Garmin 196 GPS - what do you guys think?

Indeed it would be nice! I'm sure it would be just too much for the
liability guys to swallow at this point. There are 3 or 4 legal
disclaimers you required to accept responsibility for every time you
turn it on.

But what a machine!!

Paul Tomblin wrote:

the only thing that would make the 396 perfect to me would be if
they'd add approach plates.

Why?
Because once I'm being vectored to the ILS, I don't need the GPS any more
for course guidance, just situational awareness, and so it would be nice
to switch the display to something I can use.
Because it would be nice to see a little "you are here" on the course
line.
Because those flimsy approach plate books are always tearing and I'm
likely to lose the plate I need.
Because if I have to divert, it would be nice to hit "GOTO" and then have
the approach plate come up rather than hunt through my book. Especially
if the diversion is to another state or province.

"Peter Duniho" wrote:

I have a 195, and it's great. I tried a 295, and it sucks.

I hated my 195, loved my 295.

That may be why they make both, and keep them different.

They don't make either one anymore.

IIRC, they stopped making the 195 soon after they released the 295.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

I believe you can now download obstacles on the 196

But not terrain - see the obstacle, change heading, hit the mountain
Plus, when I enquired about how many obstacles it showed in Canada, the
response was . . . . . . some.
Now that has to be worth buying.

Tony

--

Tony Roberts
PP-ASEL
VFR OTT
Night
Cessna 172H C-GICE

Tony,

But not terrain - see the obstacle, change heading, hit the mountain


You're telling us you would rely on a handheld, non-certified, non-WAAS
VFR-GPS with a systematic altitude error of at least a couple hundred
feet to avoid terrain?

Terrain on a (handheld) GPS looks really cool and makes it easier to
correlate the moving map picture and reality outside the window, but
IMHO you just can't use it to avoid terrain by only a few hundred feet
as necessary during scud running. For all other situations, I don't
really see what it is needed for: VFR you just look outside at the
terrain, IFR you should be high enough to not hit the terrain anyway -
and the map without terrain should give you enough situational
awareness to avoid being where you shouldn't be. That said, terrain is
nice to have and adds to SA - but not critical.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

In article ,
Thomas Borchert wrote:
Terrain on a (handheld) GPS looks really cool and makes it easier to
correlate the moving map picture and reality outside the window, but
IMHO you just can't use it to avoid terrain by only a few hundred feet
as necessary during scud running. For all other situations, I don't
really see what it is needed for: VFR you just look outside at the
terrain, IFR you should be high enough to not hit the terrain anyway -
and the map without terrain should give you enough situational
awareness to avoid being where you shouldn't be. That said, terrain is
nice to have and adds to SA - but not critical.


IFR during the approach to an airport with surrounding terrain seems
like a pretty good use of terrain avoidance. VFR during the approach to
an airport in the summer when the visibility may be reduced in haze
seems like a pretty good use of terrain avoidance.

This nonsense that I've been reading here and on other message boards
suggesting that a situational awareness tool is useless or almost
useless because it isn't "certified" is sheer lunacy, in my opinion. I
think it was the AOPA boards where some folks said they would trust an
ADF over a portable GPS because the ADF was "certified."

No, you shouldn't rely on it to scud run, and you shouldn't be doing
approaches with a non-certified GPS, but it is tremendously useful for
situational awareness--which includes awareness of obstacles and
surrounding terrain.


JKG

Jonathan,

IFR during the approach to an airport with surrounding terrain seems
like a pretty good use of terrain avoidance. VFR during the approach to
an airport in the summer when the visibility may be reduced in haze
seems like a pretty good use of terrain avoidance.

I agree. But in both cases, it is "nice to have", not something you'd bet
on. For IFR, if you adhere to the procedure as published, you won't be near
the terrain anyway. IN the VFR case, if you really can't see the terrain
(and imagine it from the chart), you have no business being there.

The scenario mentioned by the poster was "fly away from an indicated
obstacle only to fly into non-indicated terrain". That is a scenario that
should never happen, with or without GPS. And the terrain-capable GPS,
certified or not, is clearly not capable of nor meant to be saving your
bacon in that case.


This nonsense that I've been reading here and on other message boards
suggesting that a situational awareness tool is useless or almost
useless because it isn't "certified" is sheer lunacy, in my opinion.

I didn't mean to say that. In fact, I agree with you.


--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

In article ,
Thomas Borchert wrote:
I agree. But in both cases, it is "nice to have", not something you'd bet
on. For IFR, if you adhere to the procedure as published, you won't be near
the terrain anyway. IN the VFR case, if you really can't see the terrain
(and imagine it from the chart), you have no business being there.

Sure, if everyone did everything perfectly every time, and never got
lost or disoriented, all of this technology wouldn't be necessary. I
agree, it is certainly supplemental, but it can indeed save your bacon
if you find yourself disoriented with surrounding terrain. I wouldn't
rely on any one instrument or system if I had supplemental information
available. The bottom line is that if my GPS alerts me about a tower,
I'm going to climb or turn. Same goes for terrain. I think that this
functionality is a very nice supplement that can make flying safer, but
certainly isn't intended to be a substitute for good pre-flight planning.

That being said, unless you fly in mountainous terrain, I wouldn't waste
money on the terrain. In my opinion, obstacles are a bigger deal
because they seem to be "growing" taller in many areas, and are
sometimes difficult to spot.




JKG