More info on GNS 430/530 WAAS upgrade

[PPT33R]

I recently made an inquiry to Garmin regarding their new requirement
that GNS 430/530 owners pre-order the WAAS upgrade prior to November
2005 to guarantee the $1500 price their marketing department has been
stating for the past 2 years...

Keeping in mind the WAAS upgrade for these boxes are already years
overdue, and Garmin does not have much of a track record for meeting
their own schedules. I don't see any guarantee they can make their new
date in late 06. I asked the 'insane' question, "What if Garmin pushes
this date once again and I move far away from the dealer I placed my
upgrade order with?"

A Garmin rep stated I would have to cancel the original order and
forfeit the $1500 upgrade price to whatever the final price turns out
to be...

I am leery of placing an order with this kind of company. I just don't
trust them anymore. They sold the GNS 430/530 as WAAS upgradeable for a
reasonable cost, period. I called Garmin corporate to confirm when I
bought my box. Now years later, constant delays and restrictive terms
and conditions are getting irritating. What kind of company requires a
pre-order of an upgrade promised years ago, that won't be delivered for
at least another year and a half? While my box is out of the aircraft,
will they provide a 'loaner' so I can still use my aircraft, or am I
just SOL until they decide to return my box?

WOULD SOMEBODY PLEASE GIVE GARMIN SOME REAL COMPETITION? They really
need to be taken down a peg or two.

[Scott Moore]

PPT33R wrote:
> I recently made an inquiry to Garmin regarding their new requirement
> that GNS 430/530 owners pre-order the WAAS upgrade prior to November
> 2005 to guarantee the $1500 price their marketing department has been
> stating for the past 2 years...

Figgure out the interest on more than 1 year for $1500. Bet it comes close
to, or covers, any price increase.

>
> Keeping in mind the WAAS upgrade for these boxes are already years
> overdue, and Garmin does not have much of a track record for meeting
> their own schedules. I don't see any guarantee they can make their new
> date in late 06. I asked the 'insane' question, "What if Garmin pushes
> this date once again and I move far away from the dealer I placed my
> upgrade order with?"
>
> A Garmin rep stated I would have to cancel the original order and
> forfeit the $1500 upgrade price to whatever the final price turns out
> to be...
>
> I am leery of placing an order with this kind of company. I just don't
> trust them anymore. They sold the GNS 430/530 as WAAS upgradeable for a
> reasonable cost, period. I called Garmin corporate to confirm when I
> bought my box. Now years later, constant delays and restrictive terms
> and conditions are getting irritating. What kind of company requires a
> pre-order of an upgrade promised years ago, that won't be delivered for
> at least another year and a half? While my box is out of the aircraft,
> will they provide a 'loaner' so I can still use my aircraft, or am I
> just SOL until they decide to return my box?
>
> WOULD SOMEBODY PLEASE GIVE GARMIN SOME REAL COMPETITION? They really
> need to be taken down a peg or two.
>

Come on. If Garmin is better, then they are better. They HAD and HAVE
competition, in UPS, King, Collins and others. When GPS came along,
the major avionics makers buckled under the strain of new technology
like a house of cards. Garmin was the competition, and competition won.

If Garmin delivers a WAAS upgrade, at ALL, to a unit that is what, 5
years old or more ? Then I think they will qualify as freaking
geniuses. It would have been, and still is, more logical to just say
the heck with backwards upgrades for the 430/530 series and start again.

[Peter R.]

Scott wrote:

> Figgure out the interest on more than 1 year for $1500. Bet it comes close
> to, or covers, any price increase.

I was under the impression that one had to order the upgrade but not
pay for it until the upgrade occurs. I certainly would not bother with
the order if payment were required now.

--
Peter

[[email protected]]

Scott Moore wrote:

> If Garmin delivers a WAAS upgrade, at ALL, to a unit that is what, 5
> years old or more ? Then I think they will qualify as freaking
> geniuses. It would have been, and still is, more logical to just say
> the heck with backwards upgrades for the 430/530 series and start again.

