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

Well, me too seems to be called "Nobody".

Maybe I'm missing a point, but in my understanding JMFDVFR is a electronic chart that replaces a paper chart. If i go flying with a paper chart there are no dottet lines witch will tell me the way back when I fly into bad weather. On a paper chart there is no vertical profile to tell me if I will pass over a Hill or under a Airspace. But there are the same informations as in JMFDVFR and I have to crosscheck with the real eorld outside the cockpit.

The #1 priority in my opinien are waypoints that may be renamed by the user or that will take denominations available on the electronic chart.

The #2 priority are waypoints that may be defined by VOR/Radial/Dist. This is so ething that I can crosscheck with my onboard instruments, even in a case of bad weather. More helpfull than a dottet line in my opinion.

I've been a user almost from the beginning and i will stay with this app because it is exactly what I was looking for, a electronic charting system. My paper chart has never done a M&B and has never filed a flightplan for me, so why should this be dine by a electronic chart?

Just my two cents.



Philippe Seiler said:

I've been a user almost from the beginning and i will stay with this app because it is exactly what I was looking for, a electronic charting system. My paper chart has never done a M&B and has never filed a flightplan for me, so why should this be dine by a electronic chart?
Exactly my view: Do one thing and do it well!
If MFD VFR was crammed with all these me-too features, it would be exactly that: A feature-overloaded toy that lures users by suggesting that it can do anything when in fact separate, more specialized apps were more appropriate.
If I want an app that does X, then I just load an app for X.

Well, I disagree.

I would like to have one app which does the flight planning as well as the charting.

I mean what's the bloody reason to hack in the same data several times?

If you just need "a electronic chart that replaces a paper chart" then why you not scanning your maps and display the image on your tablet instead of using MFD or an equivalent tool?

IMHO MFD should have the at least the same features as the apps of the competitors. 

I carry two iPads with me for backup purposes, too. I cannot believe that an iPhone would be able to provide me the information I need on such a small screen.

BTW: If there is bad weather in front I would do a 180 degree turn and fly to the nearest airport or divert my route. A dotted line for the track which I flown would be useless and more irritating for me.

To see the track which I am flown at home would be beneficial for me instead.

When you talk about increasing the security: A live rain radar overlay would definitely a plus.

Frank Seja said:

Dear Jeppesen,

sorry to say, but the update 2.20 is kind of useless. The traffic circuits are visible in higher zoom levels and with wider line width - this is a improvement. Thank you.

But the cloud sharing feature makes no sense, if you do not include an iPhone. Nobody carries two iPads into a small cockpit. iphone support is what we need!

And the track feature is really disappointing. We don't need a file that we can read at home. We need a dotted line behind the aircraft symbol to see where we came from. If you hit bad weather or if you are flying in mountain area, the dotted line helps the pilot in the cockpit, to find back home. Only this support counts. At home, we don't need a file. Useless. 

Please, please make this track feature more helpful and add the dotted line. And please make sure, that the file and and dotted line can be switches off / on individually.

And please ask before you program a new feature. We can tell you. The next features we need are iphone support and vertical profile.

Best regards

Frank


Hi Stephan,

There seem to exist different views. I as well use two ipads, one mini (continuously charged) at the yoke, the other one (Air) as a backup in an envelope in case the mini overheats (it happened when mounted at the window, never when mounted at the yoke). For me this works very well, now for some years. Never had any difficulty. The simple waypoint editing is really great, in particular when flying. For me the display on my iphone 5S would be a little small.

And I always have paper for backup (although a little outdated, admitted). I never had to use it.

I welcome new and really useful features, when implemented properly. With respect to the new tracking many here in the forum seem to agree. NOT implemented properly.

Regards,

Clem


Stephan E. said:

Hello Niggi, you may be the exception to the rule but I think its fair to say that the vast majority of pilots do NOT carry two iPads with them. ipad and iphone on the other side seems to be a more common setup. At least that's what I would assume. It would be interesting to hear what the others think.

From my point of view the iPhone version is an absolute MUST. In my opinion it should be the no. 1 priority.

Best regards, Stephan

Hi Matthias,

well, MFD does flight planning, and does it very well, doesn't it?

What I meant was that why do we need everything anybody can ever dream of all in MFD? What use is W&B and fuel calculations in a glider? A glider pilot's computations for powered airplanes? Obstacle databases when a dedicated Flarm device can do much better anyway? 3D vision just for the "wow" effect? Customizable checklists? Simulated instruments that you have in front of you anyway? All features that the competitors have but of which I really hope that they will never make it into MFD.

Note that I'm all for new features, too! My personal favorites right now are iPhone support and printing.

Btw., features that MFD has that competitors don't have is the excellent map and especially that it has all of the airport data that is also in the German AIP as issued by the DFS, including all the data that is in the text part in front of the book (phone numbers, fuel and oil available, opening hours, ...). The latter makes MFD unique and is for me the most important reason to use it and not any other app.


Matthias Fliegner said:

Well, I disagree.

I would like to have one app which does the flight planning as well as the charting.

I mean what's the bloody reason to hack in the same data several times?

