GNS430W: Parallel offset course feature

Mike Adams wrote:


Given that you have to fly the airway, it's much easier to call it up out of the database and have the GPS
automatically insert all the course changes and intersections. Without the database, you're forced to get
out the chart and find all the significant waypoints where a course change occurs, and put them in
manually, or else fly the VOR raw data as you said. Either one is a lot of work by comparison.

Mike

Anyone who flies IFR without the chart out isn't in complete command of
the flight in any case

B wrote:

Mike Adams wrote:


Given that you have to fly the airway, it's much easier to call it up
out of the database and have the GPS automatically insert all the
course changes and intersections. Without the database, you're forced
to get out the chart and find all the significant waypoints where a
course change occurs, and put them in manually, or else fly the VOR
raw data as you said. Either one is a lot of work by comparison.

Mike

Anyone who flies IFR without the chart out isn't in complete command
of the flight in any case

I don't disagree, but it's still easier to get the route into the box if the airways are in the database, rather
than just the navaids and intersections as waypoints.

Mike

In article ,
Mike Adams wrote:

B wrote:

Mike Adams wrote:


Given that you have to fly the airway, it's much easier to call it up
out of the database and have the GPS automatically insert all the
course changes and intersections. Without the database, you're forced
to get out the chart and find all the significant waypoints where a
course change occurs, and put them in manually, or else fly the VOR
raw data as you said. Either one is a lot of work by comparison.

Mike

Anyone who flies IFR without the chart out isn't in complete command
of the flight in any case

I don't disagree, but it's still easier to get the route into the box if the
airways are in the database, rather
than just the navaids and intersections as waypoints.

Mike

Of course, this whole thing is complete stupidity. For the most part (at
least around here), there's just a small set of canned routes that you
always get. They should just tell you "GPS route 347", that should already
be in the Jepp database, and off you go.

Yeah, I know, it's starting to happen, but it's amazing how long it takes
for the most obvious things to get rolled out in aviation.

In article ,
Roy Smith wrote:

In article ,
Mike Adams wrote:

B wrote:

Mike Adams wrote:


Given that you have to fly the airway, it's much easier to call it up
out of the database and have the GPS automatically insert all the
course changes and intersections. Without the database, you're forced
to get out the chart and find all the significant waypoints where a
course change occurs, and put them in manually, or else fly the VOR
raw data as you said. Either one is a lot of work by comparison.

Mike

Anyone who flies IFR without the chart out isn't in complete command
of the flight in any case

I don't disagree, but it's still easier to get the route into the box if
the
airways are in the database, rather
than just the navaids and intersections as waypoints.

Mike

Of course, this whole thing is complete stupidity. For the most part (at
least around here), there's just a small set of canned routes that you
always get. They should just tell you "GPS route 347", that should already
be in the Jepp database, and off you go.

Yeah, I know, it's starting to happen, but it's amazing how long it takes
for the most obvious things to get rolled out in aviation.

Indeed, canned route ID's like that would be a Really Good Idea. Around
here (the SF Bay Area) a lot of the routes for GA seem to be absolutely
standardised -- it almost never matters what you file (and I've tried a
few odd variants to see what happens...), you'll get the unpublished
canned route, some of which I can recite off the top of my head
regardless of how complicated they are, and all of which are repeated in
their full glory on crowded clearance or center frequencies. "Hayward
San Luis 56 Alpha" or something would be a lot clearer than the "fly
runway heading, passing through 400' left turn heading 160, radar
vectors ALTAM, V244, Manteca VOR, V113, Paso Robles VOR, direct" I get
each time I do Hayward / San Luis Obispo. And a lot easier to program on
the GPS if they're integrated into the GPS workflow and databases. (I
think what most irritates me is the fact that these routes are never
published anywhere official).

And I'm also unclear why there aren't more canned DP's -- I regularly
fly out of Hayward (KHWD) where every departure clearance I've ever
received has started with "runway heading, passing 400' left turn
heading 160, radar vectors for [SJC, OAK, ALTAM], ...", always spelled
out in full. Why not just publish a SID? "Cleared San Luis Obispo
airport via the HAYWD 2 departure, San Jose transition, ...". It's not
like Hayward is a podunk airport in the middle of nowhere -- it's in a
hugely busy airspace. Oh well. I'll shut up now :-).

Hamish

Roy Smith wrote:


Yeah, I know, it's starting to happen, but it's amazing how long it takes
for the most obvious things to get rolled out in aviation.

The Southern California area has had the tower-to-tower routes for many,
many years. Jeppesen publishes them on a text page.

But, they are not in the Jepp Nav database so far as I know. They
certainly aren't in the Garmin 400/500 or 400W/500W databases. Are they
in your 480's database?

In article , B wrote:

Roy Smith wrote:


Yeah, I know, it's starting to happen, but it's amazing how long it takes
for the most obvious things to get rolled out in aviation.

The Southern California area has had the tower-to-tower routes for many,
many years. Jeppesen publishes them on a text page.

But, they are not in the Jepp Nav database so far as I know. They
certainly aren't in the Garmin 400/500 or 400W/500W databases. Are they
in your 480's database?

I don't believe so, but having never flown in California, I've never had
reason to look.