480 vs 430/G1000

[Robert M. Gary]

As a CFI I have a good amount of experience with the G1000 and 430
systems so I thought I ought to sit down with the 480 and try it out.
Partly because I may buy one, but partly because there is a good chance
as a Mooney CFI I will run into a student with such a unit. I guess I
was pretty shocked at the differences. This certainly is not an
evolution between the units. In fact, the G1000's nav system seems to
be taken right out of the 430 but the 480 is entirely different. My
first impressions were...

1) I *REALLY* like the airways. I've written to Garmin on many
occasions complaining about the lack of airways in their units for
those of us that thread the mountains out west.

2) Holding. The holding abilities of the 480 make the 430/G1000 look
like a toy! Its awesome. I really like the "arbitrary hold" where you
can make a hold out of any fix, just like in a real FMS. You program
the direction of the hold, then length (in nm or min) and the course
and it sets it up. Also, it will drive you around the hold and even
intercept an element of the hold (you don't have to first cross the
holding fix). The 430/G1000 won't do any of that. When you hit a hold
in the G1000/430 the system just suspends and drives off into nowhere
(expecting that you will switch the autopilot to heading mode,
althought the Cessna factory CFIs told us with the G1000/KAP140 system
they just muscle around the hold).

3) I think there will be a larger ramp up time for students with the
480. In the 430 and G1000 I can sit down with a student behind the unit
and describe for them how to navigate the pages, use the cursor, etc in
about 10-20 minutes. The 480 relies heavily on softkeys. That
introduces another layer of complexity. Now the first question is going
to be "how do I get the button to come up". Even setting nav/com
requires the use of softkeys.

4) For a pilot proficient in the 430, I don't think it will take more
than a couple of hours to come up to IFR proficiency in the 480. The
basic functionality is the same and the approach to problems is the
same. However, for the non-GPS-IFR pilot, it will probably take a
longer to learn.

5) All in all, these units are highly intuitive compared to what we
used to have. I always got a bit of anxiety when a student would call
me to fly with him and tell me he had some sort of odd King IFR GPS.
You almost couldn't fly those units w/o the manual. The Apollos were
not much better.

6) I wonder what Garmin's future direction will be. They obviously
decided to base the new G1000 on the 430. Will they use the 480 code
moving forward, will they merge the code, etc???

I understand the 480 came for UPS, I wonder if they bought it because
they wanted the technology or because they didn't want the competition.

-Robert

[Ron Natalie]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> In fact, the G1000's nav system seems to
> be taken right out of the 430 but the 480 is entirely different. My
> first impressions were...



>
> 3) I think there will be a larger ramp up time for students with the
> 480. In the 430 and G1000 I can sit down with a student behind the unit
> and describe for them how to navigate the pages, use the cursor, etc in
> about 10-20 minutes. The 480 relies heavily on softkeys. That
> introduces another layer of complexity. Now the first question is going
> to be "how do I get the button to come up". Even setting nav/com
> requires the use of softkeys.

It helps if you were NEVER exposed to the 430/530 braindamage before
using the 480. The software simulator works well enough (as long
as you turn off multiprocessor/hyperthreading). While I had a little
experience using mine VFR, the instructor put me through my paces on
the simulator when I did my IFR training in short order (of course I
am a computer geek).

>
> I understand the 480 came for UPS, I wonder if they bought it because
> they wanted the technology or because they didn't want the competition.
>
I thought it was so they could get access to engineers that could
actually deliver a WAAS implemementation.

Another neat 480 feature is that it will sequence you around to the
missed approach point again without any manual twisting or SUSP button
mashing. This is accomplished by having a much richer database than
the 430.

[Robert M. Gary]

Ron Natalie wrote:
> Another neat 480 feature is that it will sequence you around to the
> missed approach point again without any manual twisting or SUSP button
> mashing. This is accomplished by having a much richer database than
> the 430.

I have noticed that. I was wondering what would happen if you were
flying an approach that callled for an immediate climbing turn on the
missed. If the pilot didn't disengage the autopilot and was getting the
plane configured for short final and all of the sudden the plane
started turning. It would be especially odd for me since my plane was
certified with a full time autopilot. As a result, when I press the red
button on the yoke the autopilot disconnects, but when I release it,
the autopilot comes back on. I did get a POH update though that allows
me to pull the breaker out (which is actually how I fly most of the
time local) but that means I'm flying around with a big red warning
light on that I have to explain to passengers "This big red, annoying
light just means teh autopilot is off".

