Garmin 296 argh not again
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Kendal, UK
Age: 57
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Garmin 296 argh not again
Now I know some of you will moan for asking more GPS related questions but I have searched for previous threads and they dont answer my questions so here goes:
Does the Garmin 296 terrain database include structures such as towers etc in the UK or does it just include the mountains and hills. I thought I read somewhere that this feature was only available to the luckky people who also can buy a 396 version of this.
Does the Garmin 296 terrain database include structures such as towers etc in the UK or does it just include the mountains and hills. I thought I read somewhere that this feature was only available to the luckky people who also can buy a 396 version of this.
Sorry don't know the answer to your question Stuart, but was wondering why you would want to know?
Can't think it would be of use to anybody except those who would want to fly in IMC below MSA
Can't think it would be of use to anybody except those who would want to fly in IMC below MSA
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Kendal, UK
Age: 57
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thats a stupid answer and you should be ashamed for posting it. Of course I wouldnt want to do that but I would like to know it help me if I made a mistake.
I dont know if you intended your answer as a tongue in cheek response but this forum is often full of people trying to be smug and belittle people asking questions which may be "stupid" to their expert flying skills but may be a valid question to the person asking it. It really annoys me.
Using your argument there is no need for Terrain data in any aircraft because terrain is almost always found below your MSA I believe!!!!!!!!
Presumably you dont carry lifejackets when you cross water as only people who intend to crash into the water would carry them.
I dont know if you intended your answer as a tongue in cheek response but this forum is often full of people trying to be smug and belittle people asking questions which may be "stupid" to their expert flying skills but may be a valid question to the person asking it. It really annoys me.
Using your argument there is no need for Terrain data in any aircraft because terrain is almost always found below your MSA I believe!!!!!!!!
Presumably you dont carry lifejackets when you cross water as only people who intend to crash into the water would carry them.
Wasn't tongue in cheek at all, I really dont see why you would want this info.
Apologies if my response apparently annoyed you, wasn't the intention.
As for lifejackets...
Apologies if my response apparently annoyed you, wasn't the intention.
As for lifejackets...
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: UK
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Atlantic basemap version of the 296 does not have an obstacle database nor (more annoyingly) does it hold any VRPs. The US version of the 296 does have an obstacle database so it seems it's not impossible to implement. I believe that due to a certain amount of pressure from European owners, Garmin is considering adding this in the future. The Bendix King Skymap IIIC does however have these essential things already held in it's database.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Kendal, UK
Age: 57
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Speedtape for the sensible answer.
Clearly that was what I was looking for as it makes a difference how good a safety device it is if it doesnt include these things I would say.
Mariner9 if you cant include sensible answer then you shouldnt waste peoples time replying with stupid ones. Obviously I wanted an answer to this not some smarmy comment designed to make you seem cleverer than me. Personally I think the device would be better with this feature. Its not up to you to decide how I use it so FO. Dont bother apologising because it would have been better not to have been so up your own a**e in the first place. Sorry if I offend you with my reply. Its not intended like that
Clearly that was what I was looking for as it makes a difference how good a safety device it is if it doesnt include these things I would say.
Mariner9 if you cant include sensible answer then you shouldnt waste peoples time replying with stupid ones. Obviously I wanted an answer to this not some smarmy comment designed to make you seem cleverer than me. Personally I think the device would be better with this feature. Its not up to you to decide how I use it so FO. Dont bother apologising because it would have been better not to have been so up your own a**e in the first place. Sorry if I offend you with my reply. Its not intended like that
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: UK
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are welcome. I was disapointed to find these features missing and considered exchanging the 296 for a Skymap. However, the advantages of the 296 over the Skymap in real world use persuaded me to keep it and I must say it's excellent at what it does. So long as you don't mind spending a bit of time putting the VRPs and other salient features such as masts and other tall obstructions relevant to your route in yourself, it does the job marvellously. The first time I used my 296 was on a trip from Kristiansand, Norway to Carlisle via Esbjerg, Den Helder, Ostend and Newcastle. It performed flawlessly. I took an hour or so whilst planning the route to programme all the route relevant VRPs in to the 296. I got these from the various charts I had to use and from the relevant national AIS websites.
Well your probably not gonna take any notice of me any more, but will provide some (in my view constructive ;-) ) advice anyway.