Another big "if" is whether WAAS and LPV will be around 5 years from now.

[Ron Natalie]

PPT33R wrote:
x?
>
> WOULD SOMEBODY PLEASE GIVE GARMIN SOME REAL COMPETITION? They really
> need to be taken down a peg or two.
>

Garmin bought out their competition. My 480 has WAAS.

[Peter R.]

> wrote:

> Another big "if" is whether WAAS and LPV will be around 5 years from now.

Now this speculation is something I never read before. What would be the
reason for the demise of this technology, assuming it does not survive the
next several years?

--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Brad Salai]

I've been trying to convince my club to consider the 480 over the 530, any
thoughts on that?

Brad

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
...
> PPT33R wrote:
> x?
> >
> > WOULD SOMEBODY PLEASE GIVE GARMIN SOME REAL COMPETITION? They really
> > need to be taken down a peg or two.
> >
>
> Garmin bought out their competition. My 480 has WAAS.

[PPT33R]

Were I to do it over, I would have definitely gone with the UPSAT box,
aka GNS480. It was designed from the ground up to meet the WAAS TSO.

[PPT33R]

I can't see that happening, especially when RNP is being deployed
commercially. Boeing & Airbus are now certifying their newer airframes
for RNP .1, which allegedly integrates GPS, INS, and DME into the FMS.
The GPS portion requires RAIM and is much more reliable with WAAS.

TIS, on the other hand, is a whole other issue...

[PPT33R]

You have to place the order, but the Garmin rep told me they won't
charge you until they ship.

The other issue I have is the initial demand will be very high, so
expect to be without your box for a couple months or more. How will I
be compensated for my aircraft down-time whilst my 530 is off at Garmin?

[[email protected]]

"Peter R." wrote:

> > wrote:
>
> > Another big "if" is whether WAAS and LPV will be around 5 years from now.
>
> Now this speculation is something I never read before. What would be the
> reason for the demise of this technology, assuming it does not survive the
> next several years?
>

The primary GPS system is operated by the military and has huge benefits for them. It
also has huge benefits to much of the population beyond the military and beyond
aviation. The incremential cost to operate the system for all civil users is zero.
The system is useful through the entire world.

WAAS, OTOH, is a United States system funded and operated by the FAA. It is only
useful in the United States and some nearby areas. It is a different implementation of
GPS augmentation protocol than proposed by a few other countries.

WAAS functions through transponders rented by the FAA on commercial satellites, plus
several expensive ground stations. The operating costs are in the hundreds of millions
of dollars a year. The system is being used by a very small part of general aviation.
Most air carrier and biz jets have no need for WAAS at all, plus it dies as soon as
they fly off shore.

The bean counters at the FAA have trouble keep justifying this huge annual expense for
very little benefit.

[[email protected]]

PPT33R wrote:

> I can't see that happening, especially when RNP is being deployed
> commercially. Boeing & Airbus are now certifying their newer airframes
> for RNP .1, which allegedly integrates GPS, INS, and DME into the FMS.
> The GPS portion requires RAIM and is much more reliable with WAAS.
>
> TIS, on the other hand, is a whole other issue...

I am involved in the work being done with RNP. WAAS is not part of the
calculus at all in the FMS sensor hierarcy for RNP_SAAAR instrument
approach procedures. RNP 0.10 is acheived through complex interfaces of
FMS software with GPS as the primary sensor. WAAS is not used. The most
robust platforms (dual-thread aircraft, which will be a requirement where
RNP is needed for the missed approach, use blended, updated IRU position
along with GPS (or without GPS for a reasonable period of time in the
event GPS suddently fails).

WAAS's primary benefit is to provide the LPV glide-path for the LPV final
approach segment. The RNP_SAAAR criteria's final approach segment
glide-path is predicated on IFR-certified Baro VNAV.