-Robert

[Jose[_1_]]

> I did get a POH update though that allows
> me to pull the breaker out

That =allows= you to pull the breaker out?? What kind of plane do you fly?

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[kontiki]

I agree, the 480 (or equivalent) is a far superior unit compared with
the 430.

[Peter R.]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote:

<snip>
> 6) I wonder what Garmin's future direction will be. They obviously
> decided to base the new G1000 on the 430. Will they use the 480 code
> moving forward, will they merge the code, etc???

Do you suppose the upcoming GNS430/530 WAAS upgrade will provide any of
these "neat" features now offered by the 480, such as airways and ad-hoc
holds?

--
Peter

[Bill Denton]

Speaking of the upgrade, has anyone seen any information lately as to when
it will be available?


"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > 6) I wonder what Garmin's future direction will be. They obviously
> > decided to base the new G1000 on the 430. Will they use the 480 code
> > moving forward, will they merge the code, etc???
>
> Do you suppose the upcoming GNS430/530 WAAS upgrade will provide any of
> these "neat" features now offered by the 480, such as airways and ad-hoc
> holds?
>
> --
> Peter

[Peter R.]

Bill Denton > wrote:

> Speaking of the upgrade, has anyone seen any information lately as to when
> it will be available?

I called my avionics shop, as I am on the list and still very interested in
having it done. The latest scoop I was given was that the upgrade again
slipped to December of this year.

--
Peter

[Mike Adams[_2_]]

"Peter R." > wrote:

> Do you suppose the upcoming GNS430/530 WAAS upgrade will provide any of
> these "neat" features now offered by the 480, such as airways and ad-hoc
> holds?
>

I've heard it will not include airways. Not sure about holds.

Mike

[Ron Natalie]

Peter R. wrote:
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>
> <snip>
>> 6) I wonder what Garmin's future direction will be. They obviously
>> decided to base the new G1000 on the 430. Will they use the 480 code
>> moving forward, will they merge the code, etc???
>
> Do you suppose the upcoming GNS430/530 WAAS upgrade will provide any of
> these "neat" features now offered by the 480, such as airways and ad-hoc
> holds?
>
As far as I know from talking to the Garmin guys at Oshkosh, the answer
is unfortunately no. There's no substantial user interface changes to
the WAAS upgrade other than what is necessary to get the WAAS to work.

[ron]

> Another neat 480 feature is that it will sequence you around to the
> missed approach point again without any manual twisting or SUSP button
> mashing. This is accomplished by having a much richer database than
> the 430.

That is part of the TSO for WAAS certified units, not a function of that
model. Missed approaches sequencing is automatic for that TSO. I believe I
read about that in the AIM. It also has different processing of the CDI.

[Kobra[_1_]]

> 5) All in all, these units are highly intuitive compared to what we
> used to have. I always got a bit of anxiety when a student would call
> me to fly with him and tell me he had some sort of odd King IFR GPS.
> You almost couldn't fly those units w/o the manual. The Apollos were
> not much better.

I do not have a 430 or a 480. I've been flying with the portables 295, 296,
396. I downloaded the 480 simulator the other day because I am thinking of
updating my panel and I think this is the unit I want. Maybe because I am
used to the interface and software of the above mentioned portables, but I
can not agree with the OP's comment that the 480 interface is intuitive.
AAMOF, I found it confusing. Granted, not as bad as the original King
GPS's, but I found myself trying to do something simple like adding and
removing the little pink guidance line. I saw it once in a menu item as
being configurable on or off, but when I tried to go back in and find it I
was left scratching my head until there was blood under my nails.

The x96's by Garmin are simple. Bring up the Map Page and press Menu. All
configurable items were there nicely organized.

I also found myself searching for a simple way to just back up one step.
Like a Quit, Back or Escape button. No such thing.

Another feature sorely missed was the ability to see Terrain color shading,
Obstacles and avoidance there of. It has no weather ability or traffic
avoidance by itself that I know of.

The 480 sim seems to only have 4 colors which brings me back to the look of
the original EGA and VGA monitors of 1985. I sure like the colors on the
396 and 496 using the same colors that the sectional use for airports,
airspace, terrain, etc.

