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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
I didn't mean to infer Garmin should pull out all stops to provide 146
capability to the 430/530. But the fact of the matter is, and I can only speak for myself on this, part of my purchasing decision was based upon Garmin's statements. I just believe they should live up to their own marketing hype. Granted, LNAV/VNAV approaches are few and far between right now, but there are more published every day. I typically fly into and out of airfields that do not have precision approaches, and are fortunate to have a GPS overlay of an NDB approach. LNAV/VNAV is a capability I am really looking forward to using. Garmin was founded and headquartered in Olathe, KS until a reorganization in 1999 or 2000, I believe. That moved their HQ to the Caymans (tax haven) and became the "Britainized" Garmin LTD. The Taiwan facility is just a fab shop, if my research is correct principally for lower margin consumer electronics (iQue, Rhino, eTrex...) Believe me, I have no beef with Garmin, other than my resentment of Corporate tax havens. These guys are sharp businessmen, and vicious competitors. My concern is, and will remain with their commitment to the markets that got them where they are now. Just take a look at what is happening with pharma after "merger mania". The organizations have gotten so big, innovation and competition have died off in many market sectors. Bigger is not always better. "Mike Rapoport" wrote in message . net... "Mark T. Mueller" wrote in message ... I own Garmin products, but I also know they are vicious in protecting their pricing and controlling distribution (which is why I am still suspect of their UPSAT purchase.) You are correct, that autos represent the biggest market and lowest margins, but the most successful technologies are the ones that can generate high volume sales (witness Wi-Fi or the old VHS over Beta...) GPS did not become ubiquitous until "cheap" solutions came to market. Garmin also incorporated in the Cayman's as a tax haven. Perfectly legal, but considering the bulk of their operations are in the US, a tad on the sleazy side for my taste. Aerospace is a great market for Garmin, because it is niche. The 35 "mouse" was way overpriced for many years until others came to the market, they really milked that one... Garmin is more of a Taiwanese company than a US one. Don't get me wrong, the 430/530 are still amazing for what they do. I am just concerned that they overpromised continued support of these products. When making my UPSAT vs Garmin decision a few years back, my discussions with Garmin engineers "suggested" Garmin had a software solution for a WAAS upgrade. Now we know it is a major hardware upgrade, and really don't know when it will be ready (or if it will ever pass the TSO...) I know from discussing from individuals working in engineering that most of their resources and talent are pushing the G1000. Upgrading the 430/530 may be on the back burner for a while since they have bet their aerospace future on the G1000 (and spending a lot of coin to get it out the door.) When Garmin "suggested" that they would have a software WAAS upgrade path for the 430/530, the TSO was not availible. When the FAA issued the TSO, it required 5 updates per second and that was beyond what the processor on the 430/530 could do. Their was no way to see this coming and Garmin certainly hasn't had any problem integrating WAAS into their non-IFR-certified products. You seem to be inferring that not having WAAS for the 430/530 today is an issue and that Garmin should pull out all the stops to get WAAS into the 430/530. I disagree. There is no functional advantage to having a 146 box today. Mike MU-2 "Mike Rapoport" wrote in message . net... Actually what you are referring to is Chrysler and Garmin did not lose the business.. The system bought by Chrysler from Alpine was at a higher price (~$1600) point than the one being developed by Garmin for Chrysler. The stock was ready to take a hit, having run from $20 to $50 with no real pullbacks. Automotive is indeed going to be the largest market but the margins are going to be the lowest. Mike MU-2 "Mark T. Mueller" wrote in message news I believe it was GM. It was reported back in June. Garmin's stock took a hit after the announcement, since the auto sector represents the greatest revenue growth potential for GPS equipment makers... Aviation, as we all know, is a very small, niche market compared to the auto sector. "Mike Rapoport" wrote in message link.net... "Mark T. Mueller" wrote in message ... The 430/530 do not meet the WAAS TSO (146a, I believe). They were designed long before this TSO went final. Garmin always said the 430/530 would be "upgradeable", but I think the final TSO caught them by surprise. You WILL need a hardware upgrade in the boxes to provide the 1 Hz refresh rate required by the TSO. Garmin reps at OSH this year stated the upgrade should be available