GPS Longevity

[Kyle Boatright]

My first aviation GPS (a Trimble Flightmate Pro) lasted about 7 years before
the LCD screen started acting wonky.

Then I bought a Lowrance Airmap 100, which has done very well for about 7
years, but seems to be having problems recently on both the internal and
external antennae. Sometimes it goes for a looong time before it can
determine its location. Beyond that, updates are no longer available for
this unit, so if things don't change, I'll probably be in the market for a
GPS.

Which brings to mind the question of how long of a service life do most of
you experience on your handheld GPS's? Do you usually retire them because
someone has marketed a better mousetrap, because the unit is unsupported, or
because the unit no longer works properly?

By the way, does anyone have information about Lowrance putting out an XM
product? At SnF last year, someone who was in a position to know indicated
that Lowrance would probably have an XM aviation GPS available this year. I
prefer Lowrance over Garmin, and am hoping Lowrance will introduce a new
product at SnF....

[Steve Foley]

"Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
. ..
> Do you usually retire them because someone has marketed a better
mousetrap,
> because the unit is unsupported, or because the unit no longer works
properly?

I vote for no longer works properly.

I bought a Garmin Pilot III back around 2001 from someone who had upgraded
to a 295. The screen started losing lines and now is unreadable (It's even
worse since I opened it and tried to fix it).

I'll probably look around for a lightly used 295. There's a manufacturing
defect in the Pilot III's that made all of the screens shrink. They were
perfectly usable ten years ago, now they're all too small :(

[Allen[_1_]]

"Steve Foley" > wrote in message
news:68Ijj.10440$ac7.7748@trndny03...
> "Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> Do you usually retire them because someone has marketed a better
> mousetrap,
>> because the unit is unsupported, or because the unit no longer works
> properly?
>
> I vote for no longer works properly.
>
> I bought a Garmin Pilot III back around 2001 from someone who had upgraded
> to a 295. The screen started losing lines and now is unreadable (It's even
> worse since I opened it and tried to fix it).
>
> I'll probably look around for a lightly used 295. There's a manufacturing
> defect in the Pilot III's that made all of the screens shrink. They were
> perfectly usable ten years ago, now they're all too small :(
>

If I were you I would look for a 296. The 295 does not have a built-in
ability to charge the batteries. If you lose the ship's electrical power
you have only the remaining battery life. The 296 will charge the batteries
while in use; if you lose the ship's power you should still have fully
charged batteries.

I have a 295 and that is the only drawback between the two. I use ni-cads
and have to remember to charge them between use.

--

*H. Allen Smith*
WACO - We are all here, because we are not all there.

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Steve Foley" wrote:

>
> I bought a Garmin Pilot III back around 2001 from someone who had upgraded
> to a 295. The screen started losing lines and now is unreadable (It's even
> worse since I opened it and tried to fix it).

I bought a Garmin Pilot III ten years ago and sold it a couple of years
later.

The guy that bought it is still using it.

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

[Steve Foley]

"Allen" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Steve Foley" > wrote in message
> news:68Ijj.10440$ac7.7748@trndny03...

> > I'll probably look around for a lightly used 295. There's a
manufacturing
> > defect in the Pilot III's that made all of the screens shrink. They were
> > perfectly usable ten years ago, now they're all too small :(
> >
>
> If I were you I would look for a 296. The 295 does not have a built-in
> ability to charge the batteries. If you lose the ship's electrical power
> you have only the remaining battery life. The 296 will charge the
batteries
> while in use; if you lose the ship's power you should still have fully
> charged batteries.
>
> I have a 295 and that is the only drawback between the two. I use ni-cads
> and have to remember to charge them between use.

295s are selling for $250 to $500 on Ebay. 296s are $900 to $1100. I can
sneak a $500 purchase by she-who-must-be-obeyed. $1000 would generate
questions.

Keeping a package of Duracells in the plane is a cheap fix.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Allen > posted:

> "Steve Foley" > wrote in message
> news:68Ijj.10440$ac7.7748@trndny03...
>> "Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>>> Do you usually retire them because someone has marketed a better
>>> mousetrap, because the unit is unsupported, or because the unit no
>>> longer works properly?
>>
>> I vote for no longer works properly.
>>
>> I bought a Garmin Pilot III back around 2001 from someone who had
>> upgraded to a 295. The screen started losing lines and now is
>> unreadable (It's even worse since I opened it and tried to fix it).
>>
>> I'll probably look around for a lightly used 295. There's a
>> manufacturing defect in the Pilot III's that made all of the screens
>> shrink. They were perfectly usable ten years ago, now they're all
>> too small :(
>>
>
> If I were you I would look for a 296. The 295 does not have a
> built-in ability to charge the batteries. If you lose the ship's
> electrical power you have only the remaining battery life. The 296
> will charge the batteries while in use; if you lose the ship's power
> you should still have fully charged batteries.
>
> I have a 295 and that is the only drawback between the two. I use
> ni-cads and have to remember to charge them between use.
>
I also have a 295, and use Li-ions with it. I haven't been inconvenienced
by the lack of charging, but as I fly club planes I don't leave the unit
in it anyway. I get about 3-4 hours on a charge, and the Li-ions retain
their charge during non-use better than Ni-Cads. For long XC, I carry an
extra set but still run the unit on the ship's power.

