Garmin 196 GPS - what do you guys think?

[Mike W.]

I know I am a couple of models behind as far as the portables go, I would
LOVE to buy a 396 but just can't justify it right now.
I rent from a flying club where every plane has a different combination of
ADF/VOR/LORAN/GPS , and they all work differently, no manuals for the GPS or
LORAN units (if they are working at all that day) so I never know what I
will have available for VFR navigation.
SO, I thought it might be a good investment. For anyone that has owned or
used one of these, what are the opinions out there? Easy to use? Reliable?
What don't you like about it? Is the 296 worth twice the cash for VFR flight
in the Midwest (no mountains)?

--
Hello, my name is Mike, and I am an airplane addict....

[Lakeview Bill]

As an aside, both Garmin and Bendix-King have Pilot's Manuals for most of
their units available on their websites in .pdf format. You can download
them and easily print the relevant parts.

www.garmin.com

https://www3.bendixking.com/index.jsp

Hope this helps...




"Mike W." > wrote in message
...
> I know I am a couple of models behind as far as the portables go, I would
> LOVE to buy a 396 but just can't justify it right now.
> I rent from a flying club where every plane has a different combination of
> ADF/VOR/LORAN/GPS , and they all work differently, no manuals for the GPS
or
> LORAN units (if they are working at all that day) so I never know what I
> will have available for VFR navigation.
> SO, I thought it might be a good investment. For anyone that has owned or
> used one of these, what are the opinions out there? Easy to use? Reliable?
> What don't you like about it? Is the 296 worth twice the cash for VFR
flight
> in the Midwest (no mountains)?
>
> --
> Hello, my name is Mike, and I am an airplane addict....
>
>

[john smith]

Mike W. wrote:
> I know I am a couple of models behind as far as the portables go, I would
> LOVE to buy a 396 but just can't justify it right now.
> I rent from a flying club where every plane has a different combination of
> ADF/VOR/LORAN/GPS , and they all work differently, no manuals for the GPS or
> LORAN units (if they are working at all that day) so I never know what I
> will have available for VFR navigation.
> SO, I thought it might be a good investment. For anyone that has owned or
> used one of these, what are the opinions out there? Easy to use? Reliable?
> What don't you like about it? Is the 296 worth twice the cash for VFR flight
> in the Midwest (no mountains)?

Have you tried the AOPA website?

They have many of the manuals in pdf online for download.

[[email protected]]

I love my 196 and plan to keep it for a while. Easy to use when you get
used to it. They seem to be going for a song on Ebay these days.

Jim

[Dan Luke]

"Mike W."wrote:

> LOVE to buy a 396 but just can't justify it right now.

> Is the 296 worth twice the cash for VFR flight
> in the Midwest (no mountains)?

I just bought a 396 and my like-new 296 is for sale.

Email me if you're interested.

c172rg at bellsouth dot net

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "Mike W." > said:
>SO, I thought it might be a good investment. For anyone that has owned or
>used one of these, what are the opinions out there? Easy to use? Reliable?
>What don't you like about it? Is the 296 worth twice the cash for VFR flight
>in the Midwest (no mountains)?

I have a 195, and it's great. I tried a 295, and it sucks. I know people
who bought 295s and went back to 195s afterwards. The 196 looked like a
great improvement over the 195, and the 296 looks like they finally got
colour right. I wish I'd gone to Oshkosh this year so I could drool on
the 396 - the only thing that would make the 396 perfect to me would be if
they'd add approach plates.

--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
Every program has two purposes -- one for which it was written and
another for which it wasn't.

[John Doe]

"Mike W." > wrote in message
...
>I know I am a couple of models behind as far as the portables go, I would
> LOVE to buy a 396 but just can't justify it right now.
> I rent from a flying club where every plane has a different combination of
> ADF/VOR/LORAN/GPS , and they all work differently, no manuals for the GPS
> or
> LORAN units (if they are working at all that day) so I never know what I
> will have available for VFR navigation.
> SO, I thought it might be a good investment. For anyone that has owned or
> used one of these, what are the opinions out there? Easy to use? Reliable?
> What don't you like about it? Is the 296 worth twice the cash for VFR
> flight
> in the Midwest (no mountains)?
>

I bought one this summer off Ebay for around $500 used. I also fly at an
aero club and use it for VFR flying. It rocks. I would recommend one to
anyone. Make sure the database is updated before you buy a used one.