The pro's and cons of GPS's have been debated on here countless times. (I'm firmly in the pro camp BTW)
But I suggest you do not, under any circumstances, ever rely on GPS terrain databases for terrain clearance. If you do not, then the knowledge whether obstacles are included in the database or not is irrelevant.
The pro's and cons of GPS's have been debated on here countless times. (I'm firmly in the pro camp BTW)
But I suggest you do not, under any circumstances, ever rely on GPS terrain databases for terrain clearance. If you do not, then the knowledge whether obstacles are included in the database or not is irrelevant.
Last edited by Mariner9; 4th Oct 2005 at 14:21.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Kendal, UK
Age: 57
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Again Speedtape thanks for your help. Big shame it doesnt have obstacles as this slightly negates the benefit of terrain as I reckon towers hurt just as much as mountains. Anyway no doubt it will get fixed one day.
Fixed+Rotary (aircraft, not washing lines)
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Peak District, Yorkshire, UK
Age: 56
Posts: 357
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IMHO I thought the question was quite valid, and I also understand M9's PoV.
However, if I were to buy a mapping GPS I would expect structures to be included as I would use them for visual reference.
Power stations, radio towers and masts, etc. all make for excellent reference material.
Of course, this would be complemented by flying at or above MSA and so actual knowledge of position of structures isn't necessary for clearance purposes.
However, if I were to buy a mapping GPS I would expect structures to be included as I would use them for visual reference.
Power stations, radio towers and masts, etc. all make for excellent reference material.
Of course, this would be complemented by flying at or above MSA and so actual knowledge of position of structures isn't necessary for clearance purposes.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 2,547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But I suggest you do not, under any circumstances, ever rely on GPS terrain databases for terrain clearance. If you do not, then the knowledge whether obstacles are included in the database or not is irrelevant.
I wouldn't agree with that. If you were to follow the same logic with the GPS itself, you could say that because you have a chart and know where you are going, and are a competent pilot, you shouldn't need a GPS. Yet most of us accept that it is a fairly useful gadget.
You could be flying along, in VFR, maybe it's a bit misty, and you know that there is a mast 'around here somewhere' but can't quite see it. Masts are hard things to see at times! You might believe it's over there a couple of miles, so you concentrate looking in that direction. You might be looking in the wrong direction. Having the obstacle shown on your gps confirming it is where you thought it should be, or that you've got it wrong, and you're looking in the wrong place, could be very useful.
dp
Join Date: May 2002
Location: cheltenham
Age: 54
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wasn't tongue in cheek at all, I really dont see why you would want this info.
Get a grip
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the OP flies a plane with a decent panel mounted IFR GPS, so this must be a backup unit with the intention of seeing VFR data with terrain - a very reasonable objective in general and potentially very handy in case of an engine failure above clouds above mountains in particular.
Option 1: a pocket/pc PDA running Memory Map (UK only) or Oziexplorer (any map you can find, or scan in)
Option 2: any XP tablet PC running Jepp Flitemap with their VFR raster chart add-on (reasonable Euro coverage equivalent to their VFR/GPS charts)
I wouldn't trust Jepp to include anything of real importance like that in their vector based GPS data...
I know the above are not the expected answers but the results will be a LOT better than any standard aviation GPS I have seen. All the standard units use the same Jepp vector data and that is very poor for detailed terrain.
Option 1: a pocket/pc PDA running Memory Map (UK only) or Oziexplorer (any map you can find, or scan in)
Option 2: any XP tablet PC running Jepp Flitemap with their VFR raster chart add-on (reasonable Euro coverage equivalent to their VFR/GPS charts)
I wouldn't trust Jepp to include anything of real importance like that in their vector based GPS data...
I know the above are not the expected answers but the results will be a LOT better than any standard aviation GPS I have seen. All the standard units use the same Jepp vector data and that is very poor for detailed terrain.
Last edited by IO540; 4th Oct 2005 at 21:13.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Kendal, UK
Age: 57
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes indeed my trusty steed already has 2 Garmin 430's and I have a 196 but I fancied a 296 or something for Terrain data for exactly the reason that IO540 has said.
I would really like something more exciting and have considered many options. I was originally going to put an MX20 in but then have been put off by the price having spent a bomb on my plane recently.
