Victor Airways in Clearance

[Wyatt Emmerich]

I fly with a Garmin 530. Great box, but I cannot for the life of me
understand why they would fail to include Victor Airways. Anyway, I often
get a clearance such as 210BA cleared to Yodoo, Clear City, Victor 245,
Bogur.

Now if I program the Garmin 530 for Yodoo, Clear City, Bogur, 19 times our
of 20 I'm fine. ATC was just throwing in the Victor 245 for--I don't
know--clarification? However, one in 20 times there's a kink in the airway
and I'll screw up if I don't check the low altitude chart.

So instead of simply programming the Garmin 530 with the waypoints, I've got
to unfold the chart, figure out where the heck I am on it and make sure
Victor 245 doesn't have a bend in the road. In real IMC involves a lot of
looking down and head movement when I would rather be focused on my scan.

My point being: It would be a heck of a lot easier for Garmin 530 users if
ATC would dispense with the airway part of the clearance and just route us
base on waypoints.

[Larry Fransson]

On 2004-01-13 20:07:01 -0800, "Wyatt Emmerich" > said:

> My point being: It would be a heck of a lot easier for Garmin 530 users
if
> ATC would dispense with the airway part of the clearance and just route
us
> base on waypoints.

Your clearance could also get really, really long.

--
Larry Fransson
Seattle, WA

[Jeff]

I have the garmin 430, but I still have a bad habit that I just cant break of
having my map out and folded to the section I am at. :)

in cruise I am not to concerned about my scan, the auto pilot flies the plane
for me and on the approach, the 430 is connected to my HSI and that to my auto
pilot which makes even a DME arc perfect.
gotta love all those gadgets.

Jeff
http://www.turboarrow3.com


Wyatt Emmerich wrote:

> I fly with a Garmin 530. Great box, but I cannot for the life of me
> understand why they would fail to include Victor Airways. Anyway, I often
> get a clearance such as 210BA cleared to Yodoo, Clear City, Victor 245,
> Bogur.
>
> Now if I program the Garmin 530 for Yodoo, Clear City, Bogur, 19 times our
> of 20 I'm fine. ATC was just throwing in the Victor 245 for--I don't
> know--clarification? However, one in 20 times there's a kink in the airway
> and I'll screw up if I don't check the low altitude chart.
>
> So instead of simply programming the Garmin 530 with the waypoints, I've got
> to unfold the chart, figure out where the heck I am on it and make sure
> Victor 245 doesn't have a bend in the road. In real IMC involves a lot of
> looking down and head movement when I would rather be focused on my scan.
>
> My point being: It would be a heck of a lot easier for Garmin 530 users if
> ATC would dispense with the airway part of the clearance and just route us
> base on waypoints.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Wyatt Emmerich" > wrote in message
...
>
> I fly with a Garmin 530. Great box, but I cannot for the life of me
> understand why they would fail to include Victor Airways. Anyway, I often
> get a clearance such as 210BA cleared to Yodoo, Clear City, Victor 245,
> Bogur.
>
> Now if I program the Garmin 530 for Yodoo, Clear City, Bogur, 19 times our
> of 20 I'm fine. ATC was just throwing in the Victor 245 for--I don't
> know--clarification? However, one in 20 times there's a kink in the airway
> and I'll screw up if I don't check the low altitude chart.
>
> So instead of simply programming the Garmin 530 with the waypoints, I've
got
> to unfold the chart, figure out where the heck I am on it and make sure
> Victor 245 doesn't have a bend in the road. In real IMC involves a lot of
> looking down and head movement when I would rather be focused on my scan.
>
> My point being: It would be a heck of a lot easier for Garmin 530 users if
> ATC would dispense with the airway part of the clearance and just route us
> base on waypoints.
>

You're suggesting they should have Garmin 530 routes and non-Garmin 530
routes?

[John Theune]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
nk.net:

>
> "Wyatt Emmerich" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> I fly with a Garmin 530. Great box, but I cannot for the life of me
>> understand why they would fail to include Victor Airways. Anyway, I
>> often get a clearance such as 210BA cleared to Yodoo, Clear City,
>> Victor 245, Bogur.
>>
>> Now if I program the Garmin 530 for Yodoo, Clear City, Bogur, 19
>> times our of 20 I'm fine. ATC was just throwing in the Victor 245
>> for--I don't know--clarification? However, one in 20 times there's a
>> kink in the airway and I'll screw up if I don't check the low
>> altitude chart.
>>
>> So instead of simply programming the Garmin 530 with the waypoints,
>> I've
> got
>> to unfold the chart, figure out where the heck I am on it and make
>> sure Victor 245 doesn't have a bend in the road. In real IMC involves
>> a lot of looking down and head movement when I would rather be
>> focused on my scan.
>>
>> My point being: It would be a heck of a lot easier for Garmin 530
>> users if ATC would dispense with the airway part of the clearance and
>> just route us base on waypoints.
>>
>
> You're suggesting they should have Garmin 530 routes and non-Garmin
> 530 routes?
>
>
>

No I think what he is asking for is the abilty to program the garmin with
airways, like you can in the CN-80

[Nathan Young]

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 04:07:01 GMT, "Wyatt Emmerich"
> wrote:

>I fly with a Garmin 530. Great box, but I cannot for the life of me
>understand why they would fail to include Victor Airways. Anyway, I often
>get a clearance such as 210BA cleared to Yodoo, Clear City, Victor 245,
>Bogur.
>
>Now if I program the Garmin 530 for Yodoo, Clear City, Bogur, 19 times our
>of 20 I'm fine. ATC was just throwing in the Victor 245 for--I don't
>know--clarification? However, one in 20 times there's a kink in the airway
>and I'll screw up if I don't check the low altitude chart.
>
>So instead of simply programming the Garmin 530 with the waypoints, I've got
>to unfold the chart, figure out where the heck I am on it and make sure
>Victor 245 doesn't have a bend in the road. In real IMC involves a lot of
>looking down and head movement when I would rather be focused on my scan.
>
>My point being: It would be a heck of a lot easier for Garmin 530 users if
>ATC would dispense with the airway part of the clearance and just route us
>base on waypoints.

