Portabler GPS for Private Flying in CESSNA
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The G1000 uses the same Jeppesen database* as can be found in all Garmin GPS units - although I agree the data that is actually displayed can be selectable depending on intended use. But this only goes to further support my point. How many people who are using a GPS map display to navigate by can be sure that it is displaying all of the available information and not just the information it thinks you need to see?
*The Jeppesen database includes the most critical information such as controlled airspace, atz's, danger areas etc. but not all of the additional information found on CAA charts such as disused airfields, wire launching sites, tethered balloons etc.
*The Jeppesen database includes the most critical information such as controlled airspace, atz's, danger areas etc. but not all of the additional information found on CAA charts such as disused airfields, wire launching sites, tethered balloons etc.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 2,547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glider sites throughout the UK & Ireland are shown in PocketFMS, which I've mentioned above.
The real key here is knowing and understanding your equipment. You need to know it's strengths and it's weaknesses. You can't assume it's got certain information in it's database, if you haven't checked!
The only safe way is to assume that it doesn't, until you've checked.
In fairness, most pilots will plan their flights on a paper chart, then program it into the GPS. This should show up and discrepencies very quickly. It's the planning that I find I use my chart for most, not in flight work.
dp
The real key here is knowing and understanding your equipment. You need to know it's strengths and it's weaknesses. You can't assume it's got certain information in it's database, if you haven't checked!
The only safe way is to assume that it doesn't, until you've checked.
In fairness, most pilots will plan their flights on a paper chart, then program it into the GPS. This should show up and discrepencies very quickly. It's the planning that I find I use my chart for most, not in flight work.
dp
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 2,118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think I am right in saying that the 296 does not include UK VRPs although these are available for download from a certain unofficial but well respected website.
I thinkthat the 496 and 495 do however include UK VRPs.
I thinkthat the 496 and 495 do however include UK VRPs.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JBGA
The issue you highlight is indeed real but the discussion is IMHO more around "just how much of a brain is a pilot supposed to have" rather than around "should every 'aviation' GPS show everything the printed chart shows.
I don't think the answer is clear...
The problem is that PPL training is still firmly stuck in WW1, with some concessions to WW2, and pilots have never seen anything other than the printed chart, which naturally they use in conjunction with a CAA approved stopwatch and a CAA approved compass and a CAA approved pencil. And "GPS" is a 3-letter word.
Then, if some new pilot does something very out of the ordinary (i.e. doesn't chuck flying in for good immediately after getting his PPL) and is a bit noo nosey for his own good and gets involved with a few subversive characters (GPS users who dared walk within 1000ft horizontally of a flying school), he could well end up flying with a GPS, without realising that the base map on it (which comes from that wonderful company called Jeppesen whose monopolistic behaviour makes 1990s British Airways look like Dr Barnardos) doesn't contain everything which the good olde CAA approved printed chart contained.
One could argue that he had a reasonable expectation of seeing the CAA "printed chart" on his GPS (and technically this can be achieved albeit at some cost - I fly UK VFR with a 7" tablet computer running the CAA charts) but actually I would blame the PPL training establishment for shunning GPS for so many years.
And I think the pilot should have enough intelligence to realise the base map on the GPS is little more than a very bare collection of shapes which need to be regularly referenced to the printed chart on his lap.
Until the CAA (and that other obscene monopoly Ordnance Survey, whose taxpayer-funded terrain data the CAA uses) relax their commercial grip on the electronic data, only the most expensive GPS solution will run the real VFR charts - for any country in Europe because all the European CAAs are playing the same game.
And panel mount manufacturers (Garmin) are in bed with Jeppesen so they wouldn't offer a proper VFR moving map anyway.
Also the VFR charts available electronically are just images. They thus cannot be rotated "track up" for example, and there is no "drill-down" i.e. clicking on an airport pulls up its details. The GPS databases are layered so you can do that and Jeppesen have a monopoly on this. But the national CAAs could easily break this monopoly if they released their data in database form - which they won't because they are financially in bed with Jeppesen too.
The issue you highlight is indeed real but the discussion is IMHO more around "just how much of a brain is a pilot supposed to have" rather than around "should every 'aviation' GPS show everything the printed chart shows.
I don't think the answer is clear...
The problem is that PPL training is still firmly stuck in WW1, with some concessions to WW2, and pilots have never seen anything other than the printed chart, which naturally they use in conjunction with a CAA approved stopwatch and a CAA approved compass and a CAA approved pencil. And "GPS" is a 3-letter word.
