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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
garmin 296
For years I've turned by back on Garmin GPSs because they did not
provide terrain. Now it looks like the Garmin 296 provides that. I'm considering selling my Skymap IIIc (which has terrain) and buying the Garmin. The IIIc certainly has a bigger screen but the Garmin has the partial panel turn coordinator and IAF vectors for approaches. However, I was really, really surprised to see that Garmin is missing Victor airways. I can't tell you how useful that has been while being rapid fire assigned airways near L.A. or anywhere. Being able to just put the course line on the airway line made flying airways simple. Garmin says they don't have plans to fix this. Too bad, having airways really would make it a better unit (and prevent frequent grabs for the enroute chart). Its also great for VFR pilots who want to practice steep turns and stalls but want to ensure they are the minimum 4 miles from an airway. -Robert |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
An article (actually, a sidebar to an article) in the July IFR magazine says
"According to AIM 1-1-20 (f)(7), by omission, you can't just input the VOR as the active waypoint....," and "...according to this passage, the FAA allows GPS to substitute for everything except for a VOR. For some reason, the FAA has faith in its VORs and won't let you substitute GPS for them as a primary means of navigation." Maybe this is why Garmin does not include VOR-based airways. Bob Gardner "Robert M. Gary" wrote in message om... For years I've turned by back on Garmin GPSs because they did not provide terrain. Now it looks like the Garmin 296 provides that. I'm considering selling my Skymap IIIc (which has terrain) and buying the Garmin. The IIIc certainly has a bigger screen but the Garmin has the partial panel turn coordinator and IAF vectors for approaches. However, I was really, really surprised to see that Garmin is missing Victor airways. I can't tell you how useful that has been while being rapid fire assigned airways near L.A. or anywhere. Being able to just put the course line on the airway line made flying airways simple. Garmin says they don't have plans to fix this. Too bad, having airways really would make it a better unit (and prevent frequent grabs for the enroute chart). Its also great for VFR pilots who want to practice steep turns and stalls but want to ensure they are the minimum 4 miles from an airway. -Robert |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Bob Gardner
wrote: An article (actually, a sidebar to an article) in the July IFR magazine says "According to AIM 1-1-20 (f)(7), by omission, you can't just input the VOR as the active waypoint....," and "...according to this passage, the FAA allows GPS to substitute for everything except for a VOR. For some reason, the FAA has faith in its VORs and won't let you substitute GPS for them as a primary means of navigation." Maybe this is why Garmin does not include VOR-based airways. Not to mention the software updates required to keep the airways current. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
I have yet to try this myself, but two pilots I know suggested I try it.
The airways are defined by VOR radials. GPSs do not seem to navigate them correctly. In fact, one of the pilots mentioned flew with an "instructor" who was relying on a GPS for lateral guidance on an IFR flight plan. The pilot told the instructor to knock it off and use the vors as he was seeing CDI needle deflection. The instructor said not to worry. After some time ATC informed them that they were off the airway (though the gps showed dead-on). The instructor got a smack in the head. Airways and intersections are quite simple to fly, why the obsession with GPS? "Bob Gardner" wrote in message ... An article (actually, a sidebar to an article) in the July IFR magazine says "According to AIM 1-1-20 (f)(7), by omission, you can't just input the VOR as the active waypoint....," and "...according to this passage, the FAA allows GPS to substitute for everything except for a VOR. For some reason, the FAA has faith in its VORs and won't let you substitute GPS for them as a primary means of navigation." Maybe this is why Garmin does not include VOR-based airways. Bob Gardner "Robert M. Gary" wrote in message om... For years I've turned by back on Garmin GPSs because they did not provide terrain. Now it looks like the Garmin 296 provides that. I'm considering selling my Skymap IIIc (which has terrain) and buying the Garmin. The IIIc certainly has a bigger screen but the Garmin has the partial panel turn coordinator and IAF vectors for approaches. However, I was really, really surprised to see that Garmin is missing Victor airways. I can't tell you how useful that has been while being rapid fire assigned airways near L.A. or anywhere. Being able to just put the course line on the airway line made flying airways simple. Garmin says they don't have plans to fix this. Too bad, having airways really would make it a better unit (and prevent frequent grabs for the enroute chart). Its also great for VFR pilots who want to practice steep turns and stalls but want to ensure they are the minimum 4 miles from an airway. -Robert |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
