Peter wrote:
@arj1 many thanks. I think enroute VNAV is not a big thing, in a piston aircraft – because they are so underpowered anyway
Not for the descent! :) If you want to be at a FAF 100nm away in a continuous descent without touching the yoke, then that things works.
I think for now my personal comparison is:
Avidyne – pros: direct Skydemon connectivity, directy Golze connectivity, external BT keyboard, simpler Nav DB updates (USB flash). Cons: no enroute VNAV, no PC simulator
GTN – pros: VNAV, better GFC/G500TXi/G3X integration. Cons: no external keyboard, DB updates are a pain, SD integartion only indirect through the Garmin Pilot.
Airborne_Again wrote:
Well, yes. But this only refers to the minima calculation for “normal” approaches. It doesn’t explain why the C/D straight in minima are not the same as the circling minima, like PANS-OPS says they should be for “oversteep” approaches.
Indeed, I asked again.
arj1 wrote:
I think IFD does not have enroute VNAV, like you have in GTN, not sure if there are many approach-VNAV differences.
Correct at the moment. Next software release 10.3 has enroute VNAV (announced last June for Q3 but still pending. Trainer and IFD100 available now with 10.3 so could be announced at any time).
chflyer wrote:
arj1 wrote: I think IFD does not have enroute VNAV, like you have in GTN, not sure if there are many approach-VNAV differences.Correct at the moment. Next software release 10.3 has enroute VNAV (announced last June for Q3 but still pending. Trainer and IFD100 available now with 10.3 so could be announced at any time).
So the only real problem for me will be no PC simulator (no Android either, and I don’t have any Apple devices in the household).
Airborne_Again wrote:
Well, yes. But this only refers to the minima calculation for “normal” approaches. It doesn’t explain why the C/D straight in minima are not the same as the circling minima, like PANS-OPS says they should be for “oversteep” approaches.
According to Pans-Ops, there are different specifications for the regulation of “steep approaches”. The paussus, according to which the higher circling minimum applies to a final approach steeper than 6.5%, contradicts a different regulation elsewhere, which we are applying in the present case. There is currently a discussion at the international level about resolving this discrepancy. In order to remedy this, hopefully only temporary, discrepancy, we will publish a deviation in our AIP that point 5.4.5.4 does not apply.
From here
That’s amazing, Loco, and I am happy you are back in the air 
I am planning to head to Aosta quite soon (for Cervinia). The fly-in may not happen but I will go anyway.
I thought the Proline 21 gave you a virtual “ILS” to every runway for which there is a published IAP – like airliners have. And I don’t mean the Garmin/Avidyne +V.
Thanks. The Proline21 seems capable, but I’ve been on iPhone-like touch screens since 2016. The traditional green FMS with a keyboard is a serious change.
Peter wrote:
a virtual “ILS” to every runway for which there is a published IAP – like airliners have. And I don’t mean the Garmin/Avidyne +V.
What’s the difference?
Unlike +V, the PL21 will give you H+V guidance even where no GPS IAP is published.
This is standard airliner capability – an “ILS” overlay to some Greek island airport which had NDB or VOR, no GPS. The exact ops manual procedure is airline dependent e.g. navaid idents / not notamed inop, etc, and minima probably that for the navaid IAP. Who designed the guidance procedures I don’t know… possibly Collins, or Jepp under contract?
Peter wrote:
Unlike +V, the PL21 will give you H+V guidance even where no GPS IAP is published.
For sure a box like the Garmin GTN650Xi will give you H+V guidance even with no GPS IAP published! That’s the whole point of the +V, isn’t it?
