WAAS for GNS 430/530?

Marco Leon mmleon(at)yahoo.com wrote:
It sucks but realistically, how many airports have LPV approaches without an
ILS somewhere? Then compare that list to what you will realistically fly;
then pare it down to to chances of requiring the 250ft DH to break out of
the ceiling. I'd think anyone would come up with a very short list of pilots
this would impact.

One of the cool things about WAAS is the ability to fly a synthetic
glideslope on a non-precision approach. I'd much rather follow a
needle smoothly down to MDA than dive-and-drive through a couple of
stepdowns, even if the MDA is still the same 500 AGL or whatever.

"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...
One of the cool things about WAAS is the ability to fly a synthetic
glideslope on a non-precision approach. I'd much rather follow a
needle smoothly down to MDA than dive-and-drive through a couple of
stepdowns, even if the MDA is still the same 500 AGL or whatever.

Problem with a smooth descent is that when you arrive at the sectors MDA,
you have immediately start down again rather than taking a few moments to
sift things out. Stable approaches were build for the heavy metal/turbine
crowd.

http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182091-1.html
Pelican's Perch #24:
Sloppy, Sorry VNAV

Flying a non-precision approach has traditionally been a "Dive and Drive"
affair in which the pilot descends rapidly to the MDA or step-down altitude
and then levels off. Recently, however, pilots of aircraft equipped with
glass cockpit FMS systems or VNAV-capable GPS receivers have been encouraged
to fly such approaches using a constant descent path. There's even a
buzzword for this: CANPA (constant-angle non-precision approach), and these
calculated pseudo-glideslopes are now starting to show up on Jeppesen
approach plates. AVweb's John Deakin thinks this is a bad idea, one that
will result in a lot more missed approaches and perhaps even some accidents.
Deakin explains why, and makes a compelling case for flying non-precision
approaches the traditional, old-fashioned way that God and Cap'n Jepp
intended.

----------------------------------------------

Stable approaches for the heavy metal???? Stable approaches work for all
aircraft on non-precision approaches. Maybe someone explained them to you
poorly or incorrectly. Stable means a constant descent rate that puts you
at MDA shortly before the MAP. Dive and drive is frowned on by the FAA
because of the multiple accidents nor near mishaps or altitude busts that
occur.


"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...
One of the cool things about WAAS is the ability to fly a synthetic
glideslope on a non-precision approach. I'd much rather follow a
needle smoothly down to MDA than dive-and-drive through a couple of
stepdowns, even if the MDA is still the same 500 AGL or whatever.

Problem with a smooth descent is that when you arrive at the sectors MDA,
you have immediately start down again rather than taking a few moments to
sift things out. Stable approaches were build for the heavy metal/turbine
crowd.

http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182091-1.html
Pelican's Perch #24:
Sloppy, Sorry VNAV

Flying a non-precision approach has traditionally been a "Dive and Drive"
affair in which the pilot descends rapidly to the MDA or step-down
altitude
and then levels off. Recently, however, pilots of aircraft equipped with
glass cockpit FMS systems or VNAV-capable GPS receivers have been
encouraged
to fly such approaches using a constant descent path. There's even a
buzzword for this: CANPA (constant-angle non-precision approach), and
these
calculated pseudo-glideslopes are now starting to show up on Jeppesen
approach plates. AVweb's John Deakin thinks this is a bad idea, one that
will result in a lot more missed approaches and perhaps even some
accidents.
Deakin explains why, and makes a compelling case for flying non-precision
approaches the traditional, old-fashioned way that God and Cap'n Jepp
intended.

----------------------------------------------

A pilot can use either technique. Depending on the pilot, the aircraft,
and the approach, there are positives and negatives to using dive and
drive vs. stabilized constant descent technique.

One thing you frequently hear is that you could IMMEDIATELY descend
(helicopter) to the next altitude once you pass the waypoint. NOT true.
There is a maximum decent allowed. I don't know what it is, and it is
quite steep, but it's not vertical.

