A friend has been given a Garmin GPS 45, marketed last decade as a marine GPS. Googling the info on the various models, many of them (apart from the aviation ones) have a speed limitation of 90 knots. Anyone know what happens if that's exceeded - slow response, fails to work at all, or does it simply get a nose-bleed?
I think the idea is to use it if possible to give a bit of occasional assistance. Will it be of any use other than learning waypoint entry? Does he need to look around for a sub-90kt microlight?
Old Garmin GPS units
Moderators: John Dean, Moderator
Old Garmin GPS units
032505
-
Nick Allen
- Posts: 456
- Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 11:00 am
- Location: Oxford
- Contact:
-
steveneale
- Posts: 294
- Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 11:00 am
- Location: Bristol'ish
Why? Using the same argument then VOR/DME and NDB's should not be used either. They give you no more that a bearing, and distance only if used with a DME and that is a slant distance. Any GPS gives off track info, range to overhead, wind correction and more, and it works at any range from the target unlike the above.
Not all walking GPS were crippled ,my old Magellan worked at at least 172kts and I managed to avoid busting airpace.
Not all walking GPS were crippled ,my old Magellan worked at at least 172kts and I managed to avoid busting airpace.
Steve
Spurious arguments. VOR/DME/NDB give you (slant) range and bearing to a known point that has an ident associated with it.
An old GPS with no database gives you information related to a point you have entered, which may or may not be correct.
Similar argument with off-track error etc. Its only as good as the data you put in.
Now lest anyone thinks I am being anti GPS here, nothing could be further from the truth. I am a proponent of GPS a the primary means of navigation in suitably equipped aircraft (and as far as I am concerned a good quality hand held with an up-to-data database is suitably equipped). I am firmly of the view that despite all the possible problems with GPS properly used it is hugely superior to any other navigation system.
Once you have had the superb situational awareness that comes from working with a good up to date moving map with all the relevant details on it you will never go back.
(Taking cover)....
Spurious arguments. VOR/DME/NDB give you (slant) range and bearing to a known point that has an ident associated with it.
An old GPS with no database gives you information related to a point you have entered, which may or may not be correct.
Similar argument with off-track error etc. Its only as good as the data you put in.
Now lest anyone thinks I am being anti GPS here, nothing could be further from the truth. I am a proponent of GPS a the primary means of navigation in suitably equipped aircraft (and as far as I am concerned a good quality hand held with an up-to-data database is suitably equipped). I am firmly of the view that despite all the possible problems with GPS properly used it is hugely superior to any other navigation system.
Once you have had the superb situational awareness that comes from working with a good up to date moving map with all the relevant details on it you will never go back.
(Taking cover)....
-
Trevor Harvey
- Posts: 190
- Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2008 1:20 pm
- Location: Scotland
PB
Having said all that, which handheld unit would you recommend to a low hrs pilot flying mostly over the hostile terrain of Scotland?
The a/c I am considering doesn't have a DI, VOR, DME, AI, Transponder nor even in flight movies! (Piel Emeraude) It does have a compass.
What are the advantages of Garmin with Jeppeson data against Fly Angel CAA charts? I keep looking at the spec of the AVMAP Geopilot spec & screen size, though not sure what features I really need, apart from perhaps terrain warning!!
Having said all that, which handheld unit would you recommend to a low hrs pilot flying mostly over the hostile terrain of Scotland?
The a/c I am considering doesn't have a DI, VOR, DME, AI, Transponder nor even in flight movies! (Piel Emeraude) It does have a compass.
What are the advantages of Garmin with Jeppeson data against Fly Angel CAA charts? I keep looking at the spec of the AVMAP Geopilot spec & screen size, though not sure what features I really need, apart from perhaps terrain warning!!
-
steveneale
- Posts: 294
- Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 11:00 am
- Location: Bristol'ish
Fair point PB but I can recall one occasion over the Welsh hills in a club PA28 when we were given a totally bum steer by a "fully indented" NDB reflection bouncing off a hill. Dave (above) will I'm sure recall the sphincter tightening occasion. Fortunately he was on the map and we had a walking gps to reassure usPB wrote:Spurious arguments. VOR/DME/NDB give you (slant) range and bearing to a known point that has an ident associated with it.
-
Steve Brown
- Posts: 257
- Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 11:00 am
Depends on your budget - I love my Garmin Pilot III - still supported by Garmin, moving map, HSI, road in the sky, Jeppesen data base updated for $35, small, light , takes up no space on a small a/c, long battery life , easy to program, NMEA 0183 output, plenty on ebay.
