what are they (if anything) "rolling out"
@ OSH this year? Anything exciting?
Any upgrades to the 396 I should know
about b4 purchasing?......thanx!!!

richard
colorado
c172rg / 2V2

Dunno about exciting, but I just downloaded the latest operating system
yesterday on the 296, ver 4.2, and then down loaded a fresh database...
Upon restart the box cheerfully announced that it has NO terrain
database to be found... hmmm, durned gremlins...

Called Garmin, the tech allowed as how he had never heard of that
one... We downloaded a fresh $150 terrain database on Garmin's nickle
and all is well in Mudville tonight... Ya gotta be careful when you
depend upon boxes that run on magic smoke... If the magic leaks out on
a dark and stormy night you are in trouble...

denny

Or in IMC.... on our trip back from Michigan I needed to shoot the GPS 3
into STE, so I loaded it up in the KLN94 and thought I'd follow along on my
FlightPrep system on my laptop. So I switched from the XM weather page to
the approach plate but was still too far out for the little magic airplane
to appear on the plate. Ok, switch back to the XM weather just to make sure
we'd be on the north side of the approaching thunderstorms, yep, plenty of
room to get around them... switch back to the approach plate.....

You guessed it.... crash... darn Microsoft... so I had to put the toys
away, get serious, and fly the approach "for real". So, until the plates
come in an affordable panel mount system, there will always be paper in my
airplane.

Jim


"Denny" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Dunno about exciting, but I just downloaded the latest operating system
> yesterday on the 296, ver 4.2, and then down loaded a fresh database...
> Upon restart the box cheerfully announced that it has NO terrain
> database to be found... hmmm, durned gremlins...
>
> Called Garmin, the tech allowed as how he had never heard of that
> one... We downloaded a fresh $150 terrain database on Garmin's nickle
> and all is well in Mudville tonight... Ya gotta be careful when you
> depend upon boxes that run on magic smoke... If the magic leaks out on
> a dark and stormy night you are in trouble...
>
> denny
>

wrote:
> what are they (if anything) "rolling out"
> @ OSH this year? Anything exciting?
> Any upgrades to the 396 I should know
> about b4 purchasing?......thanx!!!

Yea, if you have any insider information why don't you post it on the
usenet. We won't tell anyone.

-Robert

In article >,
"Jim Burns" > wrote:

> Or in IMC.... on our trip back from Michigan I needed to shoot the GPS 3
> into STE, so I loaded it up in the KLN94 and thought I'd follow along on my
> FlightPrep system on my laptop. So I switched from the XM weather page to
> the approach plate but was still too far out for the little magic airplane
> to appear on the plate. Ok, switch back to the XM weather just to make sure
> we'd be on the north side of the approaching thunderstorms, yep, plenty of
> room to get around them... switch back to the approach plate.....
>
> You guessed it.... crash... darn Microsoft... so I had to put the toys
> away, get serious, and fly the approach "for real". So, until the plates
> come in an affordable panel mount system, there will always be paper in my
> airplane.


Though I'm not Windows fan, I believe that Avidyne and others use
Windows as the foundation for their avionics systems. However, they
strip out all of the junk that normally accumulates on a PC and are left
with a fairly stable (and hardened) system. I suspect that you could
approach that level of reliability if you did the same--stripped the
system of everything but the FlightPrep, WxWorx, etc. But then, that
would remove most of the non-aviation utility from the system.




JKG

In article >,
Jonathan Goodish > wrote:

> Though I'm not Windows fan, I believe that Avidyne and others use
> Windows as the foundation for their avionics systems.

I don't believe that Avidyne uses windows in any form for their PFD
or MFD products.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

In article >,
Bob Noel > wrote:
> In article >,
> Jonathan Goodish > wrote:
>
> > Though I'm not Windows fan, I believe that Avidyne and others use
> > Windows as the foundation for their avionics systems.
>
> I don't believe that Avidyne uses windows in any form for their PFD
> or MFD products.


If they don't, it must have been a recent change. It has been a poorly
kept secret over the years that the Avidyne systems run a stripped-down
version of Windows. I believe the same is true for the MX20, though I'm
not sure how much for the MX20 Garmin retained in the new GMX200.



