Flying IFR with Garmins

wrote in message ...

What you're looking for is an airway database. Even the IFR Garmins don't
have that. Those are
the domain of airliners and biz jets for the most part.


Even my old Northstar M3 has an airway data base. And I frequently use it
to fly a flight plan using airways.

Stan Prevost wrote:

wrote in message ...

What you're looking for is an airway database. Even the IFR Garmins don't
have that. Those are
the domain of airliners and biz jets for the most part.


Even my old Northstar M3 has an airway data base. And I frequently use it
to fly a flight plan using airways.

Sigh. That's why I said for the most part. ;-) There are very few of those in
use compared to Garmins and Kings.

wrote in message ...
"Robert M. Gary" wrote:

"Dash8Driver" wrote in message news:J3Qzc.56901$HG.14900@attbi_s53...
Enter VORs as waypoints in a flight plan?

Its not the flight plan I'm worried about, its the frequent changes to
it by ATC. The reason we use airways out west is because it simplifies
all the turns around restricted airspace and busy airspace. If you
can't enter an airway, you'd need to put in every point along the
airway that defines a turn.

-Robert

What you're looking for is an airway database. Even the IFR Garmins don't have that. Those are
the domain of airliners and biz jets for the most part.

I have it in my current handheld (Skymap IIIc). However, the terrain
looks better in the 296 and the battery backup is great (as well as
the turn coorindator) so I'll accept the loss of airways for the new
296. Looking at previous ebay sales, I can probably get enough from my
old IIIc to pay for the 296. The IIIc has a much bigger screen and
nice joystick control.

-Robert

Dash8Driver wrote:

Enter VORs as waypoints in a flight plan?

And, turn points between VORs, if any.

On 15 Jun 2004 21:18:09 -0700, (Robert M. Gary) wrote:

I just recently decided to buy our first Garmin GPS (296). I had not
in the past because they were so far behind on providing terrain. They
fixed that with the 296. However, the one outstanding item missing on
the 296 are airways. On my Skymap IIIc I can easily fly an airway by
putting the white course line on the pink airway line. Airways are
pretty common in the West where airways provide routes around
restricted airspace and around busy areas (like LAX) so ATC often
gives you airways rather than a million vectors (our airways are not
straight, they turn like roads).

So how do you Garmin guys easily fly along an airway graphically?

-Robert

My CNX80 has the airways.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

On 15 Jun 2004 21:18:09 -0700, (Robert M. Gary)
wrote:
So how do you Garmin guys easily fly along an airway graphically?

You have to put in everything that creates a bend in the airway: VORs,
intersections. To make the task less daunting, in practice I put in
just the first couple of these, then add the rest in cruise flight
when the workload reduces.

-Dave Lindenauer, N212MT (with GNS430)

(David Lindenauer) wrote in message ...
On 15 Jun 2004 21:18:09 -0700, (Robert M. Gary)
wrote:
So how do you Garmin guys easily fly along an airway graphically?

You have to put in everything that creates a bend in the airway: VORs,
intersections. To make the task less daunting, in practice I put in
just the first couple of these, then add the rest in cruise flight
when the workload reduces.

Do you define them between two airway points (one behind you) or do
you have to direct to the next fix and just guess how far off the
airway you are?

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
om...
(David Lindenauer) wrote in message
...
On 15 Jun 2004 21:18:09 -0700, (Robert M. Gary)
wrote:
So how do you Garmin guys easily fly along an airway graphically?

You have to put in everything that creates a bend in the airway: VORs,
intersections. To make the task less daunting, in practice I put in
just the first couple of these, then add the rest in cruise flight
when the workload reduces.

Do you define them between two airway points (one behind you) or do
you have to direct to the next fix and just guess how far off the
airway you are?

You enter the one behind you and activate the leg you are intercepting.

Michael

Michael 182 wrote:

You enter the one behind you and activate the leg you are intercepting.

This is about intercepting an airway at some point that's not a fix, right?
In that case, you could "build" the airway segment with the fixes before
and after your intercept point or you could get "after" fix into the GPS
and then use OBS mode.

I have to admit, though, when given an airway intercept I find it easier to
use a VOR receiver. The "user interface" seems to involve less work to me
(although the end result of the GPS process yields more benefit).

- Andrew

There is another way to do this with the Garmin. Suppose
you're on V123 sector between the A and B VORs,
and you have to turn onto V345 at an unnamed intersection
between the X and Y VORs. Enter the flightplan
A-B-X-Y. It will look funny on the display, but don't
worry about it. Start flying from A to B. When you
get fairly close to V345 (say five miles), go to the
flight plan page, cursor down to Y and hit
Direct-Direct-Enter. The GPS now thinks you're
trying to intercept V345. Fly current heading
until the CDI comes in, or even easier
hit HDG-NAV on the a/p and let the autopilot
fly the intercept.

Or you can just use the VORs - which is what
I do.

Would it be easier if the GPS could do this all
by itself? Sure. Would it be of the slightest
significance in the big scheme of things? I don't
think so.

John

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
online.com...
Michael 182 wrote:

You enter the one behind you and activate the leg you are intercepting.

This is about intercepting an airway at some point that's not a fix,
right?
In that case, you could "build" the airway segment with the fixes before
and after your intercept point or you could get "after" fix into the GPS
and then use OBS mode.

I have to admit, though, when given an airway intercept I find it easier
to
use a VOR receiver. The "user interface" seems to involve less work to me
(although the end result of the GPS process yields more benefit).

- Andrew