early next year, but based upon Garmin's typical schedule challenges, it will probably be more like late 04 before they can provide good turn-around, and that's assuming they don't find any "issues" with the hardware upgrade... There will be a significant software upgrade as well. Seeing as there are only a handfull of LNAV/VNAV approaches published, I don't see the hurry in finding the que. I will wait a bit until the hardware upgrade is on the street for a couple months and any inevitable problems are worked out... In the meantime, were I to buy right now, I would probably go for the CNX80, but I would be concerned that Garmin has just bought UPSAT and future product support. The "gist" I got from the Garmin reps at OSH was their entire engineering staff is focused on rolling out the high dollar G-1000, and everything else is taking a back seat at the moment. Kind of disappointing, since I was hoping they would come out with an interface for the 530 with WxWorx instead of that pathetic EchoFlight... Garmin lost a major auto contract recently because of their high pricing structure. Don't know how that's going to effect their business model, but I hope they refocus on their core aviation market. I'm waiting. DB What auto maker was that? Mike MU-2 |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
First off Garmin never said that WAAS would be a software upgrade, they said
that they "thought" that it would be. The 430/530 could probably easily be software upgraded to WAAS but it wouldn't be a 146 box. That is an FAA problem, not a Garmin problem. Garmin's US earnings are fully taxed as are their Taiwan earnings. I have forgotten what the reason for incorporation in the Caymans was but it doesn't affect the company's income taxes. Mike MU-2 "Mark T. Mueller" wrote in message ... I didn't mean to infer Garmin should pull out all stops to provide 146 capability to the 430/530. But the fact of the matter is, and I can only speak for myself on this, part of my purchasing decision was based upon Garmin's statements. I just believe they should live up to their own marketing hype. Granted, LNAV/VNAV approaches are few and far between right now, but there are more published every day. I typically fly into and out of airfields that do not have precision approaches, and are fortunate to have a GPS overlay of an NDB approach. LNAV/VNAV is a capability I am really looking forward to using. Garmin was founded and headquartered in Olathe, KS until a reorganization in 1999 or 2000, I believe. That moved their HQ to the Caymans (tax haven) and became the "Britainized" Garmin LTD. The Taiwan facility is just a fab shop, if my research is correct principally for lower margin consumer electronics (iQue, Rhino, eTrex...) Believe me, I have no beef with Garmin, other than my resentment of Corporate tax havens. These guys are sharp businessmen, and vicious competitors. My concern is, and will remain with their commitment to the markets that got them where they are now. Just take a look at what is happening with pharma after "merger mania". The organizations have gotten so big, innovation and competition have died off in many market sectors. Bigger is not always better. "Mike Rapoport" wrote in message . net... "Mark T. Mueller" wrote in message ... I own Garmin products, but I also know they are vicious in protecting their pricing and controlling distribution (which is why I am still suspect of their UPSAT purchase.) You are correct, that autos represent the biggest market and lowest margins, but the most successful technologies are the ones that can generate high volume sales (witness Wi-Fi or the old VHS over Beta...) GPS did not become ubiquitous until "cheap" solutions came to market. Garmin also incorporated in the Cayman's as a tax haven. Perfectly legal, but considering the bulk of their operations are in the US, a tad on the sleazy side for my taste. Aerospace is a great market for Garmin, because it is niche. The 35 "mouse" was way overpriced for many years until others came to the market, they really milked that one... Garmin is more of a Taiwanese company than a US one. Don't get me wrong, the 430/530 are still amazing for what they do. I am just concerned that they overpromised continued support of these products. When making my UPSAT vs Garmin decision a few years back, my discussions with Garmin engineers "suggested" Garmin had a software solution for a WAAS upgrade. Now we know it is a major hardware upgrade, and really don't know when it will be ready (or if it will ever pass the TSO...) I know from discussing from individuals working in engineering that most of their resources and talent are pushing the G1000. Upgrading the 430/530 may be on the back burner for a while since they have bet their aerospace future on the G1000 (and spending a lot of coin to get it out the door.) When Garmin "suggested" that they would have a software WAAS upgrade path for the 430/530, the TSO was not availible. When the FAA issued the TSO, it