Gerald Sylvester wrote:


that's exactly why there are IFR-certified GPS's that must adhere to
some basic design, operating principles and functionability
and then there are 'other' GPS's. There
is no such thing as a 'VFR GPS.' It is just an 'other' GPS. It could
be a Garmin Forerunner to a Garmin 396. As long as it is not certified,
who knows where it falls between those. Now we all know the 396 is
on the same level as a IFR-certified GPS but all those others leave
a LOT of room for interpretation in the design none of which the user
has access to (manufacturer proprietary).

Gerald


The 396 is really a 296 with a datalink for weather. I have a 195 I
still use for desktop procedures work, because it is the only Garmin
that provides NMEA statements in simulator mode.

I then had a 295, which I gifted to a pilot friend when I got my 296
this past Spring.

Both the 195 and 295 have slow, clunky processors. The 296, however, is
awesome. With a roof-mount antenna I would be very comfortable
"cheating" with a 296. ;-) The terrain feature alone is fantastic.
It's not full-press EGPWS, but close enough for light aircraft ops.

I work with this stuff all the time, especially with criteria and the
new advanced RNP stuff.

I may be a bad boy, but I have no doubt the 296 will do as good as a
Garmin 500 series for a conventional RNAV IAP provided I built the
approach as a flight plan before I launch. In that sense it is limited;
i.e., I wouldn't want to be faced with that task in the air.