Garmin Behind the Curve on WAAS GPS VNAV Approaches

The CNX80 does not have either transponder or DME. It has the ability to
control a remote transponder (set the code). It also has the ability to
"tune" a separate DME like any other NAV radio (including the 430/530 of
course).

Mike
MU-2


"Leland Vandervort" wrote
in message ...

My own 5 euro cents:

Garmin missed the boat on one "minor" point with both the GNS430 and
the GNS530... for something that is purportedly a "fully integrated
comm and navigation system" where is the DME? (Required for Airways
certification). GPS derrived distances are not DME, and in Europe are
not acceptable as a substitute. As a result, a VERY nice panel with a
couple of GNS530 is still not airways approved unless there is a DME
(doesn't necessarily have to be slaved), and hence another 1 radio
unit (height) taken up on the panel. If I'm not mistaken, the UPS kit
has both DME and transponder integrated... I personally prefer the
garmin kit though. Could the engineers at Garmin catch up with
everyone else please? /tongue in cheek

Leland
'71 PA28R-200




On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 07:48:57 -0400, John Mireley
wrote:

Richard Kaplan wrote:
Garmin's website now says they are "committed" to providing WAAS GPS
approach capability for the 400/500 series by the "end of 2004."

UPSAT's site states that their CNX-80 is WAAS approved now but I cannot
find
an explicit statement that it supports WAAS approaches at this point.

Does anyone know for sure if the CNX-80 supports WAAS GPS approaches
*now*?

In any event, can Garmin really be that far behind the curve as to plan
WAAS
only fo rthe "end of 2004"? This seems very much atypical for Garmin
and
almost an embarrassment for them.



Garmin lobbied the FAA on the final specs for WAAS so their current
processors could meet the spec. They lost. They now have to replace
the processors in order to meet the spec. I think the issue was that
they could get 3 updates per second and the spec was for 5. This is
from my memory of an FAA session at the Great Lakes Aviation Conference
back in January.

The Cirrus SR22 is the "BIZ" though! I would if someone gave me the
money

Leland
'71 PA28R-200



On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 19:02:15 +0100, Peter
wrote:


Leland Vandervort
wrote

Garmin missed the boat on one "minor" point with both the GNS430 and
the GNS530... for something that is purportedly a "fully integrated
comm and navigation system" where is the DME? (Required for Airways
certification). GPS derrived distances are not DME, and in Europe are
not acceptable as a substitute. As a result, a VERY nice panel with a
couple of GNS530 is still not airways approved unless there is a DME
(doesn't necessarily have to be slaved), and hence another 1 radio
unit (height) taken up on the panel. If I'm not mistaken, the UPS kit
has both DME and transponder integrated... I personally prefer the
garmin kit though. Could the engineers at Garmin catch up with
everyone else please? /tongue in cheek

Perhaps, like Cirrus, they aim for the US market (90% of world GA) and
see what might develop elsewhere. Outside the USA, everybody who wants
to fly anywhere seriously needs to fit an ADF and a DME, and once you
aren't a virgin anymore it doesn't really matter what you do....


Peter.

wrote in message ...
Lockheed employee wrote:

I have a Jeppesen briefing bulletin (DEN 00-A) that states:

LNAV/VNAV must have WAAS equipment approved for precision approach, or
RNP-0.3 system based on GPS or DME/DME, with an IFR approach approved
Baro-VNAV system. It appears that either is suitable for going to
VNAV minimums


There are a whole new set of criteria for WAAS approaches, which are called "LPV"
instead of "VNAV." Jeppesen *may* be correct, in that WAAS-certified equipment that
can use the LPV IAPs when they appear can also use existing VNAV minimums. But, I'd
feel a lot better hearing that directly from FAA's Flight Standards instead of
Jeppesen. ~

Agreed, since the exact numbers have been somewhat of a moving target
(not to mention the acronyms . Latest I've heard is that LPV
decision heights might be in the 350' - 400' range.

An interesting thing to note is how the integrity requirements change
with the procedure. LPV drops the Horizontal down, but uses the same
Vertical Alert Limit as LNAV/VNAV. This might explain some of the
rationale for considering using existing VNAV mins.

| HAL | VAL |
=======================
LNAV | 555.6 | X |

LNAV/ | 555.6 | 50.0 |
VNAV

LPV | 40.0 | 50.0 |

Notes: All numbers are expressed in Meters.
Table best viewed in Monospaced font.


There's a good general info page at:
http://www2.faa.gov/ntap/NTAP03JUL10/GEN03003.HTM - "Wide Area
Augmentation System (WAAS) Commissioning Information, WAAS and GPS
NOTAM Changes, and Removal of inverted A NA from select RNAV (GPS)
and
GPS Approach Charts"


Regards,
Jon

wrote in message ...

