angle points in victor airways

In article ne.com,
Andrew Gideon wrote:

Roy Smith wrote:

BTW, it's questions like this that make me really love the CNX-80 I fly
with. You don't have to put in the intermediate fixes. You just tell
it what airway you're on, and it digs all the fixes out of the database
for you.

Is there any disadvantage to this?

I'd an email dialog with a Garmin representative recently. One of the
questions I asked was whether they'd plans to put airways (and airway route
entry) into their 430s at any point. His answer was that this was being
considered, but that they were concerned at making the UI more difficult.

I cannot imagine how this feature would make it more difficult, but I've
never tried this. You obviously have. So...is there any complexity
increase to this?

- Andrew

I've only used a 430 a few times, and that was several years ago, so I'm
not in a good position to make a comparative judgement of the two UI's.

There is no doubt that there is a long learning curve to the CNX-80, but
of all the bits of functionality it's got, I think the idea of entering
a flight plan using airways and fixes, just like it's written down on
paper, is one of the shining examples of good UI design. It really is
easy to do, mostly because the box prompts you every step along the way.

One level of complexity that does get added is the idea of "expanded"
vs. (for lack of a better word) "compressed" flight plans. If I enter
"CMK v3 HFD" as my flight plan, initially I only see those elements. To
see the intermediate intersections, I need to hit the XPND (Expand)
button. And since XPND is a soft key, I need to get into the right mode
for the button to be active. Of course, the FPL (Flight Plan) button is
a soft key too, so I may need to hit FN (Function) a couple of times to
scroll around to where I can hit FPL.

But, I think the basic problem there is not that you enter flight plans
using airways, but that the function tree is a little too deep, and a
little too modal. But, a wider, shallower function tree means more
hard-labeled buttons, and that takes panel real-estate.

A good example of the CNX-80 modal design is the very first time I ever
used one. I was out with another club instructor, and he had only used
the box a few times (the blind teaching the blind). We almost didn't
get out of the ramp. We went to call ground for taxi clearance and
heard nothing. After a few attempts, we switched to the radio and heard
ground calling us, asking if we heard them. Turns out the COM volume
was turned all the way down on the CNX-80. The 430 has two volume
knobs, one for COM, one for NAV (IIRC). The CNX-80 has a single volume
knob, which adjusts the COM or NAV volume, depending on which mode
you're in at the time. It's also a blind knob; there's no visual
indication where it's set to. When you twiddle it, a volume display
pops up on the screen, and goes away when you stop twiddling.

BTW, you can download the manual (PDF) and a full simulator for the
CNX-80 from the Garmin web site. Load up the sim and play with it.
That's probably a better way to get a feel for how the UI works than
anything I could write.

In article ,
"John R. Copeland" wrote:

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
online.com...
Roy Smith wrote:

BTW, it's questions like this that make me really love the CNX-80 I fly
with. You don't have to put in the intermediate fixes. You just tell
it what airway you're on, and it digs all the fixes out of the database
for you.

Is there any disadvantage to this?

I'd an email dialog with a Garmin representative recently. One of the
questions I asked was whether they'd plans to put airways (and airway route
entry) into their 430s at any point. His answer was that this was being
considered, but that they were concerned at making the UI more difficult.

I cannot imagine how this feature would make it more difficult, but I've
never tried this. You obviously have. So...is there any complexity
increase to this?

- Andrew


I shouldn't answer for Roy, but it's very easy in the CNX80/GNS480.
You can try for yourself, if you wish, by downloading and running the
CNX80 simulator for Windows, from Garmin:
http://www.garmin.com/software/simulators/CNX80sim.zip

When you insert any waypoint (or VOR) into a flight plan you are building,
and then indicate you wish to insert an airway from there,
you get to select from a list of all airways using that waypoint.
After you choose your airway, you get to pick your exit point
from an alphabetized list of all waypoints (and VORs) in that airway.
The CNX80/GNS480 also shows you a maplike diagram of the airway,
which is helpful in making your choice.

Roy, did I leave out any important thing?
---JRC---

Nope, that's pretty much it. Sometimes I wish the list of waypoints
would come up in geographical order instead of alphabetical, but I've
gotten used to it the way it is. And, the more I think about it, the
more I realize geographical order has it's own set of problems.

paul k. sanchez wrote:



Well Frank, since obviously you were quite unimpressed with the history of
other receivers that had airway data bases, perhaps you would be willing to
learn that the CNX80 (GNS480) is a TSO-C146 and not C129.

Part of this business is knowing the history of the software, who had which
features, and what hardware interface.

Don't worry yourself that I charge for humor in my billing day, I only bill for
what I know and what the client needs. I hope you can find someone that meets
your needs and lack of humor appreciation.


paul k. sanchez, cfii-mei
on eagles’ wings
10643 shore drive
boca raton, florida 33428-5645
305-389-1742 wireless
561-852-6779 home/fax


Well, Paul, I admit my lack of knowledge about pretend IFR stuff because
I am sheltered in my little world of FMS/LNAV/VNAV platforms. If it
won't do VNAV profiles and RF legs, I have to admit, it's beyond me.

I also don't have to stroke my ego by placing "CFII-MEI" after my name
like it actually means something professional.

Well, Paul, I admit my lack of knowledge about pretend IFR stuff because
I am sheltered in my little world of FMS/LNAV/VNAV platforms. If it
won't do VNAV profiles and RF legs, I have to admit, it's beyond me.

I also don't have to stroke my ego by placing "CFII-MEI" after my name
like it actually means something professional.



