![]() |
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
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Mitty" wrote in message ... On 2/17/2008 4:54 PM, Stan Prevost wrote the following: snip I wonder what the response would be if one called Garmin and asked if they approve using the navigator this way? Try it! I have had extremely good luck with Garmin tech support transferring me to very knowledgeable people when I had something besides the usual RTFM questions. My guess is that the manuals are the problem and that the behavior is in the design spec. I would call them if I understood why I might have anything to gain from doing so. I don't yet understand how using the undocumented self-activation "feature" helps anything. Stan |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Stan Prevost wrote:
"Mitty" wrote in message ... On 2/17/2008 4:54 PM, Stan Prevost wrote the following: snip I wonder what the response would be if one called Garmin and asked if they approve using the navigator this way? Try it! I have had extremely good luck with Garmin tech support transferring me to very knowledgeable people when I had something besides the usual RTFM questions. My guess is that the manuals are the problem and that the behavior is in the design spec. I would call them if I understood why I might have anything to gain from doing so. I don't yet understand how using the undocumented self-activation "feature" helps anything. It helps me in avoiding having to activate the approach at a possible inopportune time. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Stan Prevost wrote:
"Mitty" wrote in message ... On 2/17/2008 4:54 PM, Stan Prevost wrote the following: snip I wonder what the response would be if one called Garmin and asked if they approve using the navigator this way? Try it! I have had extremely good luck with Garmin tech support transferring me to very knowledgeable people when I had something besides the usual RTFM questions. My guess is that the manuals are the problem and that the behavior is in the design spec. I would call them if I understood why I might have anything to gain from doing so. I don't yet understand how using the undocumented self-activation "feature" helps anything. Stan Here is the official answer from my Garmin associate. He is about at the top of the engineering food chain the "Documented or not, I say what you are doing is fine. We specifically designed the approach selection to do what you describe because a pilot might learn on an ATIS frequency that he should expect a particular approach/transition long before he's actually cleared for it. So, the pilot can get ahead of the game by selecting the approach/transition and placing it into the flight plan while still navigating to the airport on his existing clearance. Then, once cleared for the approach/transition, he can remove the airport from the flight plan as you indicate, activate a direct-to the initial approach fix, or whatever he is cleared to do to get established on the approach." |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Sam Spade" wrote in message ... Here is the official answer from my Garmin associate. He is about at the top of the engineering food chain the "Documented or not, I say what you are doing is fine. We specifically designed the approach selection to do what you describe because a pilot might learn on an ATIS frequency that he should expect a particular approach/transition long before he's actually cleared for it. So, the pilot can get ahead of the game by selecting the approach/transition and placing it into the flight plan while still navigating to the airport on his existing clearance. Then, once cleared for the approach/transition, he can remove the airport from the flight plan as you indicate, activate a direct-to the initial approach fix, or whatever he is cleared to do to get established on the approach." Thanks, Sam! |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 07:46:16 -0800, Sam Spade
wrote: Here is the official answer from my Garmin associate. He is about at the top of the engineering food chain the "Documented or not, I say what you are doing is fine. We specifically designed the approach selection to do what you describe because a pilot might learn on an ATIS frequency that he should expect a particular approach/transition long before he's actually cleared for it. So, the pilot can get ahead of the game by selecting the approach/transition and placing it into the flight plan while still navigating to the airport on his existing clearance. Then, once cleared for the approach/transition, he can remove the airport from the flight plan as you indicate, activate a direct-to the initial approach fix, or whatever he is cleared to do to get established on the approach." Thanks for looking into that Sam. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Video clip of an "interesting" final approach & landing | Elmo von Thud | Aviation Photos | 3 | October 7th 07 12:54 AM |
Friday 072707 in Oshkosh Pt 1 - the Raptor [06/30] - "F22 Flyby approach close 2.jpg" yEnc (1/1) | Just Plane Noise[_2_] | Aviation Photos | 0 | July 29th 07 06:36 AM |
Friday 072707 in Oshkosh Pt 1 - the Raptor [05/30] - "F22 Flyby approach close 1.jpg" yEnc (1/1) | Just Plane Noise[_2_] | Aviation Photos | 0 | July 29th 07 06:36 AM |
Has Anyone Used The "Approach Sport Hub Avionics Wiring Systems"? | three-eight-hotel | Owning | 7 | June 1st 06 03:28 PM |
"End of an era: USN's Tomcats make their final approach before decommissioning" | Mike | Naval Aviation | 15 | April 5th 06 03:45 AM |