Avidyne Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > Avidyne General > IFD 5 Series & IFD 4 Series Touch Screen GPS/NAV/COM
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Suggestions for 10.3
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Suggestions for 10.3

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 678
Author
Message
brou0040 View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 13 Dec 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 688
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote brou0040 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Jul 2020 at 11:54am
Originally posted by Bob H Bob H wrote:

Originally posted by R0bst3r R0bst3r wrote:

I’m aware of the data blocks and zoom mode, but with zoom turned on you can’t get much data on the screen of the 440 and it’s jammed up against a map I really don’t need. So I’m proposing on this screen you could dump the map entirely and have just datablocks.

I understand.  There’s another request at the top of this page to replicate a screen from the GNS480.  I also don’t think the IFD suffers from not having that.  If I had to pick a “Default NAV Page” it would be different from your “Default NAV Page”.  The programmable data blocks mean I don’t have to settle for yours and you don’t have to settle for mine.  We can each have our own.  In addition, each user of the same unit can have their own preferences.  Also, with the IFD 100, I get to have that on a big screen right in front of me regardless of where the IFD is on my panel.  I think that all makes for a pretty well-designed navigator.  Everyone has an old friend they left behind when they moved to the new neighborhood.  All I can suggest is that you try to make new friends before deciding that you prefer the friends you grew up with in the old neighborhood.  Just give it a chance.


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.
Back to Top
ansond View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 12 Nov 2009
Location: Austin, Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 112
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ansond Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Jul 2020 at 12:07am
Another option for 10.3 would be to make the default aux page point to the GPS status page whilst in flight (on ground it could remain pointing to the DB status page)... occasionally, I like double checking my signaling and resolution values and its a pita to have to click over into that page.  While I've never had an actual GPS issue, if I did.. I'd want that page to be easily placed for simple recall and checking... 

Doug
N208LG
Back to Top
chflyer View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 24 Jan 2013
Location: LSZK
Status: Offline
Points: 794
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote chflyer Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Jul 2020 at 1:26am
I have both 540 and 440, and I keep the 440 open on the aux fuel mgmt page. The 440 remembers that on shutdown and always comes up with that page now by default on startup. Might work for the GPS status page too ??

Vince
Back to Top
AviSteve View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group
Avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2018
Location: Melbourne, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 1194
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AviSteve Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Jul 2020 at 9:01am
Originally posted by brou0040 brou0040 wrote:

Feature Request: Between altitude constraint

Is there a reason the FPL can show "at or above", "at", and "at or below", but not "between"?  I was just looking at a procedure where the IAF was between 6000 and 3900, but the IFD shows at or above 3900.  

It looks like there is enough real estate on the line when not in "edit" mode, but it's full when selecting the field to edit.  I get needing the "before" text since you want the clarity if someone enters a distance other than 0 in the cross field, but it is preventing you from displaying published data even when crossing over and not before the fix.

How about not displaying "before" in the edit screen unless someone enters something other than 0.  Then, if you need the space in the off chance that someone is doing "before" and "between", let that line scroll off the screen when editing so you have to swipe left/right to get to the fields if you need them.  I think there is enough room for it all show up properly once not editing the fields and if you need a little more room, move that entire line left a little to take up all the real estate.
Window constraints are already supported.  They will be displayed, but cannot be edited.  See KLAX RYDRR2 arrival for an example.
Steve Lindsley
Avidyne Engineering
Back to Top
brou0040 View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 13 Dec 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 688
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote brou0040 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Jul 2020 at 10:54am
Originally posted by AviSteve AviSteve wrote:

Originally posted by brou0040 brou0040 wrote:

Feature Request: Between altitude constraint

Is there a reason the FPL can show "at or above", "at", and "at or below", but not "between"?  I was just looking at a procedure where the IAF was between 6000 and 3900, but the IFD shows at or above 3900.  

It looks like there is enough real estate on the line when not in "edit" mode, but it's full when selecting the field to edit.  I get needing the "before" text since you want the clarity if someone enters a distance other than 0 in the cross field, but it is preventing you from displaying published data even when crossing over and not before the fix.

How about not displaying "before" in the edit screen unless someone enters something other than 0.  Then, if you need the space in the off chance that someone is doing "before" and "between", let that line scroll off the screen when editing so you have to swipe left/right to get to the fields if you need them.  I think there is enough room for it all show up properly once not editing the fields and if you need a little more room, move that entire line left a little to take up all the real estate.
Window constraints are already supported.  They will be displayed, but cannot be edited.  See KLAX RYDRR2 arrival for an example.

