If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Step Down or Track Glide slope on GPS overlay approach
On Apr 14, 9:04 am, "Mooney" wrote:
On Apr 13, 11:27 pm, "Viperdoc" wrote: I have a 530W/430W combo recently, and in fact did some RNAV/GPS approaches tonight. I find it easier to let the autopilot track the GS in LNAV/VNAV approaches rather than dive and drive. It's identical to an ILS- when the DH is reached, then either land or go around. It's probably the same reason why precision approaches with GS are easier to fly than non precision approaches. By the way, tracking the VNAV or LPV glideslope and GPS "localizer" were much smoother than a traditinional ILS or localizer approach. I agree that this is easier to just fly the GPS glideslope and my temptation is to just do it that way, but I'm trying to figure out why my instructor is adamant that I use the stepdown process. Can you be confident if you fly the glideslope that you will not violate the minimum altitudes at each stepdown fix? If you are below these BUT ON THE GS are you legal or does the GS have no legal status? More importantly is there any safety issue of just flying the GS? Probably because GPS 5@LWM does not have a LPV or VNAV minimum published. Even in that case there is nothing wrong with flying the GPS GS, but it becomes your responsibility to ensure that you cross HAGET and KRIED intersections above the specified altitudes. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Step Down or Track Glide slope on GPS overlay approach
On 13 Apr 2007 19:26:50 -0700, "Mooney" wrote:
I have just recently acquired a Garmin 430/WAAS for my Mooney 201. In practicing approaches to familiarize myself with the unit, I went up with an instructor to get some advice/tips. I had flown a GPS overlay approach (NDB/GPS Runway 5 KLWM, Lawrence MA) previously in VFR conditions and tracked the vertical guidance provided by the GPS and loved it ... very stable approach and no need to dive/level/dive etc. Then I went up with the instructor and did what I thought was a great approach (also NDP/GPS 5 KLWM) and he was upset I didn't fly it more like the "original" non-precision approach by identifying fixes with cross radials and doing the stepdowns. So that is the question. Which technique should be used and why? If I give up the "track the GPS glideslope" approach I feel I'm giving up the advantage of a very stable/controlled approach configuration and not sure what I'm gaining in return. Use the stabilized approach because, as you have discovered, it is easier to fly! Aren't ILS's easier to fly than dive & drive non-precision approaches? Just don't forget to level off at the MDA. "You" cannot treat MDA as a DA without special authorization. Comments from the experts?? Final questions: With the WAAS GPS on this approach, can I descend to the lower minimum based on identifying the final stepdown fix if I am just flying the GPS's vertical guidance? The requirement to identify KRIED is not dependent on how you are flying the approach. However, if KRIED is in your DB, you can use the GPS to identify it. Where are the answers to these questions provided? Which question? The issue of stabilized versus D&D approaches is discussed in airline safety material. Rules for flying approaches are in the FAR's and AIM. Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA) |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Step Down or Track Glide slope on GPS overlay approach
On 14 Apr 2007 08:16:05 -0700, "paul kgyy" wrote:
Sometimes step-downs are to clear obstacles. I haven't tried the 430W yet, but how does the "stabilized approach" deal with this? Is there a variable glideslope? The GP angle can vary by approach. Not all LNAV approaches will have advisory vertical guidance. Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA) |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Step Down or Track Glide slope on GPS overlay approach
On 14 Apr 2007 06:04:57 -0700, "Mooney" wrote:
I agree that this is easier to just fly the GPS glideslope and my temptation is to just do it that way, but I'm trying to figure out why my instructor is adamant that I use the stepdown process. You'll have to ask him. It may be due to lack of familiarity with the stabilized approach concept, and its advantages. Can you be confident if you fly the glideslope that you will not violate the minimum altitudes at each stepdown fix? Yes. However, in the words of a former politician, "Trust, but Verify". If you are below these BUT ON THE GS are you legal or does the GS have no legal status? The GP does not supercede published minimums. More importantly is there any safety issue of just flying the GS? I've not seen an approach with advisory vertical guidance that violates a stepdown fix. The GP in these instances is, on Jepp charts, represented by a light dashed line, and a GP angle notation. So, if you are using Jepp charts, you can verify this. The only "issue", and it is not unusual in the NE (ME and NH, at least) is that the marginal WAAS coverage occasionally leads to loss of the WAAS-GP signal. So then you'll be flying without the GP signal. Not a big deal if you're ready for it. And, if you are properly set up, you can still continue down to MDA at the same rate, or perhaps slightly faster. Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA) |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Step Down or Track Glide slope on GPS overlay approach
