ARNAV display: to be, or not to be?

Guest Discussion
1

Hi all,

I’ve been following the glass panel discussion. I had a demo flight in the Cirrus recently and found the Arnav display to be quite adequate, though the blue SUA boundaries were very difficult to see on a bright day wearing sunglasses. But I am being seduced by the various ads for the display in the Lancair, the Avidine display mentioned in an earlier post (http://www.avidyne.com/440.htm), and even the Apollo MX20 (http://www.upsat.com/mx20des.html).

The chief selling points of the Cirrus is that it is a thoroughly modern aircraft which takes full advantage of cutting edge technology.

The chief feature of the Cirrus panel is the main display, currently supplied by Arnav. Bruce Gunter from Cirrus told me that the Arnav was a better display than most people think, and that many advancements are in the works. He also said that Arnav did not advertise as aggressively as other maunfacturers and that has led to a perception that they’re losing their edge. Maybe so, but doesn’t perception count for a lot? (Especially since we high-number position holders spend a lot of time drooling over glossy ads while we wait for delivery).

And I have many questions about the “in the works” improvements Arnav supposedly has up its sleeve. For example: Will the Arnav ever be able to display digitized charts or vector images (like the MX20)? How “improvable” is it? (In other words, what are the inherent display limitations?) Etc.

I think Cirrus should insist that Arnav be more forthcoming about its display. I also think it would be a very serious mistake for Cirrus to abandon it’s “cutting edge” image by sticking with an outdated display (if that’s what the Arnav proves to be).

Now, I recognize that it doesn’t take very long for avionics to get “outdated” these days. I also recognize that Cirrus must be concerned about a manufacturer’s ability to deliver in volume, etc. But let me propose a solution: Allow the buyer to specify the type of display to be installed, or whether to have any installed at all (so an after-market product can be added later).

The advantages of such a scheme would be to allow buyers to get the latest product they can afford and which suits their tastes.

The disadvantages would be increased production time (unless no display is specified). (I don’t thing certification would be an issue since the Arnav display is clearly labled as a non-navigational device, to be used for general reference only.)

However, I’m sure that this is not as simple as it seems and perhaps a “single size fits all” approach is essential to production economy and efficiency. But let’s just make sure that we get the very best “single size” available.

Joe

2

Joe,

I think I couldn’t have said it better. I would add one thought though. The fact that this issue with the ARNAV screen is coming up so often indicates that this product is not really what customers would aim for. For CD to stubbornly try to convince the buyers that the ARNAV screen after all is not such a poor product is not the best way to tackle this “problem”.

This screen seems to be an issue and CD better takes this seriously. It’s not even considered a primary navigation device. I venture to say that many customers won’t even spend additional thousands of dollars for newly available features (9k for the stormscope to begin with), so many of us will remain with a big screen having a check list and a not too reliable nav database. Is this really worth the money.

I am an advocate of Marty’s proposal of having a big 530 right in front of you and a backup 430 below. This would put the primary avionics right in front of your eyes, whereas now you would have to look down if you want to follow those screen. I am not an IFR pilot but my instinct tells me that looking down during some choppy IFR does not reduce stress.

This is just my opinion and I am willing to learn from more experienced pilots. Maybe our flying colleagues could tell us if they’d prefer to have their main avionics placed right in front of their eyes.

Placido

Hi all,

I’ve been following the glass panel discussion. I had a demo flight in the Cirrus recently and found the Arnav display to be quite adequate, though the blue SUA boundaries were very difficult to see on a bright day wearing sunglasses. But I am being seduced by the various ads for the display in the Lancair, the Avidine display mentioned in an earlier post (http://www.avidyne.com/440.htm), and even the Apollo MX20 (http://www.upsat.com/mx20des.html).

The chief selling points of the Cirrus is that it is a thoroughly modern aircraft which takes full advantage of cutting edge technology.

