GNS430W: Parallel offset course feature

On Sat, 8 Sep 2007 17:14:14 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
wrote:


"Peter Clark" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 08 Sep 2007 02:32:50 -0700, B wrote:

It would be nice to have victor airways in the box....

All the necessary components of Victor airways are in the box. What you
want, I presume, is an airway database. I guess you have to go to a
G-1000 to get that.;-)

I know they are, that's what's so frustrating. And once Piper makes a
Malibu or Meridan with a G1000 instaed of the Avidyne panel, I might
just trade up.....

AviDyne uses the Garmin GPS for it's Nav input, so get the Avidyne, but
attach a GPS-480 to it if you REALLY want airways.

It would be interesting to see if there's an STC for that
installation. I know I can't drop in the 530W units right now because
the Meggitt Magic display software update hasn't come out and without
it there are required functions missing. From what S-Tec says at
least that issue will be fixed early in the new year.

On Sat, 8 Sep 2007 17:11:45 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
wrote:


"B" wrote in message
...
Peter Clark wrote:
On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 08:11:19 -0700, B wrote:

It would be nice to have victor airways in the box....

All the necessary components of Victor airways are in the box. What you
want, I presume, is an airway database. I guess you have to go to a
G-1000 to get that.;-)

Airways from a GPS: That's like buying a $1000 stereo and listening to
monaural AM radio. :~(

Maybe where you're flying. In the northeast (and even entering the
northeast, pretty much from PA east from what I've seen) clearances
aren't "direct", they're KLOU IIU J78 PSB J49 ALB GDM LOBBY KBED. I'd
rather just be able to dial that into the box. Heck, even going from
BED to PWM (Hanscom to Portland, ME - 83NM leg whos only airspace
issue is the 3000' and 4000' shelf of the Boston bravo ) always gets
clearned via the PSM and ENE VORs.

"Peter Clark" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 8 Sep 2007 17:11:45 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
wrote:


"B" wrote in message
...
Peter Clark wrote:
On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 08:11:19 -0700, B wrote:

It would be nice to have victor airways in the box....

All the necessary components of Victor airways are in the box. What you
want, I presume, is an airway database. I guess you have to go to a
G-1000 to get that.;-)

Airways from a GPS: That's like buying a $1000 stereo and listening to
monaural AM radio. :~(

Maybe where you're flying. In the northeast (and even entering the
northeast, pretty much from PA east from what I've seen) clearances
aren't "direct", they're KLOU IIU J78 PSB J49 ALB GDM LOBBY KBED. I'd
rather just be able to dial that into the box. Heck, even going from
BED to PWM (Hanscom to Portland, ME - 83NM leg whos only airspace
issue is the 3000' and 4000' shelf of the Boston bravo ) always gets
clearned via the PSM and ENE VORs.

I guess all I'm essentially asking is, "Can't you just do airways on the
VOR?" like they always did?

On Sun, 9 Sep 2007 06:27:08 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
wrote:


I guess all I'm essentially asking is, "Can't you just do airways on the
VOR?" like they always did?

Can't we use NDB and A-N ranges like they used to?

Sure, you can use NAV1 and fly VOR and flip-flops to identify
intersections, but when there should be a perfectly good way to do it
with the automation available there's no reason to do it the hard way.
It's a trivial amount of additional code for the 430/530 series - the
G1000 is basically a headless 430. It's Garmin's "nobody does
airways" attitude that's preventing it.

"Matt Barrow" wrote:

"Peter Clark" wrote in
message ...
On Sat, 8 Sep 2007 17:11:45 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
wrote:

"B" wrote in message
Airways from a GPS: That's like buying a $1000 stereo and listening
to monaural AM radio. :~(

Maybe where you're flying. In the northeast (and even entering the
northeast, pretty much from PA east from what I've seen) clearances
aren't "direct", they're KLOU IIU J78 PSB J49 ALB GDM LOBBY KBED.
I'd rather just be able to dial that into the box. Heck, even going
from BED to PWM (Hanscom to Portland, ME - 83NM leg whos only
airspace issue is the 3000' and 4000' shelf of the Boston bravo )
always gets clearned via the PSM and ENE VORs.

That's true here in the Southwest as well. With all the restricted areas, MOA's, and high MEA's, if you
want to go IFR, you're going to be on the airways.

I guess all I'm essentially asking is, "Can't you just do airways on
the VOR?" like they always did?

Given that you have to fly the airway, it's much easier to call it up out of the database and have the GPS
automatically insert all the course changes and intersections. Without the database, you're forced to get
out the chart and find all the significant waypoints where a course change occurs, and put them in
manually, or else fly the VOR raw data as you said. Either one is a lot of work by comparison.

Mike

Mike Adams wrote:


Given that you have to fly the airway, it's much easier to call it up out of the database and have the GPS
automatically insert all the course changes and intersections. Without the database, you're forced to get
out the chart and find all the significant waypoints where a course change occurs, and put them in
manually, or else fly the VOR raw data as you said. Either one is a lot of work by comparison.