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.
Back to Top
AviSteve View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group
Avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2018
Location: Melbourne, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 1194
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AviSteve Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Jul 2020 at 11:02am
It's driven by the database.  I looked at the chart and see the window on the hold at CADAB, but the database definitely shows at or above 3900.  I'll shoot Jeppesen an email to see if it's a mistake or if it's being driven by some oddball coding rule.  Standby...
Steve Lindsley
Avidyne Engineering
Back to Top
AviSteve View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group
Avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2018
Location: Melbourne, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 1194
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AviSteve Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Jul 2020 at 4:29pm
Originally posted by brou0040 brou0040 wrote:

... 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...
Steve Lindsley
Avidyne Engineering
Back to Top
brou0040 View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 13 Dec 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 688
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote brou0040 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Jul 2020 at 9:55pm
Originally posted by AviSteve AviSteve wrote:

Originally posted by brou0040 brou0040 wrote:

... 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...

Interesting, sounds like something we have to accept in this case.  Thanks for looking into this!
Back to Top
Bweb99 View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie
Avatar

Joined: 05 Jun 2019
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Status: Offline
Points: 9
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bweb99 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Jul 2020 at 4:07pm
VNAV Labels compatibility with GFC500
Back to Top
SeanMollet View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie
Avatar

Joined: 05 Aug 2019
Location: OverlandPark,KS
Status: Offline
Points: 8
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote SeanMollet Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Jul 2020 at 10:30pm
Originally posted by Bweb99 Bweb99 wrote:

VNAV Labels compatibility with GFC500

Yes!

Gfc600 as well, since I’m not eligible for the 500. Too many of those spinny things on my plane.
Back to Top
chflyer View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 24 Jan 2013
Location: LSZK
Status: Offline
Points: 794
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote chflyer Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Jul 2020 at 12:35pm
Originally posted by Bweb99 Bweb99 wrote:

VNAV Labels compatibility with GFC500

+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.

Vince
Back to Top
Jandair View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: 19 Nov 2019
Location: KGPM
Status: Offline
Points: 16
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Jandair Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Jul 2020 at 9:40pm
Is there a preferred place to report things that seem to be coded wrong?  Do they go to Jepp or through Avidyne?  

On a recent flight, I loaded a flight plan from KLBB to KGPM then added the the TURKI.WESAT2 arrival into KGPM.  The arrival procedure is manual termination with vectors to KGPM.  The flight plan (and map view) adds a waypoint after WESAT and beyond KGPM and then a return to WESAT.  There are no gaps in route.  Added about an hour to the overall flight plan.  If I enter each waypoint individually along the route, without the actual arrival, everything maps fine.  

I was able to duplicate this behavior in the IFD100 app.  Is there something I need to add after WESAT to connect directly to KGPM?  
Back to Top
dmtidler View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2016
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 236
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote dmtidler Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Jul 2020 at 11:52am
I tried this scenario in both an IFD100 as well as the iPad IFD Trainer. The identical results between the IFD100 and iPad IFD Trainer appeared to be normal IFD behavior for this type of arrival. Per the arrival instructions, the IFD adds a "Manual" 130 degree track vectors leg out of WESAT and that track terminates well beyond KGPM. The expectation and note on the arrival is that at some point along that track, ATC is expected to issue radar vectors off the arrival for an approach. I did not see any flight plan legs that return to WESAT after the 130 degree track leg.

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. 





Back to Top
Jandair View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: 19 Nov 2019
Location: KGPM
Status: Offline
Points: 16
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Jandair Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Jul 2020 at 9:57pm
Sorry it took a couple of days... I wanted to get a screen capture of what I am seeing in the plane.  

The other piece of the puzzle is the EX5000 MFD.  I normally look at the trip page to get a big picture view of the entire flight plan.  Notice the DTK entries for the last four items on the flight plan.  (The ETE and ETA are not shown because I am on the ground.). All of the flight plan information comes from the IFD and my IFD displays look like the ones in your pictures.  

So 133 degrees, then 357 degrees, then 131 degrees and finally 311 degrees back to KGPM.  The NM are not exact because I am on the ground, but the delta distance for the last four waypoints is 158nm or about an hour from WESAT to KGPM.  This reflects in all of the MFD fields including ETE, fuel needed, fuel remaining, etc... 

So if I enter the waypoints manually, everything looks good on the MFD.

Bottom Line - Is this normal for an FMS system or a coding bug?  


