Flying IFR with Garmins

"John Harper" writes:

My understanding is that the only difference between
APP and NAV modes is whether the GS coupling
is enabled. If the GS and dest waypoint happen to be in much
the same direction you could get a long way down...

Your understanding is incorrect.

One of the differences between NAV and APR mode is how aggressive the
a/p will be to keep the needle centered.

The GS capture is not armed unless you have a localizer frequency
channeled in (ie, tuned in a nav radio, and the a/p is coupled to
that radio), among other things.

-jav

well, whats the requirements for filing /G


Hankal wrote:

because you cannot go direct with a hand held GPS

Why not? I hardly ever file direct and when I do, ATC will amend the clearance.
However I often hear ATC tell me to go direct.
In my IFR flight plan I specify that I have a VFR GPS on board.
Hank

On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 16:01:50 -0700, Jeff wrote:

because you cannot go direct with a hand held GPS, You can only file /G
with an IFR certified GPS

Where does it say that you have to file /G in order to go direct?


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

"Jeff" wrote in message
...
well, whats the requirements for filing /G

IFR approved terminal/enroute or approach approved GPS.

"Robert M. Gary" wrote:

No one wants to, but you can't control everything. The reason airways
are so common out West is because they include all the turns around
restricted airspace and busy class B airports. If you didn't use
airways, you'd have to read off 5 different turn points (for GPS
direct).



There are also those pesky mountains that need avoiding out west.

I tried to fly under the hood relying on just the Garmin 196 artificial
panel. It's doable, but there were pretty big deviations and I had to
struggle. In real IFR in an emergency. . .I wouldn't want to be in that
situation. However, it is a nice reinforcer that helps me feel more
confident about my instruments in IMC.



"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
om...
"Julian Scarfe" wrote in message
news:nKRBc.1345$I43.1315@newsfe6-win...
"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
om...
Some of the differing perspective in this thread are due to flying in
environments with different demands. I fly in an environment in which
the
requirement is almost always to fly direct towards a waypoint rather
than
track a centerline, and which is sufficiently busy that making
significant
turns to make aggressive radial intercepts is going to raise some
eyebrows
at ATC. You fly in an environment in which the choice is to follow the
airway centerlines or hit rock.

All that said, airways on Garmins would be a nice feature.


Well, I ordered the unit and am pretty excited about getting it.
Sportys said they should have some in this week to ship. I'm really
excited about putting on the hood and seeing if I can maintain the
blue side up using their turn-coordinator display. I think that could
be a HUGE IFR backup. It will also be cool to take the unit out when
you get to your destination and use it to find your hotel.

-Robert

In article ,
"Wyatt Emmerich" wrote:

I tried to fly under the hood relying on just the Garmin 196 artificial
panel. It's doable, but there were pretty big deviations and I had to
struggle. In real IFR in an emergency. . .I wouldn't want to be in that
situation. However, it is a nice reinforcer that helps me feel more
confident about my instruments in IMC.

I've tried that experiment once (actually, my student was flying; I was
just looking out the window and kibbitzing). I put us into some unusual
attitudes, and he did the recoveries. He did best if he completely
ignored the GPS pitch information and just used rudder inputs to achieve
zero rate of turn, relying on the elevator trim to take care of pitch.

The result was pretty ugly, but survivable. When he was trying to
control attitude with the synthetic AI and ASI, we just got into larger
and larger pitch oscillations and eventually I had to take control.

He did best if he completely ignored the GPS pitch information

GPS gives no "pitch" information. None.

Karl


"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Wyatt Emmerich" wrote:

I tried to fly under the hood relying on just the Garmin 196 artificial
panel. It's doable, but there were pretty big deviations and I had to
struggle. In real IFR in an emergency. . .I wouldn't want to be in that
situation. However, it is a nice reinforcer that helps me feel more
confident about my instruments in IMC.

I've tried that experiment once (actually, my student was flying; I was
just looking out the window and kibbitzing). I put us into some unusual
attitudes, and he did the recoveries. He did best if he completely
ignored the GPS pitch information and just used rudder inputs to achieve
zero rate of turn, relying on the elevator trim to take care of pitch.

The result was pretty ugly, but survivable. When he was trying to
control attitude with the synthetic AI and ASI, we just got into larger
and larger pitch oscillations and eventually I had to take control.

"kage" wrote:
GPS gives no "pitch" information. None.

Have you looked at the 196?

http://www.garmin.com/products/gpsmap196/

No, it does not directly display pitch in the sense of a picture of a
synthetic AI, but it does display airspeed, altitude, and vertical rate.
The same sources of pitch information you have flying partial panel.

My point was that if you use the synthetic airspeed (which, of course,
is really groundspeed), altitude, and vertical rate and try to fly it
like you would partial panel with the pitot-static instruments, you end
up getting into trouble.

how are you going to get to your destination if filing direct?




Ron Rosenfeld wrote:

On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 16:01:50 -0700, Jeff wrote:

because you cannot go direct with a hand held GPS, You can only file /G
with an IFR certified GPS

Where does it say that you have to file /G in order to go direct?

Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)