I would love for ARNAV to do all the things people are suggesting {sectionals, detailed Terrain, approach charts]. However after e-mailing UPS over the last year to find out about their new ChartView software and how it was coming, I am left with an impression that THESE KIND OF CHANGES ARE NOT EASY.
UPS devoted a great deal of resources to their apps, and BTW, do so under the umbrella of R&D for their entire jet fleet. They are huge! My sense is the kind of things we are hoping for are very difficult, require tremendous resources, and last time I looked, are not market-driven.
My MX20 can go into almost any panel, anywhere. Not so the ARNAV. So I don’t think it is reasonable to expect they can generate the resources to add the features people are hoping they will.
It seems they are focusing on glass-cockpit technology, with their PFD, and for good reason. There will be a market for all-glass in the future, and they can get in on the ground floor of that. But devote thousands of manhours to give us approach plates? Why? Will that many more people go out and buy the unit for that? No. The same people will by it, namely CD. And they already do buy it.
The point of all of this is, if you want all of those things like Sectionals, Terrain, Approach plates, you better figure out how to rip out your ARNAV, because I don’t think it’s coming anytime soon. Otherwise, enjoy the large screen and stop dreaming of things that will not come.
Well put, Dean.
My criticism as not been of Arnav, for the reasons you cite. My criticism has been of Cirrus for not recognizing what you do and not dumping the Arnav in favor of a system with more potential, like UPSAT’s or Avidyne’s. Or at least offering the option of deleting the Arnav for more panel space so owners can install what they want. (Or, like other manufacturers, offer factory-installed display options - though I concede that might drive up price and slow down production.)
Joe
I would love for ARNAV to do all the things people are suggesting {sectionals, detailed Terrain, approach charts]. However after e-mailing UPS over the last year to find out about their new ChartView software and how it was coming, I am left with an impression that THESE KIND OF CHANGES ARE NOT EASY.
UPS devoted a great deal of resources to their apps, and BTW, do so under the umbrella of R&D for their entire jet fleet. They are huge! My sense is the kind of things we are hoping for are very difficult, require tremendous resources, and last time I looked, are not market-driven.
My MX20 can go into almost any panel, anywhere. Not so the ARNAV. So I don’t think it is reasonable to expect they can generate the resources to add the features people are hoping they will.
It seems they are focusing on glass-cockpit technology, with their PFD, and for good reason. There will be a market for all-glass in the future, and they can get in on the ground floor of that. But devote thousands of manhours to give us approach plates? Why? Will that many more people go out and buy the unit for that? No. The same people will by it, namely CD. And they already do buy it.
The point of all of this is, if you want all of those things like Sectionals, Terrain, Approach plates, you better figure out how to rip out your ARNAV, because I don’t think it’s coming anytime soon. Otherwise, enjoy the large screen and stop dreaming of things that will not come.
Dean,
One can both enjoy the ICDS-2000 and hope that in the next 5-10 year it improves. It is not an either-or thing.
And perhaps they will implement only one or two additional features. Personally, I’d like to influence them in their decision as to what they decide to do.
I have no plans to rip out the ICDS-2000 and replace it with something else. I have already benefited from new and improved software. I’ve met some of the people at Arnav making the ICDS-2000 better. So I have some confidence that in the future, I’ll get an update that makes it even better than it is now.
As the numbers of ICDS-2000’s in the field grows, Arnav’s incentive to provide updates also grows.
Of course it takes time and effort to get certification for new features. No one implied anything to the contrary, at least nothing I read on this forum.
Robert Bedichek
I would love for ARNAV to do all the things people are suggesting {sectionals, detailed Terrain, approach charts]. However after e-mailing UPS over the last year to find out about their new ChartView software and how it was coming, I am left with an impression that THESE KIND OF CHANGES ARE NOT EASY.
UPS devoted a great deal of resources to their apps, and BTW, do so under the umbrella of R&D for their entire jet fleet. They are huge! My sense is the kind of things we are hoping for are very difficult, require tremendous resources, and last time I looked, are not market-driven.
My MX20 can go into almost any panel, anywhere. Not so the ARNAV. So I don’t think it is reasonable to expect they can generate the resources to add the features people are hoping they will.
It seems they are focusing on glass-cockpit technology, with their PFD, and for good reason. There will be a market for all-glass in the future, and they can get in on the ground floor of that. But devote thousands of manhours to give us approach plates? Why? Will that many more people go out and buy the unit for that? No. The same people will by it, namely CD. And they already do buy it.
