According to Garmin's product literature, the GNS 430 and 530 are
"WAAS-upgradeable", yet there is no information as to when this
upgrade might be available. Does anyone have any other information
on this?

-- Dane

Significantly delayed due to a software issue. See current AOPA or Flying
magazine

"Dane Spearing" > wrote in message
...
> According to Garmin's product literature, the GNS 430 and 530 are
> "WAAS-upgradeable", yet there is no information as to when this
> upgrade might be available. Does anyone have any other information
> on this?
>
> -- Dane

I agree with you on the need to replace software, hardware and processor(s).
However, I think it will happen eventually. Being in the system engineering
field, this looks like a typical requirements screw-up. I'm not surprised
since only the most mature development shops do it well. I won't put the
blame on Garmin entirely (definitely part of the blame is on them) until I
have more info as to what facts about WAAS thay had available to them during
the 430/530 design phase. But I think they will have to put out the WAAS
upgrade lest they want a class-action lawsuit on their hands.

It sucks but realistically, how many airports have LPV approaches without an
ILS somewhere? Then compare that list to what you will realistically fly;
then pare it down to to chances of requiring the 250ft DH to break out of
the ceiling. I'd think anyone would come up with a very short list of pilots
this would impact.

That being said, it STILL bums me out!

Marco Leon


"Tom Fleischman" > wrote in
message
news:2005060714500516807%bodhijunkoneeightyeightju nkatmacdotcom@junkjunk...
> On 2005-06-06 18:13:06 -0400, (Dane Spearing)
said:
>
> > According to Garmin's product literature, the GNS 430 and 530 are
> > "WAAS-upgradeable", yet there is no information as to when this
> > upgrade might be available. Does anyone have any other information
> > on this?
>
> It will never happen. Those are obsolete boxes already. Garmin will put
> all it's eggs into the not-yet-WAAS-ready G1000 and the
> already-WAAS-capable GNS-480.
>
> To upgrade the 430/530 involves building a completely new box; a major
> software, hardware, and processor upgrade. It ain't gonna happen as
> long as they've got their hands full getting the G1000 up to speed.
>
>
>
>

Marco Leon <mmleon(at)yahoo.com> wrote:
> It sucks but realistically, how many airports have LPV approaches without an
> ILS somewhere? Then compare that list to what you will realistically fly;
> then pare it down to to chances of requiring the 250ft DH to break out of
> the ceiling. I'd think anyone would come up with a very short list of pilots
> this would impact.

One of the cool things about WAAS is the ability to fly a synthetic
glideslope on a non-precision approach. I'd much rather follow a
needle smoothly down to MDA than dive-and-drive through a couple of
stepdowns, even if the MDA is still the same 500 AGL or whatever.

But does this feature work as enhancements to existing SDF/LOC approaches?

I don't think so. We'll have to wait years, if ever, for these LPV
approaches to come to our area.

My $0.02, {|;-)

Victor J. (Jim) Osborne, Jr.

VOsborne2 at charter dot net
"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
> Marco Leon <mmleon(at)yahoo.com> wrote:
>> It sucks but realistically, how many airports have LPV approaches without
>> an
>> ILS somewhere? Then compare that list to what you will realistically fly;
>> then pare it down to to chances of requiring the 250ft DH to break out of
>> the ceiling. I'd think anyone would come up with a very short list of
>> pilots
>> this would impact.
>
> One of the cool things about WAAS is the ability to fly a synthetic
> glideslope on a non-precision approach. I'd much rather follow a
> needle smoothly down to MDA than dive-and-drive through a couple of
> stepdowns, even if the MDA is still the same 500 AGL or whatever.

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
> One of the cool things about WAAS is the ability to fly a synthetic
> glideslope on a non-precision approach. I'd much rather follow a
> needle smoothly down to MDA than dive-and-drive through a couple of
> stepdowns, even if the MDA is still the same 500 AGL or whatever.