JKG

In article >,
Jonathan Goodish > wrote:

> > > Though I'm not Windows fan, I believe that Avidyne and others use
> > > Windows as the foundation for their avionics systems.
> >
> > I don't believe that Avidyne uses windows in any form for their PFD
> > or MFD products.
>
> If they don't, it must have been a recent change.

It had to be when they went from simply a situational awareness display
to a PFD. No way is any certified PFD going to be running any form
of windows - you simply can't meet DO-178B Level B or Level A objectives
with windows.

It's not proof, but look at avidyne's job openings. The sw jobs want
RTOS and DO-178B experience/knowledge. Zip about windows.


> It has been a poorly
> kept secret over the years that the Avidyne systems run a stripped-down
> version of Windows.

Hardly a secret. What is proprietary is how they got that first box with
windows certified (Level C) in the first place.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

In article >,
Bob Noel > wrote:
> It had to be when they went from simply a situational awareness display
> to a PFD. No way is any certified PFD going to be running any form
> of windows - you simply can't meet DO-178B Level B or Level A objectives
> with windows.
>
> It's not proof, but look at avidyne's job openings. The sw jobs want
> RTOS and DO-178B experience/knowledge. Zip about windows.

You're right, it's not proof. The standards you reference are
standards, not operating systems.

I'm not an operating system expert, but I don't see why the Windows
kernel couldn't be modified as required to meet whatever standards were
necessary. Companies who have these type of requirements likely have
extensive access to the source code and/or have access to the
appropriate resources at Microsoft. So I don't think it's as impossible
as you contend.


> > It has been a poorly
> > kept secret over the years that the Avidyne systems run a stripped-down
> > version of Windows.
>
> Hardly a secret. What is proprietary is how they got that first box with
> windows certified (Level C) in the first place.

I guess that's why I said "poorly kept secret." I don't remember
Avidyne or Apollo advertising that their system used Windows, even
though it was fairly obvious that was the case.




JKG

In article >,
Jonathan Goodish > wrote:

> I'm not an operating system expert, but I don't see why the Windows
> kernel couldn't be modified as required to meet whatever standards were
> necessary. Companies who have these type of requirements likely have
> extensive access to the source code and/or have access to the
> appropriate resources at Microsoft. So I don't think it's as impossible
> as you contend.

I'm not an OS expert either, but I considerable experience with the relevant
certification requirements. Windows, like pretty much any COTS OS, would require
so much modification that it would cease to be windows. And I doubt that
microsoft would expose themselves to the potential liability.


> > Hardly a secret. What is proprietary is how they got that first box with
> > windows certified (Level C) in the first place.
>
> I guess that's why I said "poorly kept secret." I don't remember
> Avidyne or Apollo advertising that their system used Windows, even
> though it was fairly obvious that was the case.

iirc, Avidyne did. In any case, the people at Avidyne that I've meet were
open about it being windows-based. They wouldn't say how they achieved
compliance with 178B Level C objectives however.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

> Any upgrades to the 396 I should know
> about b4 purchasing?......thanx!!!
>
Someone just sent me an email with "insider information". Don't know if
it's true. It talked about a 496 being unveiled a OSH. I deleted it and
will ask him to send me the link again.

It talked about having AOPA Directory installed, Airport Taxiway guidance
for 600 airports, a faster processor and a pre-installed CitySelect
software. 2,795.00. Is this true? I don't know, but...they would have to
add a LOT more to make me trade in the 396. What was shown was way too
little and unnecessary.

AFAIK, what most pilots are screaming for are all the features of the 396
plus...
a.. TOUCH SCREEN...HELLO...TOUCH SCREEN!!!!
b.. Airways (so you can enter airways for your route instead of each fix
on the airway)
c.. The FULL IFR approach
d.. ALTITUDES shown for the IFR approaches as well as the MEA's on the
airways
e.. ALL taxiways with GPS navigation on ALL the airports
f.. I won't mind a graphical representation of the airport's traffic
patterns with the 45 entry shown.
I hope the rumor of the above mentioned new features is not true...I have
had MUCH higher hopes for the 496.

Kobra

In article >,
"Kobra" > wrote:

> a.. TOUCH SCREEN...HELLO...TOUCH SCREEN!!!!

No way do I want a touch screen!
Who wants to wear holes in an LCD screen?
Replacement costs would be prohibitive.