Or a slightly larger Garmin 196??
Both absolute bargains now.
If you are a technophobe/ dislike deep menu interfaces, try the still supported Skyforce SkyMap II is a peach with its b&w screen labeled buttons that are changed with relevance to the display being shown. Bit bulky but cheap too on ebay occassionally
Or a slightly larger Garmin 196??
Both absolute bargains now.
If you are a technophobe/ dislike deep menu interfaces, try the still supported Skyforce SkyMap II is a peach with its b&w screen labeled buttons that are changed with relevance to the display being shown. Bit bulky but cheap too on ebay occassionally
-
Brian Hope
- Posts: 1271
- Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 8:28 pm
- Location: Sheerness Kent
The problem with a non database GPS is twofold. First you have to input every single waypoint, and thus you increase the possibility of finger trouble feeding in incorrect data. More importantly, when it all goes t*ts up and you have been over relying on the GPS but need to divert, you wont have the coordinates in the GPS that could steer you out of trouble.
I use a 196 and am more than happy with it. I used to have a 92, and that is perfectly adequate if you are a numbers man rather than wanting a ueaable map display. I don't doubt that systems using digital CAA charts are good, but many ICAO charts are not available outside of the UK and the Jeppensen ones are pretty crap by comparison. Also more expensive to buy a load of digital charts, my 196 came with the best part of half the world on it, though I certainly would never consider using it without a paper chart as my primary navaid.
I use a 196 and am more than happy with it. I used to have a 92, and that is perfectly adequate if you are a numbers man rather than wanting a ueaable map display. I don't doubt that systems using digital CAA charts are good, but many ICAO charts are not available outside of the UK and the Jeppensen ones are pretty crap by comparison. Also more expensive to buy a load of digital charts, my 196 came with the best part of half the world on it, though I certainly would never consider using it without a paper chart as my primary navaid.
I can only really speak from my personal experience. I have used a Garmin 196 for over two years. Superb value for money.
The big difference between the Garmin (and others using Jeppesen) and the Fly Angel is how the charts are produced.
The Jep charts are fully digital. In simple terms that's to say each and every point and line of data is recorded by type and a series of co-ordinates and vectors. This allows for some very sophisticated layering of data and switching things on and off as you zoom in and out. For example you can turn off roads when zoomed out but keep airspace boundaries. The Garmin units allow you quite precise control of what comes and goes when (but the defaults are just fine). The downside is that some of what many people regards as essential information is missing - obstacles for instance. You can download pretty much all of what you need from third party sources and it all works very well.
The Fly Angel essentially uses scanned (raster) copies of the CAA charts. They have some overlaid digital (vector) data as well (mostly airspace) but the options for displaying data are a bit more limited. Set against that, some people like to have the very familiar CAA charts to look at.
For what it’s worth the marine sector (where I work) started using electronic charting many years before aviation. They started with raster charts and there was a period of combined use of both raster and vector data. I suspect there is a lesson in it that the marine sector is now 100% based on vector charts.
Though I have no experience with the Fly Angel, it looks to me like both this and the Garmin will give you pretty good situational awareness.
All I can say to anyone who has not experienced the situational awareness of a good modern moving map system is, please try it. You will not go back. I honestly believe that if everyone had one, kept it up to date and had even a very basic understanding of how to make it work the number of airspace busts would be hugely reduced.
Yes, I know electronics goes wrong, people enter stupid waypoints, route direct through CAS etc. etc. but they also make regular and significant errors using clockwork navigation. My argument is simple this: there will be fewer errors with a 100% GPS system than there are with a 100% clockwork system.
Being a bit of an old fart, I generally use both in tandem, never go anywhere I can’t identify the villages by name without the chart without drawing a line on said chart.
So, to answer the original question, unless there was a good reason to buy – and there are - a 296 or 496 (which are both a lot more expensive) I’d go for the Garmin 196, update the database whenever there are significant airspace or frequency changes and go fly.
As an aside the only issue I have had with my 196 was a problem with very slow acquisition of satellites. I sent it back to Garmin and a new one appeared by return of post even though it was 18 months old. Never let it be said that Garmin offer anything but exemplary levels of service.
And please don't get me started on NDBs. If anyone can explain why we are allowed to fly NDB approaches with no integrity checking whatsoever and a host of know errors and yet prohibited from flying GPS approaches (which even in the smallest cheapest unit have some rudimentary error detection) please can they explain....
The big difference between the Garmin (and others using Jeppesen) and the Fly Angel is how the charts are produced.