Mike

Anyone who flies IFR without the chart out isn't in complete command of
the flight in any case

B wrote:

Mike Adams wrote:


Given that you have to fly the airway, it's much easier to call it up
out of the database and have the GPS automatically insert all the
course changes and intersections. Without the database, you're forced
to get out the chart and find all the significant waypoints where a
course change occurs, and put them in manually, or else fly the VOR
raw data as you said. Either one is a lot of work by comparison.

Mike

Anyone who flies IFR without the chart out isn't in complete command
of the flight in any case

I don't disagree, but it's still easier to get the route into the box if the airways are in the database, rather
than just the navaids and intersections as waypoints.

Mike

In article ,
Mike Adams wrote:

B wrote:

Mike Adams wrote:


Given that you have to fly the airway, it's much easier to call it up
out of the database and have the GPS automatically insert all the
course changes and intersections. Without the database, you're forced
to get out the chart and find all the significant waypoints where a
course change occurs, and put them in manually, or else fly the VOR
raw data as you said. Either one is a lot of work by comparison.

Mike

Anyone who flies IFR without the chart out isn't in complete command
of the flight in any case

I don't disagree, but it's still easier to get the route into the box if the
airways are in the database, rather
than just the navaids and intersections as waypoints.

Mike

Of course, this whole thing is complete stupidity. For the most part (at
least around here), there's just a small set of canned routes that you
always get. They should just tell you "GPS route 347", that should already
be in the Jepp database, and off you go.

Yeah, I know, it's starting to happen, but it's amazing how long it takes
for the most obvious things to get rolled out in aviation.

In article ,
Roy Smith wrote:

In article ,
Mike Adams wrote:

B wrote:

Mike Adams wrote:


Given that you have to fly the airway, it's much easier to call it up
out of the database and have the GPS automatically insert all the
course changes and intersections. Without the database, you're forced
to get out the chart and find all the significant waypoints where a
course change occurs, and put them in manually, or else fly the VOR
raw data as you said. Either one is a lot of work by comparison.

Mike

Anyone who flies IFR without the chart out isn't in complete command
of the flight in any case

I don't disagree, but it's still easier to get the route into the box if
the
airways are in the database, rather
than just the navaids and intersections as waypoints.

Mike

Of course, this whole thing is complete stupidity. For the most part (at
least around here), there's just a small set of canned routes that you
always get. They should just tell you "GPS route 347", that should already
be in the Jepp database, and off you go.

Yeah, I know, it's starting to happen, but it's amazing how long it takes
for the most obvious things to get rolled out in aviation.

Indeed, canned route ID's like that would be a Really Good Idea. Around
here (the SF Bay Area) a lot of the routes for GA seem to be absolutely
standardised -- it almost never matters what you file (and I've tried a
few odd variants to see what happens...), you'll get the unpublished
canned route, some of which I can recite off the top of my head
regardless of how complicated they are, and all of which are repeated in
their full glory on crowded clearance or center frequencies. "Hayward
San Luis 56 Alpha" or something would be a lot clearer than the "fly
runway heading, passing through 400' left turn heading 160, radar
vectors ALTAM, V244, Manteca VOR, V113, Paso Robles VOR, direct" I get
each time I do Hayward / San Luis Obispo. And a lot easier to program on
the GPS if they're integrated into the GPS workflow and databases. (I
think what most irritates me is the fact that these routes are never
published anywhere official).

And I'm also unclear why there aren't more canned DP's -- I regularly
fly out of Hayward (KHWD) where every departure clearance I've ever
received has started with "runway heading, passing 400' left turn
heading 160, radar vectors for [SJC, OAK, ALTAM], ...", always spelled
out in full. Why not just publish a SID? "Cleared San Luis Obispo
airport via the HAYWD 2 departure, San Jose transition, ...". It's not
like Hayward is a podunk airport in the middle of nowhere -- it's in a
hugely busy airspace. Oh well. I'll shut up now :-).

Hamish

"Peter Clark" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 9 Sep 2007 06:27:08 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
wrote:


I guess all I'm essentially asking is, "Can't you just do airways on the
VOR?" like they always did?

Can't we use NDB and A-N ranges like they used to?

Not for airways, and the topic is AIRWAYS.


Sure, you can use NAV1 and fly VOR and flip-flops to identify
intersections, but when there should be a perfectly good way to do it
with the automation available there's no reason to do it the hard way.

Using your previous analogy, why not add ADF/DNB navigiation to GPS as well?

Sure, they're dying; so, too, will airways. Why add functionality to a GPS
that will be obsolete soon enough? Expecially when, as you put it, you can
use NAV1 and flip-flops? That's already in most GPS systems with built in
COM/NAVs.

It's a trivial amount of additional code for the 430/530 series - the
G1000 is basically a headless 430. It's Garmin's "nobody does
airways" attitude that's preventing it.

I notice that (most? All?) the other GPS manufacturers aren't adding airways
either.