>> a.. TOUCH SCREEN...HELLO...TOUCH SCREEN!!!!
>
> No way do I want a touch screen!
> Who wants to wear holes in an LCD screen?
> Replacement costs would be prohibitive.

Huh? They have been putting Touch Screens on auto GPS's for years. I
haven't heard of any data that says they break down or are a weak link.

Kobra

In a previous article, "Kobra" > said:
>AFAIK, what most pilots are screaming for are all the features of the 396
>plus...
> a.. TOUCH SCREEN...HELLO...TOUCH SCREEN!!!!
> b.. Airways (so you can enter airways for your route instead of each fix
>on the airway)
> c.. The FULL IFR approach

You mean plates? That would be worth while.

> d.. ALTITUDES shown for the IFR approaches as well as the MEA's on the
>airways
> e.. ALL taxiways with GPS navigation on ALL the airports
> f.. I won't mind a graphical representation of the airport's traffic
>patterns with the 45 entry shown.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
Sheridan: "Well, as answers go, short, to the point, utterly useless and
totally consistent, what I've come to expect from a Vorlon."
Kosh: "Good."

In article >,
"Kobra" > wrote:

> >> a.. TOUCH SCREEN...HELLO...TOUCH SCREEN!!!!
> >
> > No way do I want a touch screen!
> > Who wants to wear holes in an LCD screen?
> > Replacement costs would be prohibitive.
>
> Huh? They have been putting Touch Screens on auto GPS's for years. I
> haven't heard of any data that says they break down or are a weak link.

Any touch screen that is used for any length of time will have the touch
membrane worn through. The combination of dirt, pressure and contant
touching of the most often used screen position will lead to failure.

On 07/05/06 13:45, john smith wrote:
> In article >,
> "Kobra" > wrote:
>
>> >> a.. TOUCH SCREEN...HELLO...TOUCH SCREEN!!!!
>> >
>> > No way do I want a touch screen!
>> > Who wants to wear holes in an LCD screen?
>> > Replacement costs would be prohibitive.
>>
>> Huh? They have been putting Touch Screens on auto GPS's for years. I
>> haven't heard of any data that says they break down or are a weak link.
>
> Any touch screen that is used for any length of time will have the touch
> membrane worn through. The combination of dirt, pressure and contant
> touching of the most often used screen position will lead to failure.

Any length of time? Even 1 minute?

I don't think the issue was whether or not it will eventually break, but
how long between failures. If it's 10 hours, then there's a problem. If
it's 10,000 hours, there is not.

Do you have any data that shows what the MTBF is for touchscreens like
what would be used on a device like this?


--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

Well there is one at the ATM at the bank I use that has been there for at
least a year.



"Mark Hansen" > wrote in message
...
> On 07/05/06 13:45, john smith wrote:
>> In article >,
>> "Kobra" > wrote:
>>
>>> >> a.. TOUCH SCREEN...HELLO...TOUCH SCREEN!!!!
>>> >
>>> > No way do I want a touch screen!
>>> > Who wants to wear holes in an LCD screen?
>>> > Replacement costs would be prohibitive.
>>>
>>> Huh? They have been putting Touch Screens on auto GPS's for years. I
>>> haven't heard of any data that says they break down or are a weak link.
>>
>> Any touch screen that is used for any length of time will have the touch
>> membrane worn through. The combination of dirt, pressure and contant
>> touching of the most often used screen position will lead to failure.
>
> Any length of time? Even 1 minute?
>
> I don't think the issue was whether or not it will eventually break, but
> how long between failures. If it's 10 hours, then there's a problem. If
> it's 10,000 hours, there is not.
>
> Do you have any data that shows what the MTBF is for touchscreens like
> what would be used on a device like this?
>
>
> --
> Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
> Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
> Sacramento, CA

In article >,
"Kobra" > wrote:

> >> a.. TOUCH SCREEN...HELLO...TOUCH SCREEN!!!!
> >
> > No way do I want a touch screen!
> > Who wants to wear holes in an LCD screen?
> > Replacement costs would be prohibitive.
>
> Huh? They have been putting Touch Screens on auto GPS's for years. I
> haven't heard of any data that says they break down or are a weak link.
>
> Kobra

A touch screen on an aviation GPS seems like a really bad idea, in my
opinion. Forget about the wear, who wants finger prints all over their
screen? Do you really want to aim for a touch screen button while
bouncing around in flight? What if you hit the wrong one?