How is it that Garmin can put all that in a tiny footprint of a 396 at a
reasonable price and the relatively large and super expensive panel-mounted
case of the 480, 430, 530 lay naked of these essential goodies and niceties?

That said, I agree that the IFR functions of the 480 are superior in all
that the other posters mentioned. I want one!! However, if I bought one
tomorrow I would be forced to:

1) spend a lot of money on the MX20 or MX200 MFD, a weather receiver and
terrain database just to get me the level of the 396
or 2) keep the 396 on the yoke to retain the features missing in the 480.
That's sad because one of the reasons I would want to the 480 was so that I
could get rid of the wires running about.

Kobra

[Robert M. Gary]

Ron Natalie wrote:
> As far as I know from talking to the Garmin guys at Oshkosh, the answer
> is unfortunately no. There's no substantial user interface changes to
> the WAAS upgrade other than what is necessary to get the WAAS to work.

Will the WAAS upgrade include vertical approach guidance? i.e. the
"improvised" GS on a step down approach.

-Robert

[Ron Natalie]

Kobra wrote:

>
> The 480 sim seems to only have 4 colors which brings me back to the look of
> the original EGA and VGA monitors of 1985. I sure like the colors on the
> 396 and 496 using the same colors that the sectional use for airports,
> airspace, terrain, etc.

The 480 is limitted in it's graphical display as is the 430 and 530.
The certificated units lag a bit in technology. TAll three of the
certified units predate the 396 anyhow. I don't know of any cert.
all-in-one units in the works that will give you the richness of the
handheld units on a certified box. Garmin looks like they're going
to be spinning their wheels for the next year or so doing the "glass
cockpit" retrofit (G600) and further refining the G1000.

I'm not sure I blame them. Even the MX20/200 seems to be a pretty
small niche. If the G600 were available when I did my panel last
year (and I tweaked Garmin heavily over the two years my plane was
in restoration about when something like the G1000 might be sold to
end users) I would have that rather than the 480/20 combo I have now.

> 1) spend a lot of money on the MX20 or MX200 MFD, a weather receiver and
> terrain database just to get me the level of the 396
> or 2) keep the 396 on the yoke to retain the features missing in the 480.
> That's sad because one of the reasons I would want to the 480 was so that I
> could get rid of the wires running about.
>
You could get the panel dock for the 386/486. I've just flew a SeaBee
last weekend that had one of those. Worked pretty well it seemed
(though I was VFR and navigating by pilotage so I had no reason to use it).

[Bill Denton]

Probably old news, but the 480 can "feed" flight plan info to the 396/496
series, thereby turning it into a "mini MFD"...



"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
...
> Kobra wrote:
>
> >
> > The 480 sim seems to only have 4 colors which brings me back to the look
of
> > the original EGA and VGA monitors of 1985. I sure like the colors on
the
> > 396 and 496 using the same colors that the sectional use for airports,
> > airspace, terrain, etc.
>
> The 480 is limitted in it's graphical display as is the 430 and 530.
> The certificated units lag a bit in technology. TAll three of the
> certified units predate the 396 anyhow. I don't know of any cert.
> all-in-one units in the works that will give you the richness of the
> handheld units on a certified box. Garmin looks like they're going
> to be spinning their wheels for the next year or so doing the "glass
> cockpit" retrofit (G600) and further refining the G1000.
>
> I'm not sure I blame them. Even the MX20/200 seems to be a pretty
> small niche. If the G600 were available when I did my panel last
> year (and I tweaked Garmin heavily over the two years my plane was
> in restoration about when something like the G1000 might be sold to
> end users) I would have that rather than the 480/20 combo I have now.
>
> > 1) spend a lot of money on the MX20 or MX200 MFD, a weather receiver and
> > terrain database just to get me the level of the 396
> > or 2) keep the 396 on the yoke to retain the features missing in the
480.
> > That's sad because one of the reasons I would want to the 480 was so
that I
> > could get rid of the wires running about.
> >
> You could get the panel dock for the 386/486. I've just flew a SeaBee
> last weekend that had one of those. Worked pretty well it seemed
> (though I was VFR and navigating by pilotage so I had no reason to use
it).