Hope this helps some...

Neil

[Allen[_1_]]

"Steve Foley" > wrote in message
news:FdLjj.9199$YW6.6112@trndny07...
> "Allen" > wrote in message
> . ..
>>
>> "Steve Foley" > wrote in message
>> news:68Ijj.10440$ac7.7748@trndny03...
>
>> > I'll probably look around for a lightly used 295. There's a
> manufacturing
>> > defect in the Pilot III's that made all of the screens shrink. They
>> > were
>> > perfectly usable ten years ago, now they're all too small :(
>> >
>>
>> If I were you I would look for a 296. The 295 does not have a built-in
>> ability to charge the batteries. If you lose the ship's electrical power
>> you have only the remaining battery life. The 296 will charge the
> batteries
>> while in use; if you lose the ship's power you should still have fully
>> charged batteries.
>>
>> I have a 295 and that is the only drawback between the two. I use
>> ni-cads
>> and have to remember to charge them between use.
>
> 295s are selling for $250 to $500 on Ebay. 296s are $900 to $1100. I can
> sneak a $500 purchase by she-who-must-be-obeyed. $1000 would generate
> questions.
>
> Keeping a package of Duracells in the plane is a cheap fix.

That's true, I did not realize there was that much difference in price.

[Allen[_1_]]

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
et...
> Recently, Allen > posted:
>
>> "Steve Foley" > wrote in message
>> news:68Ijj.10440$ac7.7748@trndny03...
>>> "Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
>>> . ..
>>>> Do you usually retire them because someone has marketed a better
>>>> mousetrap, because the unit is unsupported, or because the unit no
>>>> longer works properly?
>>>
>>> I vote for no longer works properly.
>>>
>>> I bought a Garmin Pilot III back around 2001 from someone who had
>>> upgraded to a 295. The screen started losing lines and now is
>>> unreadable (It's even worse since I opened it and tried to fix it).
>>>
>>> I'll probably look around for a lightly used 295. There's a
>>> manufacturing defect in the Pilot III's that made all of the screens
>>> shrink. They were perfectly usable ten years ago, now they're all
>>> too small :(
>>>
>>
>> If I were you I would look for a 296. The 295 does not have a
>> built-in ability to charge the batteries. If you lose the ship's
>> electrical power you have only the remaining battery life. The 296
>> will charge the batteries while in use; if you lose the ship's power
>> you should still have fully charged batteries.
>>
>> I have a 295 and that is the only drawback between the two. I use
>> ni-cads and have to remember to charge them between use.
>>
> I also have a 295, and use Li-ions with it. I haven't been inconvenienced
> by the lack of charging, but as I fly club planes I don't leave the unit
> in it anyway. I get about 3-4 hours on a charge, and the Li-ions retain
> their charge during non-use better than Ni-Cads. For long XC, I carry an
> extra set but still run the unit on the ship's power.
>
> Hope this helps some...
>
> Neil

I keep mine in my flight bag in the nylon pouch it came with in between use.
It has the unfortunate ability to turn itself on while in the bag. The
power button needs a guard.

I will look into the Li-ions; they use the same setting in the 295 as the
ni-cads do?

Allen

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Allen > posted:

> "Neil Gould" > wrote in message
> et...
>>>
>> I also have a 295, and use Li-ions with it. I haven't been
>> inconvenienced by the lack of charging, but as I fly club planes I
>> don't leave the unit in it anyway. I get about 3-4 hours on a
>> charge, and the Li-ions retain their charge during non-use better
>> than Ni-Cads. For long XC, I carry an extra set but still run the
>> unit on the ship's power.
>>
>> Hope this helps some...
>>
>> Neil
>
> I keep mine in my flight bag in the nylon pouch it came with in
> between use. It has the unfortunate ability to turn itself on while
> in the bag. The power button needs a guard.
>
I haven't run into that problem.

> I will look into the Li-ions; they use the same setting in the 295 as
> the ni-cads do?
>
Yes. They have the same power ratings as Ni-Cads as far as the 295 is
concerned.

--
Neil

[[email protected]]

On Jan 17, 10:18 am, "Steve Foley" > wrote:
> 295s are selling for $250 to $500 on Ebay. 296s are $900 to $1100. I can
> sneak a $500 purchase by she-who-must-be-obeyed. $1000 would generate
> questions.

I have a Garmin 92 from 2000 that's still working fine today, but I
just bought a used 196 for $495 at an avionics vendor who happened to
have taken on trade-in. Several of the online vendors offer them on
their websites for $450-500, but you'll have to call each of them to
see if they have one in stock, because they sell very fast whenever
they get one traded in. The 196 is still a dependable and easy to use
GPS unit, even though it's not color. I actually prefer being able to
use ordinary "AA" penlight batteries in it too.

$695 for a new 196 is just too much money for one, IMHO.

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 09:37:56 -0600, "Dan Luke"
> wrote:

>
>"Steve Foley" wrote:
>
>>
>> I bought a Garmin Pilot III back around 2001 from someone who had upgraded
>> to a 295. The screen started losing lines and now is unreadable (It's even
>> worse since I opened it and tried to fix it).
>
>I bought a Garmin Pilot III ten years ago and sold it a couple of years
>later.
>
>The guy that bought it is still using it.

