I've used a 295 for aviation purposes since it came out and a Street
Pilot III for auto trips.

Recently, issues developed with reestablishing the update chain for the
SP III road map software.

So, I decided to upgrade to a 296, which does "trains, planes, and
automobiles." (Actually, aviation, automotive, and marine).

What a awesome unit! So much better than the 295 and soooooo much
faster than the SP III when doing automotive routes and recalculations.

The "TAWS" mode alone is worth the price of admission. I ran the
Henderson/NASCAR King Air CFIT crash in the simulation mode. There was
plenty of warning from the 296 along that track and at their presumed
altitude. Even if their altitude changed once the TRACON lost radar,
they still would have received timely warnings. Also, with the
situational awareness affored by the map (this is true of the 295 as
well) they probably wouldn't have gone where they went.

I love my 296. I dumped my 295 years ago because Garmin was so far
behind the technology curve for so long. With the 296, they've caught
up. I sold my Skymap IIIc for an amount that covered much of the new
296.

The one critical problem with the 296 is the lack of airways. It was
hard to get rid of my King Skymap IIIc. Out West airways rule because
they thread us through the mountains. Having to go back to the old
VOR/DME method of flying the airways is disappointing but the 296 has
enough features that I'm otherwise happy. The terrain feature of the
296 is better than the SkyMap IIIc.

-Robert

An airway database would sure be nice. But, at least we have a 300 leg
flight-plan capability unlike the IFR 400/500 units.

"Robert M. Gary" wrote:

> I love my 296. I dumped my 295 years ago because Garmin was so far
> behind the technology curve for so long. With the 296, they've caught
> up. I sold my Skymap IIIc for an amount that covered much of the new
> 296.
>
> The one critical problem with the 296 is the lack of airways. It was
> hard to get rid of my King Skymap IIIc. Out West airways rule because
> they thread us through the mountains. Having to go back to the old
> VOR/DME method of flying the airways is disappointing but the 296 has
> enough features that I'm otherwise happy. The terrain feature of the
> 296 is better than the SkyMap IIIc.
>
> -Robert

Why not enter a flight plan on the 296 with the waypoints which describe an
airway? That works great to backup and simplify VOR navigation.

--------------------
Richard Kaplan

www.flyimc.com

Geez - what could be simpler than tracking an airway by VOR navigation? Is
following the little magenta line really easier than "needle left, fly left"
?

I love GPS, but really - this is an IFR forum.

:)


"Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message
news:1121277531.0fef1f7f9e9f8c1fe30e3b62c2736376@t eranews...
> Why not enter a flight plan on the 296 with the waypoints which describe
> an airway? That works great to backup and simplify VOR navigation.
>
> --------------------
> Richard Kaplan
>
> www.flyimc.com
>

"RjL" > wrote in message


> Geez - what could be simpler than tracking an airway by VOR navigation? Is
> following the little magenta line really easier than "needle left, fly
> left"

Portable GPS can back up but not replace a VOR receiver on airways.

However, yes, a backup GPS can make things quite a bit easier at times.
One example is when you are close to the VOR station and the VOR needle is
highly sensitive. Another example is to help establish a crab angle when
flying an airway with a signficant crosswind aloft. Yet another example is
for situational awareness with respect to weather or alternate landing
sites. There are dozens more ways a portable GPS can be quite helpful to
an IFR pilot as a backup navigational device.


--------------------
Richard Kaplan

www.flyimc.com

Richard Kaplan wrote:
> Another example is to help establish a crab angle when
> flying an airway with a signficant crosswind aloft.

Richard, I need you to explain this statement.

VOR doesn't care what heading the airplane is flying, so how does the
crab angle affect the track if you are keeping the needles centered? You
simply adjust your crab angle right or left to maintain the track, correct?

"john smith" > wrote in message
.. .
> Richard Kaplan wrote:
> > Another example is to help establish a crab angle when
> > flying an airway with a signficant crosswind aloft.
>
> Richard, I need you to explain this statement.
>
> VOR doesn't care what heading the airplane is flying, so how does the
> crab angle affect the track if you are keeping the needles centered? You
> simply adjust your crab angle right or left to maintain the track,
correct?

I use my Pilot III or the panel mounted VFR GPS for this purpose, also. Get
the needle centered. Get a heading that makes my track equal the VOR radial
I want. Done. Double check every x minutes as needed. Handy on approaches,
too. Don't even have to have a way-point in the box. Just look at the
current ground track.

Although, I'm starting to get spoiled. Hafta declare an emergency if my GPS
goes out....

"john smith" > wrote in message

> VOR doesn't care what heading the airplane is flying, so how does the crab
> angle affect the track if you are keeping the needles centered? You simply
> adjust your crab angle right or left to maintain the track, correct?

Yes, that is how you do it with only a VOR receiver. It is somewhat a
matter of trial and error to determine the proper crab angle and that crab
angle will change if the winds aloft change.

However, if you have a portable GPS with a simulated HSI such as the Garmin
296, it makes the process of determining and modifying crab angles almost
automatic. The electronic HSI on a Garmin 296 knows only your track and not
your actual heading. So if you set the "heading" on the electronic HSI to
the desired course, you will actually be establishing whatever crab angle is
needed to maintain the desired course. This greatly simplifies the workload
of navigating with a crosswind.

--------------------
Richard Kaplan

www.flyimc.com

In article >,
"RjL" > wrote:

> Geez - what could be simpler than tracking an airway by VOR navigation? Is
> following the little magenta line really easier than "needle left, fly left"
> ?


It may be simple, but it's not all that accurate compared with GPS,
especially if you're a ways out from the VOR.



JKG

RjL wrote:
> Geez - what could be simpler than tracking an airway by VOR navigation? Is
> following the little magenta line really easier than "needle left, fly left"
> ?

Yes, because there's no interpolation. The GPS also gives you your
ground track and desired track. You get on the line and match the
numbers. All GPS's also tell you how far off the line you are to a
precision not needed for even IFR flight. Mine goes to the hundredth of
a mile, 53 feet.