design better except for the label clutter.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzA3KwTtSO_sc1lReEdyYzRtcVE/view?usp=sharing" rel="nofollow - https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzA3KwTtSO_sc1lReEdyYzRtcVE/view?usp=sharing

After reaching the MAP and in holding at TTE, go the the FMS page (at least on an IFD440).  Note the LSK that says "exit holding." Click on that.  Go back to the MAP page and you will note that the alternating magenta and white stripes now show on the procedure turn.  When you get back to TTE, the FMS will sequence to the procedure turn and commence the approach.

Maybe a suggestion of a better way to program with FMS software would result in a change for the better, but FMS's behavior in this scenario makes sense, to me at least.

What puzzles me a little is that I posted a message on another thread that described the FMS automatically sequencing to the approach after reaching the MAP, where two identical approaches were to be flown back to back.  I did not simulate that flight, but I did this one, and found the FMS did not automatically sequence in this scenario involving separate airports.  I do prefer the FMS behavior on this simulated flight, where I have to tell it to sequence.  But I would be checking the FMS page to see what it intended to do in any case (where are the white and magenta lines - where I expect or not?).  If the FMS behaves differently in cases where you are flying duplicate approaches, it would be something to remember when practicing them.  In any case, just make sure you know whether the FMS is going to hold or not so you can tell it differently if you so desire.

The LSK on the FPL page says exit holding - it didn't on the MAP page.  If I recall correctly (my IFD simulator is giving me a GPS fault error on my PC so I can't verify...) if you do ANYTHING other than hit exit, it all goes to heck and there is no easy/intuitive way to correct the situation.  I thought I could hit direct to the IAF to get back on track, but you can't because the IFD puts the IAF in the previous approaches missed for some reason and you are past that.  The system shouldn't be so sensitive to getting screwed up so easily.

No, that's not correct.  If you don't tell it to exit holding, it will stay in the missed approach hold indefinitely.  That's as it should be.

Your impression of how the FMS system works was incorrect.  Every FMS is sensitive to improper inputs. Some of them are downright counterintuitive and take a lot of training to learn how to use properly, but the IFDs are better than most.  You might want to spend some with an Avidyne CFI or some time reading Mike Bauer's new book "Flying With the Avidyne IFD" which is an easier read than the Avidyne Pilot's Guide, which is only a reference and not a teaching aid.  Once you better understand the logic, you will be less likely to guess wrong and ask the now-classic question: "What is it doing now??"  Don't feel like the Lone Ranger - we've all been there. 

I suppose you can also do nothing and it'll work as designed...  What I did was try to go direct the procedure turn and that killed everything - try it on the sim and see what happens.  Nothing intuitive would get it back.  I understand that wasn't what was I was supposed to do and there were no Avidyne CFIs available at the time.  I was with a CFII and he couldn't figure out what to do either.  I know of an Avidyne CFII not far from here and plan on doing an IPC with him at some point to see if he can give me some pointers, but I've had a bunch of time with the unit since I first wrote this post.  My biggest lesson learned has been to fly approaches with the FPL page, not the MAP page.  You lose the datablocks, but the FPL guidance is more important.  It'll be nice to have the IFD100.

Bottom line here, I still believe that if the IFD did not move the IAF into the missed, I would have been able to go direct to it without everything going to heck.  I don't have prior FMS experience and it sounds like you do, do you think it's accurate to move the IAF into the missed so that you can't access the IAF once you exit the missed approach hold or have you seen that before?

I don't look at it as "losing the MAP page."  It just takes a moment to go to the FLP page when you want to change the FPL.  In fact, as soon as I do that, it's back to the MAP page to make sure the white/magenta alternating stripe reflects the change to the next segment that I've made.

I've been bitten by this one more than once. I now will add a "bogus" waypoint between the two, and that will allow for the situation. The bogus waypoint acts like a discontinuity between the two instances of the same waypoint, you just have to watch it, and redirect as necessary, when the time comes.

* Orest

If you want to duplicate approaches, there is an LSK for "do it again" that you can hit when ready.  I don't see the need to try to do it any other way, but you can if you want.  But this is personal preference.  Those of us who have flown with Garmin 530/430s probably have a similar wish list a mile long, but you learn the logic and it becomes second nature.  I don't think the IFDs are any different in that respect (but they are much easier to learn thankfully).

This is not accurate, entries in the flight plan are entries in ~5D+ space.  Don't forget that waypoints also have altitudes.  In addition to altitudes, the entries contain maneuvers with directions such as holds or procedure turns associated with them.  If it was simply a ground based reference point with no altitude or maneuver associated with it, then I can see your point.  That is not the case here.

Whatever FMS and autopilot combos the military uses in drones no doubt can handle 3D with no human assistance.  Maybe one day they will be cheap enough to put in a Cherokee.  Until then, I'm old school and still think it's pretty miraculous that a Garmin 430 or and IFD540 can take us from Miami to LA following a 2D route, on autopilot without any VORs or ADFs.  But I never had an FMS/INS/GPS/RNAV in any civilian or military aircraft I've flown that I'd trust for 3D navigation.  I don't even trust ATC for that.

Why do you trust your charts over an IFR approved database?  Your charts are just as likely to be in error as the database.  I guess we'll leave anything beyond a 2D point as a disagreement between you and I, but if we shouldn't trust Avidyne's IFD for this, then I'd sure hope Avidyne would take it out of their marketing material...  They are selling it stating it can be used for exactly this purpose.

You can have the last word.

Ok I will - you should have tried to be a little more belittling on this last one.

Directly from Avidyne's manual that I apparently have ignored...

That doesn't help when it is a different approach, which is the more common scenario and what I was referring to. For example, you can fly the ILS 12, and then the LOC 30 from the other direction.

Quite often the missed hold point for the first, will be the IAF of the other, which jams them together, exactly as described in this thread -- unless you add a bogus point in between.

* Orest

There are plenty of reasons a person may want to shoot an approach into two nearby airports or another approach to the same airport.  You can go and try to shoot down all of the legitimate reasons to have this issue addressed if you'd like, but just because you don't care doesn't mean others shouldn't either.

Sorry, didn't mean it to sound that way.  We've all been victims of our own operator error, not just you and that's not what I meant.  It's part of the learning process, I've done it countless times.

I'd suggest reading though some of the earlier posts for more details, but here is a summary of some of the issues described here and in some similar posts.

- When two approaches are loaded back to back that have the missed approach hold and IAF anchored at the same waypoint, then the IAF from the 2nd approach moves to the missed approach of the previous approach.

- The above issue can spur several other issues including the missed approach hold being deleted and replaced with an IAF hold in lieu of procedure turn.  This is totally the IAF hold including altitude, turn direction, and inbound course.  Meaning if you fly the "hold" that the IFD loads into the missed, you can be flying at the incorrect altitude, direction, etc.  I gave a case in another post where the hold was 1500 lower than published and on the wrong course.

- You can no longer go Direct To the IAF of the second approach once you exit the missed from the first approach because it thinks you have already flown the missed and it skips you to a waypoint beyond that in the flight plan.

- If you don't exit the missed approach hold properly, it is very difficult to get the FMS back to normal behavior.  Getting the IFD back on track on the second approach usually requires deleting the first approach that you are no longer flying, not something most people would think would be necessary.

- The IAF being kicked out of the approach is not just with back to back approaches, it happens when you close the gap prior to the IAF, but if the is not immediately proceeding approach, it doesn't cause any issues other than improper approach labeling.

There are a few other things in the above posts such as a suggestion to remove the vertical MAP tab to clarify the approach labeling, but I think I hit the highlights.