A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Instrument Flight Rules
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

GNS 430W vs GNS 480



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old January 4th 07, 02:03 PM posted to rec.aviation.ifr
Sam Spade
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,326
Default GNS 430W vs GNS 480

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:


Perhaps what you are asking is whether the MDA on an LNAV approach with
advisory vertical guidance can be treated as a DA. When last I checked
(with the local FSDO) this was in a state of flux. However, the written
guidance from Garmin indicates that LNAV approaches should be flown using
the MDA concept, even if there is advisory vertical guidance.


I was actually asking all of the above. ;-) My take on it would be the
case of advisory vertical guidance on an LNAV-only approach with the
"approved operator" note cannot be used as a DA unless you have a letter
of authorization.
  #62  
Old January 4th 07, 03:26 PM posted to rec.aviation.ifr
Ron Rosenfeld
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 264
Default GNS 430W vs GNS 480

On Thu, 04 Jan 2007 05:03:10 -0800, Sam Spade wrote:

I was actually asking all of the above. ;-) My take on it would be the
case of advisory vertical guidance on an LNAV-only approach with the
"approved operator" note cannot be used as a DA unless you have a letter
of authorization.


When I spoke with the local FSDO, which was shortly after the advisory
vertical guidance became available, that was their take also. But they
were not sure what the eventual status would be for Part 91 small a/c
operators.
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)
  #63  
Old January 4th 07, 04:22 PM posted to rec.aviation.ifr
Sam Spade
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,326
Default GNS 430W vs GNS 480

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
On Thu, 04 Jan 2007 05:03:10 -0800, Sam Spade wrote:


I was actually asking all of the above. ;-) My take on it would be the
case of advisory vertical guidance on an LNAV-only approach with the
"approved operator" note cannot be used as a DA unless you have a letter
of authorization.



When I spoke with the local FSDO, which was shortly after the advisory
vertical guidance became available, that was their take also. But they
were not sure what the eventual status would be for Part 91 small a/c
operators.
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)


As a practical matter it is much to do about very little ;-)

When you arrive at MDA using the "advisory" vertical guidance (which,
according to my contact at Garmin is more than advisory, in the sense it
is primary vertical guidance and assures stepdown fixes) you are at the
same place as the approved operator with DA would be. So, if you see
the right stuff you land, if not you can either level off at MDA and go
to the MAP or just missed immediately.

If the feds eventually say you will use the DA concept then you would
have to miss immediately if you did not have the required visual references.
  #64  
Old January 4th 07, 04:43 PM posted to rec.aviation.ifr
Sam Spade
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,326
Default GNS 430W vs GNS 480

Ron Natalie wrote:
Robert M. Gary wrote:


The 480 is more capable (has holds, etc), but the 430 is *MUCH* easier
to use.



I disagree. If you are unsullied by having used the 430, it's much
easier to run the 480. The user interface is FAR superior on the
480. The only thing that the 430 has going for it is it carries
forth the legacy of the entire Garmin previous handheld/panel mount
behavior.


The other thing the 400/500 carries is the foundation for understanding
the nav aspects of a G-1000, irrespective of aircraft the G-1000 is
installed in.
  #65  
Old January 4th 07, 06:14 PM posted to rec.aviation.ifr
Robert M. Gary
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,767
Default GNS 430W vs GNS 480


Sam Spade wrote:
Robert M. Gary wrote:



That's a motivation to upgrade the G1000 to WAAS. However, I just read
somewhere that the rumor is that the WAAS G1000 systems will not drive
VNAV to the KAP140. So you won't be able to fly fully coupled VNAV
approachs with the KAP140 (even though you can fly a fully coupled ILS
with it).


If an LNAV approach has VNAV minimums will you be able to use DA or will
you have to use the MDA concept?


I don't believe a coupled autopilot is a requirement for the VNAV so I
assume I would be able to fly to DA once the G1000 has WAAS.
-Robert

  #66  
Old January 4th 07, 06:47 PM posted to rec.aviation.ifr
Ron Rosenfeld
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 264
Default GNS 430W vs GNS 480

On Thu, 04 Jan 2007 07:22:51 -0800, Sam Spade wrote:

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
On Thu, 04 Jan 2007 05:03:10 -0800, Sam Spade wrote:


I was actually asking all of the above. ;-) My take on it would be the
case of advisory vertical guidance on an LNAV-only approach with the
"approved operator" note cannot be used as a DA unless you have a letter
of authorization.



When I spoke with the local FSDO, which was shortly after the advisory
vertical guidance became available, that was their take also. But they
were not sure what the eventual status would be for Part 91 small a/c
operators.
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)


As a practical matter it is much to do about very little ;-)

When you arrive at MDA using the "advisory" vertical guidance (which,
according to my contact at Garmin is more than advisory, in the sense it
is primary vertical guidance and assures stepdown fixes) you are at the
same place as the approved operator with DA would be. So, if you see
the right stuff you land, if not you can either level off at MDA and go
to the MAP or just missed immediately.

If the feds eventually say you will use the DA concept then you would
have to miss immediately if you did not have the required visual references.


Which would be a shame since, in many instances, the intersection of the
generated glide path with the MDA may be further from the AER than the
minimum visibility. e.g. at EPM it is 1.3 mi from the MAP but the
visibility minimum is 1.0 miles.
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)
  #67  
Old January 4th 07, 07:45 PM posted to rec.aviation.ifr
Sam Spade
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,326
Default GNS 430W vs GNS 480

Robert M. Gary wrote:
Sam Spade wrote:

Robert M. Gary wrote:



That's a motivation to upgrade the G1000 to WAAS. However, I just read
somewhere that the rumor is that the WAAS G1000 systems will not drive
VNAV to the KAP140. So you won't be able to fly fully coupled VNAV
approachs with the KAP140 (even though you can fly a fully coupled ILS
with it).


If an LNAV approach has VNAV minimums will you be able to use DA or will
you have to use the MDA concept?



I don't believe a coupled autopilot is a requirement for the VNAV so I
assume I would be able to fly to DA once the G1000 has WAAS.
-Robert

I would agree for L/VNAV but not for LNAV+V
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:06 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.