Back to Top
mfuesting View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie
Avatar

Joined: 14 Mar 2019
Location: Illinois
Status: Offline
Points: 1
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote mfuesting Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Jul 2020 at 10:18pm
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!
Mike L Fuesting
Back to Top
dmtidler View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2016
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 236
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote dmtidler Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Jul 2020 at 11:10pm
The IFD piece of the puzzle looks normal to me; I have no experience with the EX5000 MFD and its integration with the IFD.
Back to Top
Bob H View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 26 Jan 2018
Location: NH - KMHT
Status: Offline
Points: 246
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bob H Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Jul 2020 at 8:15pm
Originally posted by mfuesting mfuesting wrote:

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!
Not sure I need another level of alerts other than the ones already programmed, especially displaced on the screen away from the current alert system and the remote MSG light.  It would probably be flashing regularly on some VFR flights.  In my mind, the existing features below are more closely tied to safety and are all that're needed.

1. Terrain Awareness
2. Forward Looking Terrain Alerting
3. Terrain Caution Aural
4. Terrain Warning Aural
Bob
Back to Top
nrproces View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie


Joined: 19 Sep 2016
Location: Marion, MT
Status: Offline
Points: 84
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote nrproces Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Jul 2020 at 10:35am
Maybe a "Driftdown" circle based on current winds and terrain?
Sauce
Back to Top
brou0040 View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 13 Dec 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 688
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote brou0040 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Jul 2020 at 10:43am
I'd like to see issues with the terrain alerting when landing at published airports resolved.

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?
Back to Top
Bob H View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 26 Jan 2018
Location: NH - KMHT
Status: Offline
Points: 246
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bob H Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Jul 2020 at 12:23pm
Originally posted by brou0040 brou0040 wrote:

I'd like to see issues with the terrain alerting when landing at published airports resolved.

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?
What was the warning?  500', or something else?  It would also be good to know the airport and runway to assess the geography in comparison to the IFD warning criteria.

Edited by Bob H - 28 Jul 2020 at 12:36pm
Bob
Back to Top
brou0040 View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 13 Dec 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 688
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote brou0040 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Jul 2020 at 10:45pm
Originally posted by Bob H Bob H wrote:

Originally posted by brou0040 brou0040 wrote:

I'd like to see issues with the terrain alerting when landing at published airports resolved.

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?
What was the warning?  500', or something else?  It would also be good to know the airport and runway to assess the geography in comparison to the IFD warning criteria.

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.


Edited by brou0040 - 28 Jul 2020 at 11:00pm
Back to Top
oskrypuch View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 09 Nov 2012
Location: CYFD
Status: Online
Points: 2694
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote oskrypuch Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Jul 2020 at 10:06am
Well, I think if you are heading for terrain, it should properly give you a terrain warning. The most likely time for CFIT, is during landing, so not a good time to suppress it.

But, whatever works for you.

* Orest
Back to Top
AviSteve View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group
Avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2018
Location: Melbourne, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 1194
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AviSteve Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Jul 2020 at 1:34pm
Originally posted by brou0040 brou0040 wrote:

I'd like to see issues with the terrain alerting when landing at published airports resolved.

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?
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.


Edited by AviSteve - 29 Jul 2020 at 1:35pm
Steve Lindsley
Avidyne Engineering
Back to Top
brou0040 View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 13 Dec 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 688
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote brou0040 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Jul 2020 at 6:52pm
Originally posted by oskrypuch oskrypuch wrote:

Well, I think if you are heading for terrain, it should properly give you a terrain warning. The most likely time for CFIT, is during landing, so not a good time to suppress it.

But, whatever works for you.

* Orest

Alerts are a distraction rather than a safety feature if they go off when there is nothing actionable you should do to correct the situation.  If you are flying the proper approach, you shouldn't get alerts.  If you get terrain alerts every time you land and are doing things correctly, you would get desensitized to the alerts.  The reason for the exclusion is because there are airports where you absolutely want the alerts if you aren't planning on landing there, you are too close to terrain, therefore you can't loosen then alerting criteria, but it'll be going off the entire approach if you don't provide the exclusion.
Back to Top
Bob H View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 26 Jan 2018
Location: NH - KMHT
Status: Offline
Points: 246
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bob H Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Jul 2020 at 8:46pm

There is some high terrain around both of these airports.  At KTSP, if you turned base ¾ nm from the end of the runway (not displaced threshold), you were on the edge of the exclusion zone and pointed right at some very high terrain.  The exclusion zone at this VFR airport is most likely a 1 nm radius from the ARP.  Seems to me the easy solution is to fly a tighter pattern or throw your disable switch when you are landing at a mountainous airport.  For IFR airports where the runway configuration is known, the exclusion zone is 2.0 nm laterally and 4.0 nm off each runway end.  I think the warning is appropriate under these conditions.