required 5 updates per second and that was beyond what the processor on the 430/530 could do. Their was no way to see this coming and Garmin certainly hasn't had any problem integrating WAAS into their non-IFR-certified products. You seem to be inferring that not having WAAS for the 430/530 today is an issue and that Garmin should pull out all the stops to get WAAS into the 430/530. I disagree. There is no functional advantage to having a 146 box today. Mike MU-2 "Mike Rapoport" wrote in message . net... Actually what you are referring to is Chrysler and Garmin did not lose the business.. The system bought by Chrysler from Alpine was at a higher price (~$1600) point than the one being developed by Garmin for Chrysler. The stock was ready to take a hit, having run from $20 to $50 with no real pullbacks. Automotive is indeed going to be the largest market but the margins are going to be the lowest. Mike MU-2 "Mark T. Mueller" wrote in message news I believe it was GM. It was reported back in June. Garmin's stock took a hit after the announcement, since the auto sector represents the greatest revenue growth potential for GPS equipment makers... Aviation, as we all know, is a very small, niche market compared to the auto sector. "Mike Rapoport" wrote in message link.net... "Mark T. Mueller" wrote in message ... The 430/530 do not meet the WAAS TSO (146a, I believe). They were designed long before this TSO went final. Garmin always said the 430/530 would be "upgradeable", but I think the final TSO caught them by surprise. You WILL need a hardware upgrade in the boxes to provide the 1 Hz refresh rate required by the TSO. Garmin reps at OSH this year stated the upgrade should be available early next year, but based upon Garmin's typical schedule challenges, it will probably be more like late 04 before they can provide good turn-around, and that's assuming they don't find any "issues" with the hardware upgrade... There will be a significant software upgrade as well. Seeing as there are only a handfull of LNAV/VNAV approaches published, I don't see the hurry in finding the que. I will wait a bit until the hardware upgrade is on the street for a couple months and any inevitable problems are worked out... In the meantime, were I to buy right now, I would probably go for the CNX80, but I would be concerned that Garmin has just bought UPSAT and future product support. The "gist" I got from the Garmin reps at OSH was their entire engineering staff is focused on rolling out the high dollar G-1000, and everything else is taking a back seat at the moment. Kind of disappointing, since I was hoping they would come out with an interface for the 530 with WxWorx instead of that pathetic EchoFlight... Garmin lost a major auto contract recently because of their high pricing structure. Don't know how that's going to effect their business model, but I hope they refocus on their core aviation market. I'm waiting. DB What auto maker was that? Mike MU-2 |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
OK, I give up. "Garmin" never said WAAS would be a software upgrade, but
their engineers and marketing folks sure did (at least to me...) Perhaps without "corporate approval"??? Or they were out specifically to get ME!!! But why would you move a corporate HQ to the Caymans if it WASN'T for the tax haven? Isn't that kind of like having a Swiss Bank Account for reasons OTHER than money laundering and/or hiding cash? Doesn't pass the smell test to me, but I am willing to admit I could be wrong... Can't imagine how Anderson and all the other "Big 6" made tons of money in the 90s using offshore schemes if it weren't to reduce tax liabilities... Check out their operating margins for the MRQ. Pretty astounding, if Yahoo financials have it right. The G1000 is a remarkable piece of kit, and as a high-margin OEM product, that should do Garmin quite well. I hope Bendix/King gets their collective heads out of their ass and hires away UPSAT's engineers so we can once again have some real competition in the GA market. "Mike Rapoport" wrote in message k.net... First off Garmin never said that WAAS would be a software upgrade, they said that they "thought" that it would be. The 430/530 could probably easily be software upgraded to WAAS but it wouldn't be a 146 box. That is an FAA problem, not a Garmin problem. Garmin's US earnings are fully taxed as are their Taiwan earnings. I have forgotten what the reason for incorporation in the Caymans was but it doesn't affect the company's income taxes. Mike MU-2 "Mark T. Mueller" wrote in message ... I didn't mean to infer Garmin should pull out all stops to provide 146 capability to the 430/530. But the fact of the matter is, and I can only speak for myself on this, part of my purchasing decision was based upon Garmin's statements. I just believe they should live up to their own marketing hype. Granted, LNAV/VNAV approaches are few and far between right now, but there are more published every day. I typically fly into and out