Problem with a smooth descent is that when you arrive at the sectors MDA,
you have immediately start down again rather than taking a few moments to
sift things out. Stable approaches were build for the heavy metal/turbine
crowd.

http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182091-1.html
Pelican's Perch #24:
Sloppy, Sorry VNAV

Flying a non-precision approach has traditionally been a "Dive and Drive"
affair in which the pilot descends rapidly to the MDA or step-down altitude
and then levels off. Recently, however, pilots of aircraft equipped with
glass cockpit FMS systems or VNAV-capable GPS receivers have been encouraged
to fly such approaches using a constant descent path. There's even a
buzzword for this: CANPA (constant-angle non-precision approach), and these
calculated pseudo-glideslopes are now starting to show up on Jeppesen
approach plates. AVweb's John Deakin thinks this is a bad idea, one that
will result in a lot more missed approaches and perhaps even some accidents.
Deakin explains why, and makes a compelling case for flying non-precision
approaches the traditional, old-fashioned way that God and Cap'n Jepp
intended.

----------------------------------------------

Stable approaches for the heavy metal???? Stable approaches work for all
aircraft on non-precision approaches. Maybe someone explained them to you
poorly or incorrectly. Stable means a constant descent rate that puts you
at MDA shortly before the MAP. Dive and drive is frowned on by the FAA
because of the multiple accidents nor near mishaps or altitude busts that
occur.


"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Roy Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
>> One of the cool things about WAAS is the ability to fly a synthetic
>> glideslope on a non-precision approach. I'd much rather follow a
>> needle smoothly down to MDA than dive-and-drive through a couple of
>> stepdowns, even if the MDA is still the same 500 AGL or whatever.
>
> Problem with a smooth descent is that when you arrive at the sectors MDA,
> you have immediately start down again rather than taking a few moments to
> sift things out. Stable approaches were build for the heavy metal/turbine
> crowd.
>
> http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182091-1.html
> Pelican's Perch #24:
> Sloppy, Sorry VNAV
>
> Flying a non-precision approach has traditionally been a "Dive and Drive"
> affair in which the pilot descends rapidly to the MDA or step-down
> altitude
> and then levels off. Recently, however, pilots of aircraft equipped with
> glass cockpit FMS systems or VNAV-capable GPS receivers have been
> encouraged
> to fly such approaches using a constant descent path. There's even a
> buzzword for this: CANPA (constant-angle non-precision approach), and
> these
> calculated pseudo-glideslopes are now starting to show up on Jeppesen
> approach plates. AVweb's John Deakin thinks this is a bad idea, one that
> will result in a lot more missed approaches and perhaps even some
> accidents.
> Deakin explains why, and makes a compelling case for flying non-precision
> approaches the traditional, old-fashioned way that God and Cap'n Jepp
> intended.
>
> ----------------------------------------------
>
>

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.

I learned in my training to do constant descents. 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. If you figure it out right, with
GPS, using groundspeed, you always know where you are.

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.


On 7 Jun 2005 19:46:44 -0700, "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.
>
>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.
>
>I learned in my training to do constant descents. 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. If you figure it out right, with
>GPS, using groundspeed, you always know where you are.

"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.

> Maybe someone explained them to you
> poorly or incorrectly. Stable means a constant descent rate that puts you
> at MDA shortly before the MAP.

I know what they mean.

> Dive and drive is frowned on by the FAA
> because of the multiple accidents nor near mishaps or altitude busts that
> occur.

Do you have a cite for that?