[Ron Lee]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote:

>
>Ron Natalie wrote:
>> As far as I know from talking to the Garmin guys at Oshkosh, the answer
>> is unfortunately no. There's no substantial user interface changes to
>> the WAAS upgrade other than what is necessary to get the WAAS to work.
>
>Will the WAAS upgrade include vertical approach guidance? i.e. the
>"improvised" GS on a step down approach.
>
>-Robert

If not then there is not much point in WAAS, which was supposed to get
to CAT I.

Ron Lee

[Robert M. Gary]

Ron Lee wrote:
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>
> >Will the WAAS upgrade include vertical approach guidance? i.e. the
> >"improvised" GS on a step down approach.
> >
> >-Robert
>
> If not then there is not much point in WAAS, which was supposed to get
> to CAT I.

The mins right now on LOC approaches are lower than GPS approaches.
WAAS could enable lower mins, even if it didn't improvise a GS.

-Robert

[Ron Natalie]

Robert M. Gary wrote:

> The mins right now on LOC approaches are lower than GPS approaches.
> WAAS could enable lower mins, even if it didn't improvise a GS.
>
>
There are such approaches now: non-WAAS approaches with minimums
the same as the LOC minimums, and LNAV approaches without VNAV that
have minimums below the LOC ones.

[Kobra[_1_]]

> Will the WAAS upgrade include vertical approach guidance? i.e. the
> "improvised" GS on a step down approach.

Not to be the whiner of the group, especially over a great product, such as,
the 480...BUT...this reminds me of another feature sorely lacking in this
box. It offers no VFR vertical guidance as the x96's have. IOW...it won't
tell you when to start a decent at X feet per minute to arrive at Y feet
above the airport elevation, Z miles from the final destination. I know
that this is not needed in an IFR situation, but geez didn't they think the
480 would be flown by general aviation VFR occasionally?

I guess I'm disappointed because I've been wanting this unit for a while now
and always assumed that when I bought it, it would come with everything the
396 had plus the full IFR approaches, holding procedures and airways.

Kobra - in whiner mode

[Peter R.]

Kobra > wrote:

> I know that this is not needed in an IFR situation,

Actually this feature is very handy in IFR and I have used it with both the
B/K KLN94 and the Garmin GNS430. Consider:

"Bonanza XXX, cross 20 miles west of LOBBY at 9,000"

In the Northeast US, crossing instructions similar to that above are very
common.

--
Peter

[Robert M. Gary]

Ron Natalie wrote:
> Robert M. Gary wrote:
>
> > The mins right now on LOC approaches are lower than GPS approaches.
> > WAAS could enable lower mins, even if it didn't improvise a GS.
> >
> >
> There are such approaches now: non-WAAS approaches with minimums
> the same as the LOC minimums, and LNAV approaches without VNAV that
> have minimums below the LOC ones.

Do you have an example? At SAC the LOC mins are about 300 AGL for the
last 5 nm of the approach, right over houses, etc. Perhaps GPS is only
allowed as an overlay for the LOC approaches with very high mins?

-Robert

[Ron Natalie]

Kobra wrote:

> Not to be the whiner of the group, especially over a great product, such as,
> the 480...BUT...this reminds me of another feature sorely lacking in this
> box. It offers no VFR vertical guidance as the x96's have. IOW...it won't
> tell you when to start a decent at X feet per minute to arrive at Y feet
> above the airport elevation, Z miles from the final destination. I know
> that this is not needed in an IFR situation, but geez didn't they think the
> 480 would be flown by general aviation VFR occasionally?
>
Gee, I've flown VFR for 25 years and never had to have a GPS tell me
when to descend. Besides it's pretty trivial. The box tells you
MINUTES to destination. For a 500 FPM descent just multiply the
the altitude you want to lose by 2 and start then.


>
>

[Ron Natalie]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> Ron Natalie wrote:
>> Robert M. Gary wrote:
>>
>>> The mins right now on LOC approaches are lower than GPS approaches.
>>> WAAS could enable lower mins, even if it didn't improvise a GS.
>>>
>>>
>> There are such approaches now: non-WAAS approaches with minimums
>> the same as the LOC minimums, and LNAV approaches without VNAV that
>> have minimums below the LOC ones.
>
> Do you have an example? At SAC the LOC mins are about 300 AGL for the
> last 5 nm of the approach, right over houses, etc. Perhaps GPS is only
> allowed as an overlay for the LOC approaches with very high mins?
>
There are tons of them.