If you just need "a electronic chart that replaces a paper chart" then why you not scanning your maps and display the image on your tablet instead of using MFD or an equivalent tool?

IMHO MFD should have the at least the same features as the apps of the competitors. 

Dear Carsten,

Do you really believe that there are many glider pilots using MFD?

Flarm is not used/available on many GA aircraft. 

I don't need 3D vision but an obstacle warning would be beneficial.

Regarding printing: Why not make a screenshot and print it?

Regarding the flight plan: MFD doesn't submit any flight plans.


Carsten Fuchs said:

Hi Matthias,

well, MFD does flight planning, and does it very well, doesn't it?

What I meant was that why do we need everything anybody can ever dream of all in MFD? What use is W&B and fuel calculations in a glider? A glider pilot's computations for powered airplanes? Obstacle databases when a dedicated Flarm device can do much better anyway? 3D vision just for the "wow" effect? Customizable checklists? Simulated instruments that you have in front of you anyway? All features that the competitors have but of which I really hope that they will never make it into MFD.

Note that I'm all for new features, too! My personal favorites right now are iPhone support and printing.

Btw., features that MFD has that competitors don't have is the excellent map and especially that it has all of the airport data that is also in the German AIP as issued by the DFS, including all the data that is in the text part in front of the book (phone numbers, fuel and oil available, opening hours, ...). The latter makes MFD unique and is for me the most important reason to use it and not any other app.


Matthias Fliegner said:

Well, I disagree.

I would like to have one app which does the flight planning as well as the charting.

I mean what's the bloody reason to hack in the same data several times?

If you just need "a electronic chart that replaces a paper chart" then why you not scanning your maps and display the image on your tablet instead of using MFD or an equivalent tool?

IMHO MFD should have the at least the same features as the apps of the competitors. 

Hi Matthias,

sure, I don't know how many glider pilots use MFD. My point was to illustrate that not every feature that any competitor  has should be built into MFD, especially not when there are other, more specialized apps that are more suitable for the task. For example, W&B, fuel and performance computations fall into this category, in my opinion, because there are so many different airplanes and airplane characteristics and pilot requirements that any single app can never satisfy them all. For Jeppesen, I hope they don't even try. So in my opinion, it works just better if pilots just use a different app for these aspects of their preflight preparation rather than being ever dissatisfied by anything that could be built into MFD.

Flarms: Sure, but in my experience they're built increasingly into GA aircraft and ultralights as well. Personally, I feel that mid-air collisions are more dangerous than engine failures or bad weather, so a Flarm is very important to me. Flarms can indicate traffic with ADS-B transponders and estimate traffic with Mode S transponders as well. I would not want to miss it any more.

You're right, screenshots are a viable alternative, but e.g. a PDF export that I can send per e-mail would still be helpful at times.

About flight plans, sorry, I misunderstood you. I was referring to flight planning as you do in preflight planning with charts and computing courses. I'm aware that MFD cannot file flight plans with the DFS.



Matthias Fliegner said:

Dear Carsten,

Do you really believe that there are many glider pilots using MFD?

Flarm is not used/available on many GA aircraft. 

I don't need 3D vision but an obstacle warning would be beneficial.

Regarding printing: Why not make a screenshot and print it?

Regarding the flight plan: MFD doesn't submit any flight plans.


Carsten Fuchs said:

Hi Matthias,

well, MFD does flight planning, and does it very well, doesn't it?

What I meant was that why do we need everything anybody can ever dream of all in MFD? What use is W&B and fuel calculations in a glider? A glider pilot's computations for powered airplanes? Obstacle databases when a dedicated Flarm device can do much better anyway? 3D vision just for the "wow" effect? Customizable checklists? Simulated instruments that you have in front of you anyway? All features that the competitors have but of which I really hope that they will never make it into MFD.

Note that I'm all for new features, too! My personal favorites right now are iPhone support and printing.

Btw., features that MFD has that competitors don't have is the excellent map and especially that it has all of the airport data that is also in the German AIP as issued by the DFS, including all the data that is in the text part in front of the book (phone numbers, fuel and oil available, opening hours, ...). The latter makes MFD unique and is for me the most important reason to use it and not any other app.


Matthias Fliegner said:

Well, I disagree.

I would like to have one app which does the flight planning as well as the charting.

I mean what's the bloody reason to hack in the same data several times?

If you just need "a electronic chart that replaces a paper chart" then why you not scanning your maps and display the image on your tablet instead of using MFD or an equivalent tool?

IMHO MFD should have the at least the same features as the apps of the competitors. 

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

Carsten Fuchs said:

Hi Matthias,

sure, I don't know how many glider pilots use MFD. My point was to illustrate that not every feature that any competitor  has should be built into MFD, especially not when there are other, more specialized apps that are more suitable for the task. For example, W&B, fuel and performance computations fall into this category, in my opinion, because there are so many different airplanes and airplane characteristics and pilot requirements that any single app can never satisfy them all. For Jeppesen, I hope they don't even try. So in my opinion, it works just better if pilots just use a different app for these aspects of their preflight preparation rather than being ever dissatisfied by anything that could be built into MFD.