INHMB


> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Roy Smith" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> One of the cool things about WAAS is the ability to fly a synthetic
> >> glideslope on a non-precision approach. I'd much rather follow a
> >> needle smoothly down to MDA than dive-and-drive through a couple of
> >> stepdowns, even if the MDA is still the same 500 AGL or whatever.
> >
> > Problem with a smooth descent is that when you arrive at the sectors
MDA,
> > you have immediately start down again rather than taking a few moments
to
> > sift things out. Stable approaches were build for the heavy
metal/turbine
> > crowd.
> >
> > http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182091-1.html
> > Pelican's Perch #24:
> > Sloppy, Sorry VNAV
> >
> > Flying a non-precision approach has traditionally been a "Dive and
Drive"
> > affair in which the pilot descends rapidly to the MDA or step-down
> > altitude
> > and then levels off. Recently, however, pilots of aircraft equipped with
> > glass cockpit FMS systems or VNAV-capable GPS receivers have been
> > encouraged
> > to fly such approaches using a constant descent path. There's even a
> > buzzword for this: CANPA (constant-angle non-precision approach), and
> > these
> > calculated pseudo-glideslopes are now starting to show up on Jeppesen
> > approach plates. AVweb's John Deakin thinks this is a bad idea, one that
> > will result in a lot more missed approaches and perhaps even some
> > accidents.
> > Deakin explains why, and makes a compelling case for flying
non-precision
> > approaches the traditional, old-fashioned way that God and Cap'n Jepp
> > intended.
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------
> >
> >
>
>

"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?

> wrote in message ...
>
>
> 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?

The same way you assert it.

> There are many, many NPA crashes over the years.

And how many were attributable to D&D, rather than stabilized descent?

> wrote in message ...
>
>
> 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.
>
Well goodie for you. So try another non-sequitur.

In article >,
Matt Barrow > wrote:
>
>"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?

When you reach the MAP after following a glide slope, you should also
be stable in three axes (heading, pitch, and bank should all be
constant). Even better, if you see the runway, you can continue to
hold that attitude down to the surface.

If anything, the slight nose-down pitch attitude should make it easier
to see the runway, compared to having to search for it over the nose
in level flight after a dive-and-drive.

Matt Barrow wrote:

> > wrote in message ...
> >
> >
> > 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?
>
> The same way you assert it.
>
> > There are many, many NPA crashes over the years.
>
> And how many were attributable to D&D, rather than stabilized descent?

The accidents that were reviewed by the group working constant
descent/constant rate and Baro VNAV issues were all dive-and-drive. So far
as I know, there wasn't much, if any, constant rate/descent angle NPA
operational policies until perhaps the mid-1990s.

Your hostility indicates a closed mind, but that is your problem, not mine.

There was a crash of a commuter Metroliner in Austrailia about a month ago
that was almost certainly a misunderstood stepdown fix, which is a different
(but related) hazard to dive and drive. A Baro VNAV path would have almost
certainly have prevented that tragedy.

I don't know the stats, but misuse of stepdown fixes in the NPA final is a
part of the "dive and drive" problem.

AOPA, and others, made sure you would retain your "God-given right" to dive
and drive. So, keep on 'truckin pal.

Matt Barrow wrote:

> > wrote in message ...
> >
> >
> > 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.
> >
> Well goodie for you. So try another non-sequitur.

How can an answer to a question be a non-sequitur?

Roy Smith wrote:

>>When you reach the MAP after D&D, you're stable in three axes. How would
>>you rather be when looking for the runway?
>
> When you reach the MAP after following a glide slope, you should also
> be stable in three axes (heading, pitch, and bank should all be
> constant).Â*Â*EvenÂ*better,Â*ifÂ*youÂ*seeÂ*theÂ*ru nway,Â*youÂ*canÂ*continueÂ*to
> hold that attitude down to the surface.
>
> If anything, the slight nose-down pitch attitude should make it easier
> to see the runway, compared to having to search for it over the nose
> in level flight after a dive-and-drive.

Further, this is still - unless I'm misinterpreting something here - the
same situation as that of a precision approach.

The cited article on AVWeb makes a big deal of the runway not being right on
the nose for a nonprecision approach. However, the runway is often not
right on the nose for a precision approach. It depends upon the wind.

A review of the approach along with an awareness of the heading should be a
pretty good indication of the direction in which one's head should turn.

- Andrew

Marco Leon wrote:
> I agree with you on the need to replace software, hardware and processor(s).
> However, I think it will happen eventually. Being in the system engineering
> field, this looks like a typical requirements screw-up. I'm not surprised
> since only the most mature development shops do it well. I won't put the
> blame on Garmin entirely (definitely part of the blame is on them) until I
> have more info as to what facts about WAAS thay had available to them during
> the 430/530 design phase. But I think they will have to put out the WAAS
> upgrade lest they want a class-action lawsuit on their hands.