Then, if some new pilot does something very out of the ordinary (i.e. doesn't chuck flying in for good immediately after getting his PPL) and is a bit noo nosey for his own good and gets involved with a few subversive characters (GPS users who dared walk within 1000ft horizontally of a flying school), he could well end up flying with a GPS, without realising that the base map on it (which comes from that wonderful company called Jeppesen whose monopolistic behaviour makes 1990s British Airways look like Dr Barnardos) doesn't contain everything which the good olde CAA approved printed chart contained.
One could argue that he had a reasonable expectation of seeing the CAA "printed chart" on his GPS (and technically this can be achieved albeit at some cost - I fly UK VFR with a 7" tablet computer running the CAA charts) but actually I would blame the PPL training establishment for shunning GPS for so many years.
And I think the pilot should have enough intelligence to realise the base map on the GPS is little more than a very bare collection of shapes which need to be regularly referenced to the printed chart on his lap.
Until the CAA (and that other obscene monopoly Ordnance Survey, whose taxpayer-funded terrain data the CAA uses) relax their commercial grip on the electronic data, only the most expensive GPS solution will run the real VFR charts - for any country in Europe because all the European CAAs are playing the same game.
And panel mount manufacturers (Garmin) are in bed with Jeppesen so they wouldn't offer a proper VFR moving map anyway.
Also the VFR charts available electronically are just images. They thus cannot be rotated "track up" for example, and there is no "drill-down" i.e. clicking on an airport pulls up its details. The GPS databases are layered so you can do that and Jeppesen have a monopoly on this. But the national CAAs could easily break this monopoly if they released their data in database form - which they won't because they are financially in bed with Jeppesen too.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 2,118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I personally think there is much to be said for keeping the base map on the GPS fairly simple and straightforward with just the basic route, airfields waypoints, VRPs, obstacles and airspace boundaries. I find the actual CAA chart representations too potentially confusing and with too much unecessary information for use in flight on the GPS screen, and prefer to use the chart for preliminary planning and then the GPS for the purely navigational function rather than as an information source in its own right.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IO540 - I couldn't agree more (Although I can say for certain that Jeppesen definately is not in bed with the CAA's. In fact, I'd go as far as to say the locks have been changed and their clothes ripped up and left in the front garden)
I did try using Memory-map on a PDA with a CAA 1/2 million chart once. The screen was too small to be usable but it did make it very easy to read my position and direction across to the paper chart on my lap.
I did try using Memory-map on a PDA with a CAA 1/2 million chart once. The screen was too small to be usable but it did make it very easy to read my position and direction across to the paper chart on my lap.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JBGA - yes, none of the printed VFR charts run well on a moving map GPS unless you have a decent size screen - big enough to enable you to see the airspace class and vertical extent labels.
As regards Jepp, well one never knows who they pay money to. The Australian CAA sued Jepp for republishing their data, and the case was settled out of court. Jepp have not ceased publishing the data (had they done so this would have grounded airlines flying in and out of Australia) so one has to assume they cut a deal with the Australian CAA where they pay them some money.
I have no reason to think that Jepp pay money to the UK CAA but this is a much wider thing than just the UK and anybody doing aviation mapping has to do an international package. Jepp do have a lot of clout with the data providers - why do you think Eurocontrol's in-house airways route generation tool has still not been released openly to pilots, despite promises to do so 3 years ago.
Unfortunately everybody is treating charts as a profit centre, enabling electronic versions to be marketed in a very limited way by 3rd parties, and then they moan about CAS busts.
As regards Jepp, well one never knows who they pay money to. The Australian CAA sued Jepp for republishing their data, and the case was settled out of court. Jepp have not ceased publishing the data (had they done so this would have grounded airlines flying in and out of Australia) so one has to assume they cut a deal with the Australian CAA where they pay them some money.
I have no reason to think that Jepp pay money to the UK CAA but this is a much wider thing than just the UK and anybody doing aviation mapping has to do an international package. Jepp do have a lot of clout with the data providers - why do you think Eurocontrol's in-house airways route generation tool has still not been released openly to pilots, despite promises to do so 3 years ago.
Unfortunately everybody is treating charts as a profit centre, enabling electronic versions to be marketed in a very limited way by 3rd parties, and then they moan about CAS busts.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Frankfurt/Main
Age: 81
Posts: 296
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IO540
Though I know you better, and am now living in blissful retirement I feel I have to take you to task for having slipped back into your bash-Jeppesen ways of several few years ago (which I had hoped had changed for the better after we met at the London Air Show...).