Originally posted by brou0040 brou0040 wrote:

Alerts are a distraction rather than a safety feature if they go off when there is nothing actionable you should do to correct the situation.  If you are flying the proper approach, you shouldn't get alerts.  If you get terrain alerts every time you land and are doing things correctly, you would get desensitized to the alerts.
In terms of it becoming a distraction rather than a safety feature, the warning will only go off when you are outside the exclusion zone and there are obstructions around, so it won’t be something that goes off “every time you land”, especially at IFR airports with rather generous exclusion zones.  I suspect that for most us flying behind an IFD, we almost never get an alert when landing at a charted airport.  If it does go off, it will stop immediately upon entering the exclusion zone.  As a matter of fact, when I create a pseudo airport at a remote lake with a few hills around, I don’t get any warnings even then.  It seems to me that Avidyne was struck the right balance.  Better to have a few unnecessary alerts, rather than having one missing at a critical time.

You’ve got your switch, so you’ve got the option to silence it anytime you want.



Edited by Bob H - 29 Jul 2020 at 9:40pm
Bob
Back to Top
oskrypuch View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 09 Nov 2012
Location: CYFD
Status: Online
Points: 2694
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote oskrypuch Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Jul 2020 at 9:34pm
I have never seen an FLTA alert on a properly flown IFR approach. Really, by definition there shouldn't be any.

But, I have certainly seen alerts when being maneuvered on visual, on occasion. The most obvious one is landing the island airport in Toronto (CYTZ), where once turned on base you encounter the downtown landscape, and alerts go off, PULL UP, etc. But, really, they are appropriate,  as I am actually headed right for those obstacles, the CN tower and the rest, the system cannot know (and it would be dangerous to assume) that I will be turning away from these shortly. And, indeed, as soon as I turn final, that stops. If I have passengers, I brief them of the same, it is just treated as a "funny".

If that is the kind of alert you are concerned about, and you frequent airports in the midst of terrain, landing not directly off an approach, then having a mute switch might make some sense -- just be doubly sure that it is not off when it shouldn't be.

* Orest


Edited by oskrypuch - 29 Jul 2020 at 9:40pm
Back to Top
brou0040 View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 13 Dec 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 688
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote brou0040 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Jul 2020 at 11:02pm
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.


Edited by brou0040 - 30 Jul 2020 at 12:01am
Back to Top
brou0040 View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 13 Dec 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 688
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote brou0040 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Jul 2020 at 11:41pm
Originally posted by oskrypuch oskrypuch wrote:

If that is the kind of alert you are concerned about, and you frequent airports in the midst of terrain, landing not directly off an approach, then having a mute switch might make some sense -- just be doubly sure that it is not off when it shouldn't be.

Totally agree, I have it in my checklist to ensure that the FLTA inhibit is disabled as a reminder.  I just didn't think the last alert was warranted, there was no need for any urgent actions.  KTSP is not a very mountainous airport, its in a pretty big valley.  I landed behind a old jet, there is no tight maneuvering required here.  It seems like an alert going off here when I told the IFD that this is my destination is an indication that it's a bit too sensitive - or I'm doing something wrong.
Back to Top
nrproces View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie


Joined: 19 Sep 2016
Location: Marion, MT
Status: Offline
Points: 84
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote nrproces Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Jul 2020 at 10:24am
KBIL when landing to the west, and KCVG when landing on the Center going South, come to mind...
Sauce
Back to Top
Aerochip View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: 24 Sep 2019
Location: Utah
Status: Offline
Points: 11
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Aerochip Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Jul 2020 at 4:41pm
Suggestion:

When on MAP page and say I'm on a vector and then want to go back direct to the waypoint that I had previously been tracking to, I would hit Direct, Enter, Enter.  Upon doing so, the IFD440 defaults back to the FMS page.  I think it is an issue because the FMS page shows a map much like the MAP page, but of course does not show data blocks, traffic, weather, etc.   My suggestion would be for it to default back to the MAP page if that is what was previously being used.  
Back to Top
oskrypuch View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 09 Nov 2012
Location: CYFD
Status: Online
Points: 2694
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote oskrypuch Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Jul 2020 at 4:53pm
Originally posted by brou0040 brou0040 wrote:

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.


Night time or distraction would be the classic issue on a VFR flight.