I think what we are saying is that even though Jeppesen says the VNAV
GS ensures being above the step-down fixes and GARMIN wrote approved software to make sure the GS needle properly indicates the Jeppesen- provided vertical guidance, the pilot needs to explicitly note whether the step-down fixes have been passed and not follow the GS unless it is consistent with these restrictions. So, it is ok to fly the glideslope, but you must perform these checks as the approach progresses. Seems like a good double check yet lets me keep the stablized approach. The other issues of MDA vs DA and the possible advantage of entering VFR earlier if you dive & drive are noted. Thanks to everyone who responded. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Step Down or Track Glide slope on GPS overlay approach
Mooney wrote:
I think what we are saying is that even though Jeppesen says the VNAV GS ensures being above the step-down fixes and GARMIN wrote approved software to make sure the GS needle properly indicates the Jeppesen- provided vertical guidance, the pilot needs to explicitly note whether the step-down fixes have been passed and not follow the GS unless it is consistent with these restrictions. So, it is ok to fly the glideslope, but you must perform these checks as the approach progresses. Seems like a good double check yet lets me keep the stablized approach. The other issues of MDA vs DA and the possible advantage of entering VFR earlier if you dive & drive are noted. Thanks to everyone who responded. Google for "constant angle non-precision approach" for lots of discussion about the pros and cons. Dave |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Step Down or Track Glide slope on GPS overlay approach
Stable controlled descent approaches are both easier and safer than
stepdown approaches, which was what the airlines found. There is no reason to expect different from light airplanes. I would find an instructor more amenable to new technologies. Mooney wrote: I have just recently acquired a Garmin 430/WAAS for my Mooney 201. In practicing approaches to familiarize myself with the unit, I went up with an instructor to get some advice/tips. I had flown a GPS overlay approach (NDB/GPS Runway 5 KLWM, Lawrence MA) previously in VFR conditions and tracked the vertical guidance provided by the GPS and loved it ... very stable approach and no need to dive/level/dive etc. Then I went up with the instructor and did what I thought was a great approach (also NDP/GPS 5 KLWM) and he was upset I didn't fly it more like the "original" non-precision approach by identifying fixes with cross radials and doing the stepdowns. So that is the question. Which technique should be used and why? If I give up the "track the GPS glideslope" approach I feel I'm giving up the advantage of a very stable/controlled approach configuration and not sure what I'm gaining in return. Comments from the experts?? Final questions: With the WAAS GPS on this approach, can I descend to the lower minimum based on identifying the final stepdown fix if I am just flying the GPS's vertical guidance? Where are the answers to these questions provided? |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Step Down or Track Glide slope on GPS overlay approach
On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 07:25:50 -0400, Ron Rosenfeld
wrote: I've not seen an approach with advisory vertical guidance that violates a stepdown fix. The GP in these instances is, on Jepp charts, represented by a light dashed line, and a GP angle notation. So, if you are using Jepp charts, you can verify this. Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA) Ron, are you able to provide us with some examples? Stan |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Step Down or Track Glide slope on GPS overlay approach
|
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Dual glide slope, $95...priceless! | Jack Allison | Owning | 20 | October 22nd 06 03:45 AM |
Can a failed Glide Slope also void the Localizer approach? | Jim Carter | Instrument Flight Rules | 17 | August 24th 06 09:01 PM |
Glide Slope Antenna Ground Plane | JKimmel | Home Built | 6 | August 1st 06 01:28 AM |
En route glide slope? | Andrew Gideon | Piloting | 17 | November 21st 04 05:49 PM |
Effect of airbrake blade height on glide slope | Mike | Soaring | 1 | January 30th 04 08:24 PM |