Let's Be Honest

[skym]

I have a recently installed Garmin GPS430. But I also have a Lowrance
(handheld) 1000 GPS to use. The Lowrance is MUCH better at situational
awareness than the panelmount. Please understand--I have no complaints
about the 430; it is a great unit. However, the Lowrance 1000 is a
very, very nice unit- it has way-better ground mapping and obstruction
info than the Garmin. When closer to the ground, I'll take the
Lowrance anyday--it has an obstruction database that will save your
bacon long before the Garmin kicks in. But-for the Garmin 430 IFR
authorization (STC??) to be IFR, the Lowrance product (and perhaps the
Garmin 295/395) is really just about as good. So far, the only
differance I can detect is the fact that the antenna is mounted on the
top of the plane, and less likely to loose lock on the satellites (Not
that this is a small issue).

Comments?

[Peter R.]

skym > wrote:

<snip>
> But-for the Garmin 430 IFR
> authorization (STC??) to be IFR, the Lowrance product (and perhaps the
> Garmin 295/395) is really just about as good. So far, the only
> differance I can detect is the fact that the antenna is mounted on the
> top of the plane, and less likely to loose lock on the satellites (Not
> that this is a small issue).
>
> Comments?

If terrain awareness is your main criteria, it does seem the handhelds do
provide more. Perhaps it is the fact that they are not under the same
scrutiny as the IFR certified GPS units that they are able to offer more
wizz-bang features.

In my case, my Garmin GNS430 is connected to an MX20 multifunction display.
This combination provides a poor man's TAWS, as there is a terrain database
in the MX20 and a terrain warning feature similar to the more expensive,
certified terrain warning devices that will flash man-made or natural
obstacles within a radius and altitude of the aircraft on the display.

--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Tim]

skym wrote:

> I have a recently installed Garmin GPS430. But I also have a Lowrance
> (handheld) 1000 GPS to use. The Lowrance is MUCH better at situational
> awareness than the panelmount. Please understand--I have no complaints
> about the 430; it is a great unit. However, the Lowrance 1000 is a
> very, very nice unit- it has way-better ground mapping and obstruction
> info than the Garmin. When closer to the ground, I'll take the
> Lowrance anyday--it has an obstruction database that will save your
> bacon long before the Garmin kicks in. But-for the Garmin 430 IFR
> authorization (STC??) to be IFR, the Lowrance product (and perhaps the
> Garmin 295/395) is really just about as good. So far, the only
> differance I can detect is the fact that the antenna is mounted on the
> top of the plane, and less likely to loose lock on the satellites (Not
> that this is a small issue).
>
> Comments?
>
Unless the Lowrance is permanently installed and a TSO-C129 box, it
cannot be primary for IFR.

Having said that there are lots of folks with an IFR-certified Garmin
installation who use a Garmin 296 as secondary for mapping and
terrain/obstacle advisories. Nothing wrong with that so long as it is
non-commercial.

[Marco Leon]

There are many factors that go into making a GPS IFR-certified. A read-thru
of TSO-c129 will reveal that basic situational awareness is not a major
aspect of the certification. Both VFR-only and IFR-certified units will
provide virtually the same position accuracy. The only real difference in
position accuracy is evident in TSO-c146a certified GPS systems that provide
GLS approach capability.

Marco Leon

"skym" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> I have a recently installed Garmin GPS430. But I also have a Lowrance
> (handheld) 1000 GPS to use. The Lowrance is MUCH better at situational
> awareness than the panelmount. Please understand--I have no complaints
> about the 430; it is a great unit. However, the Lowrance 1000 is a
> very, very nice unit- it has way-better ground mapping and obstruction
> info than the Garmin. When closer to the ground, I'll take the
> Lowrance anyday--it has an obstruction database that will save your
> bacon long before the Garmin kicks in. But-for the Garmin 430 IFR
> authorization (STC??) to be IFR, the Lowrance product (and perhaps the
> Garmin 295/395) is really just about as good. So far, the only
> differance I can detect is the fact that the antenna is mounted on the
> top of the plane, and less likely to loose lock on the satellites (Not
> that this is a small issue).
>
> Comments?
>



Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

[Michael]

> But-for the Garmin 430 IFR
> authorization (STC??) to be IFR, the Lowrance product (and perhaps the
> Garmin 295/395) is really just about as good.

