GPS 430 or 480?

John R. Copeland wrote:

I haven't navigated by airways more than probably a dozen times in the past 25 years.

That's interesting. What part of the country do you live in (assuming US), what
altitudes, what kind of equipment?

I still think Garmin's unlikely to upgrade the 430 to TSO-C146a capability.
It doesn't sound like good business sense, when they now have the 480.

Well, Garmin has said they would do so. There is an old press release on their
web site that says they'll have it by 4Q2004 for $1500, but they've backed away
from that date, even though last time I checked the press release was still
hanging out there. I called and asked about it a few weeks ago and they indeed
say they intend to have it by next summer. There was a thread here about it
earlier where I reported on my phone call.

TBH, they didn't say "TSO-C146a" but I inferred that from the capabilities they
mentioned.

Dave

"Dave Butler" wrote in message =
...
John R. Copeland wrote:
=20
I haven't navigated by airways more than probably a dozen times in =
the past 25 years.
=20
That's interesting. What part of the country do you live in (assuming =
US), what=20
altitudes, what kind of equipment?
=20
Dave

I can't even remember all the different brands of RNAV I've had over the =
years.
I'm based in Ohio, and I rarely have need to fly outside the U.S.
Mostly right now I fly my pressurized twin in the teens and low flight =
levels
border-to-border and coast-to-coast with a CNX-80, MX-20, and other =
toys.
Previously, it was equipped with LORAN and VHF-DME RNAV,
and I've had other airplanes with VHF-DME RNAV since the '70s.
---JRC---

"John R. Copeland" wrote in message
news "Dave Butler" wrote in message
...
John R. Copeland wrote:

I haven't navigated by airways more than probably a dozen times in the
past 25 years.

That's interesting. What part of the country do you live in (assuming US),
what
altitudes, what kind of equipment?

Dave

I can't even remember all the different brands of RNAV I've had over the
years.
I'm based in Ohio, and I rarely have need to fly outside the U.S.
Mostly right now I fly my pressurized twin in the teens and low flight
levels
border-to-border and coast-to-coast with a CNX-80, MX-20, and other toys.
Previously, it was equipped with LORAN and VHF-DME RNAV,
and I've had other airplanes with VHF-DME RNAV since the '70s.
---JRC---

How about the Northeast? If I tried to fly from Boston to White Plains
without flying airways they'd laugh me off the frequency.

-cwk.

In that area, there are uncommonly large numbers of airways compared
to the numbers of destinations.
In many parts of the U.S., it is the reverse of that.
West of the Alleghenies, it's quite common to file, and be cleared for,
direct legs of 500 nautical miles or more.
---JRC---

"C Kingsbury" wrote in message =
link.net...
=20
How about the Northeast? If I tried to fly from Boston to White Plains
without flying airways they'd laugh me off the frequency.
=20
-cwk.

In article , Dave Butler
writes:

I haven't navigated by airways more than probably a dozen times in the past
25 years.

That's interesting. What part of the country do you live in (assuming US),
what
altitudes, what kind of equipment?

I fly out of an area west of CLE with a Garmin 430 and haven't used an airway
in several years. I file direct with a VOR in the middle of the route if one
is on course. I will sometimes get a change as I near CLE from the east.
Sometimes it is to an intersection but most of the time it is vectors. Flight
levels are generally 5 to 9k.

Chuck

PaulaJay1 wrote:
In article , Dave Butler
writes:


I haven't navigated by airways more than probably a dozen times in the past
25 years.

That's interesting. What part of the country do you live in (assuming US),
what
altitudes, what kind of equipment?


I fly out of an area west of CLE with a Garmin 430 and haven't used an airway
in several years. I file direct with a VOR in the middle of the route if one
is on course. I will sometimes get a change as I near CLE from the east.
Sometimes it is to an intersection but most of the time it is vectors. Flight
levels are generally 5 to 9k.

Thanks, so I guess avoidance of airways is fairly common. In about 10 years of
IFR flying in airplanes variously equipped with and without RNAV, I've only had
direct clearances a dozen or so times. I don't seek direct clearances even when
equipped because they seem to save very little distance.

In my view, staying on an airway makes navigation simpler, all my course lines
are already drawn on my charts, I always know where I am relative to a nearby
intersection or navaid. I can locate my position on an IFR chart at a glance.
Minimum altitiudes are spelled out for the airways (yeah, I guess off-course
altitudes are there now, too).

Personal preference I guess. I can see where flying long distances the advantage
might be greater. For most of my flights the time-savings is in the noise level.

Sorry for the thread drift.