Sony puts touch screens on their consumer camcorders, and I avoided
purchasing one partly for this reason. The concept seems nice, but in
practice it turns out to be not too brilliant (no pun intended.)

Back to the point, all of the information that was posted on the 496
came from Tom Rogers at Avionics West; it is posted on his web site. It
is not official, it is simply a rumor. I will say, if true, the rumor
would make the 496 consistent with Garmin's other portable units, with
the biggest change being the pre-loaded CitySelect NT data.



JKG

"Kobra" wrote:

>
> AFAIK, what most pilots are screaming for are all the features of the 396
> plus...
> a.. TOUCH SCREEN...HELLO...TOUCH SCREEN!!!!

Only if the screen is bigger. It doesn't have to be MUCH bigger; just a
bit.

> b.. Airways (so you can enter airways for your route instead of each fix
> on the airway)

Yes!

> c.. The FULL IFR approach

Yes! Doubt if the lawyers will go for this, though.

> d.. ALTITUDES shown for the IFR approaches as well as the MEA's on the
> airways

Same as previous.

> e.. ALL taxiways with GPS navigation on ALL the airports

That would be lovely.

> f.. I won't mind a graphical representation of the airport's traffic
> patterns with the 45 entry shown.

I *would* mind that. I am not a 45-degree true believer.

> I hope the rumor of the above mentioned new features is not true...I have
> had MUCH higher hopes for the 496.

Ditto. No way I'd trade up for what's rumored. I want a larger,
touch-screen interface or I'm standing pat. Better mount/cabling
engineering is needed, too.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

>
> You mean plates? That would be worth while.

I wasn't thinking of that, but that would be nice. I was just thinking of
what the 396 has now (FAF to AP) and adding the IAF's and intermediate
fixes.

Kobra

> Better mount/cabling
> engineering is needed, too.

Good point about the cabling! I forgot how horribily the power cable end is
engineered to fit into the back of the 396. That is a known weak point and
fails frequently. I am on my third power cable. Garmin asked no questions
and just sent me a new one.

I hope my postings are not an indication that I am dissatisfied with the
396. Quite the contrary...I love the unit and all the functionality that it
brings to the cockpit for the cost. I just hope there's room for the
improvements I mentioned without driving the cost up over 3,000.00. Other
than the touch screen, most of what I want should be able to be done with
new software, albeit it would also then need a faster processor and more
memory.

Kobra

john smith > wrote:
: Any touch screen that is used for any length of time will have the touch
: membrane worn through. The combination of dirt, pressure and contant
: touching of the most often used screen position will lead to failure.

My 20ish year old Tek 1240 logic analyzer has a touch screen that uses
crossed beams of IR light. It will never wear out. The resistive or
acoustic touch screens will eventually die.
--
Aaron C.

Which part on the power cable breaks specifically?

--Dan


Kobra wrote:
> > Better mount/cabling
> > engineering is needed, too.
>
> Good point about the cabling! I forgot how horribily the power cable end is
> engineered to fit into the back of the 396. That is a known weak point and
> fails frequently. I am on my third power cable. Garmin asked no questions
> and just sent me a new one.
>
> I hope my postings are not an indication that I am dissatisfied with the
> 396. Quite the contrary...I love the unit and all the functionality that it
> brings to the cockpit for the cost. I just hope there's room for the
> improvements I mentioned without driving the cost up over 3,000.00. Other
> than the touch screen, most of what I want should be able to be done with
> new software, albeit it would also then need a faster processor and more
> memory.
>
> Kobra

"Dan" wrote:

> Which part on the power cable breaks specifically?

The plug that goes into the GPS. It comes apart when you try to unplug it.

In a previous article, "Dan Luke" > said:
>"Dan" wrote:
>> Which part on the power cable breaks specifically?
>
>The plug that goes into the GPS. It comes apart when you try to unplug it.

I recently bought a used 296. It came with a wall charger, a plane
charger and a car charger (the car charger differs from the plane charger
in that it has a speaker on it to give you directions when driving). The
car charger cord is broken in that the plastic shield has separated at the
strain relief, leaving just the internal wires to hold it together.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
USER, n.:
The word computer professionals use when they mean "idiot".

