G1000NXI+Flightstream 510 waypoint lock

Any DA62 related topics

Moderators: Rick, Lance Murray

User avatar
jast
2 Diamonds Member
2 Diamonds Member
FIRST NAME: Jan
Aircraft: DA62
Registration: DIODE
Airport: EDMA

Posts: 45
Joined: Sun Sep 01, 2019 11:10 am
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 23 times

G1000NXI+Flightstream 510 waypoint lock

Post by jast »

Hi!

Got the FS510 in our DA62 and especially IFR it’s really an awesome tool. However VFR I encountered an issue when using Foreflight and I was wondering if anyone has an idea how to fix it:

When adding visual reporting points in Foreflight and syncing to the G1000NXI it shows the path and the waypoints as “locked” and I can’t activate the flightplan. When I then store it, remove the locked waypoints active it it works, but obviously without these visual reporting points. Did anybody else have this problem before? Is there a way to work around this? I’d at least have them recognized as user waypoints, which btw seems to work if Foreflight already sees them as user waypoints.

Regards,
Jan
User avatar
CFIDave
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
FIRST NAME: Dave
Aircraft: DA62
Registration: N62DV
Airport: KJYO

Posts: 1943
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2012 3:40 pm
Has thanked: 109 times
Been thanked: 696 times

Re: G1000NXI+Flightstream 510 waypoint lock

Post by CFIDave »

Since we don't use visual reporting points very much in North America, I wouldn't be surprised if there were a bug surrounding their use.

As I noted in the other DA62 thread (viewtopic.php?f=18&t=7412) there are multiple software bugs in the Garmin software.
N62DV DA62 62.056
N42DA DA42-VI 42.N117 (sold)
N811ET DA40 XLS 40.874 (sold)
KJYO Leesburg, Virginia
User avatar
Rich
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
FIRST NAME: Rich
Aircraft: DA40
Registration: N40XE
Airport: S39

Posts: 2660
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2010 12:40 pm
Has thanked: 69 times
Been thanked: 424 times

Re: G1000NXI+Flightstream 510 waypoint lock

Post by Rich »

Generally speaking the FS transfer from EFB to a panel system can be expected to fail at some level if the flight plan includes a fix that does not already exist in the panel database. (For GNS and GTN units the transfer itself will fail. For G1000, etc., the behavior might be different.) The first report I saw of this was some months back in IFR Magazine. In that case it was Garmin Pilot Nav Data incorrectly still showing a VOR that no longer existed, due to some weaknesses in how Garmin Pilot data is kept current. In short, the creation of a new fix is not provided as part of the transfer.
2002 DA40: MT, PF, 530W/430W, KAP140, ext. baggage, 1090 ES out, 2646 MTOW, 40gal., Surefly, Flightstream 210.
User avatar
Boatguy
4 Diamonds Member
4 Diamonds Member
FIRST NAME: Russ
Aircraft: DA40NG
Registration: N454M
Airport: O69

Posts: 437
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2018 4:48 am
Has thanked: 178 times
Been thanked: 314 times

Re: G1000NXI+Flightstream 510 waypoint lock

Post by Boatguy »

I explored this with FF. If you look at a sectional in FF you'll see most, but not all, visual reporting points have five character fix names, but some do not. When they do not, FF generates a number and identifies the fix as VPnnn. VPnnn is not in the FAA/Garmin nav database so the G1000 rejects the waypoint and won't load the flight plan.

Try entering this plan in the FF map page: KHWD VPCSH VPMIN KSJC. Everything is fine and the G1000 will accept this flight plan.

Now drag between VPCSH and VPMIN to add the Niles Canyon visual reporting point which is clearly named on the sectional, but has no five character fix identifier. FF adds the new fix as VP905, the flight plan is now KWHD VPCSH VP905 KSJC and will be rejected by the G1000.

I've encountered a similar problem trying to use some private airports as fixes.

More frustrating is FAA GPS fixes which are valid in the FF web version and the G1000, but rejected by FF Mobile. I went into this topic to great depth with FF. Ultimately the answer was that the two versions of FF use different versions of a nav database from Jeppesen, and Garmin uses yet another version that they create from the master FAA database. Long story short you can create a route in FF web or the G1000 that will be rejected in FF mobile.

FF says the solution to this problem is to buy Jeppesen charts and use them in both FF mobile and the G1000, then there will be complete interoperability, though FF web will still have a different database.

While Garmin definitely has their own set of problems, I consider all of these issues to be FF/Jeppesen/Boeing problems, not Garmin problems.
User avatar
jast
2 Diamonds Member
2 Diamonds Member
FIRST NAME: Jan
Aircraft: DA62
Registration: DIODE
Airport: EDMA

Posts: 45
Joined: Sun Sep 01, 2019 11:10 am
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 23 times

Re: G1000NXI+Flightstream 510 waypoint lock

Post by jast »

Boatguy wrote:
Sat Jul 25, 2020 5:55 pm

Try entering this plan in the FF map page: KHWD VPCSH VPMIN KSJC. Everything is fine and the G1000 will accept this flight plan.

