ForeFlight integration with Garmin GTN?

[mpg]

Really????

My experience is 1978,, fly,train and get my PP.

Then till 1989 as a "for fun" flyer.

 

I would have thought by NOW with GPS,

Why doesnt everyone fly Direct??

[carusoam]

"Why doesnt everyone fly Direct??" -MPG

Cost of database updates...

Thought you might appreciate the logic. I see the justification in your avatar...

Flying IFR direct can get expensive using up to date databases.

Best regards,

-a-

[Marauder]

Really????

My experience is 1978,, fly,train and get my PP.

Then till 1989 as a "for fun" flyer.

I would have thought by NOW with GPS,

Why doesnt everyone fly Direct??

I have tried to file direct to my destination a few times, okay a bunch of times. If you are in radar coverage I found they are more likely to give you a direct route but they still will often require me to file airways or something that will define my route. My guess is that they don't want a bunch of us flying off airways in case of norad or loss of radar coverage.

Once airborne, I have received "proceed direct to" a bunch of times.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[ArtVandelay]

I would have thought by NOW with GPS,

Why doesnt everyone fly Direct??

1. It would take me over water: ocean, gulf, Great Lakes and you don't have raft or life preservers

2. Avoid class B airspace

3. Avoid a mountain

4. Avoid a restricted airspace, MOA, etc.

5. Weather

6. IFR you always vectored onto an airway it seems

7. GPS NOTAM, RAIM failure, so you go old school and fly VORs, airways just in case

[M016576]

"Why doesnt everyone fly Direct??" -MPG

Cost of database updates...

Thought you might appreciate the logic. I see the justification in your avatar...

Flying IFR direct can get expensive using up to date databases.

Best regards,

-a-

It's not a requirement to update the databases to file /G. The only requirement is to check that the waypoints you are flying to are still up to date in your database.

Examples like the ones above are a reason why I rarely fly IFR on VMC days: to avoid being at the mercy of a controller.

[M016576]

My GTN is easier to use than the GNS but when you get a significant re-route, either can be a pain in the butt. As an example:

I usually get this;

But have gotten this;

But most of the time I get to fly this:

Really easy to enter on the iPad. Just usually isn't this extreme.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

VFR will set you free, my friend! Unless it's IMC.... In which case VFR won't get you anywhere.

[Marauder]

VFR will set you free, my friend! Unless it's IMC.... In which case VFR won't get you anywhere.

I have flown this route a number of times over the years and I suspect that it has something to do with the handoffs between approach controllers and ATC or if any of them want to work the direct routing for you in the system.

On my last trip up, the Philly approach controller handling my departure asked if I was on a training flight and if I could accept a direct route instead! It was the route they gave me! When I said I could, he said "give me a minute" and then came back with the direct routing.

I do agree that flying VFR would be easier and I have done that a number of times as well. Unfortunately, the weather can change pretty significantly along this route.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[flyboy0681]

On DBX' original post he pointed to an article comparing Foreflight to Pilot. I'm a Pilot user and will be the first to admit that they have fallen behind on introducing new features compared to FF. However, he wrote of deficiencies that were either not there to begin with because he wasn't familiar with the application, or have been fixed since he wrote the feature. One such change is that stadium TFR's don't show up unless they are active. He is spot on with Pilot not saving annotations, I also write notes on my approach plates and once they are updated the notes are gone goodbye. He also said that when he files a flight plan that Pilot doesn't send the route to the device, which is incorrect as it has always had that feature. And no cutting and pasting is required to apply that route because users are given the option of applying it to the current flight plan.

 

Based on releases over the past year, Garmin has concentrated more on adding new device interfaces than making it a better application, which I think is the wrong approach since more people use it for its intended purpose than for all of the various device interfaces such as XM radio for listening to music.

 

Garmin has also been slow to respond to program issues as well. Two years ago when they came out with a new release I noticed that screen labels for items such as TOOLS, HOME and a simple "OK" button are presented in a deep blue color. That would be fine if it weren't set against a black screen, making the labels nearly impossible to read during daytime flights. I wrote to support four times over the past two years hoping that when I download the newest release that they would have changed the label colors to white or silver, but alas they are still dark blue.

 

These issues aside I still like the product and know it inside and out and my fingers dance across the screen with the greatest of ease.

[Bob - S50]

The real advantage of the Flightstream is for those of us with the 650 or 430 series. I agree loading up on the ground is easy. The real fun begins in the northeast with that "I have a new routing for you, advise when ready to copy". With the ability to use Garmin Pilot as the modification point for the flight plan, it makes it easier to do that in flight.