I would not pay more for the 296. If you're VFR, you shouldn't need a
handheld GPS to tell you where the rocks are. If you want to use it as an
IFR backup in the mountians, that's a different story. I might consider it
then. But I don't fly much in the mountains. I wish they offered the w/x
downlink into the 196, then it'd be a perfect machine. I would pay extra to
have the w/x overlayed ontop of my gps map, but that will be my next
purchase in a couple of years when the price comes down.

[Dan Luke]

"Paul Tomblin" wrote:
> I have a 195, and it's great. I tried a 295, and it sucks.

!!!!!!!

That blows my mind!

I hated my 195, loved my 295.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[tony roberts]

196 is a great GPS - perfect for over 90% of VFR pilots.
If you fly lots of new mountains/night the terrain avoidance of the 296
would be great.
If you fly in lots of crappy weather, often enough to make paying a
monthly download fee sensible, the 396 is great.
So how do you fly?
196 is enough for most - not all.

HTH

Tony
Garmin 196

--

Tony Roberts
PP-ASEL
VFR OTT
Night
Cessna 172H C-GICE

[tom pettit]

I bought a new 196 about 9 months ago and have flown with it for 95 hours of
VFR day, night, mountain flying. I works great! I don't regret getting the
less expensive unit at all. Visibility is great in sun, instrument red, or
internal illumination. I love uploading my track log to a topo map program
and reliving my flight. It also works fine for use in the car.

tom



"Mike W." > wrote in message
...
>I know I am a couple of models behind as far as the portables go, I would
> LOVE to buy a 396 but just can't justify it right now.
> I rent from a flying club where every plane has a different combination of
> ADF/VOR/LORAN/GPS , and they all work differently, no manuals for the GPS
> or
> LORAN units (if they are working at all that day) so I never know what I
> will have available for VFR navigation.
> SO, I thought it might be a good investment. For anyone that has owned or
> used one of these, what are the opinions out there? Easy to use? Reliable?
> What don't you like about it? Is the 296 worth twice the cash for VFR
> flight
> in the Midwest (no mountains)?
>
> --
> Hello, my name is Mike, and I am an airplane addict....
>
>

[Peter Duniho]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Paul Tomblin" wrote:
>> I have a 195, and it's great. I tried a 295, and it sucks.
>
> I hated my 195, loved my 295.

That may be why they make both, and keep them different. :)

Pete

[Hilton]

Paul Tomblin wrote:
> the only thing that would make the 396 perfect to me would be if
> they'd add approach plates.

Why?

Hilton

[Cub Driver]

The 296 is a wonderful device. I enjoy it hugely, though I'm not sure
that I would have bought it if I had known that:

1) it would interfere with my radio transmissions (handheld Vertex)

2) on one occasion it would relocate one of my "saved" waypoints to
South America (imagine my surprise when I noticed that my home airport
was several thousand miles away and that it would take me 84 hours to
get home).

I fly low, so the terrain avoidance is indeed useful (radio towers on
hills). The moving map is the screen I most often use. It's brilliant.



-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

[Cub Driver]

On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 21:16:01 -0700, "tom pettit"
<tompet<at>peak<dot>org> wrote:

>Visibility is great in sun,

Good point. The 296 screen often washes out in sunlight, and you get a
lot of sunlight in an L-4-glazed Piper Cub.

By the way, I had to buy a G Force suction cup mount for the 296. None
of the other lashups including the yoke mount supplied by Garmin
worked in the back seat of a Cub. That added fifty bucks to the cost
of the project. I mount it on the port window, about even with the top
of the front seat.


