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
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
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 :-) |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Marske Flying Wing discussion Group | mat Redsell | Home Built | 0 | September 19th 04 01:58 PM |
Ultralight Club Bylaws - Warning Long Post | MrHabilis | Home Built | 0 | June 11th 04 05:07 PM |
Flying Wing Design workshop in july 04 | mat Redsell | Home Built | 1 | May 5th 04 01:53 PM |
restarting instrument flying | Matthew S. Whiting | Instrument Flight Rules | 13 | November 21st 03 01:04 PM |
seeking info from NW Ontario/ Upper Midwest Pilots flying intoAtikokan | David Megginson | Instrument Flight Rules | 0 | July 9th 03 03:04 PM |