That said, is it worth $1,000 plus installation?

https://buy.garmin.com/en-US/US/in-the-air/avionics-safety/sat-comm/flight-stream-110-210/prod153681.html

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

I'm an old dog.  My response would be 'standby'... grab my pen and get ready to write... 'go ahead for 201CB.'  Write it all down, read it back, then say, 'could you give me an initial heading?'  Turn to the heading, let the autopilot fly, then start programming.

 

If I tried to program it into the tablet while they were reading it to me I'd miss half of it.  Like I said, old and slow and getting older and slower.

 

Bob

[DXB]

On DBX' original post he pointed to an article comparing Foreflight to Pilot. I'm a Pilot user and will be the first to admit that they have fallen behind on introducing new features compared to FF. However, he wrote of deficiencies that were either not there to begin with because he wasn't familiar with the application, or have been fixed since he wrote the feature. One such change is that stadium TFR's don't show up unless they are active. He is spot on with Pilot not saving annotations, I also write notes on my approach plates and once they are updated the notes are gone goodbye. He also said that when he files a flight plan that Pilot doesn't send the route to the device, which is incorrect as it has always had that feature. And no cutting and pasting is required to apply that route because users are given the option of applying it to the current flight plan.

 

Based on releases over the past year, Garmin has concentrated more on adding new device interfaces than making it a better application, which I think is the wrong approach since more people use it for its intended purpose than for all of the various device interfaces such as XM radio for listening to music.

 

Garmin has also been slow to respond to program issues as well. Two years ago when they came out with a new release I noticed that screen labels for items such as TOOLS, HOME and a simple "OK" button are presented in a deep blue color. That would be fine if it weren't set against a black screen, making the labels nearly impossible to read during daytime flights. I wrote to support four times over the past two years hoping that when I download the newest release that they would have changed the label colors to white or silver, but alas they are still dark blue.

 

These issues aside I still like the product and know it inside and out and my fingers dance across the screen with the greatest oft

Thanks- still not sure which way to go, but good detailed info to have.

[Ned Gravel]

I'm an old dog.  My response would be 'standby'... grab my pen and get ready to write... 'go ahead for 201CB.'  Write it all down, read it back, then say, 'could you give me an initial heading?'  Turn to the heading, let the autopilot fly, then start programming.

 

If I tried to program it into the tablet while they were reading it to me I'd miss half of it.  Like I said, old and slow and getting older and slower.

 

Bob

 

Bob:

 

I am with you up to "go ahead...".  I write it on the Foreflight scratch pad and then read back.  After looking at the first waypoint they have given, I look at the heading I am supposed to use.  If it is a VOR or NDB, those get tuned in next and now the autopilot has two references to stay on course - the one from the VOR or the one from the heading bug.  Less than 60 seconds after the readback, the aircraft is on course and things are good.

 

Now I can go and fill in the rest, such as GPS or Foreflight etc so that both I and the autopilot have useful information to get on with it.

 

The only problem with this is not being able to indicate that a route or a route segment is not acceptable for one reason or another, until I have plugged in all the waypoints.  When that happens we are back to the table some 5 to 10 minutes after I initially accepted the clearance.  Does not look good.

[Andy95W]

I'm an old dog. My response would be 'standby'... grab my pen and get ready to write... 'go ahead for 201CB.' Write it all down, read it back, then say, 'could you give me an initial heading?' Turn to the heading, let the autopilot fly, then start programming.

If I tried to program it into the tablet while they were reading it to me I'd miss half of it. Like I said, old and slow and getting older and slower.

Bob

+1

BTW, as a CB (cheap b@$tard) myself, I love your N#!

[flyingcheesehead]

I have tried to file direct to my destination a few times, okay a bunch of times. If you are in radar coverage I found they are more likely to give you a direct route but they still will often require me to file airways or something that will define my route. My guess is that they don't want a bunch of us flying off airways in case of norad or loss of radar coverage.

 

That's not it... Once you get off the coasts, you almost never get airways. Here in the Midwest, the only thing I have to worry about is staying away from Chicago Approach's airspace, easy to do using T265 or V9/128 for a portion of my route. Coming from Madison and going east, it's direct KELSI direct. Coming from Milwaukee, I usually go direct BULLZ, T265 as far as I need, direct destination.

 

With the exception of going around Chicago, I file and am cleared direct everywhere I go, except if I'm headed east. Pretty much once I cross the OH/PA state line, I'm gonna get stuck on airways.

 

Of course, my favorite way to get "around" Chicago, weather permitting, is to shoot down the lakeshore right past downtown VFR under the Bravo while laughing at all the ground pounders stuck in traffic below. If I need to be IFR later in the trip, I simply file from Gary and pick up my clearance from Approach after passing downtown.