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

[Thomas Borchert]

Mike,

look at the Lowrance Airmap 1000, too.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "Hilton" > said:
>Paul Tomblin wrote:
>> the only thing that would make the 396 perfect to me would be if
>> they'd add approach plates.
>
>Why?

Because once I'm being vectored to the ILS, I don't need the GPS any more
for course guidance, just situational awareness, and so it would be nice
to switch the display to something I can use.
Because it would be nice to see a little "you are here" on the course
line.
Because those flimsy approach plate books are always tearing and I'm
likely to lose the plate I need.
Because if I have to divert, it would be nice to hit "GOTO" and then have
the approach plate come up rather than hunt through my book. Especially
if the diversion is to another state or province.

--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
Everywhere I go I'm asked if I think the university stifles writers. My
opinion is that they don't stifle enough of them. There's many a bestseller
that could have been prevented by a good teacher. -- Flannery O'Connor

[John Doe]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> The 296 is a wonderful device. I enjoy it hugely, though I'm not sure
> that I would have bought it if I had known that:
>
> 1) it would interfere with my radio transmissions (handheld Vertex)
>
> 2) on one occasion it would relocate one of my "saved" waypoints to
> South America (imagine my surprise when I noticed that my home airport
> was several thousand miles away and that it would take me 84 hours to
> get home).
>
> I fly low, so the terrain avoidance is indeed useful (radio towers on
> hills). The moving map is the screen I most often use. It's brilliant.
>


I believe you can now download obstacles on the 196.

[john smith]

> "Paul Tomblin" wrote:
> > I have a 195, and it's great. I tried a 295, and it sucks.

"Dan Luke" > wrote:
> That blows my mind!
> I hated my 195, loved my 295.

I prefer the portrait presentation of the 195 to the landscape mode of
the successive models. Also, the screen on the 195 is the biggest of all
these models.

[john smith]

Cub Driver > wrote:

> I fly low, so the terrain avoidance is indeed useful (radio towers on
> hills). The moving map is the screen I most often use. It's brilliant.

Dan, you are flying a Cub!
How much time do you need to miss something sticking up in front of you?
:-))

[tom pettit]

"John Doe" > wrote in message
news:PdfTe.19037$8q.15223@lakeread01...
>
> "Cub Driver" > wrote in message
> ...
>>

> I believe you can now download obstacles on the 196.
You can get the Jeppson obstacle database for $35 download from the garmin
site. No terrain avoidance on the 196, but it is nice to get a reminder
when a tower is ahead in the haze.
tom

[Maule Driver]

Indeed it would be nice! I'm sure it would be just too much for the
liability guys to swallow at this point. There are 3 or 4 legal
disclaimers you required to accept responsibility for every time you
turn it on.

But what a machine!!

Paul Tomblin wrote:
>>
>>>the only thing that would make the 396 perfect to me would be if
>>>they'd add approach plates.
>>
>>Why?
> Because once I'm being vectored to the ILS, I don't need the GPS any more
> for course guidance, just situational awareness, and so it would be nice
> to switch the display to something I can use.
> Because it would be nice to see a little "you are here" on the course
> line.
> Because those flimsy approach plate books are always tearing and I'm
> likely to lose the plate I need.
> Because if I have to divert, it would be nice to hit "GOTO" and then have
> the approach plate come up rather than hunt through my book. Especially
> if the diversion is to another state or province.
>

[Dan Luke]

"Peter Duniho" wrote:

>>> I have a 195, and it's great. I tried a 295, and it sucks.
>>
>> I hated my 195, loved my 295.
>
> That may be why they make both, and keep them different. :)

They don't make either one anymore.

IIRC, they stopped making the 195 soon after they released the 295.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[tony roberts]

> I believe you can now download obstacles on the 196

But not terrain - see the obstacle, change heading, hit the mountain :(
Plus, when I enquired about how many obstacles it showed in Canada, the
response was . . . . . . some.
Now that has to be worth buying.

