WAAS for GNS 430/530?

"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.

wrote in message ...


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.

Well goodie for you. So try another non-sequitur.

Matt Barrow wrote:

wrote in message ...


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.

Well goodie for you. So try another non-sequitur.

How can an answer to a question be a non-sequitur?