* Orest
Back to Top
teeth6 View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 10 Mar 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 652
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote teeth6 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Jul 2020 at 4:54pm
it would be nice but I believe the reason is you must be on the FMS page to select the waypoint to go direct to. In your example, you were already heading to the waypoint when the vector started so it was already highlighted but it you were going direct to a different waypoint, you’d have to select it on the FMS page and hit direct. 
Back to Top
Aerochip View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: 24 Sep 2019
Location: Utah
Status: Offline
Points: 11
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Aerochip Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Jul 2020 at 5:01pm
Originally posted by teeth6 teeth6 wrote:

it would be nice but I believe the reason is you must be on the FMS page to select the waypoint to go direct to. In your example, you were already heading to the waypoint when the vector started so it was already highlighted but it you were going direct to a different waypoint, you’d have to select it on the FMS page and hit direct. 

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.  
Back to Top
brou0040 View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 13 Dec 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 688
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote brou0040 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Jul 2020 at 9:12pm
Originally posted by oskrypuch oskrypuch wrote:

Originally posted by brou0040 brou0040 wrote:

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.


Night time or distraction would be the classic issue on a VFR flight.

* Orest

You mean like from an unnecessary alert? :)
Back to Top
oskrypuch View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 09 Nov 2012
Location: CYFD
Status: Online
Points: 2694
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote oskrypuch Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Jul 2020 at 9:46pm
One man's distraction, is another's savior. Many ways to skin a cat.

* Orest


Edited by oskrypuch - 30 Jul 2020 at 9:46pm
Back to Top
Flybuddy View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 25 Jan 2019
Location: Fort Myers
Status: Offline
Points: 131
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Flybuddy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31 Jul 2020 at 9:59am
With each release there are probably upwards of 100 suggestions with several requested add ons actually taking place. Many of these are minor and carry minimal improvements. Unfortunately the sum total of constantly adding obscure features can be unwieldy and detract from the overall performance of basic functionality. At some point of saturation it might be worth considering a back to basic software option.
One of the strong points of Avidyne over Garmin is it's simpler user interface. We have to be careful that too many "it would nice" features don't put that at risk.
Back to Top
teeth6 View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 10 Mar 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 652
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote teeth6 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31 Jul 2020 at 10:02am
Very True!!
Back to Top
Bob H View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 26 Jan 2018
Location: NH - KMHT
Status: Offline
Points: 246
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bob H Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31 Jul 2020 at 2:16pm
Originally posted by oskrypuch oskrypuch wrote:

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

* Orest
This goes to the heart of the matter.  Pilots who are saved by a warning, didn't know they needed a warning.  Also, pilots have been killed thinking that they knew better than the warning, while for others the warning just confirmed what they already knew.

There is also the matter of departures where the warnings also play a critical role.  Balancing both approach and departure profiles combined with terrain for a mix of aircraft from cubs to jets is not simplistic and may lead to the occasional missing savior warning as opposed to the occasional superfluous one.  There also isn't any way to know which warnings are helpful to which pilots - i.e. who has situational awareness and who doesn't.  
Bob
Back to Top
Bob H View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 26 Jan 2018
Location: NH - KMHT
Status: Offline
Points: 246
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bob H Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31 Jul 2020 at 2:32pm
Originally posted by Flybuddy Flybuddy wrote:

With each release there are probably upwards of 100 suggestions with several requested add ons actually taking place. Many of these are minor and carry minimal improvements. Unfortunately the sum total of constantly adding obscure features can be unwieldy and detract from the overall performance of basic functionality. At some point of saturation it might be worth considering a back to basic software option.
One of the strong points of Avidyne over Garmin is it's simpler user interface. We have to be careful that too many "it would nice" features don't put that at risk.
Well said!  This is always a concern of mine when I see requests for new features.  The cost in overhead is sometimes just not worth it.  There is also an ergonomic and/or safety factor.  It is good to have discussions here as the request will sometimes get modified or even retracted after the realization that the feature is already available via a different means.  The change in ergonomics might also create a safety of flight issue.

When changes are made, there are almost always unintended consequences.  Simple is better.
Bob
Back to Top
dmtidler View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2016
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 236
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote dmtidler Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Aug 2020 at 10:47pm
Originally posted by Aerochip Aerochip wrote:

Suggestion:

When on MAP page and say I'm on a vector and then want to go back direct to the waypoint that I had previously been tracking to, I would hit Direct, Enter, Enter.  Upon doing so, the IFD440 defaults back to the FMS page.  I think it is an issue because the FMS page shows a map much like the MAP page, but of course does not show data blocks, traffic, weather, etc.   My suggestion would be for it to default back to the MAP page if that is what was previously being used.  

Not sure about the IFD440; however, the IFD540 FMS FPL map continues to display traffic, weather, as well as the left side data blocks.  
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 678
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.01
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.086 seconds.