As an aside, when the FAA commissioned WAAS, they "dumbed down" the Baro
VNAV criteria for public RNAV (GPS) IAPs, which increased existing VNAV
minimums. This was a blatent political move to make LPV minimums look
better.

The assessment concets for the VNAV obstacle clearance surfaces in the
RNP_SAAAR environment rightfully do an end-run around the dumbing down of
public VNAV obstacle clearance criteria.

[[email protected]]

PPT33R wrote:

> You have to place the order, but the Garmin rep told me they won't
> charge you until they ship.
>
> The other issue I have is the initial demand will be very high, so
> expect to be without your box for a couple months or more. How will I
> be compensated for my aircraft down-time whilst my 530 is off at Garmin?

Did Garmin promise an eventual upgrade to WAAS when you bought your 530?

[Richard Kaplan]

> Did Garmin promise an eventual upgrade to WAAS when you bought your 530?

Yes

[Richard Kaplan]

> wrote in message ...

> Another big "if" is whether WAAS and LPV will be around 5 years from now.


What makes you think it will not?

--------------------
Richard Kaplan

www.flyimc.com

[[email protected]]

Richard Kaplan wrote:

> > wrote in message ...
>
> > Another big "if" is whether WAAS and LPV will be around 5 years from now.
>
> What makes you think it will not?
>
> --------------------
> Richard Kaplan
>
> www.flyimc.com

Read my response right above your message; the one at 6:41. ;-)

[Ron Natalie]

Brad Salai wrote:
> I've been trying to convince my club to consider the 480 over the 530, any
> thoughts on that?
>
If you're going to fly IFR, the 480 is the way to go. While it's (by
history) different than EVERY other Garmin GPS out there, it is more
straight forward for IFR ops.

[Peter R.]

Tim wrote:

<snip>
> The system is being used by a very small part of general aviation.

Are you saying that WAAS is only used by the aviation community? What
about those who use WAAS-enabled handheld GPS units for boating,
driving, and hiking/backpacking?

Oh, and don't forget the geo-cachers. ;-)


--
Peter

[iflyatiger]

Please don't flame me for this thought .. As much as I hate it when I see
these bs class action lawsuits were the lawyers make millions and the
consumer gets a $5.00 coupon. I am surprised no one has mentioned legal
action for the falsely advertised waas upgrade. Any thoughts on the merits
of this ? No thoughts needed on lawsuits in general. And yes I do own a 530
and have for at least a few years and have called my dealer to order all the
upgrades I keep hearing about but are never available ( terrain warning,
waas ).

Take care..
JG.



"PPT33R" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> I recently made an inquiry to Garmin regarding their new requirement
> that GNS 430/530 owners pre-order the WAAS upgrade prior to November
> 2005 to guarantee the $1500 price their marketing department has been
> stating for the past 2 years...
>
> Keeping in mind the WAAS upgrade for these boxes are already years
> overdue, and Garmin does not have much of a track record for meeting
> their own schedules. I don't see any guarantee they can make their new
> date in late 06. I asked the 'insane' question, "What if Garmin pushes
> this date once again and I move far away from the dealer I placed my
> upgrade order with?"
>
> A Garmin rep stated I would have to cancel the original order and
> forfeit the $1500 upgrade price to whatever the final price turns out
> to be...
>
> I am leery of placing an order with this kind of company. I just don't
> trust them anymore. They sold the GNS 430/530 as WAAS upgradeable for a
> reasonable cost, period. I called Garmin corporate to confirm when I
> bought my box. Now years later, constant delays and restrictive terms
> and conditions are getting irritating. What kind of company requires a
> pre-order of an upgrade promised years ago, that won't be delivered for
> at least another year and a half? While my box is out of the aircraft,
> will they provide a 'loaner' so I can still use my aircraft, or am I
> just SOL until they decide to return my box?
>
> WOULD SOMEBODY PLEASE GIVE GARMIN SOME REAL COMPETITION? They really
> need to be taken down a peg or two.
>

[Matt Barrow]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
...
> Brad Salai wrote:
> > I've been trying to convince my club to consider the 480 over the 530,
any
> > thoughts on that?
> >
> If you're going to fly IFR, the 480 is the way to go. While it's (by
> history) different than EVERY other Garmin GPS out there, it is more
> straight forward for IFR ops.

