![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|