Just digging through my subscription in alphabetical order, ALB
has an ILS RWY 1 that has loc minimums of 740, GPS RWY 1 has 720.
BAF's ILS 20 and GPS 20 both have mins of 800'.

Both of these do have relatively high loc mins (450 AGL or so)
so that may be the case.

[Kobra[_1_]]

> Gee, I've flown VFR for 25 years and never had to have a GPS tell me
> when to descend. Besides it's pretty trivial. The box tells you
> MINUTES to destination. For a 500 FPM descent just multiply the
> the altitude you want to lose by 2 and start then.
>
Geez, Ron...under that philosophy...twenty-five years ago I never needed a
wireless remote control to change the channels on my TV. I wonder what
everyone's attitude would be if all TV manufacturers from this day forward
neglected to engineer that convenience in. Twenty-five years ago we didn't
need the internet and we all got along just fine. So I guess it's ok to
shut it down. (all said in good cheer ... really)

Kobra

[Jose[_1_]]

> Geez, Ron...under that philosophy...twenty-five years ago I never needed a
> wireless remote control to change the channels on my TV.

Well, to be fair it's not like having a remote control with which you
can choose the channel. It's more like the remote control reminding you
that "Howdy Doody is on, don't forget to watch it!". Oh wait - the TV
does that all by itself. :)

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Mxsmanic]

Kobra writes:

> Geez, Ron...under that philosophy...twenty-five years ago I never needed a
> wireless remote control to change the channels on my TV. I wonder what
> everyone's attitude would be if all TV manufacturers from this day forward
> neglected to engineer that convenience in.

That would be fine with me, as I've always found remote controls to be
an inconvenience.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Robert M. Gary]

Jose wrote:
> > Geez, Ron...under that philosophy...twenty-five years ago I never needed a
> > wireless remote control to change the channels on my TV.
>
> Well, to be fair it's not like having a remote control with which you
> can choose the channel. It's more like the remote control reminding you
> that "Howdy Doody is on, don't forget to watch it!". Oh wait - the TV
> does that all by itself. :)

I keep telling my kids that when I was a kid, there was no TiVo. They
totally don't understand. The concept that you would watch the clock
for your show to be on or have to program a VCR just seems alien to
them. In their world, their shows just appear on the Tivo. They don't
know when they are on or what channel they are on.
Of course, they also can't figure out how grandma dials her phone when
its got this strange wheel on it where the buttons are suppose to be.

-Robert

[Chris G.]

Worse yet... a world with no Internet. At a family dinner, we started
talking about an old tube radio an uncle has from the 40's. It was the
old style in a cabinet and it picked up 5-6 shortwave bands and the
current AM band. Additionally, it actually played 78-speed records!

My cousins, not even in their teens, hadn't a clue and thought we should
just throw it out--it's "useless". I would love to restore it.

Regarding the VCRs.... You also had to make sure you selected the right
speed of tape otherwise you might miss the last half of your show.
Never mind it was always advisable to be around somewhere, just in case
the VCR didn't kick on right or it ate the tape. Did you even say the
word "Betamax" yet? LOL

Chris G., PP-ASEL
Salem, Oregon

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> Jose wrote:
>>> Geez, Ron...under that philosophy...twenty-five years ago I never needed a
>>> wireless remote control to change the channels on my TV.
>> Well, to be fair it's not like having a remote control with which you
>> can choose the channel. It's more like the remote control reminding you
>> that "Howdy Doody is on, don't forget to watch it!". Oh wait - the TV
>> does that all by itself. :)
>
> I keep telling my kids that when I was a kid, there was no TiVo. They
> totally don't understand. The concept that you would watch the clock
> for your show to be on or have to program a VCR just seems alien to
> them. In their world, their shows just appear on the Tivo. They don't
> know when they are on or what channel they are on.
> Of course, they also can't figure out how grandma dials her phone when
> its got this strange wheel on it where the buttons are suppose to be.
>
> -Robert
>

[Jose[_1_]]

> Additionally, it actually played 78-speed records!

You mean them cylindrical things with the grooves on the outside?

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.