WAAS for GNS 430/530?

Andrew Gideon wrote:
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


I believe he is saying that dive and drive gets you broken out sooner, since
you are down at the minimum altitude considerably befor the map.

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.

The accidents stats don't support any positives for dive-and-drive.



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.

What is the number? Why express any uncertainty? With one exception you
have full obstacle clearance at the earlist point at which a fix can be
received (i.e., considering adverse fix error).

The exception is in the non-precision final approach segment where a 7:1
gradient may, or may not, be applied to the FAF and/or some stepdown fix in
the final approach segment. A pilot has no way of determing from the
approach chart whether this design option has been applied (TERPs,
Paragraph 289).

wrote in message ...


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.

The accidents stats don't support any positives for dive-and-drive.

Cite?

Matt Barrow wrote:

wrote in message ...


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.

The accidents stats don't support any positives for dive-and-drive.

Cite?

How can I cite the negative? There are many, many NPA crashes over the years.

"Paul Lynch" wrote in message
news:K9spe.10456$%Z2.3221@lakeread08...
Stable approaches for the heavy metal???? Stable approaches work for all
aircraft on non-precision approaches.

Wanna re-read my original post.

Indeed they do, but the intent was the turbine traffic, not 172's.

Maybe someone explained them to you
poorly or incorrectly. Stable means a constant descent rate that puts you
at MDA shortly before the MAP.

I know what they mean.

Dive and drive is frowned on by the FAA
because of the multiple accidents nor near mishaps or altitude busts that
occur.

Do you have a cite for that?

INHMB


"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.

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

Matt Barrow wrote:

"Paul Lynch" wrote in message
news:K9spe.10456$%Z2.3221@lakeread08...
Stable approaches for the heavy metal???? Stable approaches work for all
aircraft on non-precision approaches.

Wanna re-read my original post.

Indeed they do, but the intent was the turbine traffic, not 172's.

The intent was certainly directed to turbine airplanes, but the concept was
recommended for all airplane operations.

As to Deakin's views on the matter, other folks with similar expertise disagree
quite strongly with him. He is a smart fellow, but when it comes to
dive-and-drive, it's simply his opinion, which is no better than anyone else's
that works with that stuff. In fact, Deakin never participated in any
Industry/FAA meetings or discussions about constant angle/constant rate NPAs.

wrote in message ...


Matt Barrow wrote:

"Paul Lynch" wrote in message
news:K9spe.10456$%Z2.3221@lakeread08...
Stable approaches for the heavy metal???? Stable approaches work for
all
aircraft on non-precision approaches.

Wanna re-read my original post.

Indeed they do, but the intent was the turbine traffic, not 172's.

The intent was certainly directed to turbine airplanes, but the concept
was
recommended for all airplane operations.

We hear all sorts of recommendations that are nothing short of ludicrious.

As to Deakin's views on the matter, other folks with similar expertise
disagree
quite strongly with him.

Yeah, the experts at TCM and Lycoming disagree, too.

He is a smart fellow, but when it comes to
dive-and-drive, it's simply his opinion, which is no better than anyone
else's
that works with that stuff.

An opinions worth is based on the evidence and logic from which it is based.
Other than that, your remark is nothing but post-modernist bull****.

In fact, Deakin never participated in any
Industry/FAA meetings or discussions about constant angle/constant rate
NPAs.

So what? Did you? If not, STFU :~)

Matt Barrow wrote:

wrote in message ...


Matt Barrow wrote:

"Paul Lynch" wrote in message
news:K9spe.10456$%Z2.3221@lakeread08...
Stable approaches for the heavy metal???? Stable approaches work for
all
aircraft on non-precision approaches.

Wanna re-read my original post.

Indeed they do, but the intent was the turbine traffic, not 172's.

The intent was certainly directed to turbine airplanes, but the concept
was
recommended for all airplane operations.

We hear all sorts of recommendations that are nothing short of ludicrious.

As to Deakin's views on the matter, other folks with similar expertise
disagree
quite strongly with him.

Yeah, the experts at TCM and Lycoming disagree, too.

He is a smart fellow, but when it comes to
dive-and-drive, it's simply his opinion, which is no better than anyone
else's
that works with that stuff.

An opinions worth is based on the evidence and logic from which it is based.
Other than that, your remark is nothing but post-modernist bull****.

In fact, Deakin never participated in any
Industry/FAA meetings or discussions about constant angle/constant rate
NPAs.

So what? Did you? If not, STFU :~)

I was at most of those meetings.

But does this feature work as enhancements to existing SDF/LOC approaches?

I don't think so. We'll have to wait years, if ever, for these LPV
approaches to come to our area.

My $0.02, {|;-)

Victor J. (Jim) Osborne, Jr.

VOsborne2 at charter dot net
"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...
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.

Victor J. Osborne, Jr. wrote:

But does this feature work as enhancements to existing SDF/LOC approaches?

My reading of the advertising-speak is that it can build a descent profile
for any approach. I've some question about that (ie. what if the straight
line from FAF to VDP passes under a stepdown), but I don't know that I've
interpreted the advertising-speak accurately.

- Andrew