Sue them because they woundn't upgrade their product ? Nonsense. They never
garanteed they would support every new feature that comes out. I own a 430,
I would not participate. Its utter nonsense.

Andrew Gideon wrote:
> 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
>

I believe he is saying that dive and drive gets you broken out sooner, since
you are down at the minimum altitude considerably befor the map.

Roy Smith wrote:
> In article >,
> Matt Barrow > wrote:
>
>>"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?
>
>
> When you reach the MAP after following a glide slope, you should also
> be stable in three axes (heading, pitch, and bank should all be
> constant). Even better, if you see the runway, you can continue to
> hold that attitude down to the surface.
>
> If anything, the slight nose-down pitch attitude should make it easier
> to see the runway, compared to having to search for it over the nose
> in level flight after a dive-and-drive.
>
>

A factor I didn't see mentioned:

A coupled autopilot can fly a WAAS approach. It cannot do dive and drive.

Scott Moore 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?

> I believe he is saying that dive and drive gets you broken out sooner,
> since you are down at the minimum altitude considerably befor the map.

Perhaps, but that's still the same as a precision approach. If reaching the
MDA at the same moment that one much decide whether or not to continue the
approach (ie the VDP) is a Bad Thing, why isn't it bad on a precision
approach?

- Andrew

Victor J. Osborne, Jr. wrote:

> But does this feature work as enhancements to existing SDF/LOC approaches?

My reading of the advertising-speak is that it can build a descent profile
for any approach. I've some question about that (ie. what if the straight
line from FAF to VDP passes under a stepdown), but I don't know that I've
interpreted the advertising-speak accurately.

- Andrew

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Matt Barrow > wrote:
> >
> >"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?
>
> When you reach the MAP after following a glide slope, you should also
> be stable in three axes (heading, pitch, and bank should all be
> constant). Even better, if you see the runway, you can continue to
> hold that attitude down to the surface.
>
> If anything, the slight nose-down pitch attitude should make it easier
> to see the runway, compared to having to search for it over the nose
> in level flight after a dive-and-drive.

And at the MAP, your rate of descent must be reduced to zero, so the
stability in three axes doesn't hold.

"Scott Moore" > wrote in message
...
> Andrew Gideon wrote:
> > 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
> >
>
> I believe he is saying that dive and drive gets you broken out sooner,
since
> you are down at the minimum altitude considerably befor the map.
>
You've got it.

Did you read Deakins article? He's a much better writer/spokesman than I.

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
gonline.com...
> Scott Moore 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?
>
> > I believe he is saying that dive and drive gets you broken out sooner,
> > since you are down at the minimum altitude considerably befor the map.
>
> Perhaps, but that's still the same as a precision approach.

No, it's not. A PA breaks you out AT the MAP, D&D breaks your out eealier,
perhaps _much_ earlier.

>If reaching the
> MDA at the same moment that one much decide whether or not to continue the
> approach (ie the VDP) is a Bad Thing, why isn't it bad on a precision
> approach?

It's the dreaded "approach to minimums". In the turbine equipment, it's
piloted by (usually) more experienced pilots. In such equipment it HAS to be
done as a stabilized approach. Why would a prop/piston driver put that onus
on themselves?

"Scott Moore" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> >
> > If anything, the slight nose-down pitch attitude should make it easier
> > to see the runway, compared to having to search for it over the nose
> > in level flight after a dive-and-drive.
> >
> >
>
> A factor I didn't see mentioned:
>
> A coupled autopilot can fly a WAAS approach. It cannot do dive and drive.
>

A coupled approach does let you keep your eyes outside, especially during
the transition phase, but how many are equipped with AP's that can do
coupled approaches?

Remember: CONTEXT.

Matt Barrow wrote:

>
> A coupled approach does let you keep your eyes outside, especially during
> the transition phase, but how many are equipped with AP's that can do
> coupled approaches?
>
> Remember: CONTEXT.
>
>
>

I've got an WAAS-enabled GPS, GPSS, and an autopilot that will fly
coupled approaches.

