PFD inaccuracies

[Adam106 3]

Great job on SP1 and the 6700 expansion. I'm having a great deal of fun with the 600!However, from what I can see a couple of minor inaccuracies still exist with some of the PFD symbology - I was quietly hoping they'd be among the hundreds of fixes you've already done.1) The F/D bars are supposed to 'retract' i.e. disappear, at 50 feet RA on all ILS approaches. Currently they only disappear on a fail passive autoland. The manual references this in FCOM vol.2. 2) With the EFIS/MAP display option selected single channel autopilot operation (with approach selected) should state '1 CH' in amber. At the moment it's got 'SINGLE CH' in amber. Not massive I know, but it's somehow bugging me.3) When doing a IAN approach and descending below 100ft RA the autopilot disconnects - which is correct. But the manual states that we should also get an amber 'AUTOPILOT' annunciation on the PFD - which we don't. All minor detail errors I agree, but any chance of minor tweaks being made prior to SP2?Cheers,Adam Turley

[badderjet 181]

Good eye there. Let me add:4) Also, the SINGLE CH annunciation (non-IAN) should be surrounded by an amber box, not a green one.5) Try to select the RNAV07CY approach into EDDF, and fly it using IAN. Once you hit APP, the PFD upper left corner will show "RNAV07CY/068", which is correct. However, the last digit ("8") seems to be damaged in a way - as if there was another digit on top of it. If someone could please cross check this one.

[Adam106 3]

Oh - another thing, I'm not sure if this is a bug or not, but when doing an IAN approach there's a problem with the info in the top left of the PFD - where the ILS DME/Course data sits. The distance to go doesn't count down in decimals, only whole miles. It will say RWY21/11.0, then RWY21/10.0 etc never 0.1nm intervals. This may be correct behaviour - I don't know but it doesn't really make sense.Cheers,Adam Turley

[badderjet 181]

Noted that as well a long time ago... I'm pretty sure it doesn't make sense, as the notation of "11.0" would suggest .0 is a significant digit, which it isn't if it only counts down integers.

[Adam106 3]

I can see Robert is online so I'm shamelessly bumping this thread to the top....Adam Turley

[Flamin_Squirrel 71]

Noted that as well a long time ago... I'm pretty sure it doesn't make sense, as the notation of "11.0" would suggest .0 is a significant digit, which it isn't if it only counts down integers.

I've noticed that before. You might be right about the suggestion that ".0" should mean it counts down in 1/10ths of a mile.That said, perhaps this is a feature of IAN? I assumed it was correct as IAN, not working off of a DME, isn't going to be so precise, hence only giving distance to the nearest mile?

[badderjet 181]

Well IAN works off the FMC position, which in turn uses IRS, GPS and radios (and DMEs) as we know, so I'd suppose the FMC position should be quite accurate. Think of ANP numbers, they are regularly below the tenth of a mile. And as mentioned before, the .0 really leads to a false illusion of precision (at least as long as it only shows .0).

[Flamin_Squirrel 71]

Well IAN works off the FMC position, which in turn uses IRS, GPS and radios (and DMEs) as we know, so I'd suppose the FMC position should be quite accurate. Think of ANP numbers, they are regularly below the tenth of a mile. And as mentioned before, the .0 really leads to a false illusion of precision (at least as long as it only shows .0).

Should, not not necessarily is. RNP/ANP is a different kind of approach altogether, and doesn't give a distance to threshold..0 does lead to a false illustration of precision, I was just putting forth a potential reason.