I'm still using my garmin 2 plus.
Stealth Pilot

[JGalban via AviationKB.com]

Kyle Boatright wrote:
>
>
>Which brings to mind the question of how long of a service life do most of
>you experience on your handheld GPS's? Do you usually retire them because
>someone has marketed a better mousetrap, because the unit is unsupported, or
>because the unit no longer works properly?
>

My first GPS was also a Trimble Flightmate. I'd probably still be using
it today, but it got stolen back in the '90s. I replaced it with a Garmin
195 in 1999. I'm still using the 195 and Garmin still supports it. I'll
probably keep using it until it dies, or until I can no longer get database
updates for it. It really does everything I want, so I don't see any need to
go out and buy the latest and greatest thing on the market. I'd rather save
that cash for avgas and airplane parts.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

We're on our fifth GPS. We've flown with a:

- Magellan Nautical GPS (sold to a relative for fifty bucks)
- Lowrance Airmap 300 (Traded in for color.)
- AvMap EKP-IIIc (Sold on Ebay -- still the best GPS I've owned)
- Lowrance 2000C (On the pilot's yoke)
- Garmin 496 (Panel-docked in an AirGizmo)

I got rid of the Airmap 300 when Lowrance stopped supporting it. All were
working when we sold them.

As far as durability goes, when you add up how seldom an aviation GPS is
actually used (compared to, say, an automotive unit), they should never
fail.

> By the way, does anyone have information about Lowrance putting out an XM
> product? At SnF last year, someone who was in a position to know
> indicated that Lowrance would probably have an XM aviation GPS available
> this year.

Lowrance (and AvMap) have been saying this since the very first day Garmin
announced XM weather, in an effort to bolster their sales.

Their promises have been hollow thus far.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:Fodkj.41720$Ux2.23390@attbi_s22:

> We're on our fifth GPS. We've flown with a:

Not on my first yet.


Bertie

[Longworth[_1_]]

On Jan 16, 8:13*pm, "Kyle Boatright" > wrote:
> Which brings to mind the question of how long of a service life do most of
> you experience on your handheldGPS's? *Do you usually retire them because
> someone has marketed a better mousetrap, because the unit is unsupported, or
> because the unit no longer works properly?
>
Our Lowrance Airmap 1000 stopped working today after about 3 years
of frequent usage (~ 250 hrs/year). It had been working fine.
During a flight today, the screen just went blank. We thought
something was wrong with the power plug which drained the internal
batteries.
Coming home, we recharged the batteries and still could not power
it up. I put in a fresh set of batteries but the unit still as dead as
a door knob. Will call Lowrance Service center tomorrow.
The hand-held GPS has become an indispensable cross-country piece
of equipment for us. For navigation, we use all available sources of
information, charts, VORs, pilotage, dead reckoning etc. but the GPS
gives the most precise information.
I had planned to get a second GPS unit for a while and was hoping
to get either the AvMap or Lowrance with XM-weather. The AvMap rep
at the last AOPA expo claimed that their unit would be ready by Xmas
but it appeared they would introduce it at SnF. I saw an online ad
from one of the avionic store stating that XM weather would be
available soon. Last October, the Lowrance rep told me that they were
a bit behind AvMap but was planning for SnF.
Of course, it is much easier just to get the Garmin 396 or 496 but
I much prefer a larger screen. So if Lowrance does not come up with an
XM weather capable GPS next month, I will most likely get the AvMap.
I still plan to get the Lowrance Airmap 1000 fixed. If the repair
cost is more than the cost of a new unit, I may ask Lowrance for trade-
in credits.

Hai Longworth

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

> Of course, it is much easier just to get the Garmin 396 or 496 but
>I much prefer a larger screen. So if Lowrance does not come up with an
>XM weather capable GPS next month, I will most likely get the AvMap.

Good plan. Although having XM weather on board has been fantastic, and (in
the two years we've flown with it on-board) weather has made our flying MUCH
safer, I often regret buying the 496.

The 496 has an undersized screen, with poor readability (compared to the
competition), a slow processor that drives us nuts, and it cost as much as
my Toyota pickup truck. It's actually a much better "entertainment center"
(with XM radio) than it is a good GPS, which is why we rely on our Lowrance
2000c as our primary navigator in flight.

Not that the 496 doesn't have nice features. The AOPA data is quite useful,
and the airport diagrams are great. But the underlying design of the unit
itself is inferior to the competition, and the price is just stupidly high.
If I didn't have on-board weather yet, I'd either wait for Garmin to fix the
flaws in the 496, or I'd wait for Lowrance and AvMap to *finally* mount the
weather horse.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Dave[_5_]]

I bought a Garmin GPS 92 about 1999, after taking a borrowed GPS 90 on
a long trip in '98. It is still in great shape and
works as well as it ever did. I do, however, want a better display and
also want XM weather - so am definitely in the market for a new unit.
Like others, I have been waiting on Avmap and Lowrance to get their
acts together for quite some time.