of airfields that do not have precision approaches, and are fortunate to have a GPS overlay of an NDB approach. LNAV/VNAV is a capability I am really looking forward to using. Garmin was founded and headquartered in Olathe, KS until a reorganization in 1999 or 2000, I believe. That moved their HQ to the Caymans (tax haven) and became the "Britainized" Garmin LTD. The Taiwan facility is just a fab shop, if my research is correct principally for lower margin consumer electronics (iQue, Rhino, eTrex...) Believe me, I have no beef with Garmin, other than my resentment of Corporate tax havens. These guys are sharp businessmen, and vicious competitors. My concern is, and will remain with their commitment to the markets that got them where they are now. Just take a look at what is happening with pharma after "merger mania". The organizations have gotten so big, innovation and competition have died off in many market sectors. Bigger is not always better. "Mike Rapoport" wrote in message . net... "Mark T. Mueller" wrote in message ... I own Garmin products, but I also know they are vicious in protecting their pricing and controlling distribution (which is why I am still suspect of their UPSAT purchase.) You are correct, that autos represent the biggest market and lowest margins, but the most successful technologies are the ones that can generate high volume sales (witness Wi-Fi or the old VHS over Beta...) GPS did not become ubiquitous until "cheap" solutions came to market. Garmin also incorporated in the Cayman's as a tax haven. Perfectly legal, but considering the bulk of their operations are in the US, a tad on the sleazy side for my taste. Aerospace is a great market for Garmin, because it is niche. The 35 "mouse" was way overpriced for many years until others came to the market, they really milked that one... Garmin is more of a Taiwanese company than a US one. Don't get me wrong, the 430/530 are still amazing for what they do. I am just concerned that they overpromised continued support of these products. When making my UPSAT vs Garmin decision a few years back, my discussions with Garmin engineers "suggested" Garmin had a software solution for a WAAS upgrade. Now we know it is a major hardware upgrade, and really don't know when it will be ready (or if it will ever pass the TSO...) I know from discussing from individuals working in engineering that most of their resources and talent are pushing the G1000. Upgrading the 430/530 may be on the back burner for a while since they have bet their aerospace future on the G1000 (and spending a lot of coin to get it out the door.) When Garmin "suggested" that they would have a software WAAS upgrade path for the 430/530, the TSO was not availible. When the FAA issued the TSO, it required 5 updates per second and that was beyond what the processor on the 430/530 could do. Their was no way to see this coming and Garmin certainly hasn't had any problem integrating WAAS into their non-IFR-certified products. You seem to be inferring that not having WAAS for the 430/530 today is an issue and that Garmin should pull out all the stops to get WAAS into the 430/530. I disagree. There is no functional advantage to having a 146 box today. Mike MU-2 "Mike Rapoport" wrote in message . net... Actually what you are referring to is Chrysler and Garmin did not lose the business.. The system bought by Chrysler from Alpine was at a higher price (~$1600) point than the one being developed by Garmin for Chrysler. The stock was ready to take a hit, having run from $20 to $50 with no real pullbacks. Automotive is indeed going to be the largest market but the margins are going to be the lowest. Mike MU-2 "Mark T. Mueller" wrote in message news I believe it was GM. It was reported back in June. Garmin's stock took a hit after the announcement, since the auto sector represents the greatest revenue growth potential for GPS equipment makers... Aviation, as we all know, is a very small, niche market compared to the auto sector. "Mike Rapoport" wrote in message link.net... "Mark T. Mueller" wrote in message ... The 430/530 do not meet the WAAS TSO (146a, I believe). They were designed long before this TSO went final. Garmin always said the 430/530 would be "upgradeable", but I think the final TSO caught them by surprise. You WILL need a hardware upgrade in the boxes to provide the 1 Hz refresh rate required by the TSO. Garmin reps at OSH this year stated the upgrade should be available early next year, but based upon Garmin's typical schedule challenges, it will probably be more like late 04 before they can provide good turn-around, and that's assuming they don't find any "issues" with the hardware upgrade... There will be a significant software upgrade as well. Seeing as there are only a handfull of LNAV/VNAV approaches published, I don't see the hurry in finding the que. I will wait a bit until the hardware upgrade is on the street for a couple months and any inevitable problems are worked out... In the meantime, were