Probably a bit late, but the CNX80 can accept victor airways in its
flightplans. Hopefully Garmin will borrow this piece of code from the
CNX80 and port it to the GNS series.

-Nathan

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"John Theune" > wrote in message
1...
>
> No I think what he is asking for is the abilty to program the garmin with
> airways, like you can in the CN-80
>

He wrote, "It would be a heck of a lot easier for Garmin 530 users if ATC
would dispense with the airway part of the clearance and just route us base
on waypoints." The ability to program the Garmin with airways is an issue
he'd have to take up with Garmin, not with ATC.

[Mike Rapoport]

The 430/530 are 129a boxes and the FAA dictated much of the functionality.

Mike
MU-2


"Wyatt Emmerich" > wrote in message
...
> I fly with a Garmin 530. Great box, but I cannot for the life of me
> understand why they would fail to include Victor Airways. Anyway, I often
> get a clearance such as 210BA cleared to Yodoo, Clear City, Victor 245,
> Bogur.
>
> Now if I program the Garmin 530 for Yodoo, Clear City, Bogur, 19 times our
> of 20 I'm fine. ATC was just throwing in the Victor 245 for--I don't
> know--clarification? However, one in 20 times there's a kink in the airway
> and I'll screw up if I don't check the low altitude chart.
>
> So instead of simply programming the Garmin 530 with the waypoints, I've
got
> to unfold the chart, figure out where the heck I am on it and make sure
> Victor 245 doesn't have a bend in the road. In real IMC involves a lot of
> looking down and head movement when I would rather be focused on my scan.
>
> My point being: It would be a heck of a lot easier for Garmin 530 users if
> ATC would dispense with the airway part of the clearance and just route us
> base on waypoints.
>
>

[Peter R.]

Wyatt Emmerich ) wrote:

> I fly with a Garmin 530. Great box, but I cannot for the life of me
> understand why they would fail to include Victor Airways. Anyway, I often
> get a clearance such as 210BA cleared to Yodoo, Clear City, Victor 245,
> Bogur.

The Bendix King KLN94 also has to be programmed using waypoint instead of
airways. That's why I always have my low altitude instrument chart
unfolded in front of me after receiving the clearance.

--
Peter












----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[C J Campbell]

"Wyatt Emmerich" > wrote in message
...
|
| My point being: It would be a heck of a lot easier for Garmin 530 users if
| ATC would dispense with the airway part of the clearance and just route us
| base on waypoints.

It would be even easier if some genius would put the airways into the
database so you could program the GPS just the way the clearance was given.

[Jeff]

it would be easier if by using a data link that ATC could just punch a button on
their computer and it would load into your flight plan into your GPS.

now there is a good invention for some brainyack to invent.

C J Campbell wrote:

> "Wyatt Emmerich" > wrote in message
> ...
> |
> | My point being: It would be a heck of a lot easier for Garmin 530 users if
> | ATC would dispense with the airway part of the clearance and just route us
> | base on waypoints.
>
> It would be even easier if some genius would put the airways into the
> database so you could program the GPS just the way the clearance was given.

[Peter R.]

Jeff ) wrote:

> it would be easier if by using a data link that ATC could just punch a
> button on their computer and it would load into your flight plan into
> your GPS.
>
> now there is a good invention for some brainyack to invent.

Could you just imagine how many years something like this would take to get
certified?

--
Peter












----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Tarver Engineering]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> Jeff ) wrote:
>
> > it would be easier if by using a data link that ATC could just punch a
> > button on their computer and it would load into your flight plan into
> > your GPS.
> >
> > now there is a good invention for some brainyack to invent.
>
> Could you just imagine how many years something like this would take to
get
> certified?

Such a thing has been certified for years, it is the data link.

For GA, it is part of LAAS and in process.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Peter R." > wrote in message
> ...
> > Jeff ) wrote:
> >
> > > it would be easier if by using a data link that ATC could just punch a
> > > button on their computer and it would load into your flight plan into
> > > your GPS.
> > >
> > > now there is a good invention for some brainyack to invent.
> >
> > Could you just imagine how many years something like this would take to
> get
> > certified?
>
> Such a thing has been certified for years, it is the data link.
>
> For GA, it is part of LAAS and in process.
>
Now if they could just send you your clearance that way instead of having to
write it down...

[Tarver Engineering]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Peter R." > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Jeff ) wrote:
> > >
> > > > it would be easier if by using a data link that ATC could just punch
a
> > > > button on their computer and it would load into your flight plan
into
> > > > your GPS.
> > > >
> > > > now there is a good invention for some brainyack to invent.
> > >
> > > Could you just imagine how many years something like this would take
to
> > get
> > > certified?
> >
> > Such a thing has been certified for years, it is the data link.
> >
> > For GA, it is part of LAAS and in process.
> >
> Now if they could just send you your clearance that way instead of having
to
> write it down...

LAAS is VHF digital radio and I see no reason why an integrated VHF radio
GPS combo could not do that.

[Larry Fransson]

On 2004-01-14 13:57:49 -0800, "Tom Sixkiller" > said:

> Now if they could just send you your clearance that way instead of having
to
> write it down...

They can. It's called ACARS.

--
Larry Fransson
Seattle, WA

[SeeAndAvoid]

The point of ModeS and Datalink was for this, communication-less ATC.
That's where many of the mistakes occur, readback/hearback errors. First
heard about this at least 10 years ago. But the idea was a display/printout
of a clearance, not having that clearance go directly into the GPS/FMS.
Do we really want that? Maybe after accepting it, then pasting it over into
your flight plan.