The chief feature of the Cirrus panel is the main display, currently supplied by Arnav. Bruce Gunter from Cirrus told me that the Arnav was a better display than most people think, and that many advancements are in the works. He also said that Arnav did not advertise as aggressively as other maunfacturers and that has led to a perception that they’re losing their edge. Maybe so, but doesn’t perception count for a lot? (Especially since we high-number position holders spend a lot of time drooling over glossy ads while we wait for delivery).

And I have many questions about the “in the works” improvements Arnav supposedly has up its sleeve. For example: Will the Arnav ever be able to display digitized charts or vector images (like the MX20)? How “improvable” is it? (In other words, what are the inherent display limitations?) Etc.

I think Cirrus should insist that Arnav be more forthcoming about its display. I also think it would be a very serious mistake for Cirrus to abandon it’s “cutting edge” image by sticking with an outdated display (if that’s what the Arnav proves to be).

Now, I recognize that it doesn’t take very long for avionics to get “outdated” these days. I also recognize that Cirrus must be concerned about a manufacturer’s ability to deliver in volume, etc. But let me propose a solution: Allow the buyer to specify the type of display to be installed, or whether to have any installed at all (so an after-market product can be added later).

The advantages of such a scheme would be to allow buyers to get the latest product they can afford and which suits their tastes.

The disadvantages would be increased production time (unless no display is specified). (I don’t thing certification would be an issue since the Arnav display is clearly labled as a non-navigational device, to be used for general reference only.)

However, I’m sure that this is not as simple as it seems and perhaps a “single size fits all” approach is essential to production economy and efficiency. But let’s just make sure that we get the very best “single size” available.

Joe

3

I was thinking of starting a thread just like this one. I have done almost ZERO research into the different MFD’s available, however some of the other displays seem much more capable with a better display. (Like UPS)I am thinking they are able to display more colors and higher resolution. If this is true then the limitation is the display panel itself and not the software. I like the idea of having engine monitoring on the panel and the bigger you can display the map for situational awareness the better! I think I heard that the mapping on the Arnav showing your position in relation to the real world is off. WHY? This is GPS. From the little I know, it doesn’t appear that Arnav offers the best MFD for our plane.

David Raab

Hi all,

I’ve been following the glass panel discussion. I had a demo flight in the Cirrus recently and found the Arnav display to be quite adequate, though the blue SUA boundaries were very difficult to see on a bright day wearing sunglasses. But I am being seduced by the various ads for the display in the Lancair, the Avidine display mentioned in an earlier post (http://www.avidyne.com/440.htm), and even the Apollo MX20 (http://www.upsat.com/mx20des.html).

The chief selling points of the Cirrus is that it is a thoroughly modern aircraft which takes full advantage of cutting edge technology.

The chief feature of the Cirrus panel is the main display, currently supplied by Arnav. Bruce Gunter from Cirrus told me that the Arnav was a better display than most people think, and that many advancements are in the works. He also said that Arnav did not advertise as aggressively as other maunfacturers and that has led to a perception that they’re losing their edge. Maybe so, but doesn’t perception count for a lot? (Especially since we high-number position holders spend a lot of time drooling over glossy ads while we wait for delivery).

And I have many questions about the “in the works” improvements Arnav supposedly has up its sleeve. For example: Will the Arnav ever be able to display digitized charts or vector images (like the MX20)? How “improvable” is it? (In other words, what are the inherent display limitations?) Etc.

I think Cirrus should insist that Arnav be more forthcoming about its display. I also think it would be a very serious mistake for Cirrus to abandon it’s “cutting edge” image by sticking with an outdated display (if that’s what the Arnav proves to be).

Now, I recognize that it doesn’t take very long for avionics to get “outdated” these days. I also recognize that Cirrus must be concerned about a manufacturer’s ability to deliver in volume, etc. But let me propose a solution: Allow the buyer to specify the type of display to be installed, or whether to have any installed at all (so an after-market product can be added later).

The advantages of such a scheme would be to allow buyers to get the latest product they can afford and which suits their tastes.

The disadvantages would be increased production time (unless no display is specified). (I don’t thing certification would be an issue since the Arnav display is clearly labled as a non-navigational device, to be used for general reference only.)

