![]() |
Suggestions for 10.3 |
Post Reply ![]() |
Page <1 789 |
Author | ||
ansond ![]() Senior Member ![]() Joined: 12 Nov 2009 Location: Austin, Texas Status: Offline Points: 152 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
Interesting Bob... just so that I understand... there are some approaches which you cannot delete the PT segment?
That is indeed interesting - all of the approaches I've done thus far on my IFD where a PT was optioned were deletable... when deleted both my IFDs as well as my PFD and MFD all update to show the new approach path without the hold/PT drawn. Wonder if this is a Jeppesen issue? |
||
![]() |
||
Bob H ![]() Senior Member ![]() ![]() Joined: 26 Jan 2018 Location: NH - KMHT Status: Offline Points: 290 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
|
||
Bob
|
||
![]() |
||
ac11 ![]() Groupie ![]() ![]() Joined: 21 Aug 2016 Location: SF Bay Area Status: Offline Points: 98 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
If the PT is part of the approach, then it currently cannot be removed. The request is to add the ability to remove it for situations where ATC clears me to the fix and states not to fly the PT. |
||
![]() |
||
luchetto ![]() Senior Member ![]() Joined: 10 Dec 2015 Location: Switzerland Status: Offline Points: 119 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
Bob, will a G5 Avidyne combo drive a KFC auropilot? I know it can do NAV tracking and LPV precision approaches, but what about ILS. Will the G5 HSI show the GS on an ILS and will the G5 show the FD in the AI mode?
If all of this is a yes I am with you. |
||
![]() |
||
Bob H ![]() Senior Member ![]() ![]() Joined: 26 Jan 2018 Location: NH - KMHT Status: Offline Points: 290 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
|
||
Bob
|
||
![]() |
||
comancheguy ![]() Senior Member ![]() Joined: 24 Aug 2011 Location: Maryland Status: Offline Points: 160 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
My list hasn't changed a lot:
1) Animate weather. XM weather radar - replay the last n shots in order. My 496 does this. WAY useful. 2) On SVS screen: Let me pull up the data tab, like I can on Map. I like having the SVS up on the second 540 when shooting an approach, but I like to have the FPL tab open and I need a data tab, too. SVS is great for situational awareness - "Where are we going for the missed? etc." 3) Competition for Jepp. |
||
![]() |
||
Catani ![]() Senior Member ![]() Joined: 21 Jan 2016 Status: Offline Points: 362 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
In the meantime, it's a big +1 for me.
Edited by Catani - 20 Mar 2018 at 11:35am |
||
![]() |
||
MysticCobra ![]() Senior Member ![]() ![]() Joined: 29 Jan 2013 Status: Offline Points: 679 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
Actually, this request is the opposite of what you're thinking about. It's similar to loading an IAP with vectors to final instead of a full approach. I'll give you an example for an arrival and a departure where this capability would be useful, and the workaround required because it isn't there.
Arrival example: BITER SEVEN. If my route clearance is to WLEEE to join the BITER arrival, why am I forced to load a transition and include waypoints I'm not cleared for? This is analogous to loading a VTF approach instead of a full approach. For a departure, it's the reverse of that case: If my route clearance is IDU9.IDU, then some waypoint not on the IDU9 departure, why must I choose a transition I'm not cleared for and then work around it? If I had the option to load IDU9 with no transition, then I would get the departure waypoints through IDU and no further, and could enter my flight plan as cleared. Instead, the IFD forces me to select a transition, and that includes waypoints I am not cleared for. Since the IFD won't let me delete those extra waypoints, my workaround is to duplicate the IDU VOR in my flight plan after the departure, and then when I get to the BOCCK>IDU leg of the departure, I manually select "Direct To" the later IDU waypoint in my plan to skip the transition waypoint(s) I'm not cleared for. In each of these examples, there is no ambiguity in the route. We're just pruning the branches that are not part of the clearance. In my portable GPS, I'm able to load a departure or arrival and then delete individual waypoints from it. That solution would also address this scenario. In fact, it would be my preferred solution, but I think that's been discussed here before and has been ruled out as an option.