I have looked at memorymap which is OK but I decided against it due to fiddlyness.
Has anyone seen a Avmap EKP-IV as these look good but as I have never seen one in real life I worry about buying one.
I would really like something more exciting and have considered many options. I was originally going to put an MX20 in but then have been put off by the price having spent a bomb on my plane recently.
I have looked at memorymap which is OK but I decided against it due to fiddlyness.
Has anyone seen a Avmap EKP-IV as these look good but as I have never seen one in real life I worry about buying one.
Jet Blast Rat
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Sarfend-on-Sea
Age: 51
Posts: 2,081
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually it seems that Mariner has the most sensible answer here.
It is currently illegal to use a GPS as primary form of navigation in the UK. Therefore a database of obstructions seems particularly useless. If you are having that many problems that an obstruction you can't see in good time might be an issue then you should be either making a precautionary forced landing or above safety altitude, considering flying under IFR and perhaps talking to D&D, not looking at your GPS! In fact that is the point where GPS becomes a positive hazard - you are considering using it instead of climbing or landing in a worrying or emergency situation.
Guys get your heads out of the cockpit. Fly visually, see and avoid; if you can't then fly IFR. There is no in between, except the situations that kill pilots. GPS is a final resort for the VFR pilot, or a useful aid to the IFR pilot, it is not an excuse for flying in conditions that are beyond your skills.
It is currently illegal to use a GPS as primary form of navigation in the UK. Therefore a database of obstructions seems particularly useless. If you are having that many problems that an obstruction you can't see in good time might be an issue then you should be either making a precautionary forced landing or above safety altitude, considering flying under IFR and perhaps talking to D&D, not looking at your GPS! In fact that is the point where GPS becomes a positive hazard - you are considering using it instead of climbing or landing in a worrying or emergency situation.
Guys get your heads out of the cockpit. Fly visually, see and avoid; if you can't then fly IFR. There is no in between, except the situations that kill pilots. GPS is a final resort for the VFR pilot, or a useful aid to the IFR pilot, it is not an excuse for flying in conditions that are beyond your skills.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Kendal, UK
Age: 57
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually first of all Mariners answer is not the most sensible as it doesnt answer my question. My thread was not a pro's and con's of GPS. It was a simple question about the functionality of a GPS. The best practice I think would have been to let someone who knew the answer, answer it and that would have been the end of the matter.
Send Clowns IMO your answer is complete rubbish. Nobody on this thread said that they were going to use GPS to navigate and dodge towers. I just wanted to know as if I buy a safety device (which I consider GPS to be) I want to know that it does what I expect.
Just like the parachute on the Cirrus there are always clowns like you, pardon the pun, that will say people will use it to land the plane etc etc. I personally think that is a major advance in safety.
GPS must have saved hundreds or thousands of lives on the quiet while people like you are putting the frighteners on "junior" pilots telling them why it is so unsafe. I totally accept that GPS (particularly portable GPS) should not be used as a sole source of navigation and should not be used for approaches but when was the last time that you flew a plane with Garmin 430's that sent you off course. Ah I thought so never! Of course you wont remember the last time you flew an NDB at night near the coast and it was completely wrong will you?
One day people like you will be in the past and GPS will be accepted for what it is. A highly accurate source of navigation that just gets more and more useful.
I watched a program on Discovery Wings recently where a passenger jet in 1991 flew into a mountain because they were the wrong side of an NDB on an approach but had they have had a simple Garmin 296 they would have almost certainly been alive today. They could have double checked their position (they tried to but couldnt get enough information in time using traditional navigation aids) and seen a mountain ahead. All the passengers and crew on that plane would have thanked you for that £800 Garmin miracle then. THEY WERE FLYING IFR AS YOU SUGGESTED.
By the way my plane also has 2 Garmin 430's, 2 VOR's, 1 ADF and a portable backup radio with VOR. Will all this wonderful equipment at my disposal I rarely use my current 196 other than for another check. Is that OK with you.
Send Clowns IMO your answer is complete rubbish. Nobody on this thread said that they were going to use GPS to navigate and dodge towers. I just wanted to know as if I buy a safety device (which I consider GPS to be) I want to know that it does what I expect.
