Flying IFR with Garmins

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
om...
(David Lindenauer) wrote in message
...
On 15 Jun 2004 21:18:09 -0700, (Robert M. Gary)
wrote:
So how do you Garmin guys easily fly along an airway graphically?

You have to put in everything that creates a bend in the airway: VORs,
intersections. To make the task less daunting, in practice I put in
just the first couple of these, then add the rest in cruise flight
when the workload reduces.

Do you define them between two airway points (one behind you) or do
you have to direct to the next fix and just guess how far off the
airway you are?

You enter the one behind you and activate the leg you are intercepting.

Michael

"Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message
. 158...
(Robert M. Gary) wrote in
om:

I just recently decided to buy our first Garmin GPS (296). I had not
in the past because they were so far behind on providing terrain. They
fixed that with the 296. However, the one outstanding item missing on
the 296 are airways. On my Skymap IIIc I can easily fly an airway by
putting the white course line on the pink airway line. Airways are
pretty common in the West where airways provide routes around
restricted airspace and around busy areas (like LAX) so ATC often
gives you airways rather than a million vectors (our airways are not
straight, they turn like roads).

So how do you Garmin guys easily fly along an airway graphically?

-Robert

Why not use a VOR receiver for airway navigation? Using a GPS for airway
navigation kind of seems backwards.

Because you can enter a full flight plan and follow it, rather than fiddling
with the VOR receivers every 15 minutes.

Michael

"Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message


Why not use a VOR receiver for airway navigation? Using a GPS for airway
navigation kind of seems backwards.

Have you tried it? Putting a flightplan in the GPS and then flying the line
on the moving map eliminates having to worry about crosswind correction.
None of this flying a heading for awhile and seeing how that works. Then
adjusting that heading constantly for constantly changing conditions. With
a GPS you don't need a DG to fly an airway.

Andrew Sarangan wrote:

(Robert M. Gary) wrote in
om:


I just recently decided to buy our first Garmin GPS (296). I had not
in the past because they were so far behind on providing terrain. They
fixed that with the 296. However, the one outstanding item missing on
the 296 are airways. On my Skymap IIIc I can easily fly an airway by
putting the white course line on the pink airway line. Airways are
pretty common in the West where airways provide routes around
restricted airspace and around busy areas (like LAX) so ATC often
gives you airways rather than a million vectors (our airways are not
straight, they turn like roads).

So how do you Garmin guys easily fly along an airway graphically?

-Robert


Why not use a VOR receiver for airway navigation? Using a GPS for airway
navigation kind of seems backwards.

I don't know if any VOR system that can accept a programmed flight plan
and then sequence through it automatically! I often fly VORs and
airways even with an IFR GPS. It often adds less than 5% to the
distance and it is nice to have the VORs as instant backup if needed.
However, the flight plan sequencing of the GPS is still nice.


Matt

Andrew Sarangan wrote:
Why not use a VOR receiver for airway navigation? Using a GPS for airway
navigation kind of seems backwards.

There are lots of reasons to use GPS to fly airways instead of VORs.

1) GPS is more accurate.

2) GPS's cross-track error display on the CDI is easier to interpret
than a VOR's angular displacement, especially near the navaid.

3) GPS gives you distance from every fix, not just navaids with
co-located DME. And it's horizontal distance, not slant distance.

4) With GPS, you don't have to worry about navaid service volumes and
poor reception at low altitudes.

Roy Smith wrote in
:

Andrew Sarangan wrote:
Why not use a VOR receiver for airway navigation? Using a GPS for
airway navigation kind of seems backwards.

There are lots of reasons to use GPS to fly airways instead of VORs.

1) GPS is more accurate.

2) GPS's cross-track error display on the CDI is easier to interpret
than a VOR's angular displacement, especially near the navaid.

3) GPS gives you distance from every fix, not just navaids with
co-located DME. And it's horizontal distance, not slant distance.

4) With GPS, you don't have to worry about navaid service volumes and
poor reception at low altitudes.



All of the above are good reasons, but what I meant was, why would you
want to fly airways with a GPS when you can go direct?

"Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message
. 158...

All of the above are good reasons, but what I meant was, why would you
want to fly airways with a GPS when you can go direct?

Because lots of times ATC doesn't give me direct, especially in the East.

"Michael 182" wrote in message news:li4Ac.64896$Sw.58611@attbi_s51...
"Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message
. 158...
(Robert M. Gary) wrote in
om:

I just recently decided to buy our first Garmin GPS (296). I had not
in the past because they were so far behind on providing terrain. They
fixed that with the 296. However, the one outstanding item missing on
the 296 are airways. On my Skymap IIIc I can easily fly an airway by
putting the white course line on the pink airway line. Airways are
pretty common in the West where airways provide routes around
restricted airspace and around busy areas (like LAX) so ATC often
gives you airways rather than a million vectors (our airways are not
straight, they turn like roads).

So how do you Garmin guys easily fly along an airway graphically?

-Robert

Why not use a VOR receiver for airway navigation? Using a GPS for airway
navigation kind of seems backwards.

Because you can enter a full flight plan and follow it, rather than fiddling
with the VOR receivers every 15 minutes.

Michael

And you don't have to try to figure out the correction angle while
trying to stay on the airway while you are getting bounced around in
the clouds in busy airspace. Also, you don't need to change the VOR
everytime the airway turns. You easily see that on a GPS.

In article ,
Andrew Sarangan wrote:

Roy Smith wrote in
:

Andrew Sarangan wrote:
Why not use a VOR receiver for airway navigation? Using a GPS for
airway navigation kind of seems backwards.

There are lots of reasons to use GPS to fly airways instead of VORs.

1) GPS is more accurate.

2) GPS's cross-track error display on the CDI is easier to interpret
than a VOR's angular displacement, especially near the navaid.

3) GPS gives you distance from every fix, not just navaids with
co-located DME. And it's horizontal distance, not slant distance.

4) With GPS, you don't have to worry about navaid service volumes and
poor reception at low altitudes.



All of the above are good reasons, but what I meant was, why would you
want to fly airways with a GPS when you can go direct?

Ah. I see; a good answer to the wrong question :-)

OK, a couple more (hopefully good) answsers:

1) Because that's what your clearance is.

2) Because it guarantees terrain clearance.

3) Where there's lots of SUA, airways are often designed to avoid the
SUA's.

4) Because they're printed on sectionals, so it helps with situational
awareness.

All that being said, if the route was my own choice and I had GPS, I'd
probably just punch in "direct destination" and off I go :-)

Do you define them between two airway points (one behind you) or do
you have to direct to the next fix and just guess how far off the
airway you are?

Robert,

Download my book at www.cockpitgps.com. It's free. Start at GPS Route
Planning, then the Navigation section, then the Route Intercepts Section.
Even though my examples do not use a 296, they are still applicable.

John Bell