However, I’m sure that this is not as simple as it seems and perhaps a “single size fits all” approach is essential to production economy and efficiency. But let’s just make sure that we get the very best “single size” available.

Joe

4

I hadn’t visited the official CD site for a while, so I don’t know how long this screen shot has been there. BUT they have a revised shot of the ARNAV display that has more detail than before, and also seems to show some stormscope-type data. Here’s the link:

http://www.cirrusdesign.com/images/Arnav%20screen%20w%20strikes%20fs.gif

5

No one seems to know the fact that, ARNAV ICDS 2000 is an optional upgrade for most of the first 100 or so orders. Maybe we all should tell Cirrus that we are not going to upgrade for almost $4200 from the smaller screen to the bigger screen, so that we may have a bigger CHECKLIST. What is all the other features that CD promised for ARNAV. Stormscope, not available for “A” and too expenssive for others. Engine monitoring not available after several years, CD blames ARNAV and ARNAV blames CD. Where does that leave us, paying customers. Datalink, no. So, all this big screen is good for on the “A” model is checklists and a moving map that when we didn’t have GNS430s was a big deal, now so what? On the “B” and “C” you get stormscope, if you pay an arm and two legs. I am thinking of not paying for the upgrade and taking the smaller ARNAV and then adding my own GNS530 later.

On other issues, CD advertised base airplane “A” as a modern IFR airplane. I can’t get backup NAV with “A” unless I spend a lot of money to go to “C” which is the only way I can have backup ILS. Even 1960s Cessna 172s have backup ILS. Backup alternator, no you have to upgrade to “B” or “C”. The deal is “A” is priced to get us in the door and hooked and then ripped off with upgrades like “B” or “C”

Why don’t you CD guys (I know you all read this forum, including I hope my messages) listen to us, your customers, we want backup IFR equipment in the base “A” model. Everyone who is ordering “A” is getting Altitude hold, so make altitude hold standard and offer a second GNS430 as an option. What do you got to lose, or would you lose all your “B” and “C” upgrades. The only reason people are going to “B” and “C” is for the GNS420/430. Very few people care about spending $30K to get HSI. when we can get much nicer/better equipment for far less money. Look out the window, there is a lot of technology out there.

I will whine some more later. Thanks for listening.

6

No one seems to know the fact that, ARNAV ICDS 2000 is an optional upgrade for most of the first 100 or so orders. Maybe we all should tell Cirrus that we are not going to upgrade for almost $4200 from the smaller screen to the bigger screen, so that we may have a bigger CHECKLIST. What is all the other features that CD promised for ARNAV. Stormscope, not available for “A” and too expenssive for others. Engine monitoring not available after several years, CD blames ARNAV and ARNAV blames CD. Where does that leave us, paying customers. Datalink, no. So, all this big screen is good for on the “A” model is checklists and a moving map that when we didn’t have GNS430s was a big deal, now so what? On the “B” and “C” you get stormscope, if you pay an arm and two legs. I am thinking of not paying for the upgrade and taking the smaller ARNAV and then adding my own GNS530 later.

On other issues, CD advertised base airplane “A” as a modern IFR airplane. I can’t get backup NAV with “A” unless I spend a lot of money to go to “C” which is the only way I can have backup ILS. Even 1960s Cessna 172s have backup ILS. Backup alternator, no you have to upgrade to “B” or “C”. The deal is “A” is priced to get us in the door and hooked and then ripped off with upgrades like “B” or “C”

Why don’t you CD guys (I know you all read this forum, including I hope my messages) listen to us, your customers, we want backup IFR equipment in the base “A” model. Everyone who is ordering “A” is getting Altitude hold, so make altitude hold standard and offer a second GNS430 as an option. What do you got to lose, or would you lose all your “B” and “C” upgrades. The only reason people are going to “B” and “C” is for the GNS420/430. Very few people care about spending $30K to get HSI. when we can get much nicer/better equipment for far less money. Look out the window, there is a lot of technology out there.

I will whine some more later. Thanks for listening.