I'd like to dump my KLN94 and go to a GPS480 with an AviDyne MX-500. One
problem is the GPS480 does not support curved flight paths (GAMA) that a GPS
430 does.

I wonder if I should go with a dual GPS in the form of a GPS 430/ 480 combo?
Would it work?


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[Mike Rapoport]

You need to go look at what they actually said and whether they are doing
it. My recollection is that they said that the units were "WAAS upgradable"
and that the cost would be about $1500. They never garanteed a date and to
do so would have been impossible since the FAA hadn't yet issued the TSO.
What exactly do you think was falsely advertised?


Mike
MU-2

"iflyatiger" > wrote in message
...
> Please don't flame me for this thought .. As much as I hate it when I see
> these bs class action lawsuits were the lawyers make millions and the
> consumer gets a $5.00 coupon. I am surprised no one has mentioned legal
> action for the falsely advertised waas upgrade. Any thoughts on the merits
> of this ? No thoughts needed on lawsuits in general. And yes I do own a
> 530
> and have for at least a few years and have called my dealer to order all
> the
> upgrades I keep hearing about but are never available ( terrain warning,
> waas ).
>
> Take care..
> JG.
>
>
>
> "PPT33R" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> I recently made an inquiry to Garmin regarding their new requirement
>> that GNS 430/530 owners pre-order the WAAS upgrade prior to November
>> 2005 to guarantee the $1500 price their marketing department has been
>> stating for the past 2 years...
>>
>> Keeping in mind the WAAS upgrade for these boxes are already years
>> overdue, and Garmin does not have much of a track record for meeting
>> their own schedules. I don't see any guarantee they can make their new
>> date in late 06. I asked the 'insane' question, "What if Garmin pushes
>> this date once again and I move far away from the dealer I placed my
>> upgrade order with?"
>>
>> A Garmin rep stated I would have to cancel the original order and
>> forfeit the $1500 upgrade price to whatever the final price turns out
>> to be...
>>
>> I am leery of placing an order with this kind of company. I just don't
>> trust them anymore. They sold the GNS 430/530 as WAAS upgradeable for a
>> reasonable cost, period. I called Garmin corporate to confirm when I
>> bought my box. Now years later, constant delays and restrictive terms
>> and conditions are getting irritating. What kind of company requires a
>> pre-order of an upgrade promised years ago, that won't be delivered for
>> at least another year and a half? While my box is out of the aircraft,
>> will they provide a 'loaner' so I can still use my aircraft, or am I
>> just SOL until they decide to return my box?
>>
>> WOULD SOMEBODY PLEASE GIVE GARMIN SOME REAL COMPETITION? They really
>> need to be taken down a peg or two.
>>
>
>

[Victor J. Osborne, Jr.]

Was the salesman(person)s mouth moving? Then they were lying.

I too made the mistake of buying a 530 based on weather/traffic, etc. being
on the box rather that buying Avidyne. Big mistake.
--

Thx, {|;-)

Victor J. (Jim) Osborne, Jr.
"Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message
news:1119450723.70c35f39b4665fcfcbb2d6848f911164@t eranews...
>
>
>> Did Garmin promise an eventual upgrade to WAAS when you bought your 530?
>
> Yes
>

[Ron Natalie]

Matt Barrow wrote:

>
> I'd like to dump my KLN94 and go to a GPS480 with an AviDyne MX-500. One
> problem is the GPS480 does not support curved flight paths (GAMA) that a GPS
> 430 does.