Frank indeed you are correct that the current CNX80 software (version 1.0) does
not have any VNAV capability. The Garmin GNS480 incarnation along with software
version 2.0 will have VNAV profiles. The LNAV capability has always been there
in the CNX80.

Interesting enough the Garmin 430/530 have a very capable VNAV programming
feature that shows the vertical speed required to target point/altitude and a
second by second basis.

Not quite sure why you feel that Garmin 400/500/480/MX20 is "pretend" IFR stuff
but I will sumise that you probably have a well-founded opinion why.

My ratings on the my certificates are part of my business, insurance
underwriters require that I keep them current in order to do insurance
qualification courses for new owner/operators of aircraft. People do have an
expection also that I have the credentials to teach what I talk about.

Wish you well.


paul k. sanchez, cfii-mei
on eagles’ wings
10643 shore drive
boca raton, florida 33428-5645
305-389-1742 wireless
561-852-6779 home/fax

paul k. sanchez wrote:


Not quite sure why you feel that Garmin 400/500/480/MX20 is "pretend" IFR stuff
but I will sumise that you probably have a well-founded opinion why.

"Pretend IFR" is in total context. Generally, these types of avionics
are installed in light aircraft, which are generally incapable of safe
en route IFR operations. Further, the interface and complexity of sets
such as those you cite overwhelm even the most proficient IFR pilots at
times; at least in single-pilot, hand-flown operations.

Of the sets listed I have some time using the 500 (not 530) in a
friend's airplane. We both know the set well and we both have a whole
lot of time. (I have 4,000 hours light aircraft time and 14,000 hours
Part 121 time. He has perhaps 8,000 hours light aircraft time.)

We have both concluded that the 500 cannot be safely used without either
two pilots or a first-rate autopilot being used by a pilot who *really*
understands how to use the autopilot.

I also have a friend who is a flight-planning engineer for one of the
biggest companies that makes FMS suites for biz jets and air carrier
aircraft. He has a fair amount of time playing around with the 530
flying along with a friend of his. His conclusion is that, although the
530 is best light aircraft set out there, it is too difficult to use
safely in single-pilot, hand-flown operations.

On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 17:05:24 GMT, wrote:

Generally, these types of avionics
are installed in light aircraft, which are generally incapable of safe
en route IFR operations.

Aside from opinions from a few users, do you have any evidence that "light
aircraft ... are generally incapable of safe en route IFR operations"?


--ron

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 17:05:24 GMT, wrote:


Generally, these types of avionics
are installed in light aircraft, which are generally incapable of safe
en route IFR operations.


Aside from opinions from a few users, do you have any evidence that "light
aircraft ... are generally incapable of safe en route IFR operations"?

Exposure to the accident reports invovling icing, operating at altitudes
in unstable atmospheric conditions where available performance is
inadequate, and so forth.

On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 12:27:54 GMT, wrote:

Exposure to the accident reports invovling icing, operating at altitudes
in unstable atmospheric conditions where available performance is
inadequate, and so forth.

If those are your criteria, then transport category aircraft are equally
culpable. They have been brought down by much the same sorts of issues.

Knowing the limitations of one's equipment is a critical component to safe
operation, and the consequences of violating those limitations is not
limited to light aircraft.

The limitations of light aircraft do not make them "generally incapable of
safe en route IFR operations". Although it certainly makes them incapable
of operations in conditions that a more capable aircraft can handle safely.


--ron

If you are using a handheld GPS, I sell software that can do that for
you. If you plan your route along an airway, it only includes fixes
at the doglegs in the route description. You can download a freeware
version that doesn't include GPS support from my site at
http://www.razorsedgesoft.com/airplan.htm to try out the planner
functions.

Dean Wilkinson

(John Hamilton) wrote in message . com...
If I am navigating along a Victor Airway, and want to program it into
my GPS, how can I tell if there is an angle (i.e. change in direction)
at an intersection? I know that some intersections are there just
because of changes in MOA, MOCA, etc, but definitely some are there
because the airways "bends". For example, I was flying last night from
New haven to Pittsburgh (yes, in the middle of the rain from Joanne)
along V162. Just east of Harrisburg is BOBSS, where V162 joins V12,
and turns due west.

When I was in training for my instrument rating, my CFII would tell me
to program in every intersection along the route, but that could be
dozens. I can't tell from the legend on the IFR chart the answer to
this.

File the airway route with DUATS, and look at the log it generates.
It will fill in all the waypoints, and you can tell if there is a bend by
whether the heading changes.

"Dean Wilkinson" wrote in message
m...
If you are using a handheld GPS, I sell software that can do that for
you. If you plan your route along an airway, it only includes fixes
at the doglegs in the route description. You can download a freeware
version that doesn't include GPS support from my site at
http://www.razorsedgesoft.com/airplan.htm to try out the planner
functions.

Dean Wilkinson

(John Hamilton) wrote in message
. com...
If I am navigating along a Victor Airway, and want to program it into
my GPS, how can I tell if there is an angle (i.e. change in direction)
at an intersection? I know that some intersections are there just
because of changes in MOA, MOCA, etc, but definitely some are there
because the airways "bends". For example, I was flying last night from
New haven to Pittsburgh (yes, in the middle of the rain from Joanne)
along V162. Just east of Harrisburg is BOBSS, where V162 joins V12,
and turns due west.

When I was in training for my instrument rating, my CFII would tell me
to program in every intersection along the route, but that could be
dozens. I can't tell from the legend on the IFR chart the answer to
this.