The accuracy and reliability of a high end VFR GPS is actually
equivalent to an IFR GPS. That's going to change - the VFR GPS units
are going to get better. Remember - the specifications (TSO) for the
IFR GPS was based on what the industry already knew how to do. The TSO
only means that the manufacturer jumped through lots of hoops to prove
that he was doing what was already industry standard. It adds cost,
not value. It also means the design gets frozen really hard,
competition is limited, etc.

The user interface and general user-friendliness of a high end VFR GPS
is always going to be better than that of an IFR GPS. The IFR GPS must
conform to TSO. The VFR GPS can be made to do what the pilot needs. I
have much time flying behind the 430 and the same-vintage 295. There
is no doubt in my mind that the 295 is a much better unit.

The issue with satellite lock is a red herring - GPS antennas are
pretty standard, and you can always have an external antenna for the
portable GPS. I never bothered because my dash-mount antenna has yet
to lose lock. On the other hand, I see older IFR-certifiable panel
mounts lose lock routinely - their performance in that regard is more
like the low end VFR GPS units.

Michael

[Bob Noel]

In article . com>,
"Michael" > wrote:

> > But-for the Garmin 430 IFR
> > authorization (STC??) to be IFR, the Lowrance product (and perhaps the
> > Garmin 295/395) is really just about as good.
>
> The accuracy and reliability of a high end VFR GPS is actually
> equivalent to an IFR GPS. That's going to change - the VFR GPS units
> are going to get better. Remember - the specifications (TSO) for the
> IFR GPS was based on what the industry already knew how to do. The TSO
> only means that the manufacturer jumped through lots of hoops to prove
> that he was doing what was already industry standard. It adds cost,
> not value. It also means the design gets frozen really hard,
> competition is limited, etc.

Remember, the TSO specifies minimum performance standards.
The vendor/applicant is not prevented from providing increases/enhanced
performance and/or functionality.

An example would be the Honeywell EGPWS (the E is for Enhanced) which
met the TSO for GPWS and added terrain awareness/warning functionality.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

[max]

What about having the full procedure available on the GPS!?

I don't know about the Lowrance, but my Garmin 196 doesn't have full
GPS approach procedures. It only has the procedures from the FAF to the
MAP. If I had to fly a full procedure, or a missed approach as
publilshed, my handheld would make it pretty clumsy to do, especially
in hard IMC. IMO this is the most important difference between the two.

skym wrote:
> I have a recently installed Garmin GPS430. But I also have a Lowrance
> (handheld) 1000 GPS to use. The Lowrance is MUCH better at situational
> awareness than the panelmount. Please understand--I have no complaints
> about the 430; it is a great unit. However, the Lowrance 1000 is a
> very, very nice unit- it has way-better ground mapping and obstruction
> info than the Garmin. When closer to the ground, I'll take the
> Lowrance anyday--it has an obstruction database that will save your
> bacon long before the Garmin kicks in. But-for the Garmin 430 IFR
> authorization (STC??) to be IFR, the Lowrance product (and perhaps the
> Garmin 295/395) is really just about as good. So far, the only
> differance I can detect is the fact that the antenna is mounted on the
> top of the plane, and less likely to loose lock on the satellites (Not
> that this is a small issue).
>
> Comments?

[[email protected]]

I agree completely. I have a Garmin 430 and love it. I'm really just
commenting on the ground mapping detail and obstruction features. The
handhelds are admittedly not for approach use, except for backup
situational awareness..