David Johnson

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:kaLyj.59040$yE1.36721@attbi_s21:

>> Of course, it is much easier just to get the Garmin 396 or 496 but
>>I much prefer a larger screen. So if Lowrance does not come up with an
>>XM weather capable GPS next month, I will most likely get the AvMap.
>
> Good plan. Although having XM weather on board has been fantastic,
> and (in the two years we've flown with it on-board) weather has made
> our flying MUCH safer, I often regret buying the 496.
>
> The 496 has an undersized screen, with poor readability (compared to
> the competition), a slow processor that drives us nuts, and it cost as
> much as my Toyota pickup truck. It's actually a much better
> "entertainment center" (with XM radio) than it is a good GPS, which is
> why we rely on our Lowrance 2000c as our primary navigator in flight.
>
> Not that the 496 doesn't have nice features. The AOPA data is quite
> useful, and the airport diagrams are great. But the underlying design
> of the unit itself is inferior to the competition, and the price is
> just stupidly high. If I didn't have on-board weather yet, I'd either
> wait for Garmin to fix the flaws in the 496, or I'd wait for Lowrance
> and AvMap to *finally* mount the weather horse.

God grief, do you ever look out the window?


Bertie

[Ron Natalie]

I have serial #9 of the 195. It works now as well as it ever did, but
it's purely backup now that I've got a nice MFD/IFR GPS.

[[email protected]]

On Mar 3, 5:47 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote innews:kaLyj.59040$yE1.36721@attbi_s21:
>
>
>
> >> Of course, it is much easier just to get the Garmin 396 or 496 but
> >>I much prefer a larger screen. So if Lowrance does not come up with an
> >>XM weather capable GPS next month, I will most likely get the AvMap.
>
> > Good plan. Although having XM weather on board has been fantastic,
> > and (in the two years we've flown with it on-board) weather has made
> > our flying MUCH safer, I often regret buying the 496.
>
> > The 496 has an undersized screen, with poor readability (compared to
> > the competition), a slow processor that drives us nuts, and it cost as
> > much as my Toyota pickup truck. It's actually a much better
> > "entertainment center" (with XM radio) than it is a good GPS, which is
> > why we rely on our Lowrance 2000c as our primary navigator in flight.
>
> > Not that the 496 doesn't have nice features. The AOPA data is quite
> > useful, and the airport diagrams are great. But the underlying design
> > of the unit itself is inferior to the competition, and the price is
> > just stupidly high. If I didn't have on-board weather yet, I'd either
> > wait for Garmin to fix the flaws in the 496, or I'd wait for Lowrance
> > and AvMap to *finally* mount the weather horse.
>
> God grief, do you ever look out the window?
>
> Bertie

What's there to see? He's flying over Iowa....

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

" > wrote in
:

> On Mar 3, 5:47 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> "Jay Honeck" > wrote
>> innews:kaLyj.59040$yE1.36721@attbi_s21:
>>
>>
>>
>> >> Of course, it is much easier just to get the Garmin 396 or 496
>> >> but
>> >>I much prefer a larger screen. So if Lowrance does not come up with
>> >>an XM weather capable GPS next month, I will most likely get the
>> >>AvMap.
>>
>> > Good plan. Although having XM weather on board has been fantastic,
>> > and (in the two years we've flown with it on-board) weather has
>> > made our flying MUCH safer, I often regret buying the 496.
>>
>> > The 496 has an undersized screen, with poor readability (compared
>> > to the competition), a slow processor that drives us nuts, and it
>> > cost as much as my Toyota pickup truck. It's actually a much
>> > better "entertainment center" (with XM radio) than it is a good
>> > GPS, which is why we rely on our Lowrance 2000c as our primary
>> > navigator in flight.
>>
>> > Not that the 496 doesn't have nice features. The AOPA data is
>> > quite useful, and the airport diagrams are great. But the
>> > underlying design of the unit itself is inferior to the
>> > competition, and the price is just stupidly high. If I didn't have
>> > on-board weather yet, I'd either wait for Garmin to fix the flaws
>> > in the 496, or I'd wait for Lowrance and AvMap to *finally* mount
>> > the weather horse.
>>
>> God grief, do you ever look out the window?
>>
>> Bertie
>
> What's there to see? He's flying over Iowa....


Well, another airplane maybe!


Bertie
>

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-03-03, > wrote:
> What's there to see? He's flying over Iowa....

"Mississippi River...Davenport...Corn corn corn corn corn..."
-- Heywood Banks, "Interstate 80 Iowa"

(At least at cruise altitude, the "what's that smell?" isn't as much of an
issue.)
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
http://www.hercules-390.org (Yes, that's me!)
Buy Hercules stuff at http://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Longworth > posted:

> On Jan 16, 8:13 pm, "Kyle Boatright" > wrote:
>> Which brings to mind the question of how long of a service life do
>> most of you experience on your handheldGPS's? Do you usually retire
>> them because someone has marketed a better mousetrap, because the
>> unit is unsupported, or because the unit no longer works properly?
>>
> Our Lowrance Airmap 1000 stopped working today after about 3 years
> of frequent usage (~ 250 hrs/year). It had been working fine.
> During a flight today, the screen just went blank. We thought
> something was wrong with the power plug which drained the internal
> batteries.
> Coming home, we recharged the batteries and still could not power
> it up. I put in a fresh set of batteries but the unit still as dead as
> a door knob. Will call Lowrance Service center tomorrow.
> The hand-held GPS has become an indispensable cross-country piece
> of equipment for us. For navigation, we use all available sources of
> information, charts, VORs, pilotage, dead reckoning etc. but the GPS
> gives the most precise information.
>
How precise were the locations your blank screen?

