"Jedi Nein" wrote in message =
oups.com...
Greetings,
Your *snip* suggests I gave incorrect information. Would you be so =
kind
as to enlighten me on any incorrect information I gave out? Or is that
your standard *snip*?
=20
Thanks!
Jedi Nein

No, that was a customized *snip*.
I didn't want to pick nits about your comparison, but since you asked...

You seemed to involve the 480's discontinuity 'feature' in going direct.
The discontinuity is part of an incomplete flight plan,
and is not involved with navigating "direct-to" a selected location.

You said you can put in two points to "define the route",
and thus "have the airway".
However, few airways go very far along a single great-circle path.
With the 480, you don't need to enter intervening airway inflection =
points.
I agree with you about almost never flying airways, but our friends
in the northeast U.S. seem to be constrained to airways frequently.

You said neither the 480 nor the 430 allow the autopilot to follow the
glideslope until the autopilot manufacturers catch up.
I don't know what that "catch up" would be, because my own
30-year-old, three-axis autopilot flies the VNAV approaches quite well,
including arming and capturing the glideslope, exactly as it does ILS.

You said the 480 always assumes you are going missed approach.
The 480 does not assume you are flying a missed approach if you
land and decelerate on the rollout.
When I do a missed approach, the 480 gives me guidance automatically,
after I climb the requisite amount to begin the missed approach.

I actually didn't understand what you meant by
"Default go-directly-to-start button is MAP",
so I'm unsure if that was a complete statement or not.

I don't mean any of the above to detract from the 430/480 comparison
you posted, and it's always good to see opinions such as yours in the =
open.