Just picked up my aircraft with the GNS430W upgrade and was reading the
manual to see what new features are now included. In there I discovered the
feature that allows the pilot to purposely fly a parallel offset course
anywhere from 1 to 99 miles. The only tedious characteristic of this feature
(IMO) is that the pilot must set this option every time a flight plan is
activated, rather than having the option "stick" across flights. Thus, over
time it seems to me a pilot may eventually opt to not set it.

Anyone use this feature? I am curious about its popularity.

--
Peter

Also useful to lessen the chance of a midair if flying airways...


On Sep 6, 7:32 pm, john smith > wrote:
> In article >,


> "Peter R." > wrote:
>
> > Just picked up my aircraft with the GNS430W upgrade and was reading the
> > manual to see what new features are now included. In there I discovered the
> > feature that allows the pilot to purposely fly a parallel offset course
> > anywhere from 1 to 99 miles. The only tedious characteristic of this feature
> > (IMO) is that the pilot must set this option every time a flight plan is
> > activated, rather than having the option "stick" across flights. Thus, over
> > time it seems to me a pilot may eventually opt to not set it.
>
> > Anyone use this feature? I am curious about its popularity.
>
> Useful for any kind of work which involves flying a grid.

That parallel offset feature has been on every GPS I've had. Thought I
read somewhere it was required for IFR boxes. The Mid Continent CDI's
have a light on the face when you are flying an offset. Never used that
feature, don't know why i ever would.



Peter R. wrote:

> Just picked up my aircraft with the GNS430W upgrade and was reading the
> manual to see what new features are now included. In there I discovered the
> feature that allows the pilot to purposely fly a parallel offset course
> anywhere from 1 to 99 miles. The only tedious characteristic of this feature
> (IMO) is that the pilot must set this option every time a flight plan is
> activated, rather than having the option "stick" across flights. Thus, over
> time it seems to me a pilot may eventually opt to not set it.
>
> Anyone use this feature? I am curious about its popularity.
>

"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
> That parallel offset feature has been on every GPS I've had. Thought I
> read somewhere it was required for IFR boxes. The Mid Continent CDI's
> have a light on the face when you are flying an offset. Never used that
> feature, don't know why i ever would.
>
>
Because you don't know how to fly outside the box!

Sorry!

Dan wrote:
> Also useful to lessen the chance of a midair if flying airways...

Fine for VFR but a 1 mile offset for IFR is not legal in domestic
airspace anywhere in the world.

Offsets are legal for Oceanic IFR within the limits specified by ICAO.

On 9/7/2007 12:07:03 AM, Newps wrote:

> That parallel offset feature has been on every GPS I've had.

I thought I read the original GNS430 manual pretty well, but if that feature
was in the original box I missed it.

--
Peter

In article >,
"Peter R." > wrote:

> Just picked up my aircraft with the GNS430W upgrade and was reading the
> manual to see what new features are now included. In there I discovered the
> feature that allows the pilot to purposely fly a parallel offset course
> anywhere from 1 to 99 miles. The only tedious characteristic of this feature
> (IMO) is that the pilot must set this option every time a flight plan is
> activated, rather than having the option "stick" across flights. Thus, over
> time it seems to me a pilot may eventually opt to not set it.
>
> Anyone use this feature? I am curious about its popularity.

It's mostly used by people flying SAR missions. You keep increasing the
offset and end up flying a box pattern.

I once used it to find a visual reporting point. I was coming back to HPN
from the north at night and ATC said "direct to the Tappan Zee Bridge". I
don't have the bridge as a waypoint, and I didn't have it in sight. But I
do know it's about 5 miles west of the airport, so I just threw in a 5 mile
offset and got the box tracking to a point roughly where the bridge is.

On 9/7/2007 7:58:56 AM, Roy Smith wrote:

> It's mostly used by people flying SAR missions. You keep increasing the
> offset and end up flying a box pattern.

Ah, OK. I had read about trans-Atlantic flights using an offset and assumed
it was available in these WAAS boxes given their extreme accuracy and the
increased chances of mid-airs on climb-outs and descents.

--
Peter

On 9/7/2007 7:54:20 AM, "Viperdoc" wrote:

> The vast majority
> of the time I have been given direct the destination just after take off,
> unless the course takes me over or near a busy bravo airspace.

I forgot where you are based (upper Midwest US?) but as you know flying IFR
in the northeast is all about the airways (unless perhaps you are flying in
the very early hours of the new day).

--
Peter

Peter,

> but if that feature
> was in the original box
>

It wasn't. W only.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Peter R. wrote:
> On 9/7/2007 12:07:03 AM, Newps wrote:
>
>
>>That parallel offset feature has been on every GPS I've had.
>
>
> I thought I read the original GNS430 manual pretty well, but if that feature
> was in the original box I missed it.
>
No, you didn't miss anything. The 129 400/500s did not have track offset.