Well, at least you’re consistent…

Ignoring the they-ripped-us-off-with-the-big-screen-upgrade thread, which has been beaten to death in various incarnations of this forum over the last two years, I think you’re off base about what level of redundancy to expect with the A avionics. Firstly, no 172 that I’ve ever seen has dual ILSs. Dual VORs, yes, but not dual GS receivers. A backup GPS/COM has much more utility than a backup VOR receiver, so you’ll only be burned if your 430 goes up in smoke and the bad guys are jamming GPS. Yes, the 250 is VFR-only, but if you’re really worried about getting busted for using it on an approach, declare an emergency first and don’t sweat it.

You also cannot add a second NAV of any flavor without upgrading to an HSI, as there’s no place to put the second CDI head. (My lowly KX-125 has an LCD CDI on the face, but most NAVs don’t.)

When’s the last time you saw an entry-level aircraft with two-axis autopilot and dual alternators and all the redundancy you want? It costs money, buy it. VFR-only (and coastal California IFR) pilots don’t need that kind of heavy redundancy and don’t need to pay for it. Look at how an entry-level new 172 is equipped.

If you think you’re getting a raw deal, sell the position for a tidy profit and buy something else.

It’s not perfect, as much as we’d all like it to be, but it’s a heck of a lot closer than most airplanes.

Sigh.

7

Reza said,

we want backup IFR equipment in the base “A” model.

I disagree. The ‘A’ model is aimed at VFR or mostly-VFR operations. It would be pointless for Cirrus to sell only planes with redundant IFR equipment, since that would mean some customers would be paying for gear they didn’t want or need.

The cost of upgrades seems high, it’s certainly a lot more than the list price of the extra equipment installed, but I don’t think Cirrus are any different to any other manufacturer in that regard.

By all means buy a bare-bones plane and fit it after-market with whatever else you want. You will probably end up with more capability at less money than buying a ‘C’ model, but you will have some work to do, downtime etc.

The bottom line is that the SR20 airframe is good value compared to what else you can get. The avionics are expensive, like they always are. By getting factory fitted avionics you pay extra for the convenience, and the peace-of-mind in knowing the installation is properly done and fully certified. It’s up to you to judge the trade-off.

For example, my partners and I ordered the ‘B’ model, with the second alternator, to provide IFR redundancy, but the extra cost of the second ILS and the fancy autopilot we judged excessive. We also opted for the Stormscope, even though the cost is significantly more than it could be fitted after-market, because it was easier. OTOH, there was no way we were going to order the ADF/DME/2nd ALT package at $15000 or whatever it is just to get an ADF. This will be fitted after we get the plane, if at all.

If I lived on the US east coast, the ‘C’ model with dual ILS would be well worth considering, here in Oz it’s not. Horses for courses.

8

No one seems to know the fact that, ARNAV ICDS 2000 is an optional upgrade for most of the first 100 or so orders. Maybe we all should tell Cirrus that we are not going to upgrade for almost $4200 from the smaller screen to the bigger screen, so that we may have a bigger CHECKLIST. What is all the other features that CD promised for ARNAV. Stormscope, not available for “A” and too expenssive for others. Engine monitoring not available after several years, CD blames ARNAV and ARNAV blames CD. Where does that leave us, paying customers. Datalink, no. So, all this big screen is good for on the “A” model is checklists and a moving map that when we didn’t have GNS430s was a big deal, now so what? On the “B” and “C” you get stormscope, if you pay an arm and two legs. I am thinking of not paying for the upgrade and taking the smaller ARNAV and then adding my own GNS530 later.

On other issues, CD advertised base airplane “A” as a modern IFR airplane. I can’t get backup NAV with “A” unless I spend a lot of money to go to “C” which is the only way I can have backup ILS. Even 1960s Cessna 172s have backup ILS. Backup alternator, no you have to upgrade to “B” or “C”. The deal is “A” is priced to get us in the door and hooked and then ripped off with upgrades like “B” or “C”

Why don’t you CD guys (I know you all read this forum, including I hope my messages) listen to us, your customers, we want backup IFR equipment in the base “A” model. Everyone who is ordering “A” is getting Altitude hold, so make altitude hold standard and offer a second GNS430 as an option. What do you got to lose, or would you lose all your “B” and “C” upgrades. The only reason people are going to “B” and “C” is for the GNS420/430. Very few people care about spending $30K to get HSI. when we can get much nicer/better equipment for far less money. Look out the window, there is a lot of technology out there.