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>
> >
> > A coupled approach does let you keep your eyes outside, especially
during
> > the transition phase, but how many are equipped with AP's that can do
> > coupled approaches?
> >
> > Remember: CONTEXT.
> >
> >
> >
>
> I've got an WAAS-enabled GPS, GPSS, and an autopilot that will fly
> coupled approaches.

So do I. We're a distinct minority. So what?

Remember: CONTEXT.

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message =
online.com...
> Victor J. Osborne, Jr. wrote:
>=20
>> But does this feature work as enhancements to existing SDF/LOC =
approaches?
>=20
> My reading of the advertising-speak is that it can build a descent =
profile
> for any approach. I've some question about that (ie. what if the =
straight
> line from FAF to VDP passes under a stepdown), but I don't know that =
I've
> interpreted the advertising-speak accurately.
>=20
> - Andrew

I agree the "advertising-speak" seems to say what you interpreted.
But I've yet to encounter a computed glide slope for any SDF/LOC
or VOR approaches in my CNX80.
(If some are there, though, someone will surely tell us so.)

However, it seems like all RNAV (GPS) approaches, as well as a majority
of the plain-vanilla GPS approaches do give me vertical guidance,
to which I can couple my 3-axis autopilot if I so choose.
During practice, I make sure I'm comfortable either coupled or =
uncoupled.

Regarding the "straight line from FAF to VDP passing under a stepdown",
that's handled by a charting a delay before descending until reaching a =
point
from which the stabilized descent *will* meet obstruction-clearance =
criteria.
The CNX80/GNS480 follows that charting.
It does not start the descent from the FAF when it's incorrect to do so.

Matt Barrow wrote:
> "Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
> m...
>
>>Matt Barrow wrote:
>>
>>
>>>A coupled approach does let you keep your eyes outside, especially
>
> during
>
>>>the transition phase, but how many are equipped with AP's that can do
>>>coupled approaches?
>>>
>>>Remember: CONTEXT.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>I've got an WAAS-enabled GPS, GPSS, and an autopilot that will fly
>>coupled approaches.
>
>
> So do I. We're a distinct minority. So what?
>
> Remember: CONTEXT.
>
>
Anybody with a IFR capable GPS is a minority. Anybody with
a really capable IFR panel that's legal to use IFR is a minority.

What freaking CONTEXT are you talking about.

John R. Copeland wrote:

> Regarding the "straight line from FAF to VDP passing under a stepdown",
> that's handled by a charting a delay before descending until reaching a
> point from which the stabilized descent will meet obstruction-clearance
> criteria. The CNX80/GNS480 follows that charting.
> It does not start the descent from the FAF when it's incorrect to do so.

That's a nice solution; I wish I could see it for myself <grin>.

- Andrew

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
> Matt Barrow wrote:
> > "Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
> > m...
> >
> >>Matt Barrow wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>A coupled approach does let you keep your eyes outside, especially
> >
> > during
> >
> >>>the transition phase, but how many are equipped with AP's that can do
> >>>coupled approaches?
> >>>
> >>>Remember: CONTEXT.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>I've got an WAAS-enabled GPS, GPSS, and an autopilot that will fly
> >>coupled approaches.
> >
> >
> > So do I. We're a distinct minority. So what?
> >
> > Remember: CONTEXT.
> >
> >
> Anybody with a IFR capable GPS is a minority. Anybody with
> a really capable IFR panel that's legal to use IFR is a minority.
>
> What freaking CONTEXT are you talking about.

The freaking context that _very few_ GA aircraft have coupled approach
capability, that freaking context.

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Scott Moore" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>
>> >
>> > If anything, the slight nose-down pitch attitude should make it easier
>> > to see the runway, compared to having to search for it over the nose
>> > in level flight after a dive-and-drive.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> A factor I didn't see mentioned:
>>
>> A coupled autopilot can fly a WAAS approach. It cannot do dive and drive.
>>
>
> A coupled approach does let you keep your eyes outside, especially during
> the transition phase, but how many are equipped with AP's that can do
> coupled approaches?
>
> Remember: CONTEXT.
>


Most of the ones with WAAS boxes I would guess.