Flarms: Sure, but in my experience they're built increasingly into GA aircraft and ultralights as well. Personally, I feel that mid-air collisions are more dangerous than engine failures or bad weather, so a Flarm is very important to me. Flarms can indicate traffic with ADS-B transponders and estimate traffic with Mode S transponders as well. I would not want to miss it any more.

You're right, screenshots are a viable alternative, but e.g. a PDF export that I can send per e-mail would still be helpful at times.

About flight plans, sorry, I misunderstood you. I was referring to flight planning as you do in preflight planning with charts and computing courses. I'm aware that MFD cannot file flight plans with the DFS.



Matthias Fliegner said:

Dear Carsten,

Do you really believe that there are many glider pilots using MFD?

Flarm is not used/available on many GA aircraft. 

I don't need 3D vision but an obstacle warning would be beneficial.

Regarding printing: Why not make a screenshot and print it?

Regarding the flight plan: MFD doesn't submit any flight plans.


Carsten Fuchs said:

Hi Matthias,

well, MFD does flight planning, and does it very well, doesn't it?

What I meant was that why do we need everything anybody can ever dream of all in MFD? What use is W&B and fuel calculations in a glider? A glider pilot's computations for powered airplanes? Obstacle databases when a dedicated Flarm device can do much better anyway? 3D vision just for the "wow" effect? Customizable checklists? Simulated instruments that you have in front of you anyway? All features that the competitors have but of which I really hope that they will never make it into MFD.

Note that I'm all for new features, too! My personal favorites right now are iPhone support and printing.

Btw., features that MFD has that competitors don't have is the excellent map and especially that it has all of the airport data that is also in the German AIP as issued by the DFS, including all the data that is in the text part in front of the book (phone numbers, fuel and oil available, opening hours, ...). The latter makes MFD unique and is for me the most important reason to use it and not any other app.


Matthias Fliegner said:

Well, I disagree.

I would like to have one app which does the flight planning as well as the charting.

I mean what's the bloody reason to hack in the same data several times?

If you just need "a electronic chart that replaces a paper chart" then why you not scanning your maps and display the image on your tablet instead of using MFD or an equivalent tool?

IMHO MFD should have the at least the same features as the apps of the competitors. 

Hi Matthias,

Actually: Depends on the phone. In the supercub I often use the Iphone Plus (with another software) and it works quite well.

What I am actually really missing is that I don't get a topograpic picture from MFDVFR.

Life Rain Radar... this is quite difficult to achieve in europe. At current you would rely on a 4g connection - not always granted. And again: Battery usage will be quite high...

Tobias


Matthias Fliegner said:

I carry two iPads with me for backup purposes, too. I cannot believe that an iPhone would be able to provide me the information I need on such a small screen.

BTW: If there is bad weather in front I would do a 180 degree turn and fly to the nearest airport or divert my route. A dotted line for the track which I flown would be useless and more irritating for me.

To see the track which I am flown at home would be beneficial for me instead.

When you talk about increasing the security: A live rain radar overlay would definitely a plus.

Flarm is more or less a typical German product which was focussed on gliders.

In the SESAR project Flarm is not even mentioned. The same in the FAA future airspace concept. Those concepts rely in ADS-B and do not take care about Flarm. The reason for this is that Flarm is no international standard.

The EASA and FAA are about to mandate ADS-B for all aircraft within the next years. There will be even an ADS-B sender available for gliders. So Flarm will slowly die within the next decade.

Personally I appreciate Flarm and we have it installed in our aircraft. But I had the same problems like you: Traffic display is inaccurate. It seems that many gliders do not to have Flarm installed.

It would be beneficial if traffic would be displayed in MFD. Those users which do not like it can disable it. As source for the traffic MFD should support those ADS-B receivers which are popular in the US. Because they will provide with inflight weather data in addition to the traffic. Sadly here in Europe there won't be any weather data available. But at least the traffic data would be of value.

Hi,

Yes, ADS-B would be the better option. If the EASA is mandating this (although it would make sense to some extent) there will be a quite severe shitstorm coming up. The costs for ADS-B Devices that are certified will be higher than the value of many aircraft...

Tobias


Matthias Fliegner said:

Flarm is more or less a typical German product which was focussed on gliders.

In the SESAR project Flarm is not even mentioned. The same in the FAA future airspace concept. Those concepts rely in ADS-B and do not take care about Flarm. The reason for this is that Flarm is no international standard.

The EASA and FAA are about to mandate ADS-B for all aircraft within the next years. There will be even an ADS-B sender available for gliders. So Flarm will slowly die within the next decade.

Personally I appreciate Flarm and we have it installed in our aircraft. But I had the same problems like you: Traffic display is inaccurate. It seems that many gliders do not to have Flarm installed.

It would be beneficial if traffic would be displayed in MFD. Those users which do not like it can disable it. As source for the traffic MFD should support those ADS-B receivers which are popular in the US. Because they will provide with inflight weather data in addition to the traffic. Sadly here in Europe there won't be any weather data available. But at least the traffic data would be of value.

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