It will fly them (at least it does holds, procedure turns, and DME
arcs). Maybe it doesn't reflect htem properly on the GAMA graphcis
to the AVIDYNE (I have an MX20)


>
> I wonder if I should go with a dual GPS in the form of a GPS 430/ 480 combo?
> Would it work?
>


Perhaps but confusing as hell I would think.

[[email protected]]

Ron Natalie wrote:

> Matt Barrow wrote:
>
> >
> > I'd like to dump my KLN94 and go to a GPS480 with an AviDyne MX-500. One
> > problem is the GPS480 does not support curved flight paths (GAMA) that a GPS
> > 430 does.
>
> It will fly them (at least it does holds, procedure turns, and DME
> arcs). Maybe it doesn't reflect htem properly on the GAMA graphcis
> to the AVIDYNE (I have an MX20)

ARINC 424 specifications provide for two different type of curved legs AF (arc to
fix) and RF (radius to fix). AF legs are for DME ARCs. RF legs are for the new,
advanced instrument approach procedures, which thus far are limited to
RNP-qualified aircraft and flight crews.

Garmin claims their panel mounts will be able to do RF legs, but I remain
skeptical. I can see it working but only in a robust installation with an
electronic HSI (where the course setting auto-slews to keep up with the RF leg's
constant course change) and with a good steering computer for either a flight
director or nav mode of the autopilot.

With an AF leg you have 4 miles of protected airspace (plus a 2 mile secondary)
each side of the ARC, so some plus-or-minus 0.5 mile zig-zagging is
insignificant. Not so with RF legs where not only is the radius of turn typically
much tighter than a DME ARC, the protected airspace may only be 0.6 of a mile each
side of centerline. And, an RF leg of one radius and direction can be immediately
followed by a different RF leg of a different radius and/or direction. This is a
much more complex flight path to manage than a DME ARC or a holding pattern
(Garmin's holding patterns are not real-world patterns in any case; rather just
symbols for holding course and turn direction.)

[[email protected]]

"Peter R." wrote:

> Tim wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > The system is being used by a very small part of general aviation.
>
> Are you saying that WAAS is only used by the aviation community? What
> about those who use WAAS-enabled handheld GPS units for boating,
> driving, and hiking/backpacking?
>
> Oh, and don't forget the geo-cachers. ;-)
>
> --
> Peter

That's what I am saying. All those other applications are ad hoc, and not
part of any government criteria for navigation. The improvements in
accuracy with WAAS in any Garmin hand-held I have used is not even worth
the processor overhead.

I had it in a Garmin 295 for several years and kept it turned off because
it dragged down the screen refresh rates significantly. I now have a 296,
where it does not have that issue, but it still increases processor
overhead for no real gain. I choose to leave it disabled and thus get a
nice, clean 3D solution.

[Matt Barrow]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
...
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>
> >
> > I'd like to dump my KLN94 and go to a GPS480 with an AviDyne MX-500. One
> > problem is the GPS480 does not support curved flight paths (GAMA) that a
GPS
> > 430 does.
>
> It will fly them (at least it does holds, procedure turns, and DME
> arcs). Maybe it doesn't reflect htem properly on the GAMA graphcis
> to the AVIDYNE (I have an MX20)

That's right...I should have specified that the Avidyne requires a GAMA
conection.
>
>
> >
> > I wonder if I should go with a dual GPS in the form of a GPS 430/ 480
combo?
> > Would it work?
> >
>
>
> Perhaps but confusing as hell I would think.

Yeah, but neither has what I want. Darn!

[PPT33R]

> Did Garmin promise an eventual upgrade to WAAS when you bought your 530?

For the record: YES!!! I spoke with not only the distributor rep, but
the Garmin aviation marketing manger, and one of Garmin's engineering
reps. They ALL assured me, at the time, a WAAS upgrade was "in the
works" and anticipated shortly after the final TSO was released.