As far as why ATC assigns airways to GPS equipped a/c, going to be that way
for a while still in non-radar areas. Also facilities with their Letters Of
Agreements specify proceduralized routes, some victor airways. Airways are
much easier to issue than a few VOR's and lots of intersections and
waypoints. This problem needs to be solved from the manufacturers.

Chris




"Jeff" > wrote in message
...
> it would be easier if by using a data link that ATC could just punch a
button on
> their computer and it would load into your flight plan into your GPS.
>
> now there is a good invention for some brainyack to invent.
>
> C J Campbell wrote:
>
> > "Wyatt Emmerich" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > |
> > | My point being: It would be a heck of a lot easier for Garmin 530
users if
> > | ATC would dispense with the airway part of the clearance and just
route us
> > | base on waypoints.
> >
> > It would be even easier if some genius would put the airways into the
> > database so you could program the GPS just the way the clearance was
given.
>

[karl]

****now there is a good invention for some brainyack to invent.*****

We already do that on the Falcon 50EX


Karl

[Jeff]

this is all something that probably will never be available for GA?

Larry Fransson wrote:

> On 2004-01-14 13:57:49 -0800, "Tom Sixkiller" > said:
>
> > Now if they could just send you your clearance that way instead of having
> to
> > write it down...
>
> They can. It's called ACARS.
>
> --
> Larry Fransson
> Seattle, WA

[Jeff]

does it work pretty good?

karl wrote:

> ****now there is a good invention for some brainyack to invent.*****
>
> We already do that on the Falcon 50EX
>
> Karl

[Larry Fransson]

On 2004-01-14 20:55:31 -0800, Jeff > said:

> this is all something that probably will never be available for GA?

Availability isn't really the problem. Practicality and affordability are
the bigger issues.

--
Larry Fransson
Seattle, WA

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 10:18:44 -0800, "C J Campbell"
> wrote:

>It would be even easier if some genius would put the airways into the
>database so you could program the GPS just the way the clearance was given.

It is in the CNX80


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Larry Fransson" > wrote in message
news:2004011416135316807%lfransson@comcastnet...
> On 2004-01-14 13:57:49 -0800, "Tom Sixkiller" > said:
>
> > Now if they could just send you your clearance that way instead of
having
> to
> > write it down...
>
> They can. It's called ACARS.

I call it EXPENSIVE!! :~(

[Tarver Engineering]

"Jeff" > wrote in message
...
> this is all something that probably will never be available for GA?

The mandatory VHF com change of 2010 could include data link capability. (ie
Euro/US standardization) Of course, an ACARS probably costs as much as your
airplane, so the capability will have to come in some other airborn
hardware.

> Larry Fransson wrote:
>
> > On 2004-01-14 13:57:49 -0800, "Tom Sixkiller" > said:
> >
> > > Now if they could just send you your clearance that way instead of
having
> > to
> > > write it down...
> >
> > They can. It's called ACARS.
> >
> > --
> > Larry Fransson
> > Seattle, WA
>

[Tarver Engineering]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Larry Fransson" > wrote in message
> news:2004011416135316807%lfransson@comcastnet...
> > On 2004-01-14 13:57:49 -0800, "Tom Sixkiller" > said:
> >
> > > Now if they could just send you your clearance that way instead of
> having
> > to
> > > write it down...
> >
> > They can. It's called ACARS.
>
> I call it EXPENSIVE!! :~(

It doesn't have to be, unless one confuses VDL with an ACARS.

[karl]

****does it work pretty good?*****
****now there is a good invention for some brainyack to invent.*****


We don't use it. Too expensive.

Also, we need to check our flight plans against the paper ones that get
faxed to us, and the Universal UNS-1 is very fast and friendly to load
flight plans. A complicated flight plan that would take 10 minutes to load
in my Garmin 430/ Cessna 185, takes just seconds to load in the UNS-1.

I got to take a CNX-80 home and use it in demo mode for a few weeks. Their
method of loading flight plans is very much better than the 430. And, there
is a provision to load a flight plan directly from your PDA to CNX-80 via
infrared. Very cool.

Karl

[Wyatt Emmerich]

Now you're talking!

"Jeff" > wrote in message
...
> it would be easier if by using a data link that ATC could just punch a
button on
> their computer and it would load into your flight plan into your GPS.
>
> now there is a good invention for some brainyack to invent.
>
> C J Campbell wrote:
>
> > "Wyatt Emmerich" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > |
> > | My point being: It would be a heck of a lot easier for Garmin 530
users if
> > | ATC would dispense with the airway part of the clearance and just
route us
> > | base on waypoints.
> >
> > It would be even easier if some genius would put the airways into the
> > database so you could program the GPS just the way the clearance was
given.
>

[C J Campbell]

"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
| On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 10:18:44 -0800, "C J Campbell"
| > wrote:
|
| >It would be even easier if some genius would put the airways into the
| >database so you could program the GPS just the way the clearance was
given.
|
| It is in the CNX80

I am beginning to like this unit more and more. I obviously have not spent
enough time playing with it.

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 23:14:05 -0800, "C J Campbell"
> wrote:

>
>"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
>| On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 10:18:44 -0800, "C J Campbell"
>| > wrote:
>|
>| >It would be even easier if some genius would put the airways into the
>| >database so you could program the GPS just the way the clearance was
>given.
>|
>| It is in the CNX80
>
>I am beginning to like this unit more and more. I obviously have not spent
>enough time playing with it.
>

Mine is being installed as we speak. I've been reviewing the computer
aided training disk that comes with it.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Tarver Engineering]

"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 23:14:05 -0800, "C J Campbell"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
> ...
> >| On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 10:18:44 -0800, "C J Campbell"
> >| > wrote:
> >|
> >| >It would be even easier if some genius would put the airways into the
> >| >database so you could program the GPS just the way the clearance was
> >given.
> >|
> >| It is in the CNX80
> >
> >I am beginning to like this unit more and more. I obviously have not
spent
> >enough time playing with it.
> >
>
> Mine is being installed as we speak. I've been reviewing the computer
> aided training disk that comes with it.

