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

Terminology of New WAAS, VNAV, LPV approach types



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 2nd 03, 06:01 AM
Tarver Engineering
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Terminology of New WAAS, VNAV, LPV approach types


"Richard Kaplan" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
There was an intresting talk at Oshkosh about the WAAS system by one of

the
members of the UPSAT engineering team.

As an aside, he defensively mentioned that the CNX-80 would be certified

for
precision approaches in "fourth quarter 2003." The sales rep on the floor
were more confident that certification would occur in October 2003. Who
knows what exactly to believe.

Perhaps more interestingly, he showed approach plates for

under-development
WAAS LPV approaches to Gaithersburg, MD and Red Wing, MN with minimums of
250 - 3/4. Those approch plates had separate minimums listed for LPV,
VNAV/LNAV, LNAV, and circling approaches. He indicated that currently the
CNX-80 can only fly an approach down to LNAV minimums but ultimately it

will
meet LPV minimums. However, when flying the LPV approach if the WAAS

system
should be flagged as inoperative then the pilot could instead fly to
VNAV/LNAV minimums.

He indicated that current-generation non-WAAS receivers are not approved

to
fly the precision VNAV/LNAV approaches yet the WAAS-approved CNX-80 will

be
approved to fly VNAV/LNAV approaches with WAAS inoperative.

The AIM is somewhat ambiguous on this topic, implying that VNAV/LNAV is
separate from the WAAS system but requires accuracy equivalent to

barometric
altimetry.

I am not sure what to make of this, and I suspect there will be an

important
learning curve when these approaches and these GPS receivers become more
common.

Any further thoughts?


This way you get something for all those WAAS development dollars.


  #2  
Old August 3rd 03, 11:42 PM
Aloft
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Always go with what the engineer says over the salesperson. Sales people are
generally clueless.


"Richard Kaplan" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
There was an intresting talk at Oshkosh about the WAAS system by one of

the
members of the UPSAT engineering team.

As an aside, he defensively mentioned that the CNX-80 would be certified

for
precision approaches in "fourth quarter 2003." The sales rep on the floor
were more confident that certification would occur in October 2003. Who
knows what exactly to believe.



  #3  
Old August 5th 03, 03:50 AM
Tarver Engineering
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Richard Kaplan" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
This is a follow-up to my earlier posting.

I received a follow-up email and then spoke by phone today with an FAA
employee who has been working on GPS issues for a number of years. He
clarified this to indicate that a complete WAAS failure (horizontal plus
vertical data failure) would require the pilot to switch from LPV minimums
to LNAV minimums. There is also a very rare partial failure mode of WAAS
(apparently theoretical only but nonetheless programmed into WAAS LPV

boxes)
where one might lose LPV accuracy but retain enough accuacy for LNAV/VNAV
approaches.


That is because the minimums are more dependant on the pressure altitude and
the user's baro-correction input, than on WAAS itself.

Interestingly, the LPV and LNAV/VNAV approaches will be programmed into

the
database as separate approaches, although the waypoints will be identical.
If the approach is flown as an LPV approach, then the box will stop the
approach upon receiving a WAAS failure. However, if the same approach is
flown as a VNAV/LNAV approach, then the box will continue the approach

after
a WAAS failure since the approach can still be flown to LNAV minimums.

So the question (or I should say temptation) will arise on these

approaches
whether to program the box to fly an LPV approach and thus have no

means
to revert to the LNAV-only approach, or alternatively to fly the LNAV/VNAV
approach using LPV minimums, which would not be legal but could offer the
additional backup of continuing at LNAV minimums after a WAAS failure.

It sounds like there will be a notable learning curve to all of these
approaches.


And 30 years to create them.


 




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

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The perfect approach Capt.Doug Home Built 25 December 3rd 04 03:37 AM
IR checkride story! Guy Elden Jr. Instrument Flight Rules 16 August 1st 03 09:03 PM
Big News -- WAAS GPS is Operational for IFR Lockheed employee Instrument Flight Rules 87 July 30th 03 02:08 AM
CAT II Minimums on a CAT I Approach Giwi Instrument Flight Rules 11 July 24th 03 07:46 AM
Garmin Behind the Curve on WAAS GPS VNAV Approaches Richard Kaplan Instrument Flight Rules 24 July 18th 03 01:43 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:44 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2023 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.