I will whine some more later. Thanks for
listening.

I sure hope those CD guys are listening!!!

9

I am not saying they should include backup IFR equipment in the base price. They should it offer this equipment as options without forcing big upgrades. How about an option for a second 430 for the “A” package. Also, what good does 10.4" of screen do for moving map and checklists. Where is wheather data link, engine monitoring, and stormscope for the “A” package. CD touted ARNAV as the MAJOR thing for sr20. Well, it’s anything but the MAJOR thing. Would you agree that now the 430 is more important than the ARNAV in the SR20

10

Dave … you’re right on track. I know this topic as been given a lot of “ink”, but what the heck … However, I will not touch the ARNAV screen issue as there are a number of companies positioning themselves to be “THE” MFD company … oh well.

The topic that seems to be one that most people are struggling with is what do I do when it comes to my turn to pick A vs. B vs. C. This topic will always be interesting and one to which there is no “right” answer. Everyone has to decide the degree of risk he or she is willing to take when flying. How much money does it take to eliminate or mitigate certain risks and does it make economic sense.

As many of you know I ordered the ‘A’ package that includes a VFR 250XL GPS. BTW, I do use the 250XL even though its operation is somewhat different from the 430. However, at the time I made my choice I concluded that it was not worth the difference in price to go with the ‘B’ or ‘C’ package. While I file and fly IFR frequently, I would like to have had the option of installing a second IFR Nav/Com unit. The problem was (and I believe still is) that you have to have a second CDI, which is the reason for the HIS & CDI combination. It is also the requirement for the second CDI that drives the price for ‘B’ up so much more than just simply adding a second IFR GPS.

The biggest weakness in the Cirrus, in my humble opinion, is the absence of a second power source Â… dual alternators available on the ‘C’ model solves that problem. Therefore, I should have gone for the ‘C’ model, but for me money was an object and, in my view, did not make economic sense for the little risk I was taking.

My rationale for the ‘A’ model hinged on assessment of the risk at the time of failure.

VACUUM - If I lost vacuum there is a back up, which is a wonder of engineering, which I have talked about before Â… I’ve had TWO in flight vacuum failures. In addition, the loss of vacuum notwithstanding the back up, I have an electrical rate-based autopilot. The autopilot has a wing leveling mode, which can be used to assist in a “no-gyro” approach. In fact, in my former Grumman Tiger equipped with an STEC 50 (same as today’s STEC 30) autopilot, I lost vacuum inbound to Detroit Metro in the soup. I informed ATC of the problem and asked for a “no-gryo” approach Â… landed without incident. Unfortunately, it cost three tons of cash to replace the vacuum pump at DTW! If the same situation were to happen in a Cirrus, the electrical vacuum pump would automatically kick in with the only indication being an “idiot light” on the panel lighting up. AND, if that failed I would resort to using the rate based auto pilot like I did in the Tiger. The key here is to know an understand your systems and how you use them in the event of a failure. The lost of vacuum is not a problem in the Cirrus.

ELECTRICAL - The lost of electrical is more problematic for me. Losing electrical can be a real problem. In the Cirrus there is a panel light that lights up indicating “low volts”, which generally will mean that you have lost your alternator. At the first indication of a failure I am headed to the first available airport Â… no ifs ands or buts. Clearly, the differences between the Cirrus (‘A’ or ‘B’ models) and most other SEL planes is not that great in that most do not have dual alternators. However, with the Cirrus the engineers have designed the circuit breakers that allow you to isolate “essential” circuit breaker sections thereby allow you to quickly cut power consumption. If the failure happens in the soup, quick notice to ATC and landing is the best option. The question you have to ask yourself is how often do you put yourself into a situation where you are surrounded by critically low IFR ceilings or hazardous terrain from which you need more “power” than is available from a fully charged battery. A back up plan would be to have a strong hand radio and/or GPS unit available for just such emergencies. Loss of an alternator in IMC is a case where I would PAN ATC without hesitation Â… worry about paper work, if there is any, later.