I consider my hand-held GPS as a convenience aiding situational awareness,
and if it went blank in flight I'd simply ignore it for the rest of the
trip rather than fiddle with it en route beyond seeing whether the power
plug was loose.

--
Neil

[Longworth[_1_]]

On Mar 3, 8:55*am, "Neil Gould" > wrote:
> Recently, Longworth > posted:
>
> How precise were the locations your blank screen?
>
> I consider my hand-held GPS as a convenience aiding situational awareness,
> and if it went blank in flight I'd simply ignore it for the rest of the
> trip rather than fiddle with it en route beyond seeing whether the power
> plug was loose.
>
Neil,
We never rely solely on the GPS. As stated in my original post, we
use all available information (charts, maps, pilotage, dead-reckoning,
VORs and even ADF!). When the GPS screen went blank, we did exactly
what you said you would have done.
This particular trip was just a local trip for us to practice our
commercial maneuvers. We turned on the GPS just to have a visual
record of our tracks doing steep turns, lazy 8's, chandelles and 8's
on pylons etc..
There is no question that GPS is more precise than VORs, and
there is simply no substitution for the GPS to ensure no airspace
violations especially in busy area such as the doing the Hudson River
Corridor.
Of course a pilot can navigate just fine without having a GPS.
As a matter of fact, we had a Garmin GPS III before the Lowrance but
hardly used it because we had just obtained our PP certificates and
wanted to make sure that we could find our ways with just pilotage and
dead-reckoning.
The GPS is an excellent navigation tool especially in today's
flying environment with all kinds of TFRs. We plan to do a coast-to-
coast trip this summer. Of course, we can do it without the aid of a
GPS but having one with XM weather capability will make it a much
safer trip.

Hai Longworth

[[email protected]]

On Mar 3, 7:50 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> " > wrote :
>
>
>
> > On Mar 3, 5:47 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> "Jay Honeck" > wrote
> >> innews:kaLyj.59040$yE1.36721@attbi_s21:
>
> >> >> Of course, it is much easier just to get the Garmin 396 or 496
> >> >> but
> >> >>I much prefer a larger screen. So if Lowrance does not come up with
> >> >>an XM weather capable GPS next month, I will most likely get the
> >> >>AvMap.
>
> >> > Good plan. Although having XM weather on board has been fantastic,
> >> > and (in the two years we've flown with it on-board) weather has
> >> > made our flying MUCH safer, I often regret buying the 496.
>
> >> > The 496 has an undersized screen, with poor readability (compared
> >> > to the competition), a slow processor that drives us nuts, and it
> >> > cost as much as my Toyota pickup truck. It's actually a much
> >> > better "entertainment center" (with XM radio) than it is a good
> >> > GPS, which is why we rely on our Lowrance 2000c as our primary
> >> > navigator in flight.
>
> >> > Not that the 496 doesn't have nice features. The AOPA data is
> >> > quite useful, and the airport diagrams are great. But the
> >> > underlying design of the unit itself is inferior to the
> >> > competition, and the price is just stupidly high. If I didn't have
> >> > on-board weather yet, I'd either wait for Garmin to fix the flaws
> >> > in the 496, or I'd wait for Lowrance and AvMap to *finally* mount
> >> > the weather horse.
>
> >> God grief, do you ever look out the window?
>
> >> Bertie
>
> > What's there to see? He's flying over Iowa....
>
> Well, another airplane maybe!
>
> Bertie
>
>

DOH!!

[JGalban via AviationKB.com]

Ron Natalie wrote:
>I have serial #9 of the 195. It works now as well as it ever did, but
>it's purely backup now that I've got a nice MFD/IFR GPS.

Yikes, I'll bet that was one of the expensive ones! I bought mine about 3
yrs. after they were first introduced (about the time the 295 came out). It
was still a pricey $1K in 1999. It's still the only GPS I have on board.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200803/1

[Neil Gould]

Longworth,

Recently, Longworth > posted:

> Neil,
> We never rely solely on the GPS. As stated in my original post, we
> use all available information (charts, maps, pilotage, dead-reckoning,
> VORs and even ADF!). When the GPS screen went blank, we did exactly
> what you said you would have done.
[...]
> The GPS is an excellent navigation tool especially in today's
> flying environment with all kinds of TFRs. We plan to do a coast-to-
> coast trip this summer. Of course, we can do it without the aid of a
> GPS but having one with XM weather capability will make it a much
> safer trip.
>
> Hai Longworth
>
I agree with much of what you wrote. I was originally reacting to the idea
that the GPS is "indispensable." The difference, in my view, is that truly
indispensable equipment would ground the plane if it was inoperative or
require landing ASAP if if failed in flight, and a GPS should only rise to
that level of importance in very specific cases.