Edited by MysticCobra - 20 Mar 2018 at 8:24am |
||
![]() |
||
ansond ![]() Senior Member ![]() Joined: 12 Nov 2009 Location: Austin, Texas Status: Offline Points: 152 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
AH! if removing the PT is simply a cleaner option, I'm game for it... thanks for the clarification!
Doug
|
||
![]() |
||
Bob H ![]() Senior Member ![]() ![]() Joined: 26 Jan 2018 Location: NH - KMHT Status: Offline Points: 290 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
The beauty of the IFDs is the ease and speed of selecting arrivals and approaches. A couple button pushes and it's done. Even a change to an arrival transition is simple and straight forward. Why does it need to be done before it's known what specific course will be flown? I'm very protective of the elegance of the current architecture. It is very easy to get caught up in the gee whiz factor of technology and want to add even more "cool stuff". Be careful what you wish for. Adding another menu level or another decision may actually be to the detriment of human factors. For me, the same applies to the PT option. It is trivial to delete a PT. Why put a decision point layer on top of the deletion where you have to answer yes or no and then let the system delete it for you. These kinds of additions make the code more complex and bog down the processor with unnecessary steps, not to mention the human factors impact; will I now need to make a PT decision for every approach? If not, will I then have to go to the PT option and select yes for skip the PT. I'm hard pressed to understand how that is better than just "delete" with the current setup. |
||
Bob
|
||
![]() |
||
AzAv8r ![]() Senior Member ![]() ![]() Joined: 06 Dec 2011 Location: Arizona Status: Offline Points: 154 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
On the SID/STAR without transition: I'll fess up now I've not looked at this, but I'm struggling with how this would work. Seems like a lot of functionality needs a complete route. Perhaps you expect the logic that addresses approaches (and inserts gaps in the route) to be used here also? (I've not looked at what happens to the ETA datablock when there is a gap in the route due to selecting an approach.)
Seems to me (perhaps naively) it would be better to require input of an expected transition, then allow a change in transition with trivial effort, say by having a visual clue and button to select the SID/STAR in its entirety, and then enable selection of a new transition. So how would this "without transition" work? Gap, earliest enroute fix, latest enroute fix, max-flight-time fix, whatever...? How would you expect to handle a change? |
||
![]() |
||
ac11 ![]() Groupie ![]() ![]() Joined: 21 Aug 2016 Location: SF Bay Area Status: Offline Points: 98 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
Ansond,
I was thinking the current behavior is the default, which includes the PT. An LSK (maybe the top left one on a 540) would allow us to quickly remove PT from flight plan, leaving the waypoint in the plan. |
||
![]() |
||
teeth6 ![]() Senior Member ![]() Joined: 10 Mar 2014 Status: Offline Points: 741 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
Have the ability of the geo-referenced taxi diagrams to follow the aircraft. When I had my EX500, the aircraft was always centered in the taxi diagram. Now I have to continually move the display with my finger to keep the aircraft in view.
|
||
![]() |
||
ansond ![]() Senior Member ![]() Joined: 12 Nov 2009 Location: Austin, Texas Status: Offline Points: 152 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
Actually -1 for this feature request.
Reason that I think it would not be good is that someone might get overly occupied and forget to answer "do I want a PT or not?"... in this case... what does the IFD do? Is a PT entered or is not? With the way things are now, the worst case is that you'll do a PT when you dont legally have to. Worst case, you get confused as to why you cannot active the approach (i.e. you've not yet answered the "PT or not?" question) and get flustered. Maybe it would be better to have a longer set of selectable approaches to choose from? (i.e. RNAV 13, RNAV13 + PT, etc...) and then just activate it when cleared? Just a thought. Doug
Edited by ansond - 19 Mar 2018 at 4:59pm |
||
![]() |
||
mgrimes ![]() Newbie ![]() ![]() Joined: 22 Sep 2015 Location: Lakeland FL Status: Offline Points: 26 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
+1
Edited by AviSteve - 19 Mar 2018 at 12:16pm |
||
![]() |
||
Catani ![]() Senior Member ![]() Joined: 21 Jan 2016 Status: Offline Points: 362 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
I would like to see this done also. I can't remember the last time ATC expected me to perform a procedure turn. Having the ability to delete the turn with a routine system prompt that makes that task quick and simple would be a significant improvement I think.