What please is their 'monopolistic behaviour'? Is it not rather the case that their involvement in aviation in the last 75 years (coming up 2009) has made them market leader rather than monopolist and their products more of a boon to aviation than a threat?
I can state unequivocally that Jepp are not in bed with anybody, that negotiations with OEMs are tough, and that relationships with the world's CAAs are maintained with great respect and diligence.
It is not unusual for authorities to seek their advice and assistance (a case in point was the establishment of POGO procedures in the wake of CDG's opening), and I know for a fact that many rely on Jepp's checks and double checks of published material to ensure that the end result is correct. Publishing AIPs, creating IFR procedures also point to a need for their skills.
Certain OEMs have also been known to first create products and then come running to Jepps for inclusion of data.
When they came up for grabs following the LA Times' acquisition by the Chicago Tribune, Boeing would have paid anything to acquire them, recognizing the expertise they desired for future flightdecks. The new ownership has only been good for aviation in general, and Boeing have made possible what the newspaper in the past may have baulked at funding.
I do appreciate where you are coming from, that all is not perfect, and I admire your own expertise in things IT and aeronautical. However I had to write, and hope you accept my response in the spirit it is meant.
That having been said (with apologies to all for diverting from the original theme), I recently visited Budapest by way of Croatia, Turkey and Greece in an Arrow IV with the help of a Garmin 430, plus an old 195 that was used as a backup (obviously outdated, but nevertheless a great help). It does create more work in flight, but while my pilot was using them he was happy to accept my white-knuckle efforts, or those of Mr. Autopilot, when yours truly started losing concentration!
All the necessary charts were on hand since we were VFR but along regular airways, so there was plenty to fall back on, and my friend is IFR-rated too. The leg from Pula to Dubrovnik was undoubtedly the most pleasant, though the landscape in Turkey is also outstanding. The thunderstorms we encountered around Belgrade on the Kos-Budapest (Budaoers) leg were daunting and I was relieved when the hail stopped rattling and the ice departed the various surfaces!
A great trip all in all, much was seen, many hundreds of photos shot, and we even enjoyed a forced bathing holiday when Athens 'asked' us to land in Kos to get our by then dud (new) transponder mended!
I'd do it all again tomorrow.
I hope you are well.
vbrgds
atb
Though I know you better, and am now living in blissful retirement I feel I have to take you to task for having slipped back into your bash-Jeppesen ways of several few years ago (which I had hoped had changed for the better after we met at the London Air Show...).
What please is their 'monopolistic behaviour'? Is it not rather the case that their involvement in aviation in the last 75 years (coming up 2009) has made them market leader rather than monopolist and their products more of a boon to aviation than a threat?
I can state unequivocally that Jepp are not in bed with anybody, that negotiations with OEMs are tough, and that relationships with the world's CAAs are maintained with great respect and diligence.
It is not unusual for authorities to seek their advice and assistance (a case in point was the establishment of POGO procedures in the wake of CDG's opening), and I know for a fact that many rely on Jepp's checks and double checks of published material to ensure that the end result is correct. Publishing AIPs, creating IFR procedures also point to a need for their skills.
Certain OEMs have also been known to first create products and then come running to Jepps for inclusion of data.
When they came up for grabs following the LA Times' acquisition by the Chicago Tribune, Boeing would have paid anything to acquire them, recognizing the expertise they desired for future flightdecks. The new ownership has only been good for aviation in general, and Boeing have made possible what the newspaper in the past may have baulked at funding.
I do appreciate where you are coming from, that all is not perfect, and I admire your own expertise in things IT and aeronautical. However I had to write, and hope you accept my response in the spirit it is meant.
That having been said (with apologies to all for diverting from the original theme), I recently visited Budapest by way of Croatia, Turkey and Greece in an Arrow IV with the help of a Garmin 430, plus an old 195 that was used as a backup (obviously outdated, but nevertheless a great help). It does create more work in flight, but while my pilot was using them he was happy to accept my white-knuckle efforts, or those of Mr. Autopilot, when yours truly started losing concentration!
