"Terry" wrote in message
...

Now that the Garmin 296 has been out for a little while, anybody have
comments good or bad? I am a little leary about spending $1800 on a new
GPS that might have "bugs" that need to be worked out before it is a
really good unit.

So don't spend $1800 on it. The street price is more like $1700.

Is it worth $400 more than the 295? I think so, just because of the marine
and automobile capabilities, as well as the terrain avoidance feature. The
chief bug is getting it to talk to Jeppesen FliteStar, which is more a
feature of FliteStar's outdated communication capability than it is a
problem with the GPS. FliteStar has never been able to really use other GPS
units, either -- it sort of simulates talking to them and I consider some
'features' of this program to be actually dangerous. Even if the 296 could
talk to FliteStar without problems you would still be left with FliteStar's
inherent weaknesses, including the fact that FliteStar creates and
substitutes user waypoints for the GPS unit's database waypoints, often
misplacing them and losing essential information in the process. It is far
better to enter your flight plan into a GPS manually.

But, if you have a 295 already, is it worth upgrading to the 296? The 296
has somewhat better battery life, but uses a proprietary battery. If you
already have a 295, the question is the 296 really worth $1700 more than the
295? I don't think so, not by a long shot. In fact, if you have a 196 it
probably is not worth upgrading to the 296. The 296 is not worth $1700 more
than the 196.

The 296 should have full approaches in it, not just the final approach
segments. Sure, it is not certified for IFR flight, but it would be a fine
emergency backup tool in the event of the loss of primary aircraft systems.
Garmin obviously has chosen not to include full approaches for several
reasons:

1. It would compete with Garmin's panel mounts.
2. The FAA would object on the grounds that pilots would use handhelds to
fly approaches even when there is not an emergency (the old "better that a
few should die in real emergencies rather than let people get away with
saving money" argument).
3. The people who buy the 296 probably would not keep the database updated.

The last argument is probably both the weakest and the strongest. The 296
includes terrain and tower information, which means that the database should
be kept current for the terrain avoidance feature to be anywhere near
reliable. Since the database is only good for 28 days few people will
subscribe to any sort of service to keep it current. The cost of database
updates with approaches would exceed the initial cost of the unit in just a
couple of years.

One other argument, that the 296 does not have the memory to include IFR
procedures, might also be valid, except there is no excuse for putting such
a small memory in GPS units in the first place. For the money manufacturers
charge for them, the things ought to have a gigabyte of memory.

I make it a practice to play with every GPS I can get my hands on. The one I
use is the 296. Overall, it is easy to use, has a very good display, and has
reasonable battery life. I like its features and I really like the terrain
awareness feature. The automobile navigation system is mediocre at best, but
far better than what the 295 had. It is at least marginally useful. The
marine system is pretty good. This is finally a GPS that is something I can
actually use in my day to day work as a flight instructor.