I to buy right now, I would probably go for the CNX80, but I would be concerned that Garmin has just bought UPSAT and future product support. The "gist" I got from the Garmin reps at OSH was their entire engineering staff is focused on rolling out the high dollar G-1000, and everything else is taking a back seat at the moment. Kind of disappointing, since I was hoping they would come out with an interface for the 530 with WxWorx instead of that pathetic EchoFlight... Garmin lost a major auto contract recently because of their high pricing structure. Don't know how that's going to effect their business model, but I hope they refocus on their core aviation market. I'm waiting. DB What auto maker was that? Mike MU-2 |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
"Mark T. Mueller" wrote in message ... OK, I give up. "Garmin" never said WAAS would be a software upgrade, but their engineers and marketing folks sure did (at least to me...) Perhaps without "corporate approval"??? Or they were out specifically to get ME!!! They "thought" that it would be a software upgrade but, since the TSO wasn't out, they couldn't know for sure. If they knew that the TSO was going to require five updates per second, nobody would have said that it would only take a software upgrade. But why would you move a corporate HQ to the Caymans if it WASN'T for the tax haven? There is a reason but it wasn't the avoidance of coporate income tax. I forget what the rational was. Isn't that kind of like having a Swiss Bank Account for reasons OTHER than money laundering and/or hiding cash? Don't know. Doesn't pass the smell test to me, but I am willing to admit I could be wrong... Can't imagine how Anderson and all the other "Big 6" made tons of money in the 90s using offshore schemes if it weren't to reduce tax liabilities... Well look at the taxes that they pay. Their US earnings are fully taxed. Check out their operating margins for the MRQ. Pretty astounding, if Yahoo financials have it right. The G1000 is a remarkable piece of kit, and as a high-margin OEM product, that should do Garmin quite well. I hope Bendix/King gets their collective heads out of their ass and hires away UPSAT's engineers so we can once again have some real competition in the GA market. The company's margins have always been high, mostly because they design more desirable products than the competition. Compare the tactile "feel" of the buttons used on Garmin's audio panel with King's buttons. The Garmin's buttons just feel better. Little things like that add up. It is important to remember that Garmin IS the young inovative company, without them, King would still be trying to sell us KX155s and KLN 92s and there would be no alternative. Mike MU-2 "Mike Rapoport" wrote in message k.net... First off Garmin never said that WAAS would be a software upgrade, they said that they "thought" that it would be. The 430/530 could probably easily be software upgraded to WAAS but it wouldn't be a 146 box. That is an FAA problem, not a Garmin problem. Garmin's US earnings are fully taxed as are their Taiwan earnings. I have forgotten what the reason for incorporation in the Caymans was but it doesn't affect the company's income taxes. Mike MU-2 "Mark T. Mueller" wrote in message ... I didn't mean to infer Garmin should pull out all stops to provide 146 capability to the 430/530. But the fact of the matter is, and I can only speak for myself on this, part of my purchasing decision was based upon Garmin's statements. I just believe they should live up to their own marketing hype. Granted, LNAV/VNAV approaches are few and far between right now, but there are more published every day. I typically fly into and out of airfields that do not have precision approaches, and are fortunate to have a GPS overlay of an NDB approach. LNAV/VNAV is a capability I am really looking forward to using. Garmin was founded and headquartered in Olathe, KS until a reorganization in 1999 or 2000, I believe. That moved their HQ to the Caymans (tax haven) and became the "Britainized" Garmin LTD. The Taiwan facility is just a fab shop, if my research is correct principally for lower margin consumer electronics (iQue, Rhino, eTrex...) Believe me, I have no beef with Garmin, other than my resentment of Corporate tax havens. These guys are sharp businessmen, and vicious competitors. My concern is, and will remain with their commitment to the markets that got them where they are now. Just take a look at what is happening with pharma after "merger mania". The organizations have gotten so big, innovation and competition have died off in many market sectors. Bigger is not always better. "Mike Rapoport" wrote in message . net... "Mark T. Mueller" wrote in message ... I own Garmin products, but I also know they are vicious in protecting their pricing and controlling distribution (which is why I am still suspect of their UPSAT purchase.) You are correct, that autos represent the biggest market and lowest margins, but the most