I didn't take the word of the sales rep. I went straight to Olathe, KS,
and the corporate guys were the ones that assured me of upgrades in a
"reasonable" amount of time. Of course, that was damn near 3 years ago
now...

About the BEST piece of advice I got was from a sales rep regarding the
ill-fated GDL-49 when it came out, "Don't buy it, Garmin doesn't seem
to have a handle on the product yet"...

[Mike Rapoport]

Since there is only one 146a box on the market now, what do you think is a
reasonable amount of time?

Mike
MU-2


"PPT33R" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> Did Garmin promise an eventual upgrade to WAAS when you bought your 530?
>
> For the record: YES!!! I spoke with not only the distributor rep, but
> the Garmin aviation marketing manger, and one of Garmin's engineering
> reps. They ALL assured me, at the time, a WAAS upgrade was "in the
> works" and anticipated shortly after the final TSO was released.
>
> I didn't take the word of the sales rep. I went straight to Olathe, KS,
> and the corporate guys were the ones that assured me of upgrades in a
> "reasonable" amount of time. Of course, that was damn near 3 years ago
> now...
>
> About the BEST piece of advice I got was from a sales rep regarding the
> ill-fated GDL-49 when it came out, "Don't buy it, Garmin doesn't seem
> to have a handle on the product yet"...
>

[Scott Moore]

Ron Natalie wrote:
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>
>
>>I'd like to dump my KLN94 and go to a GPS480 with an AviDyne MX-500. One
>>problem is the GPS480 does not support curved flight paths (GAMA) that a GPS
>>430 does.
>
>
> It will fly them (at least it does holds, procedure turns, and DME
> arcs). Maybe it doesn't reflect htem properly on the GAMA graphcis
> to the AVIDYNE (I have an MX20)
>

WAAS, in the long run, probally has its best advantage if it can do curved
approaches to final. This would eliminate a LOT of the clearance restrictions
on existing approaches.

[[email protected]]

Scott Moore wrote:

> Ron Natalie wrote:
>
> >
>
> WAAS, in the long run, probally has its best advantage if it can do curved
> approaches to final. This would eliminate a LOT of the clearance restrictions
> on existing approaches.

WAAS has nothing to do with RF legs (curved approach paths). RF legs are a leg
computation done by an RNAV/LNAV platform. WAAS is an augmentation scheme for
GPS. RF legs are independent of the nav sensor, although GPS is presently the
preferred sensor for RNAV/LNAV. So, there is no reason that a TSO-C146 (WAAS/LPV)
couldn't do RF legs with, or without, WAAS and or LPV.

Having said that, I haven't heard of any proposed implementation along those lines
for WAAS and LPV.

[Ron Natalie]

wrote:
>

> Garmin claims their panel mounts will be able to do RF legs, but I remain
> skeptical. I can see it working but only in a robust installation with an
> electronic HSI (where the course setting auto-slews to keep up with the RF leg's
> constant course change) and with a good steering computer for either a flight
> director or nav mode of the autopilot.
>

With GPSS steering engaged the HSI OBS is ignored and the only reason
you need touch it is to keep the needle oriented right. It reads
left-right of course just fine even on my old steam-gage King HSI.


> (Garmin's holding patterns are not real-world patterns in any case; rather just
> symbols for holding course and turn direction.)
>

They're real enough that the autopilot flies them as depicted.

[[email protected]]

Ron Natalie wrote:

> wrote:
> >
>
> > Garmin claims their panel mounts will be able to do RF legs, but I remain
> > skeptical. I can see it working but only in a robust installation with an
> > electronic HSI (where the course setting auto-slews to keep up with the RF leg's
> > constant course change) and with a good steering computer for either a flight
> > director or nav mode of the autopilot.
> >
>
> With GPSS steering engaged the HSI OBS is ignored and the only reason
> you need touch it is to keep the needle oriented right. It reads
> left-right of course just fine even on my old steam-gage King HSI.