And now, if civil service ATC co-operates, like they agreed, VDL will be for
everyone.

[John R. Copeland]

"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message =
...
> On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 23:14:05 -0800, "C J Campbell"
> > wrote:
>=20
> >
> >"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
> ...
> >| On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 10:18:44 -0800, "C J Campbell"
> >| > wrote:
> >|
> >| >It would be even easier if some genius would put the airways into =
the
> >| >database so you could program the GPS just the way the clearance =
was
> >given.
> >|
> >| It is in the CNX80
> >
> >I am beginning to like this unit more and more. I obviously have not =
spent
> >enough time playing with it.
> >
>=20
> Mine is being installed as we speak. I've been reviewing the computer
> aided training disk that comes with it.
>=20
>=20
> Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

A disappointment in the CNX80 is in navigating to a distant VOR.
No matter how far away, it displays the fixed inbound VOR radial,
but calls it "Bearing to Waypoint".
In truth, it becomes the bearing only when you are near the VOR.
All other types of waypoints always display the correct great-circle =
bearing.

The manual (pg.13) implies this VOR behavior exists only for OBS mode,
but it's the case in any mode whenever a VOR is the current waypoint.

I received a private communication to the effect that they will make the
manual agree with the CNX80's behavior instead of fixing the problem.

My work-around is to create a User Waypoint at the same Lat/Lon
as any distant VOR I want to navigate toward.
I regret needing to do that.

I was told this choice was forced upon GarminAT by outside influences.
It was not the choice of GarminAT engineering.

I really hope they will find some compromise which will allow VORs
to become useful as waypoints. Right now, they are not.
Perhaps it could help if more CNX80 users told GarminAT they'd like
to navigate toward distant VORs.
---JRC---

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 01:34:37 GMT, "John R. Copeland"
> wrote:

>
>
>A disappointment in the CNX80 is in navigating to a distant VOR.
>No matter how far away, it displays the fixed inbound VOR radial,
>but calls it "Bearing to Waypoint".
>In truth, it becomes the bearing only when you are near the VOR.
>All other types of waypoints always display the correct great-circle bearing.
>
>The manual (pg.13) implies this VOR behavior exists only for OBS mode,
>but it's the case in any mode whenever a VOR is the current waypoint.
>
>I received a private communication to the effect that they will make the
>manual agree with the CNX80's behavior instead of fixing the problem.
>
>My work-around is to create a User Waypoint at the same Lat/Lon
>as any distant VOR I want to navigate toward.
>I regret needing to do that.
>
>I was told this choice was forced upon GarminAT by outside influences.
>It was not the choice of GarminAT engineering.
>
>I really hope they will find some compromise which will allow VORs
>to become useful as waypoints. Right now, they are not.
>Perhaps it could help if more CNX80 users told GarminAT they'd like
>to navigate toward distant VORs.
>---JRC---

Flying mostly in the NE in a small GA airplane, I don't think that'll be a
problem, but it sure could be in other parts of the country where I could
get cleared for longer legs.

I wonder about the rationale behind that requirement. Perhaps if we ever
get "free flight" it'll be relaxed. I do like your work-around, though.

Thanks for the heads-up.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 01:34:37 GMT, "John R. Copeland"
> wrote:

>A disappointment in the CNX80 is in navigating to a distant VOR.
>No matter how far away, it displays the fixed inbound VOR radial,
>but calls it "Bearing to Waypoint".
>In truth, it becomes the bearing only when you are near the VOR.
>All other types of waypoints always display the correct great-circle bearing.

John,

Have you noticed this statement in the approved AFM:

============================
2.4 NAVIGATION
No navigation authorized north of 89º (degrees) latitude or south of 89º
(degrees) latitude.
===========================

I know there's a missing word, but, as written, it does seem to limit its
usefulness <g>.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[John R. Copeland]

"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message =
...
> On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 01:34:37 GMT, "John R. Copeland"
> > wrote:
>=20
> >A disappointment in the CNX80 is in navigating to a distant VOR.
> >No matter how far away, it displays the fixed inbound VOR radial,
> >but calls it "Bearing to Waypoint".
> >In truth, it becomes the bearing only when you are near the VOR.
> >All other types of waypoints always display the correct great-circle =
bearing.
>=20
> John,
>=20
> Have you noticed this statement in the approved AFM:
>=20
> =
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D
> 2.4 NAVIGATION
> No navigation authorized north of 89=BA (degrees) latitude or south of =
89=BA
> (degrees) latitude.
> =
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D
>=20
> I know there's a missing word, but, as written, it does seem to limit =
its
> usefulness <g>.
>=20
>=20
> Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

Yes, I noticed that, too.
Sometimes we just have to resort to dead reckoning.
---JRC---

[Everett M. Greene]

Ron Rosenfeld > writes:
> On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 01:34:37 GMT, "John R. Copeland"
> > wrote:
>
> >A disappointment in the CNX80 is in navigating to a distant VOR.
> >No matter how far away, it displays the fixed inbound VOR radial,
> >but calls it "Bearing to Waypoint".
> >In truth, it becomes the bearing only when you are near the VOR.
> >All other types of waypoints always display the correct great-circle bearing.
>
> John,
>
> Have you noticed this statement in the approved AFM:
>
> ============================
> 2.4 NAVIGATION
> No navigation authorized north of 89º (degrees) latitude or south of 89º
> (degrees) latitude.
> ===========================
>
> I know there's a missing word,

Or two missing words.

> but, as written, it does seem to limit its usefulness <g>.

It's fine as long as you're at 89°. WTP?