Mike
MU-2

"WAAS Upgradable" was a very prominent part of their advertising. If they
choose not to offer an upgrade, it becomes "non" WAAS upgradable. I imagine
this was part of the decision process for many (if not most) folks who
puchased the 430 or 530.

I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV but at the very least a whole bunch
of people would demand their money back or some return compensation for
having to switch to another box for WAAS. While not technically a lawsuit,
it will still hit them in the same spot--their bank account.

On a side note, I don't know about what you've seen, but just because it's
nonesense, it doesn't mean it's lawsuit-proof.

Marco Leon

"Scott Moore" > wrote in message
...
> Sue them because they woundn't upgrade their product ? Nonsense. They
never
> garanteed they would support every new feature that comes out. I own a
430,
> I would not participate. Its utter nonsense.
>

Does the computed glideslope indication meet obstacle clearance (i.e.
stepdown altitudes and whatnot) even if the approach is flown a couple
of dots low on the glideslope indication? Or does the pilot/autopilot
need to be absolutely sure that the approach is flown smack in the
middle or a couple dots high?

-Jon C.


"John R. Copeland" > wrote in message
.. .

....

Regarding the "straight line from FAF to VDP passing under a
stepdown",
that's handled by a charting a delay before descending until reaching
a point
from which the stabilized descent *will* meet obstruction-clearance
criteria.
The CNX80/GNS480 follows that charting.
It does not start the descent from the FAF when it's incorrect to do
so.

"Jon Carlson" > wrote:

> Does the computed glideslope indication meet obstacle clearance (i.e.
> stepdown altitudes and whatnot) even if the approach is flown a couple
> of dots low on the glideslope indication? Or does the pilot/autopilot
> need to be absolutely sure that the approach is flown smack in the
> middle or a couple dots high?

I think that's kind of like asking, "Does the MDA meet obstacle clearance
even if you go below it?".

I think the answer to both questions is the same, "There's some
TERPs-defined buffer built in, but from the pilot's point of view, all you
gotta know is don't go below what the procedure says until you can see the
runway".

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Scott Moore" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> > If anything, the slight nose-down pitch attitude should make it
easier
> >> > to see the runway, compared to having to search for it over the nose
> >> > in level flight after a dive-and-drive.
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> A factor I didn't see mentioned:
> >>
> >> A coupled autopilot can fly a WAAS approach. It cannot do dive and
drive.
> >>
> >
> > A coupled approach does let you keep your eyes outside, especially
during
> > the transition phase, but how many are equipped with AP's that can do
> > coupled approaches?
> >
> > Remember: CONTEXT.
> >
>
>
> Most of the ones with WAAS boxes I would guess.
>
Yes...and what proportion of GA aircraft have them? I know you do, and Ron
N. has them, I have them...but OVERALL?

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>>
>> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > "Scott Moore" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > If anything, the slight nose-down pitch attitude should make it
> easier
>> >> > to see the runway, compared to having to search for it over the nose
>> >> > in level flight after a dive-and-drive.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> A factor I didn't see mentioned:
>> >>
>> >> A coupled autopilot can fly a WAAS approach. It cannot do dive and
> drive.
>> >>
>> >
>> > A coupled approach does let you keep your eyes outside, especially
> during
>> > the transition phase, but how many are equipped with AP's that can do
>> > coupled approaches?
>> >
>> > Remember: CONTEXT.
>> >
>>
>>
>> Most of the ones with WAAS boxes I would guess.
>>
> Yes...and what proportion of GA aircraft have them? I know you do, and Ron
> N. has them, I have them...but OVERALL?
>

I agree that it is not many. The 480 isn't selling all that well.