|
||
![]() |
||
94S ![]() Senior Member ![]() ![]() Joined: 06 Mar 2014 Location: Bismarck, ND Status: Offline Points: 164 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
+1
|
||
![]() |
||
MysticCobra ![]() Senior Member ![]() ![]() Joined: 29 Jan 2013 Status: Offline Points: 679 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
THIS! Also, another vote for including numbers and letters on the on-screen keyboard simo.
Edited by MysticCobra - 19 Mar 2018 at 7:37am |
||
![]() |
||
Gring ![]() Senior Member ![]() Joined: 30 Dec 2011 Location: Kingston, NY Status: Offline Points: 740 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
100% agree on the keyboard of the IFD540. I don't think it would fit on the 440 size boxes though.
|
||
![]() |
||
bneub111 ![]() Newbie ![]() Joined: 16 Feb 2015 Status: Offline Points: 33 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
When the on-screen keyboard appears, for example in the FMS when entering a waypoint, have the numbers 1-0 across the top of the letters. This would be instead of the number button in the lower left that brings up the number pad.
My home airport is 2V5, the next airport west is 2V6. When entering my airport, I have to select the number button, select 2, select the letter button, select V, select the number button again, then select the 5. |
||
![]() |
||
DavidBunin ![]() Senior Member ![]() ![]() Joined: 20 May 2015 Location: Rockwall, TX Status: Offline Points: 742 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
Mark me down as a +1 for both of the above! |
||
![]() |
||
rpostmo ![]() Senior Member ![]() Joined: 20 Jul 2015 Location: North Dakota Status: Offline Points: 164 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
Bob, I agree.
I'm flying with the IFD540 and the G5 (AI). I find the combination works great. I'm not sure what would be lacking. Bob |
||
![]() |
||
PA20Pacer ![]() Senior Member ![]() Joined: 07 Mar 2012 Location: Illinois (LL22) Status: Offline Points: 161 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
Hi Jimmyz80-
As far as track and desired track information, I find the track arrow on the arc display much more useful than the digital display for the purpose you describe. Also, I believe there is a datablock that includes TRK, DTK and a CDI, but the font size may still be smaller than you like. Regards, Bob Siegfried, II
|
||
Bob Siegfried, II
Brookeridge Airpark (LL22) Downers Grove, IL |
||
![]() |
||
OliverBucher ![]() Newbie ![]() ![]() Joined: 12 Dec 2016 Location: Germany EDDS Status: Offline Points: 33 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
Visual approach guidance (please also for user airfields, cause I am flying on a small glider airfield in Germany)
Greetings Oliver |
||
Oliver Bucher
Plane: DA40-180 |
||
![]() |
||
OliverBucher ![]() Newbie ![]() ![]() Joined: 12 Dec 2016 Location: Germany EDDS Status: Offline Points: 33 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
RF leg’s for approach
|
||
Oliver Bucher
Plane: DA40-180 |
||
![]() |
||
Bob H ![]() Senior Member ![]() ![]() Joined: 26 Jan 2018 Location: NH - KMHT Status: Offline Points: 290 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
As long as both units are installed in accordance with their respective STCs and the interfacing handshaking is compatible, what else is necessary? Hasn't it always been the case with avionics that as long as the communication protocols are compatible they can be interconnected and signed off? Let me go one step further. Through a moment of brain fog, Garmin left my aircraft off the G5 AML even though it meets all the requirements of the STC. So, a field approval was done with the blessing of the local FSDO! It was all very simple and straight forward. BTW, my G5 is an AI, but I don't see what the difference might be with a G5 HSI. I'm not an expert on this, so what am I missing?
|
||
Bob
|
||
![]() |
||
jimmyz80 ![]() Senior Member ![]() ![]() Joined: 24 Jul 2016 Location: Folsom, CA Status: Offline Points: 106 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
-Ability to load a SID/STAR without selecting a transition.
