WAAS for GNS 430/530?

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."

Bits and pieces on one part of the FAA web site. The only reliable electronic
source is Summit's Aviation Reference Library.

Paul Lynch wrote:

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?

In article ,
Matt Barrow wrote:

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
gonline.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?

When you reach the MAP after following a glide slope, you should also
be stable in three axes (heading, pitch, and bank should all be
constant). Even better, if you see the runway, you can continue to
hold that attitude down to the surface.

If anything, the slight nose-down pitch attitude should make it easier
to see the runway, compared to having to search for it over the nose
in level flight after a dive-and-drive.

Roy Smith wrote:

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

When you reach the MAP after following a glide slope, you should also
be stable in three axes (heading, pitch, and bank should all be
constant).Â*Â*EvenÂ*better,Â*ifÂ*youÂ*seeÂ*theÂ*ru nway,Â*youÂ*canÂ*continueÂ*to
hold that attitude down to the surface.

If anything, the slight nose-down pitch attitude should make it easier
to see the runway, compared to having to search for it over the nose
in level flight after a dive-and-drive.

Further, this is still - unless I'm misinterpreting something here - the
same situation as that of a precision approach.

The cited article on AVWeb makes a big deal of the runway not being right on
the nose for a nonprecision approach. However, the runway is often not
right on the nose for a precision approach. It depends upon the wind.

A review of the approach along with an awareness of the heading should be a
pretty good indication of the direction in which one's head should turn.

- Andrew