Now drag between VPCSH and VPMIN to add the Niles Canyon visual reporting point which is clearly named on the sectional, but has no five character fix identifier. FF adds the new fix as VP905, the flight plan is now KWHD VPCSH VP905 KSJC and will be rejected by the G1000.
Exactly! This makes sense! However the solution could be so simple: Transfer every point with designator and coordinates and let the receiver either look up the designator and select the closest one (there are a few which are not unique like VORs and NDBs with the same name) or create a user waypoint with the coordinates :idea: A pitty that such easy solutions are not implemented (yet)
User avatar
Rich
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
FIRST NAME: Rich
Aircraft: DA40
Registration: N40XE
Airport: S39

Posts: 2660
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2010 12:40 pm
Has thanked: 69 times
Been thanked: 424 times

Re: G1000NXI+Flightstream 510 waypoint lock

Post by Rich »

jast wrote:
Sat Jul 25, 2020 9:16 pm
Boatguy wrote:
Sat Jul 25, 2020 5:55 pm

Try entering this plan in the FF map page: KHWD VPCSH VPMIN KSJC. Everything is fine and the G1000 will accept this flight plan.

Now drag between VPCSH and VPMIN to add the Niles Canyon visual reporting point which is clearly named on the sectional, but has no five character fix identifier. FF adds the new fix as VP905, the flight plan is now KWHD VPCSH VP905 KSJC and will be rejected by the G1000.
Exactly! This makes sense! However the solution could be so simple: Transfer every point with designator and coordinates and let the receiver either look up the designator and select the closest one (there are a few which are not unique like VORs and NDBs with the same name) or create a user waypoint with the coordinates :idea: A pitty that such easy solutions are not implemented (yet)
As one who often was called on to implement a "quick, simple" fix envisioned by management. I doubt it's that simple. For example, in the aforementioned case of the phantom VOR, the writer didn't know that the Garmin Pilot data was flawed. So suddenly the phantom VOR shows up in the panel FP. Thinking he'll tune it in (for reasons frivolous or not) and finds that he can not. Frankly, I wasn't aware that the FS was transmitting the actual lat/long, just the identifiers.
2002 DA40: MT, PF, 530W/430W, KAP140, ext. baggage, 1090 ES out, 2646 MTOW, 40gal., Surefly, Flightstream 210.
User avatar
jast
2 Diamonds Member
2 Diamonds Member
FIRST NAME: Jan
Aircraft: DA62
Registration: DIODE
Airport: EDMA

Posts: 45
Joined: Sun Sep 01, 2019 11:10 am
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 23 times

Re: G1000NXI+Flightstream 510 waypoint lock

Post by jast »

How often did I see management and engineers block simple things because of fear and how often did I prove them wrong by implementing it myself instead ?! :D

Here every customer using Foreflight has a real issue with complete categories of waypoints, whereas your scenario is highly unlikely if the receiving system does a simple distance search if the designator is not recognized, maybe even prompting the user to select the correct one once if multiple matches are possible (same dialog as in manual waypoint entry).

Since user waypoints are transmitted correctly with coordinates, there seems to be a way of doing this.
User avatar
Rich
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
FIRST NAME: Rich
Aircraft: DA40
Registration: N40XE
Airport: S39

Posts: 2660
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2010 12:40 pm
Has thanked: 69 times
Been thanked: 424 times

Re: G1000NXI+Flightstream 510 waypoint lock

Post by Rich »

There are other unresolved complexities. I posted in the FS210 thread about rejects that have no known explanation. And there is software in multiple systems and vendors (at least 3) involved. Remember also that this is two-way communication that needs to be supported. I've found that some changes are more expeditiously initiated in the 530 and sent to FF.
2002 DA40: MT, PF, 530W/430W, KAP140, ext. baggage, 1090 ES out, 2646 MTOW, 40gal., Surefly, Flightstream 210.
User avatar
Rich
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
FIRST NAME: Rich
Aircraft: DA40
Registration: N40XE
Airport: S39

Posts: 2660
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2010 12:40 pm
Has thanked: 69 times
Been thanked: 424 times

Re: G1000NXI+Flightstream 510 waypoint lock

Post by Rich »

The different Garmin units, for sure, behave differently. As I pointed out, I don't see unknown waypoints transmitted to the GNS. The transfer itself simply fails and nothing shows up. I believe the GTN units behave the same as the GNS.
2002 DA40: MT, PF, 530W/430W, KAP140, ext. baggage, 1090 ES out, 2646 MTOW, 40gal., Surefly, Flightstream 210.
User avatar
Boatguy
4 Diamonds Member
4 Diamonds Member
FIRST NAME: Russ
Aircraft: DA40NG
Registration: N454M
Airport: O69

Posts: 437
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2018 4:48 am
Has thanked: 178 times
Been thanked: 314 times

Re: G1000NXI+Flightstream 510 waypoint lock

Post by Boatguy »

There are no technical issues here, the data being transferred is trivial text. This is strictly a lack of desire to cooperate between Jeppesen and Garmin because they are competing for our EFB and charts spending. Had Garmin not had such a narrow NIH mentality and simply purchased FF before Jeppesen, or stayed in their hardware lane, we would have a much better customer experience. Now that the competition is rigidly in place between two arrogant competitors, we will see the minimum interoperability that each begrudgingly thinks is required.

To their credit, Jeppesen knows they are a content and services company. I doubt you see these problems between Jeppesen and say Honeywell or Rockwell who build avionics for passenger jets. Garmin is confused about their core competencies. Jeppesen and Garmin both get their monthly data from the FAA, then Garmin takes a week longer than Jeppesen/FF to process it. Which company has more competency in software content management?
Post Reply