I once received a call from our company's field rep saying
that some programs I'd revised weren't working correctly for
March through December. I just told him to restrict usage
to January and February. There was a long silence from the
other end of the line...

[[email protected]]

Nathan Young wrote:

> On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 04:07:01 GMT, "Wyatt Emmerich"
> > wrote:
>
> >I fly with a Garmin 530. Great box, but I cannot for the life of me
> >understand why they would fail to include Victor Airways. Anyway, I often
> >get a clearance such as 210BA cleared to Yodoo, Clear City, Victor 245,
> >Bogur.
> >
> >Now if I program the Garmin 530 for Yodoo, Clear City, Bogur, 19 times our
> >of 20 I'm fine. ATC was just throwing in the Victor 245 for--I don't
> >know--clarification? However, one in 20 times there's a kink in the airway
> >and I'll screw up if I don't check the low altitude chart.
> >
> >So instead of simply programming the Garmin 530 with the waypoints, I've got
> >to unfold the chart, figure out where the heck I am on it and make sure
> >Victor 245 doesn't have a bend in the road. In real IMC involves a lot of
> >looking down and head movement when I would rather be focused on my scan.
> >
> >My point being: It would be a heck of a lot easier for Garmin 530 users if
> >ATC would dispense with the airway part of the clearance and just route us
> >base on waypoints.
>
> Probably a bit late, but the CNX80 can accept victor airways in its
> flightplans. Hopefully Garmin will borrow this piece of code from the
> CNX80 and port it to the GNS series.
>
> -Nathan

I'll wager that the 400/430/500/530 don't have sufficient memory for airways.

[Roy Smith]

wrote:

> I'll wager that the 400/430/500/530 don't have sufficient memory for airways.

How much memory could it possibly take? Let's do a back of the envelope
calcultion. Assumptions:

500 airways in the country
Each airway is 1000 miles long on average
There's a waypoint every 20 miles on average.

So, you've got an average of 50 waypoints per airway times 500 airways,
equals 25,000 data points. The waypoints themselves are already in
memory, you just need references to them, say 4 bytes for a reference.
That's 100 kbytes of memory to store all the airways in the continental
US. Figure a Mbyte to store them for the entire world.

I'm typing this on a laptop with 256 Mbytes of ram. My digital camera
has the same. It's just absurd that memory limits in a $20k box should
prevent you from storing airways.

I'm not saying it's not true. Just that it's absurd :-)

[[email protected]]

Roy Smith wrote:

> wrote:
>
> > I'll wager that the 400/430/500/530 don't have sufficient memory for airways.
>
> How much memory could it possibly take? Let's do a back of the envelope
> calcultion. Assumptions:
>
> 500 airways in the country
> Each airway is 1000 miles long on average
> There's a waypoint every 20 miles on average.
>
> So, you've got an average of 50 waypoints per airway times 500 airways,
> equals 25,000 data points. The waypoints themselves are already in
> memory, you just need references to them, say 4 bytes for a reference.
> That's 100 kbytes of memory to store all the airways in the continental
> US. Figure a Mbyte to store them for the entire world.
>
> I'm typing this on a laptop with 256 Mbytes of ram. My digital camera
> has the same. It's just absurd that memory limits in a $20k box should
> prevent you from storing airways.
>
> I'm not saying it's not true. Just that it's absurd :-)

Then there is the issue of firmware and processor time to sort out all those
waypoints and nail them together correctly. And, where do you then place them for
a long, or complex route, when the box has a 30 waypoint limitation per flight
plan?

Also, there are many, many, mid-route airway transitions, such as V-264 joining
V-137 eastbounc, east of Ontario, California. Those all have five numbers, rather
than 5 letters, and I bet you can't find them in a 400/430/500/530.

Here is the one I mentioned, which is part of the V-264 route description in NACO's
Digital Aeronautical Information database. This waypoint would be used only for
the eastbound flight on V-264 that is cleared to transition onto V-137. That takes
some software smarts to figure all that out. Then again, a Boeing 767 was able to
perform such a sort in 1980.

V137 15419 34 05 49.8 116 54 33.5 ZLA AWY INT

[[email protected]]

SeeAndAvoid wrote:

> The point of ModeS and Datalink was for this, communication-less ATC.
> That's where many of the mistakes occur, readback/hearback errors. First
> heard about this at least 10 years ago. But the idea was a display/printout
> of a clearance, not having that clearance go directly into the GPS/FMS.
> Do we really want that? Maybe after accepting it, then pasting it over into
> your flight plan.

The FAA had big plans for ATC communications datalinks dating back to the late
1960s.~

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 01:34:37 GMT, "John R. Copeland"
> wrote:

>A disappointment in the CNX80 is in navigating to a distant VOR.
>No matter how far away, it displays the fixed inbound VOR radial,
>but calls it "Bearing to Waypoint".
>In truth, it becomes the bearing only when you are near the VOR.
>All other types of waypoints always display the correct great-circle bearing.
>
>The manual (pg.13) implies this VOR behavior exists only for OBS mode,
>but it's the case in any mode whenever a VOR is the current waypoint.
>
>I received a private communication to the effect that they will make the
>manual agree with the CNX80's behavior instead of fixing the problem.
>
>My work-around is to create a User Waypoint at the same Lat/Lon
>as any distant VOR I want to navigate toward.
>I regret needing to do that.
>
>I was told this choice was forced upon GarminAT by outside influences.
>It was not the choice of GarminAT engineering.
>
>I really hope they will find some compromise which will allow VORs
>to become useful as waypoints. Right now, they are not.
>Perhaps it could help if more CNX80 users told GarminAT they'd like
>to navigate toward distant VORs.
>---JRC---

John,

I've finally had some time to play with my new CNX80 as well as the
simulator recently posted on their web site. And I'd like to add a few
things to your observation, and possibly a different work-around.