Tony

--

Tony Roberts
PP-ASEL
VFR OTT
Night
Cessna 172H C-GICE

[Thomas Borchert]

Tony,

> But not terrain - see the obstacle, change heading, hit the mountain
>

You're telling us you would rely on a handheld, non-certified, non-WAAS
VFR-GPS with a systematic altitude error of at least a couple hundred
feet to avoid terrain?

Terrain on a (handheld) GPS looks really cool and makes it easier to
correlate the moving map picture and reality outside the window, but
IMHO you just can't use it to avoid terrain by only a few hundred feet
as necessary during scud running. For all other situations, I don't
really see what it is needed for: VFR you just look outside at the
terrain, IFR you should be high enough to not hit the terrain anyway -
and the map without terrain should give you enough situational
awareness to avoid being where you shouldn't be. That said, terrain is
nice to have and adds to SA - but not critical.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article >,
Thomas Borchert > wrote:
> Terrain on a (handheld) GPS looks really cool and makes it easier to
> correlate the moving map picture and reality outside the window, but
> IMHO you just can't use it to avoid terrain by only a few hundred feet
> as necessary during scud running. For all other situations, I don't
> really see what it is needed for: VFR you just look outside at the
> terrain, IFR you should be high enough to not hit the terrain anyway -
> and the map without terrain should give you enough situational
> awareness to avoid being where you shouldn't be. That said, terrain is
> nice to have and adds to SA - but not critical.


IFR during the approach to an airport with surrounding terrain seems
like a pretty good use of terrain avoidance. VFR during the approach to
an airport in the summer when the visibility may be reduced in haze
seems like a pretty good use of terrain avoidance.

This nonsense that I've been reading here and on other message boards
suggesting that a situational awareness tool is useless or almost
useless because it isn't "certified" is sheer lunacy, in my opinion. I
think it was the AOPA boards where some folks said they would trust an
ADF over a portable GPS because the ADF was "certified."

No, you shouldn't rely on it to scud run, and you shouldn't be doing
approaches with a non-certified GPS, but it is tremendously useful for
situational awareness--which includes awareness of obstacles and
surrounding terrain.


JKG

[Thomas Borchert]

Jonathan,
>
> IFR during the approach to an airport with surrounding terrain seems
> like a pretty good use of terrain avoidance. VFR during the approach to
> an airport in the summer when the visibility may be reduced in haze
> seems like a pretty good use of terrain avoidance.

I agree. But in both cases, it is "nice to have", not something you'd bet
on. For IFR, if you adhere to the procedure as published, you won't be near
the terrain anyway. IN the VFR case, if you really can't see the terrain
(and imagine it from the chart), you have no business being there.

The scenario mentioned by the poster was "fly away from an indicated
obstacle only to fly into non-indicated terrain". That is a scenario that
should never happen, with or without GPS. And the terrain-capable GPS,
certified or not, is clearly not capable of nor meant to be saving your
bacon in that case.

>
> This nonsense that I've been reading here and on other message boards
> suggesting that a situational awareness tool is useless or almost
> useless because it isn't "certified" is sheer lunacy, in my opinion.

I didn't mean to say that. In fact, I agree with you.


--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article >,
Thomas Borchert > wrote:
> I agree. But in both cases, it is "nice to have", not something you'd bet
> on. For IFR, if you adhere to the procedure as published, you won't be near
> the terrain anyway. IN the VFR case, if you really can't see the terrain
> (and imagine it from the chart), you have no business being there.

Sure, if everyone did everything perfectly every time, and never got
lost or disoriented, all of this technology wouldn't be necessary. I
agree, it is certainly supplemental, but it can indeed save your bacon
if you find yourself disoriented with surrounding terrain. I wouldn't
rely on any one instrument or system if I had supplemental information
available. The bottom line is that if my GPS alerts me about a tower,
I'm going to climb or turn. Same goes for terrain. I think that this
functionality is a very nice supplement that can make flying safer, but
certainly isn't intended to be a substitute for good pre-flight planning.

That being said, unless you fly in mountainous terrain, I wouldn't waste
money on the terrain. In my opinion, obstacles are a bigger deal
because they seem to be "growing" taller in many areas, and are
sometimes difficult to spot.




JKG