G430 Display/Numbers or Pictures?

Roy Smith wrote:

What I don't understand about GPS is why some of them have synthetic HSIs.
One of the new features in the GNS-480 vs. the CNX-80, for example, was the
addition of a "NAV" page, which shows a picture of an quasi-HSI (quasi
because the numbers are showing track, not heading). What's the point?
You've already got a far, superior representation in the moving map. The
position of the aircraft icon relative to the purple line shows your course
deviation, and the *orientation* of the icon shows whether you're getting
better or worse. Displacement AND trend in one picture.

I find the NAV page on the 480 gives me more trend information in a quick glance
than the map presentation. I use it during approaches. Enroute I use the map.

DGB

On 9/5/2006 8:51 PM, Roy Smith wrote the following:
Displacement AND trend in one picture.

Yes, if you use the map at a magnification to match the ten mile or two mile
width of the CDI. Do you actually do this?

On 9/6/2006 8:22 AM, Roy Smith wrote the following:
In article ,
"karl gruber" wrote:

"track up" gives you more useful information.

I'm a track-up kind of guy too, it just seems to make more sense. I don't
particularly care where things are relative to some essentially arbitrary
coordinate system, I care where they are relative to me.

The big question is "which way do I have to turn when I reach the next
fix?" With head-up, it's right there in front of you. With north-up, you
have to mentally orient yourself first. Just one more place to screw up.

I think this is essentially a religious debate. For me, I am already oriented
by my charts, flight planning, plates, airport diagrams, etc. all of which are
north up. So to do something different on a GPS map display is confusing.
Hunting down the little north barb on the track up screen just doesn't do it.

I'll bet you don't turn your approach plates so they are track up! :-)

My CFII likes track-up, I prefer north-up. I'm going to suggest a
numbers page when we next fly together :-)

Tim.

On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 09:58:23 -0500, Mitty wrote:



On 9/6/2006 8:22 AM, Roy Smith wrote the following:
In article ,
"karl gruber" wrote:

"track up" gives you more useful information.

I'm a track-up kind of guy too, it just seems to make more sense. I don't
particularly care where things are relative to some essentially arbitrary
coordinate system, I care where they are relative to me.

The big question is "which way do I have to turn when I reach the next
fix?" With head-up, it's right there in front of you. With north-up, you
have to mentally orient yourself first. Just one more place to screw up.

I think this is essentially a religious debate. For me, I am already oriented
by my charts, flight planning, plates, airport diagrams, etc. all of which are
north up. So to do something different on a GPS map display is confusing.
Hunting down the little north barb on the track up screen just doesn't do it.

I'll bet you don't turn your approach plates so they are track up! :-)

Mitty writes:

I think this is essentially a religious debate. For me, I am
already oriented by my charts, flight planning, plates, airport
diagrams, etc. all of which are north up. So to do something
different on a GPS map display is confusing. [...]

Having two computerized displays is one way to resolve this issue. My
EX500 MFD is set north-up for situational awareness and consistency
with mapping conventions. The 430 GPS is in generally in nav1 mode
with all the quantitative navigational numbers (CDI, track,
track-error). For a tactical traffic/weather scan, a brief visit to
graphical nav2 with track-up is enough.

- FChE

What 'track up" does is actually supply MORE useful information than "north"
up.

This is the case because the magenta line can and should be used as an HSI.
All one has to do is keep the magenta line vertical to stay EXACTLY on
course. This cannot be done with "north" up.

It is a very easy way to shoot approaches.

Karl
ATP and "Curator" N185KG



"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"karl gruber" wrote:

"track up" gives you more useful information.

I'm a track-up kind of guy too, it just seems to make more sense. I don't
particularly care where things are relative to some essentially arbitrary
coordinate system, I care where they are relative to me.

The big question is "which way do I have to turn when I reach the next
fix?" With head-up, it's right there in front of you. With north-up, you
have to mentally orient yourself first. Just one more place to screw up.

Mitty wrote:
I'll bet you don't turn your approach plates so they are track up! :-)

No I don't, mosttly because it's inconvenient. On the other hand,
I've never been confused, even momentarially, about which way to turn
when looking at a track-up display.

Do whatever works best for you.

I think this is essentially a religious debate. For me, I am already
oriented
by my charts, flight planning, plates, airport diagrams, etc. all of which
are north up. So to do something different on a GPS map display is
confusing. Hunting down the little north barb on the track up screen just
doesn't do it.

I'll bet you don't turn your approach plates so they are track up! :-)

It has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with which display displays
more useful information. The "track up" display can be used like an HSI. The
"north" up cannot.

Keep the magenta line vertical (and start with the little airplane on the
line) and one is ON COURSE, "track up" only. This is a VERY EASY method of
staying on course.

Karl
ATP and "curator" N185KG

And yes, I have turned my approach plates track up. I suspect the Bonanza I
followed into Missoula should have done that as well. He turned the wrong
way on the arc. Had he been looking at his chart "track up" it wouldn't have
happened.

They found the airplane three years later. I had to hold for 30 minutes
after he disappeared. The NW airliner, holding above us simply went on to
Great Falls.

Mitty wrote:
On 9/5/2006 8:51 PM, Roy Smith wrote the following:
Displacement AND trend in one picture.

Yes, if you use the map at a magnification to match the ten mile or two mile
width of the CDI. Do you actually do this?

I find that the autozoom mode achieves exactly what is needed while
flying an approach (or just "approaching" an airport), i.e. the visual
presentation of the course line and airplane icon on the map increases
in precision as you get closer...
--
Cheers,
John Clonts
Temple, Texas
N7NZ

Mitty wrote:

I'll bet you don't turn your approach plates so they are track up! :-)

The ChartView feature of my MX20 will turn the displayed Jepp approach
plates track-up when the aircraft approaches a point that is within the
coverage of the chart.

In fair disclosure, though, I haven't retained the subscription of this
service, believing the cost outweighs the benefit of seeing the chart and
the aircraft's course overlaid therein.

With regard to paper charts, the more important information (in my opinion)
gleaned from these charts are the frequencies, initial, intermediate, and
final course headings, and minimum altitudes for each segment.

Turning the chart track-up makes it difficult to read this information,
although I will admit to momentarily turning the chart track-up as I
approach the IAF as a guide to situational awareness (more applicable to
VOR and GPS approaches, where course reversals or changes are more likely
to occur throughout the approach).

--
Peter