Suggestions for 10.3

I get that each person's ideal NAV tab would be different, but I think the follow-up request to allow a tab of dedicated datablocks is a good feature request, particularly for 440 owners, and allow each user to modify that tab to their preferences.  Now if Avidyne were to create an additional datablocks that would replicate an HSI, which might need to be bigger and only fit on that dedicated page (there are already restrictions on which boxes go where based on size), that would also address the earlier feature request.

Thanks AviSteve, I guess my follow-on question is what drives some window constraints being populated while others aren't?  Is that just coming from Jepp?  I see JUUSE on the LAX arrival you mentioned say between 8000 and 9000 feet - exactly how I'd expect it, but CADAB for the RNAV 29 at KSBP is not windowed in the IFD, but the plate shows between 3900 and 6000.

Turns out it's an idiosyncrasy of database coding.  One of the coding rules that Jeppesen follows is that when a course reversal hold (HF leg) has a window constraint, only the lower altitude is coded.  That one surprised me as well.  Perfect example of why it's always good to compare the FMS to the chart...

+1 acknowledging that the IFD claims to be GNS-compatible, not GTN-compatible.

At this stage, Avidyne should not just be targeting more than GNS compatibility given that the GTN is now adding some features beyond the essential GNS ones.

While the map view looks like a great deal of extra flying is added, the flight plan legs and track distance doesn't add time or mileage for the vectors leg. The IFD appeared to correctly calculate the distance and time from WESAT to KGPM. In my experience, this appears to be normal FMS behavior for vectors legs. 

A nice new feature would be to make the data label (MSA for this area) which I display on the top of the map, turn red and flash anytime you are below the MSA to draw your attention to the fact that your are below MSA.

Thanks!

1. Terrain Awareness

2. Forward Looking Terrain Alerting

3. Terrain Caution Aural

4. Terrain Warning Aural

It was my understanding that when near an airport, the terrain alerting is disabled, but that isn't the case.  Is there a chance that the terrain that is triggering the alert when I'm pointing away from the airport (downwind or base) is beyond those limits even though the airplane is within the limits?  I was on base turning final this weekend when that thing went off.  Do I have to have a runway selected in the FPL to get it to operate properly?

As stated, it was a terrain warning (not sure exactly which type, I didn't stop to write it down), I was right base for rwy 11 into KTSP.  There is a small hill at the approach end of 11 and mountains further to the north.  It does the same thing flying into L05.  When flying into these airports, we know we are near the mountains and don't need distracting alerts when flying a standard approach for the airport.  Against the wisdom of some vocal posters, I've installed a terrain alerting inhibit switch, and I'm very glad I did - and often suggest it to others.  I like to keep the alerting enabled and only inhibit it when it's annoying.  This works fine when flying through a pass and you can disable it for a few miles.  But in this case, I wasn't expecting it to cause an issue and I had a new passenger with me and the thing started throwing startling unnecessary alerts for no valid reason.

If the aircraft is within the runway exclusion zone, FLTA alerting should be suppressed.  It depends on how tight to the runway you flew the pattern, but it's likely that the aircraft was outside the exclusion zone and that's why you got the alert.  The TSO for terrain alerting is complicated and there's only so much we can do to eliminate nuisance alerts.  Nevertheless, if you want to send us your logs along with the approximate date and time of the event, we can take a look to see if there's some way we can improve the behavior while staying within the TSO requirements.  Send me a PM if you're interested.

I'm not sure how you'd miss a critical FLTA warning if you are on a VFR 3/4 mile base flying the pattern to the destination in your flight plan.

I agree and why I'd like to see it changed.  Fore example, on a GNS430, doing the same button sequence would not end you on the Flightplan page, which this is effectively doing.  

One man's distraction, is another's savior. Many ways to skin a cat.

* Orest

When changes are made, there are almost always unintended consequences.  Simple is better.

"Hold North of ABC on the 350 radial, left turns, 5 mile legs"

Entering holds into the IFD, It asks for the heading to ABC and its easy to get this mixed up.

Is it possible to have an entry field(s) or graphic that is more intuitive with the instructions you get from ATC?

I don't think the cardinal heading and radial are redundant, as you could have a hold EAST or WEST of a fix on a radial but the heading entry in the IFD would be different.  There must be a reason, that isn't redundant or just heads up, for ATC to give it to you like that.  My thinking was more for the sake of how hold clearance are given and making the IFD entry directly from the clearance.

I definitely think the entry graphic needs to be bigger and more intuitive than what is currently shown in the IFD.  

Personally, I don't see a lot of value to changing how the HOLD dialog works in the IFD, I don't find it confusing myself, at worst all you have to do is flip one bearing by 180* as necessary. I would consider it basic SA to have that clear in your mind, what the hold looks like, before you start entering it.

* Orest