On Wed, 05 Jul 2006 17:37:20 -0500, Dan Luke wrote:

>> b.. Airways (so you can enter airways for your route instead of each
>> fix
>> on the airway)
>
> Yes!

I once spoke to someone at Garmin about future upgrades for the 430. One
about which I specifically asked was airway-based route entry. This is a
feature of the 480, from what I understand, and it would be a huge win for
IFR pilots.

Yet the representative to whom I spoke claimed that there was a concern
that this would make the 430's UI too complex.

I don't understand this myself (esp. if they retain the klunky route entry
solution as well), but that's what I was told.

- Andrew

">The
> car charger cord is broken in that the plastic shield has separated at the
> strain relief, leaving just the internal wires to hold it together.
>

Call Garmin...they will replace it free.

Kobra

In article >,
Andrew Gideon > wrote:

> Yet the representative to whom I spoke claimed that there was a concern
> that this would make the 430's UI too complex.
> I don't understand this myself (esp. if they retain the klunky route entry
> solution as well), but that's what I was told.

The 430 was developed by Garmin.
The 480 was developed by UPSAT and inherited by Garmin.
Two different, incompatible design philosophies.
UPSAT, the successor to APOLLO/IIMORROW had years of experience to hone
their design skills and produce a successful product that is intuitive
to use. The 430 was Garmin's first try. That fact that they are still
promising an upgrade that was to be delivered five years ago shows how
wrong their design philosophy was.

On Thu, 06 Jul 2006 17:01:52 +0000, john smith wrote:

>
> The 430 was developed by Garmin.
> The 480 was developed by UPSAT and inherited by Garmin.

I know. But now that they own both, they should be free to steal the UI
from one for the other.

[...]
> That fact that they are still promising an upgrade
> that was to be delivered five years ago shows how wrong their design
> philosophy was.

<Laugh> Good point. In their defense, though, the TSO for a VNAV/WAAS GPS
wasn't defined at the time.

- Andrew

>
> AFAIK, what most pilots are screaming for are all the features of the 396
> plus...
> a.. TOUCH SCREEN...HELLO...TOUCH SCREEN!!!!
> b.. Airways (so you can enter airways for your route instead of each fix
> on the airway)
> c.. The FULL IFR approach
> d.. ALTITUDES shown for the IFR approaches as well as the MEA's on the
> airways
> e.. ALL taxiways with GPS navigation on ALL the airports
> f.. I won't mind a graphical representation of the airport's traffic
> patterns with the 45 entry shown.
> I hope the rumor of the above mentioned new features is not true...I have
> had MUCH higher hopes for the 496.

And a moving map to the vending machines inside the FBO.

And......

And.....

Sorry, could not resist.
Mike

In article >,
Andrew Gideon > wrote:

> I know. But now that they own both, they should be free to steal the UI
> from one for the other.

Turf battles, corporate politics.

"Jonathan Goodish" > wrote in message
...
>...
>
> Though I'm not Windows fan, I believe that Avidyne and others use
> Windows as the foundation for their avionics systems. However, they
> strip out all of the junk that normally accumulates on a PC and are left
> with a fairly stable (and hardened) system. I suspect that you could
> approach that level of reliability if you did the same--stripped the
> system of everything but the FlightPrep, WxWorx, etc. But then, that
> would remove most of the non-aviation utility from the system.

As I understand it, Avidyne uses Embedded Windows NT (a Microsoft product)
in their EX5000 MFD. I suspect they also use it in their EX500 MFD. This
was one reason why it took a long time for them to introduce USB flash
memory compatibility for data upload/download. The original version only
supported USB Zip drives, since that was the only USB drivers available for
Embedded Win NT.

Starting with Version 6.x on the Cirrus (EX5000C) MFDs, they now support Zip
drives and USB "keychain" drives.

You are correct that Embedded Win NT is "stripped down". That's one reason
why it is much more reliable than the desktop versions.

As to the Entegra PFD, it's an entirely different (although externally
similar-looking) product. It does not use any Windows operating system. I
believe they do use an RTOS (real-time operating system), but they would not
tell me if they used an off-the-shelf RTOS or wrote their own.

-Mike