-Some way to make TRK and DTK more visible. When I'm flying an approach, I get my CDI centered and then fly to keep TRK and DTK matching. Then the needle will never move off center. On Garmin GTNs, these are nice big numbers on the default nav screen. The closest I've found on the IFD is to add those two data blocks, but the font is tiny. Not conducive to a quick glance.
|
||
2006 Cirrus SR22 - IFD540 IFD440 DFC90 AXP322 MLB100
|
||
![]() |
||
Handy1 ![]() Newbie ![]() Joined: 15 Mar 2018 Status: Offline Points: 4 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
Compatibility with the Garmin G5....
|
||
![]() |
||
FlyingCOham ![]() Senior Member ![]() ![]() Joined: 30 Oct 2015 Location: COS (KFLY) Status: Offline Points: 125 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
EXTREMELY emphatic second!!
|
||
Jim Patton
|
||
![]() |
||
94S ![]() Senior Member ![]() ![]() Joined: 06 Mar 2014 Location: Bismarck, ND Status: Offline Points: 164 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
Data blocks on the Synthetic Vision page/tab with the ability to show/hide just like they are on the map page.
Edited by 94S - 15 Mar 2018 at 11:37am |
||
![]() |
||
Ibraham ![]() Senior Member ![]() Joined: 21 May 2016 Location: KHWO Status: Offline Points: 363 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
Skytrax 100 Aural traffic alerts, with relative altitude and direction (like the Garmin GTX 345)
|
||
![]() |
||
ac11 ![]() Groupie ![]() ![]() Joined: 21 Aug 2016 Location: SF Bay Area Status: Offline Points: 98 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
I like #2 a lot. When being vectored on an approach to the IAF with a procedure turn, the intention of ATC is not to do the procedure turn. It is a bit of a hassle to wait until crossing the fix, switching to FMS, select the appropriate leg and activating it, especially as the autopilot starts the procedure turn/holding pattern.
|
||
![]() |
||
Gring ![]() Senior Member ![]() Joined: 30 Dec 2011 Location: Kingston, NY Status: Offline Points: 740 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
Hi Steve, I'd like to revisit a few items I put in the database from the precertification testing 1) Direct-to from the MAP pages returns the page to split page requiring the user to unsplit the page and change back to the MAP page. Really not necessary 2) On approaches where a procedure turn (hold) is included, I'd like a prompt for yes / no to fly the procedure turn rather than having to delete it from the flight plan. 3) Timer based on fuel used and fuel remaining. 4) * New * I think the Boeing banana needs to be more the one pixel wide, it gets lost on the screen 5) Traffic popup on the traffic so we can know more about it. Active when pressed with a finger, like an airport popup. 6) Finish the traffic integration 7) A test screen for attached boxes like TAS, TWX670, etc. to show their status and test. I think I have several others in the database, but cannot remember them now. Great product as is!!!
|
||
![]() |
||
paulr ![]() Senior Member ![]() Joined: 24 Jan 2014 Status: Offline Points: 564 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
* Audible callouts for "approaching FAF" and "approaching MAP" when flying an active approach. (I'm not asking for vertical callouts for altitudes, as I understand that's a complex and liability-prone issue)
* Audible callouts for "approaching waypoint"-- any time the airplane is about to change course or a new altitude restriction is in the FMS, give me a noise, much like TOD works now * audible tone any time a CAS caution/warning message appears (thanks to dmtidler for the suggestion) * hit Foreflight with a stick until they support streaming from the IFD |
||
![]() |
||
AviSteve ![]() Admin Group ![]() ![]() Joined: 12 Feb 2018 Location: Melbourne, FL Status: Offline Points: 2321 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
Have a suggested improvement or bug fix for release 10.3? Use this thread to put it out there. No promises on which suggestions will make it, but we're glad to have the feedback. Have at it!
|
||
Steve Lindsley
Avidyne Engineering |
||
![]() |
Post Reply ![]() |
Page <1 789 |
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 |