Just like the parachute on the Cirrus there are always clowns like you, pardon the pun, that will say people will use it to land the plane etc etc. I personally think that is a major advance in safety.
GPS must have saved hundreds or thousands of lives on the quiet while people like you are putting the frighteners on "junior" pilots telling them why it is so unsafe. I totally accept that GPS (particularly portable GPS) should not be used as a sole source of navigation and should not be used for approaches but when was the last time that you flew a plane with Garmin 430's that sent you off course. Ah I thought so never! Of course you wont remember the last time you flew an NDB at night near the coast and it was completely wrong will you?
One day people like you will be in the past and GPS will be accepted for what it is. A highly accurate source of navigation that just gets more and more useful.
I watched a program on Discovery Wings recently where a passenger jet in 1991 flew into a mountain because they were the wrong side of an NDB on an approach but had they have had a simple Garmin 296 they would have almost certainly been alive today. They could have double checked their position (they tried to but couldnt get enough information in time using traditional navigation aids) and seen a mountain ahead. All the passengers and crew on that plane would have thanked you for that £800 Garmin miracle then. THEY WERE FLYING IFR AS YOU SUGGESTED.
By the way my plane also has 2 Garmin 430's, 2 VOR's, 1 ADF and a portable backup radio with VOR. Will all this wonderful equipment at my disposal I rarely use my current 196 other than for another check. Is that OK with you.
Last edited by stuartforrest; 5th Oct 2005 at 06:30.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SC
The above is complete and utter RUBBISH. RUBBISH. Quote the passage from the LAW, the ANO please. (I will save you time, there isn't one).
The best you will find is a repeat of your (totally unsupported) assertion in some handout from the CAA ("safety" sense leaflet #25 is a likely culprit) written by some old fart who has never actually flown anywhere and whose exposure to GPS is from looking at them in the locked glass cabinet at the local camping/hiking shop.
SF's requirement is a 100% legitimate thing to have, for both VFR and IFR flight and especially for IFR.
One day, people with the backward views will have left aviation and the whole scene will then be able to move on and modernise, and attract some normal modern people, not the desperate-to-fly people who make up the bulk of new PPL recruits today. The problem is that the average G-reg GA fleet age is about 27 years and it will all be scrapped long before attitudes change sufficiently.
It is currently illegal to use a GPS as primary form of navigation in the UK.
The best you will find is a repeat of your (totally unsupported) assertion in some handout from the CAA ("safety" sense leaflet #25 is a likely culprit) written by some old fart who has never actually flown anywhere and whose exposure to GPS is from looking at them in the locked glass cabinet at the local camping/hiking shop.
SF's requirement is a 100% legitimate thing to have, for both VFR and IFR flight and especially for IFR.
One day, people with the backward views will have left aviation and the whole scene will then be able to move on and modernise, and attract some normal modern people, not the desperate-to-fly people who make up the bulk of new PPL recruits today. The problem is that the average G-reg GA fleet age is about 27 years and it will all be scrapped long before attitudes change sufficiently.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Anywhere
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SC
That argument doesn't stand up against those of us who have BRNAV (mandatory above FL95 IFR in Europe - and that includes UK & Eire airspace) approved units like the GNS430/530 and KLN94 series - these become the primary mode of navigation.
Still think it's illegal for primary nav?
As IO540 says - there's no point looking in the ANO because there is no legislation, in much the same way that it doesn't say if navigating VFR you're not allowed to use VOR's and NDB's - you have to use a chart, stopwatch and compass.
You can navigate anyway you like, provided you fulfill the equipment requirements of the type of flight being undertaken within the flight rules and airspace being flown. THAT is the only criteria that covers the legal/illegal criteria.
It often pays to check the detail before making inaccurate and sweeping statements.
It is currently illegal to use a GPS as primary form of navigation in the UK.
Still think it's illegal for primary nav?
As IO540 says - there's no point looking in the ANO because there is no legislation, in much the same way that it doesn't say if navigating VFR you're not allowed to use VOR's and NDB's - you have to use a chart, stopwatch and compass.
You can navigate anyway you like, provided you fulfill the equipment requirements of the type of flight being undertaken within the flight rules and airspace being flown. THAT is the only criteria that covers the legal/illegal criteria.
It often pays to check the detail before making inaccurate and sweeping statements.