As I played with things more and more, I decided that I'm actually OK with
how it works!

1. As you note, the "Bearing" on Map 1 represents the final course to the
VOR. However, (I think this next is true) since VOR radials follow a great
circle route, it also represents the VOR radial (reciprocal, actually) that
you would be flying were you to be navigating to that VOR.

2. The CNX80 will still navigate along the Great Circle route. So, for
example, if I were to set up a flight plan from my home base (KEPM) to the
POMona VOR (NE of KLAX), the "Bearing" on Map 1 is 224° but my actual
course, at the beginning of the flight, will be 291°.

3. You can customize one of the other pages to show the Desired Track (DTK)
which will, indeed, be 291° when starting out.

But thanks for bringing up the point. It got me thinking about things I
might not otherwise have considered in using this box.




Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[John R. Copeland]

"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message =
...
> On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 01:34:37 GMT, "John R. Copeland"
> > wrote:
>=20
> >A disappointment in the CNX80 is in navigating to a distant VOR.
> >No matter how far away, it displays the fixed inbound VOR radial,
> >but calls it "Bearing to Waypoint".
> >In truth, it becomes the bearing only when you are near the VOR.
> >All other types of waypoints always display the correct great-circle =
bearing.
> >
> >The manual (pg.13) implies this VOR behavior exists only for OBS =
mode,
> >but it's the case in any mode whenever a VOR is the current waypoint.
> >
> >I received a private communication to the effect that they will make =
the
> >manual agree with the CNX80's behavior instead of fixing the problem.
> >
> >My work-around is to create a User Waypoint at the same Lat/Lon
> >as any distant VOR I want to navigate toward.
> >I regret needing to do that.
> >
> >I was told this choice was forced upon GarminAT by outside =
influences.
> >It was not the choice of GarminAT engineering.
> >
> >I really hope they will find some compromise which will allow VORs
> >to become useful as waypoints. Right now, they are not.
> >Perhaps it could help if more CNX80 users told GarminAT they'd like
> >to navigate toward distant VORs.
> >---JRC---
>=20
> John,
>=20
> I've finally had some time to play with my new CNX80 as well as the
> simulator recently posted on their web site. And I'd like to add a =
few
> things to your observation, and possibly a different work-around.
>=20
> As I played with things more and more, I decided that I'm actually OK =
with
> how it works!
>=20
> 1. As you note, the "Bearing" on Map 1 represents the final course to =
the
> VOR. However, (I think this next is true) since VOR radials follow a =
great
> circle route, it also represents the VOR radial (reciprocal, actually) =
that
> you would be flying were you to be navigating to that VOR.
>=20
> 2. The CNX80 will still navigate along the Great Circle route. So, =
for
> example, if I were to set up a flight plan from my home base (KEPM) to =
the
> POMona VOR (NE of KLAX), the "Bearing" on Map 1 is 224=B0 but my =
actual
> course, at the beginning of the flight, will be 291=B0.
>=20
> 3. You can customize one of the other pages to show the Desired Track =
(DTK)
> which will, indeed, be 291=B0 when starting out.
>=20
> But thanks for bringing up the point. It got me thinking about things =
I
> might not otherwise have considered in using this box.
>=20
>=20
> Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

Ron, I'm happy to hear you like your CNX80. I like mine, also.

Everything you said about the VOR radials is correct.
In fact, GarminAT released CNX80 newsletter #3 this very day.
It contains a discussion of the VOR bearing/radial situation.
It is substantially identical to information I previously received in a
private communication from them.

Regarding the choice of displaying DTK on a custom map page,
I believe that will not show the current bearing to waypoint under the
circumstance of having been vectored far enough away from course
that the bearing then differs from the DTK.
If I'm then re-cleared direct to the next waypoint, I've always liked
seeing the correct bearing display without needing to punch any buttons.

Furthermore, my MX20 has a prominent display of that "Bearing" number,
which becomes the VOR radial reciprocal, too.
I haven't seen a way to change that MX20 field to the DTK.
But it's no big deal. I can cope with it, too.

Did you find that bad spot in missed approaches on the Windows =
simulator?
---JRC---

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 21:34:05 GMT, "John R. Copeland"
> wrote:

>Ron, I'm happy to hear you like your CNX80. I like mine, also.
>
>Everything you said about the VOR radials is correct.
>In fact, GarminAT released CNX80 newsletter #3 this very day.
>It contains a discussion of the VOR bearing/radial situation.
>It is substantially identical to information I previously received in a
>private communication from them.

I received that a few hours after I posted my message <g>.

>
>Regarding the choice of displaying DTK on a custom map page,
>I believe that will not show the current bearing to waypoint under the
>circumstance of having been vectored far enough away from course
>that the bearing then differs from the DTK.

I'm not sure what you mean here. In the example I gave in my previous post
(KEPM --> POM) the bearing and DTK are markedly different. What should I
set up to try to reproduce the issue you are talking about?


>If I'm then re-cleared direct to the next waypoint, I've always liked
>seeing the correct bearing display without needing to punch any buttons.

Again, I'm not sure I'm following you here. But I think the magenta line
will always intersect the DTK on the compass display.

>
>Furthermore, my MX20 has a prominent display of that "Bearing" number,
>which becomes the VOR radial reciprocal, too.
>I haven't seen a way to change that MX20 field to the DTK.
>But it's no big deal. I can cope with it, too.

>Did you find that bad spot in missed approaches on the Windows simulator?

No. What is it?

Thanks.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[John R. Copeland]

Usually, I avoid in-line answers, but they seemed appropriate this =
time...