Mike
MU-2

Matt Barrow wrote:
> "Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
> m...
>
>>Matt Barrow wrote:
>>
>>
>>>A coupled approach does let you keep your eyes outside, especially
>
> during
>
>>>the transition phase, but how many are equipped with AP's that can do
>>>coupled approaches?
>>>
>>>Remember: CONTEXT.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>I've got an WAAS-enabled GPS, GPSS, and an autopilot that will fly
>>coupled approaches.
>
>
> So do I. We're a distinct minority. So what?
>
> Remember: CONTEXT.
>
>

I'm hoping to join the minority.

CONTEXT.. CONTEXT... OOOHHHHMMM......

Matt Barrow wrote:
> "Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
> m...
>
>>Matt Barrow wrote:
>>
>>>"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Matt Barrow wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>A coupled approach does let you keep your eyes outside, especially
>>>
>>>during
>>>
>>>
>>>>>the transition phase, but how many are equipped with AP's that can do
>>>>>coupled approaches?
>>>>>
>>>>>Remember: CONTEXT.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I've got an WAAS-enabled GPS, GPSS, and an autopilot that will fly
>>>>coupled approaches.
>>>
>>>
>>>So do I. We're a distinct minority. So what?
>>>
>>>Remember: CONTEXT.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Anybody with a IFR capable GPS is a minority. Anybody with
>>a really capable IFR panel that's legal to use IFR is a minority.
>>
>>What freaking CONTEXT are you talking about.
>
>
> The freaking context that _very few_ GA aircraft have coupled approach
> capability, that freaking context.
>
>

I flew a coupled approach once. Me and my then girlfriend got our zippers
stuck together.

Marco Leon wrote:
> "WAAS Upgradable" was a very prominent part of their advertising. If they
> choose not to offer an upgrade, it becomes "non" WAAS upgradable. I imagine
> this was part of the decision process for many (if not most) folks who
> puchased the 430 or 530.
>
> I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV but at the very least a whole bunch
> of people would demand their money back or some return compensation for
> having to switch to another box for WAAS. While not technically a lawsuit,
> it will still hit them in the same spot--their bank account.
>
> On a side note, I don't know about what you've seen, but just because it's
> nonesense, it doesn't mean it's lawsuit-proof.
>
> Marco Leon
>
> "Scott Moore" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Sue them because they woundn't upgrade their product ? Nonsense. They
>
> never
>
>>garanteed they would support every new feature that comes out. I own a
>
> 430,
>
>>I would not participate. Its utter nonsense.
>>
>

Yea, they advertised WAAS upgradability when I bought mine. I assumed it
was hype. I was right ! What do I win ?

Matt Barrow wrote:
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>
>>"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>"Scott Moore" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>If anything, the slight nose-down pitch attitude should make it
>
> easier
>
>>>>>to see the runway, compared to having to search for it over the nose
>>>>>in level flight after a dive-and-drive.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>A factor I didn't see mentioned:
>>>>
>>>>A coupled autopilot can fly a WAAS approach. It cannot do dive and
>
> drive.
>
>>>A coupled approach does let you keep your eyes outside, especially
>
> during
>
>>>the transition phase, but how many are equipped with AP's that can do
>>>coupled approaches?
>>>
>>>Remember: CONTEXT.
>>>
>>
>>
>>Most of the ones with WAAS boxes I would guess.
>>
>
> Yes...and what proportion of GA aircraft have them? I know you do, and Ron
> N. has them, I have them...but OVERALL?
>
>

CONTEXT.

"Scott Moore" > wrote in message
...
> Matt Barrow wrote:
> > "Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
> > m...
> >
> >>Matt Barrow wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>A coupled approach does let you keep your eyes outside, especially
> >
> > during
> >
> >>>the transition phase, but how many are equipped with AP's that can do
> >>>coupled approaches?
> >>>
> >>>Remember: CONTEXT.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>I've got an WAAS-enabled GPS, GPSS, and an autopilot that will fly
> >>coupled approaches.
> >
> >
> > So do I. We're a distinct minority. So what?
> >
> > Remember: CONTEXT.
> >
> >
>
> I'm hoping to join the minority.
>
> CONTEXT.. CONTEXT... OOOHHHHMMM......

Stupid!