Having now flown nearly 300 hours in the SR20 would I make the same decision again Â… maybe. Today, current position holders have or soon will have a number of other options available to them and the decision making process gets tougher. If had to choose what I want I would chose dual IFR certified GPS Nav/Coms, but would NOT choose the HSI despite the fact that I had flown with one for well over 1,000 hours Â…. it is just not needed. The problem is how to get the second CDI Â… I am not sure if one CDI could be “switched” manually from GPS 1 to GPS 2 or not. I would choose the GNS 420 as the second GPS instead of the 250XL.

Sorry it is so long and I hope that helps those of you that still have to make some tough decisions. Good Luck.

11

I am not saying they should include backup IFR equipment in the base price. They should it offer this equipment as options without forcing big upgrades. How about an option for a second 430 for the “A” package. Also, what good does 10.4" of screen do for moving map and checklists. Where is wheather data link, engine monitoring, and stormscope for the “A” package. CD touted ARNAV as the MAJOR thing for sr20. Well, it’s anything but the MAJOR thing. Would you agree that now the 430 is more important than the ARNAV in the SR20

As I mentioned, a second 430 would require upgrading to an HSI because of panel space limitations (separate rant) and the stormscope would require an HSI for the heading output.

Having flown a few times in the SR20 with the ARNAV/430 combo, they really serve separate functions. The big screen really is useful if only for a moving map. And don’t overestimate the size of a 530–it’s only about 4.5x6 inches total and the map real estate is probably more like 4x4. A marketeer would call this a 5.6" map (4*sqrt(2)) but any way you cut it the 530’s map is still a heck of a lot smaller than the ARNAV.

It would be nice if the ARNAV were spiffier (or something spiffier was available) but IMHO the ARNAV is still useful even if it only had a moving map.

12

Hi Walt,

VERY nice commentary. It’s great to hear from someone who actually owns and flys a Cirrus.

BTW, are you SURE you won’t touch the Arnav issue? Aw, come on, at least tell us if you find it useful.

Cheers,

Joe

13

Walt, let me echo general sentiments of thanks for these detailed discussions. On both the things you like and the areas where you’re having problems, this is invaluable to the wannabe horde. I hope as the tribe of owners expands so does the supply of this first-hand operational info.

I understand and agree with your point about a backup electrical system being THE crucial safety question (considering that backup vacuum system is already built in). But as I read the current Cirrus price list, a dual alternator system is available for the comparatively-trivial cost of $2400. Or at least as it’s listed, it’s available as an upgrade to the B configuration, without going all the way to C. Two things I wonder:

  • Is there a technical reason why CD couldn’t offer this as an A level upgrade too? If they’d work on the A, I think they’d be very popular.

  • By the logic you presented – electrical vulnerability being the main safety issue – wouldn’t this argue that for serious IFR’ers, the B airplane plus dual alts would be the best value?

Thanks, Jim F

14

Loss of an alternator in IMC is a case where I would PAN ATC without hesitation Â… worry about paper work, if there is any, later.

Walt, somewhat off the subject…

For paperwork to be generated, ATC would have to inform FSDO. As a general rule of thumb, the only three reasons that ATC would contact FSDO about a particular operation would be a loss of required separation that was a result of a pilot deviation, a blatant violation of the FARs (and I stress blatant), or a NTSB Part 830 aircraft incident.

An aircraft that declares an emergency but does not fall into the above categories gets entered into the ATC “Daily Operations Log” only if that aircraft is a Common Air Carrier or if the aircraft operation is a “news-worthy event”.

A GA aircraft that declares an emergency because of a electrical/vacuum failure that does not crater into the runway will not hear anything from the tower other than “everything OK?” after you land.

I only mention this because it has been my experience that some GA guys/gals are reluctant to use the magic “E” word because of a notion that it results in a paperwork and oversight nightmare. When the chips are falling, use the system to your advantage.