The point of all of this is, if you want all of those things like Sectionals, Terrain, Approach plates, you better figure out how to rip out your ARNAV, because I don’t think it’s coming anytime soon. Otherwise, enjoy the large screen and stop dreaming of things that will not come.
It is well established that Cirrus chose ARNAV as a key component of their effort to innovate in the areas of safety and ease-of-use. In other words, the main reason the ARNAV is standard in the panel is situational awareness. Other applications are secondary. It turns out that many value this feature and some don’t, but there seems to be little doubt that the ARNAV unit improves situational awareness for many pilots.
You can vote with your wallet as to whether you value Cirrus’ innovations (as Joe has done), but there is no doubt that they achieved their primary objective with this unit.
Well put, Dean.
My criticism as not been of Arnav, for the reasons you cite. My criticism has been of Cirrus for not recognizing what you do and not dumping the Arnav in favor of a system with more potential, like UPSAT’s or Avidyne’s. Or at least offering the option of deleting the Arnav for more panel space so owners can install what they want. (Or, like other manufacturers, offer factory-installed display options - though I concede that might drive up price and slow down production.)
Joe
I would love for ARNAV to do all the things people are suggesting {sectionals, detailed Terrain, approach charts]. However after e-mailing UPS over the last year to find out about their new ChartView software and how it was coming, I am left with an impression that THESE KIND OF CHANGES ARE NOT EASY.
UPS devoted a great deal of resources to their apps, and BTW, do so under the umbrella of R&D for their entire jet fleet. They are huge! My sense is the kind of things we are hoping for are very difficult, require tremendous resources, and last time I looked, are not market-driven.
My MX20 can go into almost any panel, anywhere. Not so the ARNAV. So I don’t think it is reasonable to expect they can generate the resources to add the features people are hoping they will.
It seems they are focusing on glass-cockpit technology, with their PFD, and for good reason. There will be a market for all-glass in the future, and they can get in on the ground floor of that. But devote thousands of manhours to give us approach plates? Why? Will that many more people go out and buy the unit for that? No. The same people will by it, namely CD. And they already do buy it.
The point of all of this is, if you want all of those things like Sectionals, Terrain, Approach plates, you better figure out how to rip out your ARNAV, because I don’t think it’s coming anytime soon. Otherwise, enjoy the large screen and stop dreaming of things that will not come.
Well put, Dean.
My criticism as not been of Arnav, for the reasons you cite. My criticism has been of Cirrus for not recognizing what you do and not dumping the Arnav in favor of a system with more potential, like UPSAT’s or Avidyne’s. Or at least offering the option of deleting the Arnav for more panel space so owners can install what they want. (Or, like other manufacturers, offer factory-installed display options - though I concede that might drive up price and slow down production.)
Joe
Joe, The Avidyne is not STCed yet. Nor are many of the others. Would you have Cirrus stop production and move to something that is not approved yet, and may be never approved? They choose the best available at the time they started and I’m glad they went with the ARNAV. After 110 hours of using it, I can tell you that it does what it was intended to do.
ARNAV deserves more credit than they get. It takes about $500,000 to add each new feature by the time you get it approved by the FAA. The UPS is nice, but too small. Track up is not going to happen with sectionals for a long time, and that is what you really need flying. I hate reading upside down.
Joe, have you used the ARNAV with “Track-Up?”
Denis
It is well established that Cirrus chose ARNAV as a key component of their effort to innovate in the areas of safety and ease-of-use. In other words, the main reason the ARNAV is standard in the panel is situational awareness. Other applications are secondary. It turns out that many value this feature and some don’t, but there seems to be little doubt that the ARNAV unit improves situational awareness for many pilots.
Of course it does! And I concede that it’s plenty “good enough” (or will be when they get the database cleaned up and the software glitches worked out).
But I thought Cirrus’ new paradigm for GA is that “good enough” (as in Cessna, Piper, etc.) isn’t good enough. Or is it, as some have suggested, that the new wave of GA pilots will be too technically naïve to want “better”?
