Dave S wrote:


The GPS is just not intuitive at all to use and takes way too much
set-up, cross-checking and effort in my opinion. It is amazing how
complicated they made these devices given how simple a typical ILS or
VOR approach is.



Agree 100%. Each vendor seems to have it's own way of doing things too,
making it hard to transition from one to the other. I suppose I'll get
used to them after a few years...


No disrespect intended.. but once you learn how to use one King.. you
can use em all.. the "switchology" is common across the entire product
line. Nav page 1 is the same across the entire line.. Nav page 5 is the
moving map.. Flight Plan 0 is the active flight plan, The VOR page,
Airport page, NDB pages.. they all have similar functions and data
across the entire product line.

That is why he said each vendor, not each model. Yes, all Kings are
much the same as are the few Garmin's I've used. I find the Garmin's a
little more intuitive than the King, but the King is certainly capable
as you say, just not as easy to learn.

As an example, conside the hold/OBS discussion. If I'm autosequencing
an approach and need to do a hold for approach entry, having a function
called "hold" seems intuitive to me. Or I can think of it as putting a
"hold" on the autosequence. However, calling that function OBS doesn't
make nearly as much intuitive sense. Small things like that separate
good human factors design from run-of-the-mill design as with King.

Yes, when I was flying the King a lot, I got pretty used to it. The
trouble is how fast you forget all of the nuances. 6 months and I'm
nearly back to ground zero trying to remember whether the outer or inner
ring is needed or when to hit cursor, etc. Whereas, I can go awar from
a VOR or ILS system for 6 months and come back and fly one approach and
I'm pretty comfortable again.

It is a matter of degree, but I think the GPS systems could have been
much better designed.


Matt