Off my soapbox…

Rick.

15

Aw, come on, at least tell us if you find it useful.

ARNAV works fine. Nice screen for airspace (class b, c, etc), but there are products that are more aggressive and appear to be responding to the market place better than ARNAV. Time will shake out this issue.

There I did it. Damned with faint praise!

16

Walt wrote:

there are products that are more aggressive and appear to be responding to the market place better than ARNAV.

I found out a couple of things recently about the ARNAV/Cirrus relationship that shed some light on this issue of market perception. The engine monitoring matter has already been discussed, but it turns out that Cirrus signed a deal with ARNAV way back that guaranteed Cirrus an exclusive on the ICDS2000 through the first year of SR20 production.

With 20/20 hindsight, this has had the unfortunate side-effect of stalling development on the software for the panel, since with only one customer for it, and significant delays in that one customer getting their aircraft into production (and therefore buying panels) ARNAV had to look to other products to generate revenue, and was prevented from offering their panel to e.g. Lancair, or indeed any other manufacturer.

That deal presumably runs out in July this year, so we may see ARNAV getting more aggressive, though they still have the problem that the big screen has limited scope for aftermarket fitment, and there are only so many new-build aircraft manufacturers out there.

However, even the prospect of selling 600++ panels to Cirrus over the next couple of years must get ARNAV’s attention, especially if Cirrus will also be free to look at other products.

17

I will add one more thing that really frosts me about the ARNAV database. It is wrong and despite the fact that I reported the database errors NOTHING has been done by ARNAV. The ARNAV displays the terrain peaks from ARNAV’s database. There are at least two mountain peaks that do not exist in the database, and I suspect there are likely more, and ARNAV has done nothing to correct the database or advise their customers. One example is the phantom peak of 12,347 ft just outside of Salinas, CA … NOT THERE. I suspect it was a “finger” check when entering data. That kind of sloppy work when the product is used in aviation is just plain POOR! Admittedly, the ARNAV screen is “for reference only” and not to be used for approaches, it frosts me nonetheless.

The point is that ARNAV may well have been sitting on their collective OKOLEs (Hawaiian), but I hope they get the message and put some R&D into expanding the usefulness of their product.

WOW! I do feel better.

18

There are at least two mountain peaks that do not exist in the database<

Walt, I THINK this is clear from context, but could you please resolve an ambiguity? The sentence above could mean two exactly-opposite things:

  1. That peaks exist in nature but are not contained in the ARNAV database. (Subject of sentence = “two mountain peaks”; predicate = “do not exist in the data base”)

  2. That the database contains and displays peaks that do not in fact exist. (Subject of sentence = “two mountain peaks that do not exist”; predicate = "are in the database)

Your mention of the phantom Mt. Salinas makes me think you mean #2. CORRECT? Number two would be an annoyance, while #1 could be disastrous. Just wanting to be sure. (“Ground, confirming clearance to cross runway 13.”) Thanks, jf

19

Let me be clear. The ARNAV database contains data that is incorrect. The Salinas terrain peak is listed as 12,437 and I suspect it should be 2,437. Someone did a “finger check” and NO ONE CAUGHT IT! That makes me wonder how many more there are. I know there is another one in the LA basin, but cannot be as specific. It too is a terrain peak that shows in the database as higher than it actually is. Where is there quality control? Why haven’t they responded to something that is clearly wrong and reasonably easy to fix?

20

Let me be clear. The ARNAV database contains data that is incorrect. The Salinas terrain peak is listed as 12,437 and I suspect it should be 2,437. Someone did a “finger check” and NO ONE CAUGHT IT! That makes me wonder how many more there are. I know there is another one in the LA basin, but cannot be as specific. It too is a terrain peak that shows in the database as higher than it actually is. Where is there quality control? Why haven’t they responded to something that is clearly wrong and reasonably easy to fix?

My sense of this is that it is becoming a “catch 22”.

Not enough owners of the unit to make such things worthwhile. Yet not addressing such an issue only makes the product less desireable. (less customers). The more folks who use this unit and provide feedback, the more likely it will be improved upon.