I wouldn't be so certain of that. Today's VNAV minimums are predicated on
IFR-certified Baro VNAV equipment, not WAAS. WAAS approaches have yet to
appear
from the FAA

From TERPS section 6:

NOTE: The published minima lines will identify required RNAV sensors; e.g.,
LPV, LNAV/VNAV (includes degraded WAAS and Baro VNAV), or LNAV (includes GPS
and WAAS without glidepath). A single RNAV
approach will be published depicting LPV and/or LNAV/VNAV, and/or LNAV
minimums where they share the same courses and altitudes.

I read this to say that if a CNX-80 is approved for WAAS approaches then it
could fly a current published RNAV (GPS) approach to VNAV minimums.

Again, however, I am unclear from UPSAT's data on its website and manuals
what the actual approved status is for the CNX-80.

--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

head. UPS was on the phone before the smoke break ended. WAAS alone
could
not add any new services to existing GPS.

So are you saying that the CNX-80 is approved or will be approved to fly
approaches which the Garmin 530 never will be able to fly?

And are you saying in fact that the Garmin 530 will never be approved to fly
VNAV, LPV, PV, or other approaches with lower minimums than current GPS
approaches?

--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

"Scott Moore" wrote in message
...

I was talking about driving the glideslope needle. Pretty much by
definition,
WAAS is going to have to drive the needle to be a precision device. On my
430,
the glideslope needle is driven (obviously) by the box, and when Garmin
talks

OK, you can do it today (legally actually) by using any IFR
approach-approved GPS of your choice plus a handheld Garmin 295 or Garmin
196. Both of these handheld Garmin units are WAAS-enabled and have an
electronic HSI page with a synthetic glideslope needle linked to a VNAV
function. You can legally use an IFR approach GPS and then you can
supplement this with the VNAV data from the handheld GPS ** as long as you
do no go below any published altitudes on the approach **.

--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

Leland Vandervort wrote:

My own 5 euro cents:

Garmin missed the boat on one "minor" point with both the GNS430 and
the GNS530... for something that is purportedly a "fully integrated
comm and navigation system" where is the DME? (Required for Airways
certification). GPS derrived distances are not DME, and in Europe are
not acceptable as a substitute. As a result, a VERY nice panel with a
couple of GNS530 is still not airways approved unless there is a DME
(doesn't necessarily have to be slaved), and hence another 1 radio
unit (height) taken up on the panel. If I'm not mistaken, the UPS kit
has both DME and transponder integrated... I personally prefer the
garmin kit though. Could the engineers at Garmin catch up with
everyone else please? /tongue in cheek

Leland
'71 PA28R-200

Who cares what Europe does. DME is entirely redundant to GPS.

--
For most men, true happiness can only be achieved with a woman.
Also for most men, true happiness can only be achieved without a woman.
Sharp minds have noted that these two rules tend to conflict.....

"Richard Kaplan" wrote in message
...


"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

head. UPS was on the phone before the smoke break ended. WAAS alone
could
not add any new services to existing GPS.

So are you saying that the CNX-80 is approved or will be approved to fly
approaches which the Garmin 530 never will be able to fly?

Garmin has already announced plans to upgrade the 530. Garmin has also
announced plans to make the 530 a fully TAWS compliant display, as well. I
know some repair stations that are just barely getting by on TAWS
installations and they hope Garmin takes a long time to make the release.

And are you saying in fact that the Garmin 530 will never be approved to
fly
VNAV, LPV, PV, or other approaches with lower minimums than current GPS
approaches?

No. I am writing that Garmin is now going to have to play catch up.

John P. tarver, MS/PE

Richard Kaplan wrote:

"Scott Moore" wrote in message
...

I was talking about driving the glideslope needle. Pretty much by
definition,
WAAS is going to have to drive the needle to be a precision device. On my
430,
the glideslope needle is driven (obviously) by the box, and when Garmin
talks

OK, you can do it today (legally actually) by using any IFR
approach-approved GPS of your choice plus a handheld Garmin 295 or Garmin
196. Both of these handheld Garmin units are WAAS-enabled and have an
electronic HSI page with a synthetic glideslope needle linked to a VNAV
function. You can legally use an IFR approach GPS and then you can
supplement this with the VNAV data from the handheld GPS ** as long as you
do no go below any published altitudes on the approach **.

Check the RNAV Runway 24 at KCRQ, then pass that one by us again.

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message ...
"Jon Parmet" wrote in message
om...
wrote in message ...
Lockheed employee wrote:

I have a Jeppesen briefing bulletin (DEN 00-A) that states:

LNAV/VNAV must have WAAS equipment approved for precision approach, or
RNP-0.3 system based on GPS or DME/DME, with an IFR approach approved
Baro-VNAV system. It appears that either is suitable for going to
VNAV minimums


There are a whole new set of criteria for WAAS approaches, which are
called "LPV"
instead of "VNAV." Jeppesen *may* be correct, in that WAAS-certified
equipment that
can use the LPV IAPs when they appear can also use existing VNAV
minimums. But, I'd
feel a lot better hearing that directly from FAA's Flight Standards
instead of
Jeppesen. ~

Agreed,

My goodness.

Neither of which (goodness or you agreeing with someone) are things
associated with you.

oops... forgot....