Using non-aviation hand-held GPS

[Guest basscheffers]

Once I have my XC endorsement, I would like to also have my own (so hand-held) GPS with me as well.

 

What are the actual advantages of the rather pricy aviation units?

 

I have an old Garmin eTrex Legend, which from the world map knows all the tiny towns in outback SA. (and I assume elsewhere in Australia) I also have downloaded (from teh intarweb) and imported lists of aerodromes and waypoints. Of course you can also key these in from ERSA and maps.

 

Even this little unit seems perfectly capable of allowing me to plan routes, find places (e.g.: nearest airfield), show track, ground speed, ETE, ETA, etc. I can enter all this on the unit as well as in the PC software.

 

Now I would be keen to upgrade, but even a lowly 96C costs $900 while the technically much superior (CPU, memory, screen, antenna, the list goes on) non-aviation 60Cx goes for under $400.

 

The only advantages of the aviation models I can see are:

 

- CTA steps

 

- Approach paths? (i.e.: lanes of entry to GAAP)

 

- Terrain avoidance (not an issue, as we are VFR?)

 

- Built in list of waypoints, airfields, etc. from Jeppesen, more reliable than others?

 

I am also wondering what the advantage is of using a Windows CE device and OziExplorer and other home-brew low-cost solutions people are using. What does it offer over a cheap Garmin hand-held? My money would be on the Garmin for reliability, accuracy and power consumption.

 

I'd be interested to get some feedback on this!

 

Regards,

 

Bas.

 

 

[K-man]

On the basis that we plot our course on a map and take our direction from the compass, then we don't need a GPS, but aren't they great as backup. :thumb_up: As far as I can see the aviation GPS is pre loaded with most of the things you need and as such doesn't take a lot of time to programme, and the CTA boundaries are useful. Your Garmen as a backup unit would be fine. We connected our old GPS to a laptop with mapping software for a trip to central Aus some time back and in the vehicle it was fantastic. I wouldn't like to have to use it in the aircraft though. I would use your Garmin and keep an eye out for someone upgrading their aviation unit, or someone with a hand held installing a new system.

 

 

[Yenn]

I use a Garmin 12XL which has no inbuilt waypoints. I can input waypoints and also a track, but the real good use I find for it is the ability to get distance and bearing from a known point to advise others of where I am. For instance with Gladstone A/D put in as a waypoint i can quickly give the RPT pilots an accurate position to put their minds at rest and show them where to look for me. Also great for incoming calls.

 

 

[JayKay]

Hi Bas,

 

There is one other big difference between the Garmin Aviation GPS units (ie. 296, 196 and 96C) and the Etrex hiking models, and that is the language they use.

 

I use a Garmin 296 and keep my Etrex Vista Cx in my pocket for backup. The Etrex has a smaller screen and does not show the Jeppesen aviation data, but after downloading the closest surrounding 1000 Airstrips from the Australian Country Airstrips database into it, it rivals the 296 for functionality.

 

The Etrex can display exactly the same data as the 296 except that it names the data differently: Here's a sample:

 

Garmin GPSMAP 296 : Etrex Vista Cx

 

ALTITUDE : Elevation

 

DIST NEXT : Dist To Next

 

ETA NEXT : ETA At Next

 

TRACK : Heading

 

CROSS TRK : Off Course

 

VERT SPEED : Vertical Spd

 

VS TO TARG : VS to Dest

 

NEXT WPT : Next

 

ETE NEXT : Time To Next

 

MOVE TIMER : Moving Time

 

TIME : Time of Day

 

GPS STATUS : Accuracy

 

Course (Active Route) : Leg Course

 

Leg Dist (Active Route) : Dist to Pt

 

Once you understand that and set up the Etrex accordingly, it's a great unit (and cheap).

 

As for comparison with OziExplorer, I'm currently trying out OziExplorer on an ASUS EEEPC 901 with bluetooth GPS and also OziExplorerCE on a MIO 360. The advantage with OziExplorer is that your basemap is the VTC, VNC or WAC chart (if you scan it in or buy it) but at this stage I find it to be far more fiddly than using a Garmin. I also tend to agree with your other observations regarding the difference between a dedicated GPS and OziExplorer.

 

However it is early days for me with OziExplorer. I'm currently working to reduce the number of keystrokes to get anything done with the view of 'automating' it more and making it more user friendly. I think OziExplorer's moving map feature over a customised basemap is it's outstanding feature. Unfortunately with the Garmin units you are limited with the type of basemaps you can use. For simplicity however, the GOTO feature of the Garmins is hard to beat.

 

 

[Ben Longden]

While I feel many folks rely on GPS to do everything like wash socks and turn IMC into VMC.... I confess I DO carry an old Magellan hand held with me as a backup to my mapwork.

 

Its usefull to see what it says once you program the locations in... like confirming your heading, track and ground speed.

 

Its a different kettle of fish if you are doing a GNSS approach - but then we only fly VMC, dont we? ;)

 

Ben

 

 

[Guest basscheffers]

Thanks for all the answers guys.

 

Looks like I am not the only one doing this and no obvious bad things that could happen from it.

 

I certainly don't want to overly rely on GPS - maps, compasses and whiz-wheels don't run out batteries or suffer from too many other malfunctions...

 

What are the rules regarding navigation anyway? At what point does it become mandatory to completely plan your nav using dead reckoning? Obviously, there are many cases where people can fly from one place to another just by looking at landmarks on the ground. And you often hear about people doing just that - IFR: I Follow Roads.

 

 

[Skyhog]

You must get a positive position fix at least every 30 minutes.