WAAS for GNS 430/530?

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?