All the necessary charts were on hand since we were VFR but along regular airways, so there was plenty to fall back on, and my friend is IFR-rated too. The leg from Pula to Dubrovnik was undoubtedly the most pleasant, though the landscape in Turkey is also outstanding. The thunderstorms we encountered around Belgrade on the Kos-Budapest (Budaoers) leg were daunting and I was relieved when the hail stopped rattling and the ice departed the various surfaces!
A great trip all in all, much was seen, many hundreds of photos shot, and we even enjoyed a forced bathing holiday when Athens 'asked' us to land in Kos to get our by then dud (new) transponder mended!
I'd do it all again tomorrow.
I hope you are well.
vbrgds
atb
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello ATB 
I am glad to see you are on form and enjoying your retirement
One day we must fly together. Then you will be able to see for yourself how many separately funded sets of Jepp data I am flying with
I do think Jepp have a monopoly. That much is pretty obvious. Do they abuse it? That's impossible to answer because they have clearly set their pricing for corporate / commercial operators and have no way to reduce the price (or to produce a market-differentiated subset which could be sold cheaper) for GA users while still delivering something useful.
There is ample evidence that the national CAAs, and Eurocontrol with their routing tools, do work closely with Jeppesen. Again, the beneficiary are the big boys.
Look at how much cheaper Jepp data is for the USA. The cost, per airport say, is a fraction of what it is in Europe. But there is as much work because Jepp re-draft all their plates. I would suggest this difference is because so many U.S. pilots fly with the free plates. Most European free plates (EAD) are barely usable, and when the CAA or whatever are asked why didn't they draw up their plates so they are directly usable in the cockpit, the reply is that they are not in the business of competing with commercial data providers...
I am glad to see you are on form and enjoying your retirement
One day we must fly together. Then you will be able to see for yourself how many separately funded sets of Jepp data I am flying with
I do think Jepp have a monopoly. That much is pretty obvious. Do they abuse it? That's impossible to answer because they have clearly set their pricing for corporate / commercial operators and have no way to reduce the price (or to produce a market-differentiated subset which could be sold cheaper) for GA users while still delivering something useful.
There is ample evidence that the national CAAs, and Eurocontrol with their routing tools, do work closely with Jeppesen. Again, the beneficiary are the big boys.
Look at how much cheaper Jepp data is for the USA. The cost, per airport say, is a fraction of what it is in Europe. But there is as much work because Jepp re-draft all their plates. I would suggest this difference is because so many U.S. pilots fly with the free plates. Most European free plates (EAD) are barely usable, and when the CAA or whatever are asked why didn't they draw up their plates so they are directly usable in the cockpit, the reply is that they are not in the business of competing with commercial data providers...
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Derby
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another vote for the 196/296/496 Garmin GPS family. Mine is mounted on the glareshield using a RAM Mount device and that saviour of mankind, velcro. It is extremely secure and out of the way of the instruments and doesn't interfere with forward vis. This solution was arrived at after trying yoke mounts and other options which were not as suitable, personally.
Is the GPS my prime means of nav? Hmm, I think I look at it in combination with the Mk 1 eyeball and VOR radials but when it comes to locating a peskily well disguised grass aerodrome it tends to make its way further up the priority list!
Is the GPS my prime means of nav? Hmm, I think I look at it in combination with the Mk 1 eyeball and VOR radials but when it comes to locating a peskily well disguised grass aerodrome it tends to make its way further up the priority list!
The Original Foot
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Chesterfield
Posts: 145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not a 296 fan...
Well, I have really struggled to get on with my 296. I have for some time used a Garmin 60CX. This offers you the ability to set up a track and then measure your deviation from it (rather lack a VOR readout). It is much simpler than the 296 and doesn't have a built in database. But I programme my way points in from Memory Map. This has been fine, but I have always fancied having a finger on the chart readout. In the early days, I dabbled with Ipaq's and associated gps's, but didn't get on very well, as they needed charging or would crash etc. This thread encouraged me to revisit this. I have just picked up a ipaq RX5935 travel companion from ebay. This has a built in Sirf Star III GPS and works a treat. I am going to use this for my finger on the map and a backup from the 60cx. The battery life is excellent. Apart from the complexity of the 296 (which is a problem of me!) I am also concerned about the old fashioned gps receiver in all of the garmin aviation range. They do need an external aerial and I have had problems even then. Having a manual database does input another increased risk of error, but I have to say I have never had a problem and I always do my manual planning also, although when everything is running well, i will tend to look at my gps first and occassionally mark my position/time on the chart rather than following DI, watch etc. Probably makes me a bad person - but there you go! I am well chuffed now that memory map prices are more reasonable and am awaiting the new Northern Chart...