I learned in my training to do constant descents. Figure a VSI that
will work and use it all the way down. I don't like having to make
adjustments to my airplane on the way down. Pick one vertcal rate and
stick to it all the way in. The disadvantage is, I might have more
tailwind and when I break out the airport might be behind me. I guess
I'd rather take that risk vs the risks inherent in the dive and drive
method. Also, this way, my approaches are all basically the same, ILS
or non-precision. Configure the airplane for the desent rate and keep
that all the way in until I break out. If you figure it out right, with
GPS, using groundspeed, you always know where you are.

The altitude depicted for a published route segment of an approach is
safe to fly along any portion of that route segment. Rate of descent
is not an issue. Check the TERPS guidance.


On 7 Jun 2005 19:46:44 -0700, "Doug"
wrote:

A pilot can use either technique. Depending on the pilot, the aircraft,
and the approach, there are positives and negatives to using dive and
drive vs. stabilized constant descent technique.

One thing you frequently hear is that you could IMMEDIATELY descend
(helicopter) to the next altitude once you pass the waypoint. NOT true.
There is a maximum decent allowed. I don't know what it is, and it is
quite steep, but it's not vertical.

I learned in my training to do constant descents. Figure a VSI that
will work and use it all the way down. I don't like having to make
adjustments to my airplane on the way down. Pick one vertcal rate and
stick to it all the way in. The disadvantage is, I might have more
tailwind and when I break out the airport might be behind me. I guess
I'd rather take that risk vs the risks inherent in the dive and drive
method. Also, this way, my approaches are all basically the same, ILS
or non-precision. Configure the airplane for the desent rate and keep
that all the way in until I break out. If you figure it out right, with
GPS, using groundspeed, you always know where you are.

Joe wrote:

The altitude depicted for a published route segment of an approach is
safe to fly along any portion of that route segment. Rate of descent
is not an issue. Check the TERPS guidance.

In particular check Paragraph 289 of the TERPs "guidance."

Is the TERPS manual available online?

wrote in message ...


Joe wrote:

The altitude depicted for a published route segment of an approach is
safe to fly along any portion of that route segment. Rate of descent
is not an issue. Check the TERPS guidance.

In particular check Paragraph 289 of the TERPs "guidance."

"Doug" wrote in message
oups.com...
A pilot can use either technique. Depending on the pilot, the aircraft,
and the approach, there are positives and negatives to using dive and
drive vs. stabilized constant descent technique.

One thing you frequently hear is that you could IMMEDIATELY descend
(helicopter) to the next altitude once you pass the waypoint. NOT true.
There is a maximum decent allowed. I don't know what it is, and it is
quite steep, but it's not vertical.

NOT TRUE is right...you're the one has it wrong.

I learned in my training to do constant descents.

Yeah, that's why some people never learn to fly, and handle a 172 or even a
152 like a G-IV or a 737.


Figure a VSI that
will work and use it all the way down. I don't like having to make
adjustments to my airplane on the way down. Pick one vertcal rate and
stick to it all the way in. The disadvantage is, I might have more
tailwind and when I break out the airport might be behind me. I guess
I'd rather take that risk vs the risks inherent in the dive and drive
method. Also, this way, my approaches are all basically the same, ILS
or non-precision. Configure the airplane for the desent rate and keep
that all the way in until I break out.

Think about breaking out at the MAP...you've got 0.2 seconds to make your
decision.


If you figure it out right, with
GPS, using groundspeed, you always know where you are.

Matt Barrow wrote:

Think about breaking out at the MAP...you've got 0.2 seconds to make your
decision.

Perhaps I'm misinterpreting what you've written, but how is this different
than a 'real' precision approach?

- Andrew

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
online.com...
Matt Barrow wrote:

Think about breaking out at the MAP...you've got 0.2 seconds to make
your
decision.

Perhaps I'm misinterpreting what you've written, but how is this different
than a 'real' precision approach?


When you reach the MAP after D&D, you're stable in three axes. How would you
rather be when looking for the runway?