It seems it depends on how the autopilot gets its steering information. The most
common for light aircraft, as I understand it, is to use the value in the OBS window.
Having said that I have no doubt there are other methods of doing it with all the
technology out there.

My concern is that a pilot cannot, should not be able to hand fly an RF leg without at
least a flight director providing valid steering commands.

>
>
> > (Garmin's holding patterns are not real-world patterns in any case; rather just
> > symbols for holding course and turn direction.)
> >
>
> They're real enough that the autopilot flies them as depicted.

That doesn't make them bear any relationship to the holding pattern containment area
provided by the procedures designer.

[Ron Natalie]

wrote:
>
> Ron Natalie wrote:
>
>
wrote:
>>
>>>Garmin claims their panel mounts will be able to do RF legs, but I remain
>>>skeptical. I can see it working but only in a robust installation with an
>>>electronic HSI (where the course setting auto-slews to keep up with the RF leg's
>>>constant course change) and with a good steering computer for either a flight
>>>director or nav mode of the autopilot.
>>>
>>
>>With GPSS steering engaged the HSI OBS is ignored and the only reason
>>you need touch it is to keep the needle oriented right. It reads
>>left-right of course just fine even on my old steam-gage King HSI.
>
>
> It seems it depends on how the autopilot gets its steering information. The most
> common for light aircraft, as I understand it, is to use the value in the OBS window.
> Having said that I have no doubt there are other methods of doing it with all the
> technology out there.

I was talking about GPSS. It doesn't even require the aircraft to have
an HSI. The GPS talks directly to the autopilot in digital form.

>>>(Garmin's holding patterns are not real-world patterns in any case; rather just
>>>symbols for holding course and turn direction.)
>>>
>>
>>They're real enough that the autopilot flies them as depicted.
>
>
> That doesn't make them bear any relationship to the holding pattern containment area
> provided by the procedures designer.
>
>
The procedure designer doesn't "provide the containment area." He
provides the hold based on the protected area available. The 480
flies the hold either literally as published or when not published
in a manner consistant with the TERPS guideline. Is there some
specific instance you're referring to?

[[email protected]]

Ron Natalie wrote:

>
> >
> > That doesn't make them bear any relationship to the holding pattern containment area
> > provided by the procedures designer.
> >
> >
> The procedure designer doesn't "provide the containment area." He
> provides the hold based on the protected area available. The 480
> flies the hold either literally as published or when not published
> in a manner consistant with the TERPS guideline. Is there some
> specific instance you're referring to?

The procedures designer indeed provides the containment area for holding. The criteria are
contained in FAA Order 7130.3A, "Holding Pattern Criteria." The forward to that handbook
states,

"This order primarily serves as a planning document for airspace planners by setting forth
criteria for determining holding pattern airspace area dimensions and instructions for
their use. In addition, it provides application criteria for use by procedures specialists
in developing holding airspace for instrument procedures.
Sufficient holding airspace areas shall be planned and established to meet IFR traffic
requirements within a facility's area of jurisdiction.
Holding airspace areas shall be determined by applying the criteria contained within this
document."

There are 31 different templates used for over 125 combinations of altitude, distance from
facility, type of aircraft, etc. Generally, pattern sizes 4 to 13 for low altitude holding
and holding pattern course reversals on IAPs.

So far as I know there is no RNAV platform today that contains database information or
software routines consistent with the holding patterns developed and documented by the FAA
on airspace record 8260-2 (the form that documents all the details about facilities, fixes,
and waypoints).

As to whether a light aircraft autopilot can track an RF leg (a much, much tigher
requirement than holding pattern or DME ARCs) I passed it by an avionics engineer. The
autopilot has to be roll-steering based. He added that most light aircraft autopilots are
not roll-steering based.