But today my SkymapIIIc has airways. They are pink on the display. You
just put your white course line on the pink airway line and you're flying down the middle of the airway. No need to figure out what VORs or intersections are on the airway when ATC puts you on an airway. Often, near SoCal they don't even name intersections. You'll get instructions from approach like, "Victor 123 to Victor 234 to Victor 345, etc, etc". I've gotten as many as 5 victor airways in my clearance as I approached SoCal, none of which included intersections in the clearance. The SkymapIIIC sure made it easier. However, I just bought the 296 because of the turn coordinator functionality (for emergency partial panels no electrical and no vac) and for the battery life after loss of power. -Robert "Bob Gardner" wrote in message ... An article (actually, a sidebar to an article) in the July IFR magazine says "According to AIM 1-1-20 (f)(7), by omission, you can't just input the VOR as the active waypoint....," and "...according to this passage, the FAA allows GPS to substitute for everything except for a VOR. For some reason, the FAA has faith in its VORs and won't let you substitute GPS for them as a primary means of navigation." Maybe this is why Garmin does not include VOR-based airways. Bob Gardner "Robert M. Gary" wrote in message om... For years I've turned by back on Garmin GPSs because they did not provide terrain. Now it looks like the Garmin 296 provides that. I'm considering selling my Skymap IIIc (which has terrain) and buying the Garmin. The IIIc certainly has a bigger screen but the Garmin has the partial panel turn coordinator and IAF vectors for approaches. However, I was really, really surprised to see that Garmin is missing Victor airways. I can't tell you how useful that has been while being rapid fire assigned airways near L.A. or anywhere. Being able to just put the course line on the airway line made flying airways simple. Garmin says they don't have plans to fix this. Too bad, having airways really would make it a better unit (and prevent frequent grabs for the enroute chart). Its also great for VFR pilots who want to practice steep turns and stalls but want to ensure they are the minimum 4 miles from an airway. -Robert |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
From: "Richard Hertz"
I have yet to try this myself, but two pilots I know suggested I try it. The airways are defined by VOR radials. GPSs do not seem to navigate them correctly. In fact, one of the pilots mentioned flew with an "instructor" who was relying on a GPS for lateral guidance on an IFR flight plan. The pilot told the instructor to knock it off and use the vors as he was seeing CDI needle deflection. The instructor said not to worry. After some time ATC informed them that they were off the airway (though the gps showed dead-on). You should be able to navigate an airway more accurately using a GPS than you can with a VOR. The problem with VORs is that they are not aligned with magnetic north. Usually, they are aligned with magnetic north when the VOR station is first installed, but they are not kept in alignment as the earth's magnetic field shifts. Have you ever noticed how runways are occasionally recharted with new magnetic headings? Also check he http://www.geolab.nrcan.gc.ca/geomag...vt_nmp_e.shtml. Many GPS receivers use a model of the earth's magnetic field that results in a magnetic correction similar to the isogonic lines on the chart. If the instructor executed a direct to the VOR waypoint in the GPS and then used the OBS feature to select the inbound course as depicted by the VOR radial on the chart, he may be several degrees off. If you want to look at an example, go to www.airnav.com and pull up SWL VOR and KOXB (Ocean City). SWL has a variation of 8W (1965) and KOXB has a variation of 12W (2000). There might be a close airport, but SWL is 22 nm from KOXB. Some GPS receivers such as the Garmin 196, 295, 296, 430, and 530 use the slaved value of the VOR for the OBS mode. Thus, setting the OBS mode to a value results in the same path over the ground as if you selected the VOR OBS to the same number. On some GPS receivers, such as the Garmin GPS III Pilot the GPS does not compensate for this VOR misalignment. What I don't know is whether there is any requirement for an IFR certified GPS to use the VOR slaved value for magnetic variation. There is also the possibility that the instructor in your story was using a non-IFR GPS. This is not to say the OBS mode is the best way to navigate an airway, just that this might be a cause for error. A better way is to set up a route in the GPS to reflect points on the airway. Such as from VOR A to VOR B or INTERSECTION to VOR if there is a bend in the airway. John Bell www.cockpitgps.com |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"Bob Gardner" wrote in message ... An article (actually, a sidebar to an article) in the July IFR magazine says "According to AIM 1-1-20 (f)(7), by omission, you can't just input the VOR as the active waypoint....," and "...according to this passage, the FAA allows GPS to substitute for everything except for a VOR. For some reason, the FAA has faith in its VORs and won't let you substitute GPS for them as a primary means of navigation." Maybe this is why Garmin does not include VOR-based airways. Garmin panel mount units have airways. More likely the reason airways are not included in the handhelds is the limitation on memory for the database. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"Richard Hertz" wrote in message ... I have yet to try this myself, but two pilots I know suggested I try it. The airways are defined by VOR radials. GPSs do not seem to navigate them correctly. In fact, one of the pilots mentioned flew with an "instructor" who was relying on a GPS for lateral guidance on an IFR flight plan. The pilot told the instructor to knock it off and use the vors as he was seeing CDI needle deflection. The instructor said not to worry. After some time ATC informed them that they were off the airway (though the gps showed dead-on). If the GPS is programmed properly it will follow airways just fine. Usually in a case like this whoever put the flight plan into the GPS left out some intermediate waypoint. VOR's rarely agree with each other as closely as the GPS follows the airways. If the GPS is properly set up it will rarely be more than a degree off the airway, while the VORs can be as much as six degrees off. The GPS sets up a single course for the entire length of the route segment, while published airways may not have a single magnetic course for the route segment due to change in magnetic variation. This is why the GPS is usually a degree off what the published airway information is. If following the GPS gets you so far off that ATC brings it to your attention, you probably entered some bad data into the flight plan in the GPS. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 15:52:56 -0700, "Bob Gardner"
wrote: An article (actually, a sidebar to an article) in the July IFR magazine says "According to AIM 1-1-20 (f)(7), by omission, you can't just input the VOR as the active waypoint....," and "...according to this passage, the FAA allows GPS to substitute for everything except for a VOR. For some reason, the FAA has faith in its VORs and won't let you substitute GPS for them as a primary means of navigation." Bob, I cannot find that paragraph. AIM 1-1-20 refers to WAAS boxes certified under TSO-146, which do not require any other type of navigation equipment to be on board and can be used for enroute navigation using VOR's (and airways, for that matter), without a VOR receiver on board. You (or the July IFR magazine -- haven't seen it yet) are probably (or should be) referencing 1-1-19 which refers to TSO 129 boxes. Those do require an alternate means of navigation to be on board. But, not having read the article, I would disagree that one cannot use VOR's as the active waypoint in a TSO129 box that is approved for GPS approaches. It makes no sense so long as the VOR is retrieved from the box's database. Since that same box can be used to fly overlay approaches based on a VOR, to claim that because the substitution is omitted in 1-1-19 (f)(7) that it is not allowed, makes no sense. It is certainly allowed in performing the overlay approaches. Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA) |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"John Bell" wrote in message . com...
From: "Richard Hertz" I have yet to try this myself, but two pilots I know suggested I try it. The airways are defined by VOR radials. GPSs do not seem to navigate them correctly. In fact, one of the pilots mentioned flew with an "instructor" who was relying on a GPS for lateral guidance on an IFR flight plan. The pilot told the instructor to knock it off and use the vors as he was seeing CDI needle deflection. The instructor said not to worry. After some time ATC informed them that they were off the airway (though the gps showed dead-on). You should be able to navigate an airway more accurately using a GPS than you can with a VOR. I think so too. I never had any trouble following airways with my Skymap IIIc. I recently spoke with some C-5 pilots who claim they can tell who is flying on GPS by looking at how close they are to the center of the airway. The GPS takes all the work out of trying to find your wind correction angle on the airway. Just put the white line on the pink line (in the case of my Skymap). -Robert |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Amateur Review of the Garmin GPSMAP 296 GPS | Rhett | Piloting | 10 | March 23rd 05 01:16 AM |
Garmin 296 worth the money? | Terry | Owning | 15 | June 22nd 04 09:03 AM |
Microsoft Flight Simulator and Garmin aviation handheld GPS | John Bell | Piloting | 4 | March 25th 04 11:56 AM |
Garmin DME arc weidnress | Dave Touretzky | Instrument Flight Rules | 5 | October 2nd 03 02:04 AM |
Garmin 90 Database Updates Discontinued | Val Christian | Piloting | 14 | August 20th 03 09:32 PM |