"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message =
...
> On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 21:34:05 GMT, "John R. Copeland"
> > wrote:
>=20
>=20
> >
> >Regarding the choice of displaying DTK on a custom map page,
> >I believe that will not show the current bearing to waypoint under =
the
> >circumstance of having been vectored far enough away from course
> >that the bearing then differs from the DTK.
>=20
> I'm not sure what you mean here. In the example I gave in my previous =
post
> (KEPM --> POM) the bearing and DTK are markedly different. What =
should I
> set up to try to reproduce the issue you are talking about?
>=20

Reproduce something like the following in your simulator:
When following a flight-plan leg, go to manual tracking,
and alter your heading 45=BA or so.
Note that the BRG to the next waypoint will gradually change,
reflecting the actual geometry of your position vs. the next waypoint,
but the DTK remains at the fixed value for the flight-planned course.

>=20
> >If I'm then re-cleared direct to the next waypoint, I've always liked
> >seeing the correct bearing display without needing to punch any =
buttons.
>=20
> Again, I'm not sure I'm following you here. But I think the magenta =
line
> will always intersect the DTK on the compass display.
>=20

Yes, except that at long-range settings, the magenta line is curved a =
little.
No big deal, actually. You can eyeball the curvature reasonably well,
and guess pretty close to the local value of DTK.

But my point was that sometimes BRG is more important to me than DTK.
The button-pushing I mentioned was to compute a new Direct course.

> >
> >Furthermore, my MX20 has a prominent display of that "Bearing" =
number,
> >which becomes the VOR radial reciprocal, too.
> >I haven't seen a way to change that MX20 field to the DTK.
> >But it's no big deal. I can cope with it, too.
>=20
> >Did you find that bad spot in missed approaches on the Windows =
simulator?
>=20
> No. What is it?
>=20

After you "Un-Suspend" waypoint sequencing in the Windows simulator,
and perform the missed-approach procedure, the aircraft position is =
computed
correctly as you proceed toward the Missed-Approach Hold Point,
but the distance and time to that next waypoint get continually reset to =
their
initial values.
The workaround is to force a "Direct-To" to the first waypoint of the =
procedure.
This bug does not occur in the actual CNX80 or its built-in simulator.

I have not heard back from my Apollo contact since I called his =
attention
to this bug three weeks ago.
I also have not tried downloading the Windows simulator again, to see if =
it's changed.
If you don't see the missed-approach bug, say so, and I'll get myself a =
fresh copy.
---JRC---

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 16:53:51 GMT, "John R. Copeland"
> wrote:

>Usually, I avoid in-line answers, but they seemed appropriate this time...

Concur

>Reproduce something like the following in your simulator:
>When following a flight-plan leg, go to manual tracking,
>and alter your heading 45º or so.
>Note that the BRG to the next waypoint will gradually change,
>reflecting the actual geometry of your position vs. the next waypoint,
>but the DTK remains at the fixed value for the flight-planned course.

OK I see what you mean. It's giving the track of the flight planned route,
period.

But this leads me to another area that I've started to look for. Is it
possible to constantly monitor the bearing to a way point, other than the
waypoint to which you are navigating? An example might be a request to
report crossing a specified bearing to an NDB, while navigating to another
waypoint.

>> >Did you find that bad spot in missed approaches on the Windows simulator?
>>
>> No. What is it?
>>
>
>After you "Un-Suspend" waypoint sequencing in the Windows simulator,
>and perform the missed-approach procedure, the aircraft position is computed
>correctly as you proceed toward the Missed-Approach Hold Point,
>but the distance and time to that next waypoint get continually reset to their
>initial values.
>The workaround is to force a "Direct-To" to the first waypoint of the procedure.
>This bug does not occur in the actual CNX80 or its built-in simulator.


Well, in trying to reproduce that bug, I came across what might be another
one in the simulator. The MAP called for a climb and then a turn to a
waypoint. The waypoint which ended the "climb" segment, remained a fixed
distance from the aircraft. Hence, we never reached it to be able to turn
to the Missed approach holding fix. It didn't seem to matter if the unit
was in SUSP or not.

This is version 1.2 of the simulator.

Perhaps you can confirm this, and report it also to your contact.

I'm glad it's not a problem in the real unit, although I have not flown a
missed approach with enough knowledge to be sure what was going on. Soon,
hopefully.

Thanks.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[John R. Copeland]

"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message =
...
>=20
>=20
> Well, in trying to reproduce that bug, I came across what might be =
another
> one in the simulator. The MAP called for a climb and then a turn to a
> waypoint. The waypoint which ended the "climb" segment, remained a =
fixed
> distance from the aircraft. Hence, we never reached it to be able to =
turn
> to the Missed approach holding fix. It didn't seem to matter if the =
unit
> was in SUSP or not.
>=20
> This is version 1.2 of the simulator.
>=20
> Perhaps you can confirm this, and report it also to your contact.
>=20
> I'm glad it's not a problem in the real unit, although I have not =
flown a
> missed approach with enough knowledge to be sure what was going on. =
Soon,
> hopefully.
>=20
> Thanks.
>=20
>=20
> Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

No, that's exactly the same bug I meant, Ron.
The shape of the missed approach seems immaterial,
and the Windows simulator seems to continually refresh the distance
and time fields with their original values from the MAP.

According to design, either Un-Suspending *OR* forcing a Direct-To
should make the missed approach function correctly,
but the Windows simulator didn't quite get the SUSP part right.

I'll get back later with something about the bearing to a particular =
point.
I think that's possible, but I'll need to check it first, and I'm going =
out right now.
---JRC--

[John R. Copeland]

"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message =
...
>=20
> OK I see what you mean. It's giving the track of the flight planned =
route,
> period. =20
>=20
> But this leads me to another area that I've started to look for. Is =
it
> possible to constantly monitor the bearing to a way point, other than =
the
> waypoint to which you are navigating? An example might be a request =
to
> report crossing a specified bearing to an NDB, while navigating to =
another
> waypoint.
>=20
> Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

If the waypoint of interest is within range of your "NRST" twenty,
the CNX80 will give you a dynamic display of direction and distance
to it when you select the appropriate type of "NRST" waypoint.