Best,

Neil

[Longworth[_1_]]

On Mar 3, 1:57*pm, "Neil Gould" > wrote:
> I agree with much of what you wrote. I was originally reacting to the idea
> that theGPSis "indispensable." The difference, in my view, is that truly
> indispensable equipment would ground the plane if it was inoperative or
> require landing ASAP if if failed in flight, and aGPSshould only rise to
> that level of importance in very specific cases.

Neil,
I checked my original post and here is what I wrote: " The hand-
held GPS has become an indispensable cross-country piece of equipment
for us". The key word is cross country. Our typcial cross country
trips are more than several hundred nautical miles covering several
states. Of course, we can do such trips with nothing more than a set
of sectional charts and our eyeballs but we would not want to embark
on such a trip without having a long list of items checked and the GPS
is one item which I definitely want to have.
I recalled having posted at r.a.p of several long cross-country
trips where the GPS came in handy. One such trip was before obtaining
our instrument ratings flying back to Illinois from Minnesota. It was
CAVU when we departed Baudette, MN but the ceilings got lower as we
were over the Dell in Wisconsin. We checked with FSS and learned that
the weather was better ahead of us so we pressed on but was quite
nervous about the rolling terrain spiking with cell towers. The
obstruction database on the Lowrance helped up to look for them along
our route. This trip was what prompted us to get instrument ratings.
Shortly after getting our instrument tickets, we filed IFR going
from New York to Michigan. Departing Erie International airport, I
slavishly follwed the VOR needle intending to stay on the airway.
Rick, my husband and co-pilot, noticed that I had strayed from the GPS
track but I told him that I should use the VOR as my 'main' navigation
tool. It wasn't long before ATC told us that we had deviated from our
route!
So the bottom line is that for us, a GPS is an indispensable tool
for long cross country trips along with other indispensable equipment
such as dual NAV/COM, glideslope, marker beacon, sectional charts,
IFR enroute charts, AFD books, approach plates, hand-held radios,
flash lights, extra batteries, cellphone, emergency/survial kit, food
& drink and even a relief red jug for Rick ;-)

Hai Longworth

[Neil Gould]

Hi Hai,

Recently, Longworth > posted:

> On Mar 3, 1:57 pm, "Neil Gould" > wrote:
>> I agree with much of what you wrote. I was originally reacting to
>> the idea that theGPSis "indispensable." The difference, in my view,
>> is that truly indispensable equipment would ground the plane if it
>> was inoperative or require landing ASAP if if failed in flight, and
>> aGPSshould only rise to that level of importance in very specific
>> cases.
>
> Neil,
> I checked my original post and here is what I wrote: " The hand-
> held GPS has become an indispensable cross-country piece of equipment
> for us". The key word is cross country. Our typcial cross country
> trips are more than several hundred nautical miles covering several
> states. Of course, we can do such trips with nothing more than a set
> of sectional charts and our eyeballs but we would not want to embark
> on such a trip without having a long list of items checked and the GPS
> is one item which I definitely want to have.
> [...]
>
Again, I agree with your appreciation of a hand-held, as I also use mine
in much the same way that you've described. I was being a bit nit-picky
about the terminology, that's all... I see it as an additional rather
than primary source of information, mostly for situational awareness.

Best,

Neil

[Ron Lee[_2_]]

I have two GPS units on any cross country and could have three if I
wanted.

Ron Lee

[Longworth[_1_]]

On Mar 2, 9:56*pm, Longworth > wrote:
> * *Our Lowrance Airmap 1000 stopped working today after about 3 years
> of frequent usage (~ 250 hrs/year). * It had been working fine.
> During a flight today, the screen just went blank. *We thought
> something was wrong with the power plug which drained the internal
> batteries.
........
> I still plan to get the Lowrance Airmap 1000 fixed. *If the repair
> cost is more than the cost of a new unit, I may ask Lowrance for trade-
> in credits.
>

Here is an update:
We examined the cigarette lighter adapter cable and found that it
had a blown fuse. Something inside the Airmap must have shorted as
well since we could not power it up with fresh batteries.
I called Lowrance and was told that there was a flat repair rate of
$199 with $7 or so for shipping. I asked about the power cable and
was told that I could buy a new fuse at a local store. I expressed my
concern that if the cable was defective, it could blow a new fuse and
short the Airmap (after repair) again. The rep told me that I could
order a new cable for $34 or so. He was going to look up some part
number for me then the phone got cutoff.
The next day, I called back and talked to a different rep. She
agreed with me that the suspect cable should be replaced as well and
told me that the flat rate repair should cover both the GPS and the
cable. She said that the rep I talked to the day before could be one
of the new trainees.
I asked her for about a trade off credit towards a Lowrance 2000
but she said the trade off credits of something like $200 only apply
to older Airmap (100 and 300?) which were no longer supported by
Lowrance. So I bit the bullet, get an RA# and gave me my credit card
number. The actual repair cost was $189 so the total came out to be
less than $200. We sent the unit in today and have no ideas how long
that it would take to receive the repaired or replaced GPS + cable.
About the cigarette lighter adapter power cable, few weeks ago,
Rick noticed some bare wires showing at the plug joint. It is a
molded plug so there was no way that we could open it to wrap
insulation sleeves over the wires. Using a combination of electrical
tape, adhesive and glue, he tried to patch up the cord. It was
possible that there were still some area of bare wires further inside
the plug creating the short later. The fuse in the cable was
supposedly to protect such event without damaging the GPS but it did
not seem to help. So the lesson is that next time, we should order a
replacement cable instead of trying to patch it up!
BTW, the repair unit will only have a 6 months warranty, just hope
that we would not need another RA# shortly after the warranty date!