The Jep charts are fully digital. In simple terms that's to say each and every point and line of data is recorded by type and a series of co-ordinates and vectors. This allows for some very sophisticated layering of data and switching things on and off as you zoom in and out. For example you can turn off roads when zoomed out but keep airspace boundaries. The Garmin units allow you quite precise control of what comes and goes when (but the defaults are just fine). The downside is that some of what many people regards as essential information is missing - obstacles for instance. You can download pretty much all of what you need from third party sources and it all works very well.
The Fly Angel essentially uses scanned (raster) copies of the CAA charts. They have some overlaid digital (vector) data as well (mostly airspace) but the options for displaying data are a bit more limited. Set against that, some people like to have the very familiar CAA charts to look at.
For what it’s worth the marine sector (where I work) started using electronic charting many years before aviation. They started with raster charts and there was a period of combined use of both raster and vector data. I suspect there is a lesson in it that the marine sector is now 100% based on vector charts.
Though I have no experience with the Fly Angel, it looks to me like both this and the Garmin will give you pretty good situational awareness.
All I can say to anyone who has not experienced the situational awareness of a good modern moving map system is, please try it. You will not go back. I honestly believe that if everyone had one, kept it up to date and had even a very basic understanding of how to make it work the number of airspace busts would be hugely reduced.
Yes, I know electronics goes wrong, people enter stupid waypoints, route direct through CAS etc. etc. but they also make regular and significant errors using clockwork navigation. My argument is simple this: there will be fewer errors with a 100% GPS system than there are with a 100% clockwork system.
Being a bit of an old fart, I generally use both in tandem, never go anywhere I can’t identify the villages by name without the chart without drawing a line on said chart.
So, to answer the original question, unless there was a good reason to buy – and there are - a 296 or 496 (which are both a lot more expensive) I’d go for the Garmin 196, update the database whenever there are significant airspace or frequency changes and go fly.
As an aside the only issue I have had with my 196 was a problem with very slow acquisition of satellites. I sent it back to Garmin and a new one appeared by return of post even though it was 18 months old. Never let it be said that Garmin offer anything but exemplary levels of service.
And please don't get me started on NDBs. If anyone can explain why we are allowed to fly NDB approaches with no integrity checking whatsoever and a host of know errors and yet prohibited from flying GPS approaches (which even in the smallest cheapest unit have some rudimentary error detection) please can they explain....
Thanks for the considered responses as to whether to use GPS or not. I happen to like navigation from the chart, but I'm not such a luddite as to deny the existence of GPS. If it wasn't any good, they wouldn't bother putting all that space debris up there!
However, they are a liability until you know how to use them reliably, and you can only learn that by practising with them a lot.
As to the original question, from another quarter it sounds likely that the position will be lost within a few minutes of take-off, so I'm ready to explain that's what's happened to the owner when he looks puzzled!
However, they are a liability until you know how to use them reliably, and you can only learn that by practising with them a lot.
As to the original question, from another quarter it sounds likely that the position will be lost within a few minutes of take-off, so I'm ready to explain that's what's happened to the owner when he looks puzzled!
032505
-
Nick Allen
- Posts: 456
- Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 11:00 am
- Location: Oxford
- Contact:
If you want to use CAA charts, a cheaper option than FlyMap is to buy the digital charts from Memory Map (£20) and use the Memory Map software on an iPAQ or similar PDA. This will give you a full moving map display, and you can overlay your own waypoints/routes/etc. You don't need a cutting-edge PDA to run this: £100 from eBay should be more than enough for the hardware.
033719
-
Mike Cross
Adding to PB's comment:-
A further difference between vector and raster charts is that vector charts can rotate the labels so they are always right way up. I appreciate that some people prefer "north up" presentation where it doesn't matter but others prefer "track up" where it does.
Most of the handhelds seem to position the aircraft symbol below the centre of the screen on the assumption that you will be using it "track up" and want to see further ahead of you than behind.
Don't forget the other advantages of a vector database, the ability to also hold non-graphic data like runway dimensions, height amsl, freqs etc.
A further difference between vector and raster charts is that vector charts can rotate the labels so they are always right way up. I appreciate that some people prefer "north up" presentation where it doesn't matter but others prefer "track up" where it does.
Most of the handhelds seem to position the aircraft symbol below the centre of the screen on the assumption that you will be using it "track up" and want to see further ahead of you than behind.
Don't forget the other advantages of a vector database, the ability to also hold non-graphic data like runway dimensions, height amsl, freqs etc.