While we're talking about Garmin GPS

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

wrote in message
...

I presume you mean non-radar full position reports. That is where having
the
route as a flight plan would be quite useful.


In that case you'd just report the compulsory reporting points and any
non-compulsory reporting points as instructed by ATC as you encountered
them.

And, that is where having the route as a flight plan loaded into the Garmin
would be useful.

wrote in message
...

And, that is where having the route as a flight plan loaded into the
Garmin
would be useful.


Since all the necessary information is provided by the more traditional nav
gear, just how is it useful to load the flight plan into the Garmin?

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

wrote in message
...

And, that is where having the route as a flight plan loaded into the
Garmin
would be useful.


Since all the necessary information is provided by the more traditional nav
gear, just how is it useful to load the flight plan into the Garmin?

It provides an electronic "how goes it" log and ensures you fly legs rather
than direct-to. When the new "G" capstone routes in SE Alaska fire up, there
won't be any underlying VOR route structure, so it will become even more useful
to have a flight plan loaded.

wrote in message
...

It provides an electronic "how goes it" log and ensures you fly legs
rather than direct-to.


As does the more traditional nav gear. So nothing is gained by having the
route as a flight plan loaded into the Garmin.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:


wrote in message
...

It provides an electronic "how goes it" log and ensures you fly legs
rather than direct-to.


As does the more traditional nav gear. So nothing is gained by having the
route as a flight plan loaded into the Garmin.

When you're *at* a waypoint, it shouldn't make a difference by which means
you've identified the waypoint. You're there. That's what you report.

As I understand this conversation, it's when you're not at a way point that
this discussion rears its head.

However, that does beg the question: on an IFR flight, when would you report
your position while not at a waypoint? I suppose ATC might ask for some
unknown reason (RADAR failure, and shifting into non-RADAR mode, perhaps?),
but I've never experienced that myself.

- Andrew

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
gonline.com...

When you're *at* a waypoint, it shouldn't make a difference by which means
you've identified the waypoint. You're there. That's what you report.

As I understand this conversation, it's when you're not at a way point
that
this discussion rears its head.

However, that does beg the question: on an IFR flight, when would you
report
your position while not at a waypoint? I suppose ATC might ask for some
unknown reason (RADAR failure, and shifting into non-RADAR mode,
perhaps?),
but I've never experienced that myself.


We're on an airway in a nonradar environment. The GPS provides no more
information than the more traditional nav gear.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

We're on an airway in a nonradar environment. The GPS provides no more
information than the more traditional nav gear.

We are? Looks around I don't think so.

The OP didn't state this, so I'm not sure from where you picked it up.
Looking at the original posting, there was no context provided as to why a
position report was being given. He or she did mention "IFR proficiency
flight", but perhaps they were flying VFR with the left-seater under the
hood.

If one were on an IFR flight plan, RADAR or not, I cannot see the need
expressed by the original poster. Reports are at waypoints, and - however
one knows this - one is *at* the waypoint. What to report is therefore
pretty obvious.

You do know that, right?

So, I'm guessing that he or she was referring to VFR. But I don't pretend
to be omniscient, so I'll have to leave it at "I don't know". Care to try
it yourself?

- Andrew