Flying IFR with Garmins

Andrew Sarangan wrote:

Why not use a VOR receiver for airway navigation? Using a GPS for airway
navigation kind of seems backwards.

For one thing, GPS will keep you right in the center of the airway's
protected airspace at all times. With long VOR legs, lousy G/A VOR
receivers, and aging FAA VOR stations, you can easily depart protected
airspace on a long airway segment, like many in the mountainous west.

because you cannot go direct with a hand held GPS, You can only file /G
with an IFR certified GPS


Andrew Sarangan wrote:

Roy Smith wrote in
:

Andrew Sarangan wrote:
Why not use a VOR receiver for airway navigation? Using a GPS for
airway navigation kind of seems backwards.

There are lots of reasons to use GPS to fly airways instead of VORs.

1) GPS is more accurate.

2) GPS's cross-track error display on the CDI is easier to interpret
than a VOR's angular displacement, especially near the navaid.

3) GPS gives you distance from every fix, not just navaids with
co-located DME. And it's horizontal distance, not slant distance.

4) With GPS, you don't have to worry about navaid service volumes and
poor reception at low altitudes.

All of the above are good reasons, but what I meant was, why would you
want to fly airways with a GPS when you can go direct?

"Jeff" wrote:
because you cannot go direct with a hand held GPS,

Oh dear...

because you cannot go direct with a hand held GPS

Why not? I hardly ever file direct and when I do, ATC will amend the clearance.
However I often hear ATC tell me to go direct.
In my IFR flight plan I specify that I have a VFR GPS on board.
Hank

Andrew Sarangan wrote in message .158...
Roy Smith wrote in
:

Andrew Sarangan wrote:
Why not use a VOR receiver for airway navigation? Using a GPS for
airway navigation kind of seems backwards.

There are lots of reasons to use GPS to fly airways instead of VORs.

1) GPS is more accurate.

2) GPS's cross-track error display on the CDI is easier to interpret
than a VOR's angular displacement, especially near the navaid.

3) GPS gives you distance from every fix, not just navaids with
co-located DME. And it's horizontal distance, not slant distance.

4) With GPS, you don't have to worry about navaid service volumes and
poor reception at low altitudes.



All of the above are good reasons, but what I meant was, why would you
want to fly airways with a GPS when you can go direct?


No one wants to, but you can't control everything. The reason airways
are so common out West is because they include all the turns around
restricted airspace and busy class B airports. If you didn't use
airways, you'd have to read off 5 different turn points (for GPS
direct).

-Robert

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

And you don't have to try to figure out the correction angle while
trying to stay on the airway while you are getting bounced around in
the clouds in busy airspace.

There's nothing to stop you using the VOR for course guidance but using the
GPS track readout to ensure that your track matches the VOR radial. Forgive
me if that's very obvious, but I'm always surprised at how many pilots don't
use that aspect of the GPS to take the hard work out of tracking
conventional navaids (particularly on the ILS).

Julian Scarfe

I agree that this is a great technique. In fact I never use NAV mode on
my autopilot, I just tweak the heading until the track matches what it
should
be (and keep an eye on it obviously). Much better than the autopilot
zigzagging its way down the airways.

John

"Julian Scarfe" wrote in message
news:yMbBc.15$9D3.5@newsfe6-win...
"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
om...

And you don't have to try to figure out the correction angle while
trying to stay on the airway while you are getting bounced around in
the clouds in busy airspace.

There's nothing to stop you using the VOR for course guidance but using
the
GPS track readout to ensure that your track matches the VOR radial.
Forgive
me if that's very obvious, but I'm always surprised at how many pilots
don't
use that aspect of the GPS to take the hard work out of tracking
conventional navaids (particularly on the ILS).

Julian Scarfe

Sounds like you have a Cessna 300A.

Michael


"John Harper" wrote in message
news:1087790958.150362@sj-nntpcache-5...
I agree that this is a great technique. In fact I never use NAV mode on
my autopilot, I just tweak the heading until the track matches what it
should
be (and keep an eye on it obviously). Much better than the autopilot
zigzagging its way down the airways.

How do you do that with the 296? How do you program in a radial to fly
to? I don't even see radials on the VORs when I look at it. I haven't
been able to find anything on this in the manual.

There's nothing to stop you using the VOR for course guidance but using the
GPS track readout to ensure that your track matches the VOR radial. Forgive
me if that's very obvious, but I'm always surprised at how many pilots don't
use that aspect of the GPS to take the hard work out of tracking
conventional navaids (particularly on the ILS).

Julian Scarfe

I don't know if the 296 has the same capability as the 430, but on the 430
you can define user waypoints as radials and distance from a VOR.


Michael

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
om...
How do you do that with the 296? How do you program in a radial to fly
to? I don't even see radials on the VORs when I look at it. I haven't
been able to find anything on this in the manual.

There's nothing to stop you using the VOR for course guidance but using
the
GPS track readout to ensure that your track matches the VOR radial.
Forgive
me if that's very obvious, but I'm always surprised at how many pilots
don't
use that aspect of the GPS to take the hard work out of tracking
conventional navaids (particularly on the ILS).

Julian Scarfe