successful technologies are the ones that can generate high volume sales (witness Wi-Fi or the old VHS over Beta...) GPS did not become ubiquitous until "cheap" solutions came to market. Garmin also incorporated in the Cayman's as a tax haven. Perfectly legal, but considering the bulk of their operations are in the US, a tad on the sleazy side for my taste. Aerospace is a great market for Garmin, because it is niche. The 35 "mouse" was way overpriced for many years until others came to the market, they really milked that one... Garmin is more of a Taiwanese company than a US one. Don't get me wrong, the 430/530 are still amazing for what they do. I am just concerned that they overpromised continued support of these products. When making my UPSAT vs Garmin decision a few years back, my discussions with Garmin engineers "suggested" Garmin had a software solution for a WAAS upgrade. Now we know it is a major hardware upgrade, and really don't know when it will be ready (or if it will ever pass the TSO...) I know from discussing from individuals working in engineering that most of their resources and talent are pushing the G1000. Upgrading the 430/530 may be on the back burner for a while since they have bet their aerospace future on the G1000 (and spending a lot of coin to get it out the door.) When Garmin "suggested" that they would have a software WAAS upgrade path for the 430/530, the TSO was not availible. When the FAA issued the TSO, it required 5 updates per second and that was beyond what the processor on the 430/530 could do. Their was no way to see this coming and Garmin certainly hasn't had any problem integrating WAAS into their non-IFR-certified products. You seem to be inferring that not having WAAS for the 430/530 today is an issue and that Garmin should pull out all the stops to get WAAS into the 430/530. I disagree. There is no functional advantage to having a 146 box today. Mike MU-2 "Mike Rapoport" wrote in message . net... Actually what you are referring to is Chrysler and Garmin did not lose the business.. The system bought by Chrysler from Alpine was at a higher price (~$1600) point than the one being developed by Garmin for Chrysler. The stock was ready to take a hit, having run from $20 to $50 with no real pullbacks. Automotive is indeed going to be the largest market but the margins are going to be the lowest. Mike MU-2 "Mark T. Mueller" wrote in message news I believe it was GM. It was reported back in June. Garmin's stock took a hit after the announcement, since the auto sector represents the greatest revenue growth potential for GPS equipment makers... Aviation, as we all know, is a very small, niche market compared to the auto sector. "Mike Rapoport" wrote in message link.net... "Mark T. Mueller" wrote in message ... The 430/530 do not meet the WAAS TSO (146a, I believe). They were designed long before this TSO went final. Garmin always said the 430/530 would be "upgradeable", but I think the final TSO caught them by surprise. You WILL need a hardware upgrade in the boxes to provide the 1 Hz refresh rate required by the TSO. Garmin reps at OSH this year stated the upgrade should be available early next year, but based upon Garmin's typical schedule challenges, it will probably be more like late 04 before they can provide good turn-around, and that's assuming they don't find any "issues" with the hardware upgrade... There will be a significant software upgrade as well. Seeing as there are only a handfull of LNAV/VNAV approaches published, I don't see the hurry in finding the que. I will wait a bit until the hardware upgrade is on the street for a couple months and any inevitable problems are worked out... In the meantime, were I to buy right now, I would probably go for the CNX80, but I would be concerned that Garmin has just bought UPSAT and future product support. The "gist" I got from the Garmin reps at OSH was their entire engineering staff is focused on rolling out the high dollar G-1000, and everything else is taking a back seat at the moment. Kind of disappointing, since I was hoping they would come out with an interface for the 530 with WxWorx instead of that pathetic EchoFlight... Garmin lost a major auto contract recently because of their high pricing structure. Don't know how that's going to effect their business model, but I hope they refocus on their core aviation market. I'm waiting. DB What auto maker was that? Mike MU-2 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Garmin GNS-430 vs. CNX80 | Mike Adams | Instrument Flight Rules | 8 | August 17th 04 04:57 AM |
Different WAAS altitude readings | Wyatt Emmerich | Instrument Flight Rules | 21 | June 29th 04 07:27 PM |
GPS Altitude with WAAS | Phil Verghese | Instrument Flight Rules | 42 | October 5th 03 12:39 AM |
Garmin buys UPS AT... | Lenny Sawyer | Instrument Flight Rules | 39 | August 3rd 03 07:34 PM |
Garmin Behind the Curve on WAAS GPS VNAV Approaches | Richard Kaplan | Instrument Flight Rules | 24 | July 18th 03 01:43 PM |