By that I don’t mean Cirrus is trying to hoodwink or shortchange anyone; I just think they may be misreading the market. GA aircraft are toys, pure and simple. They make little sense either in terms of cost, convenience, or reliability. (E.g., My wife and I are flying to New Orleans in September – not in my TB20 (though it could make it non-stop) but on a $100 round trip fare on United which, even for two people, is way cheaper than taking the Trinidad and much more reliable.) So if someone is going to buy a toy, I’ll bet they’ll want to toy with it, and add more toys to it. I think Cirrus is making a mistake by not allowing for that.
Come on, just how hard could it be to certify a blank hole as an option? (Okay, perhaps they’d have to engineer some standard avionics racks to fill the space and perhaps some cooling. Is that such a big deal?) Then they’d have the best of both worlds: A Macintosh for the [postulated] new wave of GA enthusiasts, and a PC for the established customer base.
Joe
But I thought Cirrus’ new paradigm for GA is that “good enough” (as in Cessna, Piper, etc.) isn’t good enough. Or is it, as some have suggested, that the new wave of GA pilots will be too technically naïve to want “better”?
I think the problem is that the top bananas at Cirrus (i.e. the Klapmeier brothers) are comfortable and experienced with airframes, but not with computer technology. Look at their web site for example - no doubt they paid a fair bit for it, but clearly no-one at Cirrus was prepared to stand up and say “the Emperor has no clothes”. It’s glossy but functions poorly.
The same is true of the avionics - while they made the decision early on to have a large display in the panel, that’s where the innovation ended. The choice of the excellent Garmin 430 GPS was only made after Trimble pulled the plug, not because of any pro-active selection of the best available gear.
Cirrus desperately needs someone at VP level to take charge of the avionics and apply some vision. Notwithstanding their priority to get manufacturering under control, waiting to start addressing the avionics will only make the process more painful.
But I thought Cirrus’ new paradigm for GA is that “good enough” (as in Cessna, Piper, etc.) isn’t good enough. Or is it, as some have suggested, that the new wave of GA pilots will be too technically naïve to want “better”?
I think the problem is that the top bananas at Cirrus (i.e. the Klapmeier brothers) are comfortable and experienced with airframes, but not with computer technology. Look at their web site for example - no doubt they paid a fair bit for it, but clearly no-one at Cirrus was prepared to stand up and say “the Emperor has no clothes”. It’s glossy but functions poorly.
The same is true of the avionics - while they made the decision early on to have a large display in the panel, that’s where the innovation ended. The choice of the excellent Garmin 430 GPS was only made after Trimble pulled the plug, not because of any pro-active selection of the best available gear.
Cirrus desperately needs someone at VP level to take charge of the avionics and apply some vision. Notwithstanding their priority to get manufacturering under control, waiting to start addressing the avionics will only make the process more painful.
Clyde, how many hours do you have flying with the Cirrus avionics package?
Denis
Clyde: Precisely! That is exactly what is needed. While I am VERY excited to be getting my SR22, especially since I do feel that it’s the best choice out there, the avionics are becoming a weak spot.
Every time a product area is touched by computers, it suddenly changes dramatically and quickly evolves. It’s aviation’s turn now.
If the Klapmeier’s really want to usher in the next age of flying, then indeed they do need a visionary chief nerd.
For people rooted in the traditional world of general aviation, they have seen through it’s flaws and created an amazing plane. But, they are flyers, not nerds. This product needs both types in order to grow and succeed.
But I thought Cirrus’ new paradigm for GA is that “good enough” (as in Cessna, Piper, etc.) isn’t good enough. Or is it, as some have suggested, that the new wave of GA pilots will be too technically naïve to want “better”?
I think the problem is that the top bananas at Cirrus (i.e. the Klapmeier brothers) are comfortable and experienced with airframes, but not with computer technology. Look at their web site for example - no doubt they paid a fair bit for it, but clearly no-one at Cirrus was prepared to stand up and say “the Emperor has no clothes”. It’s glossy but functions poorly.
The same is true of the avionics - while they made the decision early on to have a large display in the panel, that’s where the innovation ended. The choice of the excellent Garmin 430 GPS was only made after Trimble pulled the plug, not because of any pro-active selection of the best available gear.
Cirrus desperately needs someone at VP level to take charge of the avionics and apply some vision. Notwithstanding their priority to get manufacturering under control, waiting to start addressing the avionics will only make the process more painful.
Clyde, how many hours do you have flying with the Cirrus avionics package?
Haven’t counted them up, but probably about 150 or so.
Clyde