<PLONK>

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> > nk.net...
> >>
> >> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >
> >> > "Scott Moore" > wrote in message
> >> > ...
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > If anything, the slight nose-down pitch attitude should make it
> > easier
> >> >> > to see the runway, compared to having to search for it over the
nose
> >> >> > in level flight after a dive-and-drive.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> A factor I didn't see mentioned:
> >> >>
> >> >> A coupled autopilot can fly a WAAS approach. It cannot do dive and
> > drive.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > A coupled approach does let you keep your eyes outside, especially
> > during
> >> > the transition phase, but how many are equipped with AP's that can do
> >> > coupled approaches?
> >> >
> >> > Remember: CONTEXT.
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Most of the ones with WAAS boxes I would guess.
> >>
> > Yes...and what proportion of GA aircraft have them? I know you do, and
Ron
> > N. has them, I have them...but OVERALL?
> >
>
> I agree that it is not many. The 480 isn't selling all that well.
>

And Bendix/King isn't (seemingly) addressing WAAS for their product lines
below the turbine market.

I might have to ditch my KLN94...Honeywell/Bendix/King doesn't even return
my phone calls about WAAS capability/upgrades.

Scott Moore wrote:

>
> I flew a coupled approach once. Me and my then girlfriend got our zippers
> stuck together.
>

Ah, but she can log it as being the sole manipulator of the pilot in
command.

> I think that's kind of like asking, "Does the MDA meet obstacle
> clearance
> even if you go below it?".

Sort of, but one of the advantages of WAAS generated glideslopes is
that it enables autopilot coupled approaches with vertical guidance.
So... if a dot or two off runs you through a hill, that might be a
nice thing to know and correlate with your autopilot's level of
precision...


> I think the answer to both questions is the same, "There's some
> TERPs-defined buffer built in, but from the pilot's point of view,
> all you
> gotta know is don't go below what the procedure says until you can
> see the
> runway".

Yes, we are still responsible for not descending below the MDA. But we
need to understand the limitations of the box if we're going to let
the box help us so that we can know what we have to do to live up to
those responsibilities.

-Jon C.

WAAS upgrade does not mean you gain the improved approach capability.
Garmin 196/296s have WAAS but they are a handheld.


"Marco Leon" <mmleon(at)yahoo.com> wrote in message
...
> "WAAS Upgradable" was a very prominent part of their advertising. If they
> choose not to offer an upgrade, it becomes "non" WAAS upgradable. I
> imagine
> this was part of the decision process for many (if not most) folks who
> puchased the 430 or 530.
>
> I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV but at the very least a whole
> bunch
> of people would demand their money back or some return compensation for
> having to switch to another box for WAAS. While not technically a lawsuit,
> it will still hit them in the same spot--their bank account.
>
> On a side note, I don't know about what you've seen, but just because it's
> nonesense, it doesn't mean it's lawsuit-proof.
>
> Marco Leon
>
> "Scott Moore" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Sue them because they woundn't upgrade their product ? Nonsense. They
> never
>> garanteed they would support every new feature that comes out. I own a
> 430,
>> I would not participate. Its utter nonsense.
>>
>
>

I contacted Garmin's customer service, and below is the reply
that I got regarding when WAAS will be available as an upgrade
for the GNS 430/530:

-- Dane

-------------------------------------------------
The WAAS upgrade will not be available till the last quarter of 2006. But
to lock in the $1500.00 price you need to contact your Garmin avionics
dealer before August and make arrangements.

George Koelsch
Garmin International
Field Service Engineer

913-397-8200
-------------------------------------------------

In article >,
Dane Spearing > wrote:
>According to Garmin's product literature, the GNS 430 and 530 are
>"WAAS-upgradeable", yet there is no information as to when this
>upgrade might be available. Does anyone have any other information
>on this?
>
> -- Dane

Is the TERPS manual available online?

> wrote in message ...
>
>
> 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."
>

Bits and pieces on one part of the FAA web site. The only reliable electronic
source is Summit's Aviation Reference Library.

Paul Lynch wrote:

> Is the TERPS manual available online?
>
> > wrote in message ...
> >
> >
> > 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."
> >