WAAS for GNS 430/530?

"Doug" wrote in message
oups.com...
A pilot can use either technique. Depending on the pilot, the aircraft,
and the approach, there are positives and negatives to using dive and
drive vs. stabilized constant descent technique.

One thing you frequently hear is that you could IMMEDIATELY descend
(helicopter) to the next altitude once you pass the waypoint. NOT true.
There is a maximum decent allowed. I don't know what it is, and it is
quite steep, but it's not vertical.

NOT TRUE is right...you're the one has it wrong.

I learned in my training to do constant descents.

Yeah, that's why some people never learn to fly, and handle a 172 or even a
152 like a G-IV or a 737.


Figure a VSI that
will work and use it all the way down. I don't like having to make
adjustments to my airplane on the way down. Pick one vertcal rate and
stick to it all the way in. The disadvantage is, I might have more
tailwind and when I break out the airport might be behind me. I guess
I'd rather take that risk vs the risks inherent in the dive and drive
method. Also, this way, my approaches are all basically the same, ILS
or non-precision. Configure the airplane for the desent rate and keep
that all the way in until I break out.

Think about breaking out at the MAP...you've got 0.2 seconds to make your
decision.


If you figure it out right, with
GPS, using groundspeed, you always know where you are.

Doug wrote:

A pilot can use either technique. Depending on the pilot, the aircraft,
and the approach, there are positives and negatives to using dive and
drive vs. stabilized constant descent technique.

The accidents stats don't support any positives for dive-and-drive.



One thing you frequently hear is that you could IMMEDIATELY descend
(helicopter) to the next altitude once you pass the waypoint. NOT true.
There is a maximum decent allowed. I don't know what it is, and it is
quite steep, but it's not vertical.

What is the number? Why express any uncertainty? With one exception you
have full obstacle clearance at the earlist point at which a fix can be
received (i.e., considering adverse fix error).

The exception is in the non-precision final approach segment where a 7:1
gradient may, or may not, be applied to the FAF and/or some stepdown fix in
the final approach segment. A pilot has no way of determing from the
approach chart whether this design option has been applied (TERPs,
Paragraph 289).

Joe wrote:

The altitude depicted for a published route segment of an approach is
safe to fly along any portion of that route segment. Rate of descent
is not an issue. Check the TERPS guidance.

In particular check Paragraph 289 of the TERPs "guidance."

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.

Matt Barrow wrote:

Think about breaking out at the MAP...you've got 0.2 seconds to make your
decision.

Perhaps I'm misinterpreting what you've written, but how is this different
than a 'real' precision approach?

- Andrew

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 :~)

wrote in message ...


Doug wrote:

A pilot can use either technique. Depending on the pilot, the aircraft,
and the approach, there are positives and negatives to using dive and
drive vs. stabilized constant descent technique.

The accidents stats don't support any positives for dive-and-drive.

Cite?

Matt Barrow wrote:

wrote in message ...


Doug wrote:

A pilot can use either technique. Depending on the pilot, the aircraft,
and the approach, there are positives and negatives to using dive and
drive vs. stabilized constant descent technique.

The accidents stats don't support any positives for dive-and-drive.

Cite?

How can I cite the negative? There are many, many NPA crashes over the years.

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.

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
online.com...
Matt Barrow wrote:

Think about breaking out at the MAP...you've got 0.2 seconds to make
your
decision.

Perhaps I'm misinterpreting what you've written, but how is this different
than a 'real' precision approach?


When you reach the MAP after D&D, you're stable in three axes. How would you
rather be when looking for the runway?