Garmin Pilot users - VFR base map vs sectional?

deyoung

deyoung

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Nov 13, 2014
Messages
566
Location
Tucson, AZ
Display Name
Chris
Home Airfield
KTUS
As the title says - Garmin Pilot users, which do you prefer? I typically use the sectional chart, but the VFR base map is a bit less cluttered and has some useful info that isn't as easy to get on the sectional (for example, floor and ceiling of MOAs). On the other hand, it doesn't include everything, like the little flagged VFR reporting points.

Preferences?
 
I like the VFR base map much better.
 
Sectional just because. Flew yesterday and today and the new colors were a non issue for me but I’m also in the sticks with very little airspace to deal with. I like the base map but it eliminates too much info I like to see like faded airspace outlines you can barely see now.
 
Sectional in my case as I find it easier to pick out landmarks. Just in case GPS craps out, want to know where I am relative to the ground.
 
I'm often near and around or under the Phoenix bravo, and I'm seriously considering switching to the VFR map because the new sectionals have the bravo boundaries very nearly the same color as all the airways - seems like it makes it very easy to cross into a different tier/shelf without meaning to...
 
VFR base map for me. Might be because I favor the IFR base map over the IFR enroute low altitude chart. Or maybe it's because the icon is in a more convenient spot.

However, I do sometimes switch to sectional/TAC for various reasons
 
VFR exclusively … it is much cleaner and interactive in the sense that it allows selection of variable
levels of details while sectionals are just scanned primitive 1990s style images.
 
I fly with the sectional all the time. I like having the frequencies and elevations at a glance. I also feel like it gives a better idea of the size & shape of towns, rivers, terrain, lakes etc. Even in imc I like a vfr sectional so I have an idea of what I'm over if worse comes to worst.
 
VFR, I tend to use the Sectional. I appreciate the lack of clutter of the base map and sometimes use it locally, but the Sectional is just so familiar and “comfortable” that it’s generally easier for me to use, especially if I am interested in what’s on the ground.
 
I'll switch between Sectional and the VFR map (and I like that GP distinguishes between a "chart" and a "map"!) for planning, but I fly exclusively with the VFR map. Once I took the time to set it up properly, the dynamic display (or culling) of information is truly excellent. I like that when I'm low to the ground, I get full display of obstacles, but those drop off the map once I climb out. Similarly, airspaces, terrain, and ADSB aircraft are displayed/highlighted only when they are plausibly relevant.

I don't think you would want to fly via pure pilotage with the VFR map, as the Sectional does a better job of showing landmarks. Region is also a factor. Flying Colorado's front range 20 years ago, the Sectional was a thing of beauty, showing detail without being cluttered. The modern DC SFRA region chart, on the other hand, is a nightmare of crowded information. My hat is off to the folks who figure out how to cram it all in, but deciphering that visual clutter is best done on a table with a cup of coffee, rather than in the cockpit.
 
Only time I look at a sectional is during my flight review. Dynamic maps are so much better.
 
I mostly fly with the base map, but here’s an example of why I am glad I can switch to the sectional with a couple taps:

IMG_6850.jpeg

IMG_6849.jpeg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top