Here you can address missing features and enhancement recommendations for the app. The Jeppesen development team will constantly review this discussion to understand your needs.

Views: 17799

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Hi Tobias,

I'm with you in most points:

Especially I meant Flarm as a separate device, entirely unrelated to MFD! That is, in my example above, it was meant that the Flarm devices already provide obstacle databases. These databases are in my experience very good, so that another obstacle database built into MFD is just a burden when, with Flarms, a better means of collision avoidance is available anyway. Said differently, in a flight planning tool that also provides orange and red colors of which I first have to learn if they right now indicate rain or terrain, I'd rather not have all these features mixed up.

The issue about engine failure vs. collisions: Well, you obviously survived the engine failure. The problem with mid-air collisions is that you'll rarely ever experience one and talk about it later...

In other words, after an engine failure or in bad weather you still have control over your airplane. It's up to you to make the best of it. After a mid-air collision, you cannot do anything. (except possibly pull the parachute if you have one)

With "close calls" you mean approximations / near misses? Only one?? Really, they are frequent even if you're closely and properly watching the airspace all the time. Just this Saturday I was, by accident and without Flarm, close enough to a glider to conveniently read its callsign and wave the crew.

I obviously agree that Flarm is not all that is needed to make you safe! But would you forego a help on 80% only because you cannot have 100%? I too see a lot of traffic much before the Flarm beeps about it. This is by design: Flarm raises alarm only if it figures that the flight paths will intersect. It keeps calm even on relatively close encounters otherwise. It's quite hard-nosed about that.  ;-)



Tobias Goeller said:

Hi Carsten,

I am not 100% sure I would want flarm information on my ipad. First of all I fear the power consumption would be increased by quite a factor.

Second, there are currently quite many Flarm implementations - some of them very good, some of them (I find) very bad. I really feel that Flarm should be in a separate device.

For the "risk" of a mid-air... I don't know the statistics on this but speaking of myself:

Engine "Failures": One so far

Midair Collisions: Nil

"Close" calls: one.

BTW: Having a FLARM is not really a guarantee you are safe. FLARM is a great tool and I would love to have it in every acft I fly. Still.. 20% of the other acft don't show up on flarm and sometimes they show up way after I already detected the acft. Purely relying on technology can be dangerous...

Tobias

Hi,

Actually, you're right. The obstacle DB from Flarm is really good... using this DB for the terrain of MFDVFR would be a good solution, yes.

Concerning the Midair vs. Engine-Failure... you're right: Midairs are - in moste cases - fatal. Engine-failures aren't.

Still: Flying does bring a risk with it. As does driving a car or bike. Even with ADS-B, there will be midair collisions. At least I fear there will.

Integrating ADS-B could be an option. but it has to be made sure the battery isn't drained too fast in case it is active. If you loose nav AND ads-b in bead weather you're shot...

Tobias


Carsten Fuchs said:

Hi Tobias,

I'm with you in most points:

Especially I meant Flarm as a separate device, entirely unrelated to MFD! That is, in my example above, it was meant that the Flarm devices already provide obstacle databases. These databases are in my experience very good, so that another obstacle database built into MFD is just a burden when, with Flarms, a better means of collision avoidance is available anyway. Said differently, in a flight planning tool that also provides orange and red colors of which I first have to learn if they right now indicate rain or terrain, I'd rather not have all these features mixed up.

The issue about engine failure vs. collisions: Well, you obviously survived the engine failure. The problem with mid-air collisions is that you'll rarely ever experience one and talk about it later...

In other words, after an engine failure or in bad weather you still have control over your airplane. It's up to you to make the best of it. After a mid-air collision, you cannot do anything. (except possibly pull the parachute if you have one)

With "close calls" you mean approximations / near misses? Only one?? Really, they are frequent even if you're closely and properly watching the airspace all the time. Just this Saturday I was, by accident and without Flarm, close enough to a glider to conveniently read its callsign and wave the crew.

I obviously agree that Flarm is not all that is needed to make you safe! But would you forego a help on 80% only because you cannot have 100%? I too see a lot of traffic much before the Flarm beeps about it. This is by design: Flarm raises alarm only if it figures that the flight paths will intersect. It keeps calm even on relatively close encounters otherwise. It's quite hard-nosed about that.  ;-)



Tobias Goeller said:

Hi Carsten,

I am not 100% sure I would want flarm information on my ipad. First of all I fear the power consumption would be increased by quite a factor.

Second, there are currently quite many Flarm implementations - some of them very good, some of them (I find) very bad. I really feel that Flarm should be in a separate device.

For the "risk" of a mid-air... I don't know the statistics on this but speaking of myself:

Engine "Failures": One so far

Midair Collisions: Nil

"Close" calls: one.

BTW: Having a FLARM is not really a guarantee you are safe. FLARM is a great tool and I would love to have it in every acft I fly. Still.. 20% of the other acft don't show up on flarm and sometimes they show up way after I already detected the acft. Purely relying on technology can be dangerous...

Tobias

Hi,

mind that you not only need an ADS-B transponder (sender), you also need an ADS-B receiver with an appropriate display. Flarm (not universally, but in some products) is both an ADS-B receiver and display, it is relatively cheap and exists today.

I'm aware that they're neither in the EASA's nor the FAA's plans, but they're widespread in Europe (my experiences regarding distribution and practical relevance/usefulness apparently being much better than yours and Matthias'), their numbers is still growing, and even the EASA is said to listen sometimes – maybe they'll be open to suggestions, there is still time enough. For example, maybe receiving ADS-B traffic might be enough (for GA) to meet future EASA's requirements. Just speculating, of course, but I don't see such a dark future for Flarms at all...   :-)



Tobias Goeller said:

Hi,

Actually, you're right. The obstacle DB from Flarm is really good... using this DB for the terrain of MFDVFR would be a good solution, yes.

Concerning the Midair vs. Engine-Failure... you're right: Midairs are - in moste cases - fatal. Engine-failures aren't.

Still: Flying does bring a risk with it. As does driving a car or bike. Even with ADS-B, there will be midair collisions. At least I fear there will.

Integrating ADS-B could be an option. but it has to be made sure the battery isn't drained too fast in case it is active. If you loose nav AND ads-b in bead weather you're shot...

Tobias

Dear all,

in my last post I have offended some of the participants of this forum. Sorry, I should have expressed myself better and I beg your pardon.

If some MFDVFR users have a benefit of the cloud backup feature without iphone support this is fine.

My original point was: Jeppesen themselves announced the iphone support long time ago and they promised a major next update for 2017...."stay tuned"... and then we see version 2.20 with only two second class features that are not very well executed.

I hope that the cloud backup is a preparation for the iphone support. I can imagine that an phone is kind of small for FD app. But as said before: Jeppesen promised iphone support and I hope they had a chance to test it before they promised.

And a track file, without a dotted line on the map is a poor decision and poor execution. Jeppesen, please ad the dotted line if you can. If some participants want to switch it of later - fine for me. But a track feature without dotted line is simply incomplete.

We are paying first class prices and we got second class R&D quality with the 2.20 update - it really needs to be corrected and improved.

Best regards

Frank

Reply to Discussion

RSS

Forum

PRODUCT SUPPORT

In this category you find discussion which should support you in finding answers regarding general or technical questions.

121 discussions

PRODUCT TIPS & TRICKS

Here we share useful information about new features and functions of Jeppesen Mobile FliteDeck VFR.

1 discussions

© 2017   Jeppesen   Powered by

Badges  |     |  Terms of Service