Hai Longworth

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

> "Mississippi River...Davenport...Corn corn corn corn corn..."
> -- Heywood Banks, "Interstate 80 Iowa"

Actually, Iowa in spring (which they assure me is *just* around the corner,
despite our sub-zero temperatures) is one of the most beautiful sights I've
seen -- and I've flown coast to coast, Canada to Mexico. The multi-hued
greens of spring are so intense -- especially after a long winter of nothing
but white, white, white -- that they almost hurt your eyes.

That's something I always appreciate when coming home from a long trip out
West. I love the mountains, but you can only look at varying shades of gray
and brown for so long...

Currently, the snow cover -- the greatest in decades -- is really quite a
sight to behold. If you've seen National Geographic specials at the South
Pole, you'll know exactly what a flight over the Midwest looks like today.
We flew last week with an OAT of 68 degrees at 3000 AGL -- but the temps
barely broke 50 at the surface. Nothing like 10,000 sq miles of ice to
keep your beer cold...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:7JxAj.66835$yE1.24363@attbi_s21:

>> "Mississippi River...Davenport...Corn corn corn corn corn..."
>> -- Heywood Banks, "Interstate 80 Iowa"

>
> Currently, the snow cover -- the greatest in decades -- is really
> quite a sight to behold. If you've seen National Geographic specials
> at the South Pole

Seen the one of it melting, fjukkwit?


Bertie

[Bob Noel]

In article <7JxAj.66835$yE1.24363@attbi_s21>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> > "Mississippi River...Davenport...Corn corn corn corn corn..."
> > -- Heywood Banks, "Interstate 80 Iowa"
>
> Actually, Iowa in spring (which they assure me is *just* around the corner,
> despite our sub-zero temperatures) is one of the most beautiful sights I've
> seen -- and I've flown coast to coast, Canada to Mexico. The multi-hued
> greens of spring are so intense -- especially after a long winter of nothing
> but white, white, white -- that they almost hurt your eyes.

Actually, anything not white white white would be a beautiful
intense experience...

;-)

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[mariposas rand mair fheal]

In article >,
Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in
> news:7JxAj.66835$yE1.24363@attbi_s21:
>
> >> "Mississippi River...Davenport...Corn corn corn corn corn..."
> >> -- Heywood Banks, "Interstate 80 Iowa"
>
> >
> > Currently, the snow cover -- the greatest in decades -- is really
> > quite a sight to behold. If you've seen National Geographic specials
> > at the South Pole
>
> Seen the one of it melting, fjukkwit?

the water supply of california is premised
on sierra nevada snow pack persisting into the summer

global warming is not changing the amount of percipitation
but does mean more of it falls as rain
and the snow pack is melting earlier

california is willing to pay to fight global warming to protect its water supply
it is rest of the country that is interfering

given that set up the question i have

is rest of the country willing to provide the billions and billions
necessary to overhaul california water infrastructure
so that rest of the country can continue contributing to global warming

or do you continue to demand others pay for your indulgences

arf meow arf - everything thing i know i learned
from the collective unconscience of odd bodkins
nobody could do that much decoupage
without calling on the powers of darkness

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

mariposas rand mair fheal > wrote in
:

> In article >,
> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in
>> news:7JxAj.66835$yE1.24363@attbi_s21:
>>
>> >> "Mississippi River...Davenport...Corn corn corn corn corn..."
>> >> -- Heywood Banks, "Interstate 80 Iowa"
>>
>> >
>> > Currently, the snow cover -- the greatest in decades -- is really
>> > quite a sight to behold. If you've seen National Geographic
>> > specials at the South Pole
>>
>> Seen the one of it melting, fjukkwit?
>
> the water supply of california is premised
> on sierra nevada snow pack persisting into the summer
>
> global warming is not changing the amount of percipitation
> but does mean more of it falls as rain
> and the snow pack is melting earlier
>
> california is willing to pay to fight global warming to protect its
> water supply it is rest of the country that is interfering
>
> given that set up the question i have
>
> is rest of the country willing to provide the billions and billions
> necessary to overhaul california water infrastructure
> so that rest of the country can continue contributing to global
> warming
>
> or do you continue to demand others pay for your indulgences
>

I'm not asking anyone to pay for anything. Just to get of their asses..

Bertie

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting mariposas rand mair fheal > wrote:
> In article >,
> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

> > "Jay Honeck" > wrote in
> > news:7JxAj.66835$yE1.24363@attbi_s21:
> >
> > >> "Mississippi River...Davenport...Corn corn corn corn corn..."
> > >> -- Heywood Banks, "Interstate 80 Iowa"
> >
> > >
> > > Currently, the snow cover -- the greatest in decades -- is really
> > > quite a sight to behold. If you've seen National Geographic specials
> > > at the South Pole
> >
> > Seen the one of it melting, fjukkwit?

