Garmin GNS430 & WAAS

All I know is that I am not willing to learn the 480's interface, and
neither are most of the folks around here.

We are all waiting for the 430 units to start shipping or upgrading. I am
thinking I will put a 430 in my old Ovation to replace the king DME/NAV
units when the WAAS is ready, and then save my pennies for a Glass cockpit,
or for the next money pit which I am hoping I will build myself.


"Roy Page" wrote in message
ink.net...
Are Garmin shipping the GNS430 with WAAS yet ?

--
Roy
N5804F - PA28-181

Dude wrote:

We are all waiting for the 430 units to start shipping or upgrading.

A couple of months ago I called Garmin and asked them to speculate on the
availability of the WAAS upgrade for the GNS-430 and a tech told me June or
July 2005 (in the US).

My local avionics shop claimed that they had heard this date, too.

FWIW...

--
Peter













----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

In article , Peter R.
wrote:

Dude wrote:

We are all waiting for the 430 units to start shipping or upgrading.

A couple of months ago I called Garmin and asked them to speculate on the
availability of the WAAS upgrade for the GNS-430 and a tech told me June or
July 2005 (in the US).

My local avionics shop claimed that they had heard this date, too.

FWIW...

I wouldn't hold my breath.

It seems to me that the reason they bought out Apollo/UPSAT in the
first place was so that they wouldn't have to really tackle the problem
of providing an upgrade for the 430/530. They were months behind on
that schedule a year and a half ago. The last thing they want to do is
to resurrect that old chestnut. They want to sell 480's now and you can
bet dollars to doughnuts that they don't want to compete with
themselves.

The GNS-480 a superior product anyway. Maybe they will take 430/530's
in trade. :-)

It has nothing to do with the AT aquisition and everything to do with
availible resources and certification. It took forever to get TAWS
certified too.

Mike
MU-2


"Tom Fleischman" k wrote in
message
news:280320051013571550%bodhijunkoneeightyeightjun ...
In article , Peter R.
wrote:

Dude wrote:

We are all waiting for the 430 units to start shipping or upgrading.

A couple of months ago I called Garmin and asked them to speculate on the
availability of the WAAS upgrade for the GNS-430 and a tech told me June
or
July 2005 (in the US).

My local avionics shop claimed that they had heard this date, too.

FWIW...

I wouldn't hold my breath.

It seems to me that the reason they bought out Apollo/UPSAT in the
first place was so that they wouldn't have to really tackle the problem
of providing an upgrade for the 430/530. They were months behind on
that schedule a year and a half ago. The last thing they want to do is
to resurrect that old chestnut. They want to sell 480's now and you can
bet dollars to doughnuts that they don't want to compete with
themselves.

The GNS-480 a superior product anyway. Maybe they will take 430/530's
in trade. :-)

Dude wrote:

All I know is that I am not willing to learn the 480's interface, and
neither are most of the folks around here.

Why? It's certainly different, and I'd expect a learning curve. But if I
were given a chance to swap the 430s I fly (in 4 club aircraft) for 480s,
I'd leap at it. Ignoring the feature differences, there's one UI
difference - entering flight plans just as they're described as IFR
clearances - that's *extremely* desirable in my opinion.

But I'm curious why you disagree.

- Andrew

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
online.com...
Dude wrote:

All I know is that I am not willing to learn the 480's interface, and
neither are most of the folks around here.

Why? It's certainly different, and I'd expect a learning curve. But if I
were given a chance to swap the 430s I fly (in 4 club aircraft) for 480s,
I'd leap at it. Ignoring the feature differences, there's one UI
difference - entering flight plans just as they're described as IFR
clearances - that's *extremely* desirable in my opinion.

But I'm curious why you disagree.

- Andrew


I have never used one, but the word on the street and in the press is that
the interface is MUCH more different than that. Reviews of the units have
not been flattering about the interface. If the FPL was the ONLY
difference, I would be willing to go that route.

In my search for a used 430, I have heard too much talk that a new panel
mount is just around the corner though. I am going to hold off until after
OSH no matter what.

Dude wrote:

I have never used one, but the word on the street and in the press is that
the interface is MUCH more different than that. Reviews of the units have
not been flattering about the interface.

Really? Tom Benenson in Flying has spoken well about it, as did someone in
one of the more recent IFRs. These are just the most recent; I've seen
other praise further in the past.

I don't recall reading of anyone complaining about the UI in the press.
Have you a reference; I'd like to see the specifics of the complaint(s).
Like you, I've not tried one.

[...]
In my search for a used 430, I have heard too much talk that a new panel
mount is just around the corner though.

From Garmin or someone else? I've been wondering by Bendix hasn't an entry
in that market (unless I've missed it).

- Andrew

Andrew Gideon wrote:
I don't recall reading of anyone complaining about the [GNS-480] UI in
the press. Have you a reference; I'd like to see the specifics of the
complaint(s). Like you, I've not tried one.

There are certainly things wrong with the CNX-80/GNS-480 UI (I've been
using it for a couple of years now). The biggest problem is that it's too
modal; there's too many pages hidden two or three layers deep and sometimes
you know what you want to do, but you just can't remember how to get to the
page where you can do it.

I think it also suffers a bit from trying to do too much. The ability to
have a blind transponder is nice, but hardly necessary. There's a
dedicated button (and a little bit of screen real-estate) devoted to
xponder operations; they could have been devoted to something else.
Perhaps a dedicated FPL button instead of an FPL soft key? I think that
would have made the whole box (a little) easier to use.

There's a whole page of fancy timer functions, but most of the time I just
want a button that I can hit RIGHT NOW that starts counting down from 1
minute (without interrupting the flight plan editing I was in the middle of
doing).

Overall, I like the box, but it definately has a steep learning curve, and
some UI warts. It really could have been a lot better with some better
usability testing before it shipped.

These are all complex boxes, and they're getting more complex as they add
features (interfaces to weather, traffic, transponder, fuel computers, CO
detectors, etc, etc, etc). Hopefully some of what we've learned about UI
design in the past 25 years will start to trickle down to the avionics
market and things will not only get better, but more standardized.

Roy Smith wrote:

/snip/ The ability to
have a blind transponder is nice, but hardly necessary. There's a
dedicated button (and a little bit of screen real-estate) devoted to
xponder operations; they could have been devoted to something else.
Perhaps a dedicated FPL button instead of an FPL soft key? I think that
would have made the whole box (a little) easier to use.
/snip/

Roy,

So, even if you don't have a remote xponder hooked up, the screen
*still* dedicates some space to that function? I'd hoped they would
switch that off if you didn't use it.

Happy Flying!
Scott Skylane
N92054

In article ,
Scott Skylane wrote:

Roy Smith wrote:

/snip/ The ability to
have a blind transponder is nice, but hardly necessary. There's a
dedicated button (and a little bit of screen real-estate) devoted to
xponder operations; they could have been devoted to something else.
Perhaps a dedicated FPL button instead of an FPL soft key? I think that
would have made the whole box (a little) easier to use.
/snip/

Roy,

So, even if you don't have a remote xponder hooked up, the screen
*still* dedicates some space to that function? I'd hoped they would
switch that off if you didn't use it.

Well, no, the screen real-estate does get reused for something else (UTC
clock in the one I fly with; for all I know, it's configurable), but the
key is still wasted. Panel real-estate is at a premium on these things; it
seems such a shame to waste a dedicated key on something which you don't
have installed (if you press it, you get a "Key Inoperative" message.