For a waypoint outside of the nearest twenty of each type, you'll need =
to
retrieve your waypoint of interest from the DataBase.
When you have it, pressing INFO will give you dynamic direction and =
distance.
If the waypoint is an airport, you'll find direction and distance under =
"POS".

If you select an inappropriate type of waypoint, (ARTCC or FSS),
you'll get distance, but only a relative bearing instead of direction.
Oddly enough, you DO get direction and distance to special airspace.
It appears to measure to the closest point of that airspace.
---JRC---

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 00:37:32 GMT, "John R. Copeland"
> wrote:

>
>"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message ...
>>
>> OK I see what you mean. It's giving the track of the flight planned route,
>> period.
>>
>> But this leads me to another area that I've started to look for. Is it
>> possible to constantly monitor the bearing to a way point, other than the
>> waypoint to which you are navigating? An example might be a request to
>> report crossing a specified bearing to an NDB, while navigating to another
>> waypoint.
>>
>> Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)
>
>If the waypoint of interest is within range of your "NRST" twenty,
>the CNX80 will give you a dynamic display of direction and distance
>to it when you select the appropriate type of "NRST" waypoint.
>
>For a waypoint outside of the nearest twenty of each type, you'll need to
>retrieve your waypoint of interest from the DataBase.
>When you have it, pressing INFO will give you dynamic direction and distance.
>If the waypoint is an airport, you'll find direction and distance under "POS".
>
>If you select an inappropriate type of waypoint, (ARTCC or FSS),
>you'll get distance, but only a relative bearing instead of direction.
>Oddly enough, you DO get direction and distance to special airspace.
>It appears to measure to the closest point of that airspace.
>---JRC---

OK. So I guess I could use the INFO display to monitor the cross-bearing;
and just use my HSI to navigate; and fall back on the old-fashioned method
of keeping myself oriented in my head <g>.

It'd be neat to be able to monitor the bearing and also watch the moving
map. One can do it with the cursor, but as soon as you change the display,
PAN mode discontinues. So it's not as easy.

Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[John R. Copeland]

"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message =
...
>
>=20
> OK. So I guess I could use the INFO display to monitor the =
cross-bearing;
> and just use my HSI to navigate; and fall back on the old-fashioned =
method
> of keeping myself oriented in my head <g>.
>=20
> It'd be neat to be able to monitor the bearing and also watch the =
moving
> map. One can do it with the cursor, but as soon as you change the =
display,
> PAN mode discontinues. So it's not as easy.
>=20
> Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

I think you're saying you didn't buy the companion MX20 Multi-Function =
Display?
I did. You are right. It's VERY neat!

In your case, I might just leave the autopilot locked up on the course =
while I was
monitoring the cross-bearing. My HSI would alert me to any =
discrepancies.
---JRC---

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 03:48:58 GMT, "John R. Copeland"
> wrote:

>I think you're saying you didn't buy the companion MX20 Multi-Function Display?
>I did. You are right. It's VERY neat!
>
>In your case, I might just leave the autopilot locked up on the course while I was
>monitoring the cross-bearing. My HSI would alert me to any discrepancies.

No, I did not purchase the MX20. Not really enough real estate on the
panel of a 1965 Mooney for that, to say nothing of the fact that it would
only add a small fraction of it's cost to the value of the a/c.

I also don't have roll-steering; and my HSI is non-slaved. I even had to
keep my ADF so I could receive the altimeter setting at my local airport.
But I was able to ditch my DME, and one of my KX155's.

But I really really like the CNX80.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[John R. Copeland]

"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message =
...
>=20
> No, I did not purchase the MX20. Not really enough real estate on the
> panel of a 1965 Mooney for that, to say nothing of the fact that it =
would
> only add a small fraction of it's cost to the value of the a/c.
>=20
> I also don't have roll-steering; and my HSI is non-slaved. I even had =
to
> keep my ADF so I could receive the altimeter setting at my local =
airport.
> But I was able to ditch my DME, and one of my KX155's.
>=20
> But I really really like the CNX80.
>=20
>=20
> Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

I wrestled with that "value" issue, too, Ron.
I decided the value to *me* counted more than the value to the next =
owner.
I've owned this airplane for twenty years, and I'll keep it for a long =
time yet.
My new avionics freed up a huge amount of panel space,
and gained me back nearly 30 kg of useful load (63.5 pounds).

I retained my KR87 ADF, too, because it still works well,
and it drives the existing RMI pointer in my flight director.

The CNX80 is a great box, and I salivate when I think about
the coming software version 2.
---JRC---

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 17:12:07 GMT, "John R. Copeland"
> wrote:

>
>I wrestled with that "value" issue, too, Ron.
>I decided the value to *me* counted more than the value to the next owner.
>I've owned this airplane for twenty years, and I'll keep it for a long time yet.
>My new avionics freed up a huge amount of panel space,
>and gained me back nearly 30 kg of useful load (63.5 pounds).
>
>I retained my KR87 ADF, too, because it still works well,
>and it drives the existing RMI pointer in my flight director.
>
>The CNX80 is a great box, and I salivate when I think about
>the coming software version 2.
>---JRC---

Well, I would have had to spend a lot more in order to free up enough space
for the MX20. And I drew the "value" line at the CNX80. I'm not sure how
long I'll keep this airplane. I sure would like to get one that's about 40
kts faster, and also has deice capability (TKS). But SWMBO says we need to
have a LOT more money in the bank before I can consider it. So the value
to me of the CNX80 was about all I could justify.

I only gained about 15 lbs useful load. And about seven or eight of that
was in excess wire & cable that the installer removed. Most of that excess
wire and cable was not even in use! It had just been left in place during
previous upgrades!

I will certainly get version 2. But I don't think I'll "salivate"
until/unless we get a LPV approach here at KEPM.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)