Peter R. wrote:

> On 9/7/2007 7:58:56 AM, Roy Smith wrote:
>
>
>>It's mostly used by people flying SAR missions. You keep increasing the
>>offset and end up flying a box pattern.
>
>
> Ah, OK. I had read about trans-Atlantic flights using an offset and assumed
> it was available in these WAAS boxes given their extreme accuracy and the
> increased chances of mid-airs on climb-outs and descents.
>
It would be nice to use it on Victor airways, had they only offered
offests in 1/10 mile increments.

On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 08:11:19 -0700, B > wrote:

>Peter R. wrote:
>
>> On 9/7/2007 7:58:56 AM, Roy Smith wrote:
>>
>>
>>>It's mostly used by people flying SAR missions. You keep increasing the
>>>offset and end up flying a box pattern.
>>
>>
>> Ah, OK. I had read about trans-Atlantic flights using an offset and assumed
>> it was available in these WAAS boxes given their extreme accuracy and the
>> increased chances of mid-airs on climb-outs and descents.
>>
>It would be nice to use it on Victor airways, had they only offered
>offests in 1/10 mile increments.

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

Peter Clark wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 08:11:19 -0700, B > wrote:
>
>
>>Peter R. wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On 9/7/2007 7:58:56 AM, Roy Smith wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>It's mostly used by people flying SAR missions. You keep increasing the
>>>>offset and end up flying a box pattern.
>>>
>>>
>>>Ah, OK. I had read about trans-Atlantic flights using an offset and assumed
>>>it was available in these WAAS boxes given their extreme accuracy and the
>>>increased chances of mid-airs on climb-outs and descents.
>>>
>>
>>It would be nice to use it on Victor airways, had they only offered
>>offests in 1/10 mile increments.
>
>
> 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.;-)

It can be used to set a one or two mile offset from an unfamiliar airport
you are flying to, so it comes up on your left side where you can see it
rather than up under your nose where you might miss it. I used it that way
a couple of times on a Northstar M3, but didn't find it worth the trouble,
and I have never used it on my 430W. I can't think of any IFR use for the
feature.

Stan


"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> Just picked up my aircraft with the GNS430W upgrade and was reading the
> manual to see what new features are now included. In there I discovered
> the
> feature that allows the pilot to purposely fly a parallel offset course
> anywhere from 1 to 99 miles. The only tedious characteristic of this
> feature
> (IMO) is that the pilot must set this option every time a flight plan is
> activated, rather than having the option "stick" across flights. Thus,
> over
> time it seems to me a pilot may eventually opt to not set it.
>
> Anyone use this feature? I am curious about its popularity.
>
> --
> Peter

"Stan Prevost" > wrote:

> I can't think of any IFR use for the feature.

Use it for flying perfect racetrack holds. Set up the inbound leg on both
your #1 and #2 GPS, but set the #2 GPS to offset the course by a mile or
so. On the inbound leg, track the #1 GPS. On the outbound leg, track the
#2 GPS with reverse sensing.

Yeah, I know, I'm being silly.

B > wrote:

> 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.;-)

or a GNS-480!

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.....

"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. :~(

"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.

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.

"Mike Adams" > wrote in message
...
> "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've been all over the SW with the exception of Kalifornia and I've haven't
filed an airway in a few years now.

I just put a well defined waypoint outside the MOA and go. As for high MEA's
I find it even easier going GPS than airways.


--
Matt Barrow
Performance Homes, LLC.
Cheyenne, WY

Roy Smith wrote:

>
> 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.

The Southern California area has had the tower-to-tower routes for many,
many years. Jeppesen publishes them on a text page.

But, they are not in the Jepp Nav database so far as I know. They
certainly aren't in the Garmin 400/500 or 400W/500W databases. Are they
in your 480's database?

B wrote:

> 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.;-)

GNS480.

In article >, B > wrote:

> Roy Smith wrote:
>
> >
> > 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.
>
> The Southern California area has had the tower-to-tower routes for many,
> many years. Jeppesen publishes them on a text page.
>
> But, they are not in the Jepp Nav database so far as I know. They
> certainly aren't in the Garmin 400/500 or 400W/500W databases. Are they
> in your 480's database?

I don't believe so, but having never flown in California, I've never had
reason to look.

On 9/28/2007 5:54:48 PM, "John Collins" wrote:

> Went to the map page, moved the cursor to where I wanted to
> deviate to, pressed direct-to, enter, enter to get the waypoint +Map. Put
> +Map into my flight plan. Before I got to the first +Map waypoint, I
> decided that I could cut the diversion short, so I moved the +Map to the
> new position and activated it. My GPSS took us dutifully on the modified
> route.

That is handy. I'll have to read up on that tip.

--
Peter