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: West Britain
Age: 74
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't be too hard on the PPL navigation syllabus. Apart from having to comply with ICAO Annex 1, there is a method in the seemingly luddite approach to teaching with map and whizz-wheel in that it demonstrates in an easily assimilated form the basic triangle of velocities. With the best will in the world, this appreciation won't be there for a pilot trained solely on electronics. About 15 years ago I had a modest part to play in the approval of GPS for aviation use and I lectured on it around the country. I would finish my spiel with the following, which found its way into Flight International and I believe the thrust is still true:
'GPS is a fine navigational aid but the best navigation system you or I will ever find is the one fitted, so very ergonomically, between our ears.'
'GPS is a fine navigational aid but the best navigation system you or I will ever find is the one fitted, so very ergonomically, between our ears.'
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to add a different setup...
My primary GPS (note - not my primary means of navigation) is a cheapo Garmin eTrex Euro. It's about eight years old now and was, at that time, the only reasonably priced, rugged GPS around. It can be had today for about 100-130 euros.
Add to this a data cable (included by default now with the more expensive eTrex-es) and a laptop with OziExplorer. Add a scanner which I used to scan the Jeppessen VFR charts, or any other paper chart you use to do flight planning on. OziExplorer works with the most common bitmap formats (BMP and JPG at least) and allows you to easily calibrate the maps and add them to its database. The limit here is the size of your scanner - each scan becomes a separate map which needs to be calibrated separately. Although you could "stitch" them together, I guess, and calibrate the result. In any case, that's something you do once on a rainy Sunday afternoon.
I plan my flight PPL-style, on the map. Then turn on the laptop, fire up OziExplorer, select the proper scanned map, click to add the waypoints, combine them in a route, then upload this into the Garmin. Also use OziExplorer to check my distance/heading calculations. Sounds complicated but takes less than a minute.
The eTrex then gets stuck somewhere in the cockpit with a cheap swivel head on a suction cup, and the paper chart is held next to it and functions as the primary navigation reference. Works perfectly fine.
Since I had everything already before learning to fly, except for the swivel head thingy, the total cost worked out to about 10 euros. The Garmin by the way has a battery life, even on rechargeables, well exceeding plane/bladder endurance and I always have a pack of spare AAs in my flightbag anyway. So I don't even need to mess with cables to hook it up to the cigarette lighter socket - which in some of our planes is marked "ground use only" in any case.
As I fly a variety of planes, with a variety of navigational equipment (from bare minimum to dual GNS430+ADF), both yokes and stick, I found this setup to be the most versatile.
My primary GPS (note - not my primary means of navigation) is a cheapo Garmin eTrex Euro. It's about eight years old now and was, at that time, the only reasonably priced, rugged GPS around. It can be had today for about 100-130 euros.
Add to this a data cable (included by default now with the more expensive eTrex-es) and a laptop with OziExplorer. Add a scanner which I used to scan the Jeppessen VFR charts, or any other paper chart you use to do flight planning on. OziExplorer works with the most common bitmap formats (BMP and JPG at least) and allows you to easily calibrate the maps and add them to its database. The limit here is the size of your scanner - each scan becomes a separate map which needs to be calibrated separately. Although you could "stitch" them together, I guess, and calibrate the result. In any case, that's something you do once on a rainy Sunday afternoon.
I plan my flight PPL-style, on the map. Then turn on the laptop, fire up OziExplorer, select the proper scanned map, click to add the waypoints, combine them in a route, then upload this into the Garmin. Also use OziExplorer to check my distance/heading calculations. Sounds complicated but takes less than a minute.
The eTrex then gets stuck somewhere in the cockpit with a cheap swivel head on a suction cup, and the paper chart is held next to it and functions as the primary navigation reference. Works perfectly fine.
Since I had everything already before learning to fly, except for the swivel head thingy, the total cost worked out to about 10 euros. The Garmin by the way has a battery life, even on rechargeables, well exceeding plane/bladder endurance and I always have a pack of spare AAs in my flightbag anyway. So I don't even need to mess with cables to hook it up to the cigarette lighter socket - which in some of our planes is marked "ground use only" in any case.
As I fly a variety of planes, with a variety of navigational equipment (from bare minimum to dual GNS430+ADF), both yokes and stick, I found this setup to be the most versatile.