> the water supply of california is premised
> on sierra nevada snow pack persisting into the summer

> global warming is not changing the amount of percipitation
> but does mean more of it falls as rain
> and the snow pack is melting earlier

> california is willing to pay to fight global warming to protect its water supply
> it is rest of the country that is interfering

> given that set up the question i have

> is rest of the country willing to provide the billions and billions
> necessary to overhaul california water infrastructure
> so that rest of the country can continue contributing to global warming

> or do you continue to demand others pay for your indulgences

> arf meow arf - everything thing i know i learned
> from the collective unconscience of odd bodkins
> nobody could do that much decoupage
> without calling on the powers of darkness

The Feather River Project back in the 50's solved California's water
problems for all time.

Or so said those pushing the bonds to build it.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Longworth[_1_]]

On Mar 8, 9:50*am, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>
> That's something I always appreciate when coming home from a long trip out
> West. *I love the mountains, but you can only look at varying shades of gray
> and brown for so long...

Not all mountains are just gray and brown. Here in the Northeast,
the Catskills and Adirondacks wear coats of many breathtaking colors
throughout the year.
I always have to try hard to stay awake flying over flat
agricultural land like Iowa in all seasons. The occasional winding
rivers and creeks and few lakes were always the welcoming visual
relief. You must be a quite happy and contented person to think that
the grass is greener in your own pasture (or is it corn field?) ;-)

Hai Longworth

[mariposas rand mair fheal]

In article >, wrote:

> In rec.aviation.piloting mariposas rand mair fheal >
> wrote:
> > In article >,
> > Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> > > "Jay Honeck" > wrote in
> > > news:7JxAj.66835$yE1.24363@attbi_s21:
> > >
> > > >> "Mississippi River...Davenport...Corn corn corn corn corn..."
> > > >> -- Heywood Banks, "Interstate 80 Iowa"
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Currently, the snow cover -- the greatest in decades -- is really
> > > > quite a sight to behold. If you've seen National Geographic specials
> > > > at the South Pole
> > >
> > > Seen the one of it melting, fjukkwit?
>
> > the water supply of california is premised
> > on sierra nevada snow pack persisting into the summer
>
> > global warming is not changing the amount of percipitation
> > but does mean more of it falls as rain
> > and the snow pack is melting earlier
>
> > california is willing to pay to fight global warming to protect its water
> > supply
> > it is rest of the country that is interfering
>
> > given that set up the question i have
>
> > is rest of the country willing to provide the billions and billions
> > necessary to overhaul california water infrastructure
> > so that rest of the country can continue contributing to global warming
>
> > or do you continue to demand others pay for your indulgences
>
> > arf meow arf - everything thing i know i learned
> > from the collective unconscience of odd bodkins
> > nobody could do that much decoupage
> > without calling on the powers of darkness
>
> The Feather River Project back in the 50's solved California's water
> problems for all time.

it is premised on expectations of the snowpack

if those expectations are invalidated
should the people who invalidate them be held responsible

gasoline appears cheaper than alternatives
because so little of the actual cost is reflected in pump prices

arf meow arf - everything thing i know i learned
from the collective unconscience of odd bodkins
nobody could do that much decoupage
without calling on the powers of darkness

[Stella Starr]

Longworth wrote:

> I always have to try hard to stay awake flying over flat
> agricultural land like Iowa in all seasons.

Me too. It's like slowly driving across a MAP of Iowa. A couple years
ago scientific measurements confirmed that the sky there is also hazier
than it used to be, largely because of transpiration from the crops and
dust from cultivation. Anyone who lives there can tell you Iowa's long
been known as the most biologically-altered state in the nation.

I'm not getting into the anticipated argument over whether THAT's a good
thing. After all, that flat state also produces enough corn-fed deer to
cause thousands of car crashes.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Stella Starr > wrote:

> Longworth wrote:
>
> > I always have to try hard to stay awake flying over flat
> > agricultural land like Iowa in all seasons.
>
> Me too. It's like slowly driving across a MAP of Iowa. A couple years
> ago scientific measurements confirmed that the sky there is also hazier
> than it used to be, largely because of transpiration from the crops and
> dust from cultivation. Anyone who lives there can tell you Iowa's long
> been known as the most biologically-altered state in the nation.

I thought the haze was related to Mt St Helens...

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

>Not all mountains are just gray and brown. Here in the Northeast,
>the Catskills and Adirondacks wear coats of many breathtaking colors
>throughout the year.

Very true. That's some very beautiful country to over fly, although I must
confess that's it's always been so danged hazy when I've been around there
that the colors looked like mud and the mountains looked like big hills.

And don't get me wrong -- Iowa is plenty boring between the time the snow
melts and when things green up. We're talking an endless landscape of
brown and black mud, stretching to the horizon in all directions.

But when it greens up it does so with breath-taking speed, and is absolutely
gorgeous. The lushness of this state never ceases to amaze me -- but that,
of course, is why Iowa is the bread-basket of the world. EVERYTHING grows
here.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"