Re: Garmin Behind the Curve on WAAS GPS VNAV Approaches

[Richard Kaplan]

"Scott Moore" > wrote in message
...
> Speaking only for myself, its pretty damm confusing exactly what would be
> done with WAAS even if implemented. Garmins' other units that accept

WAAS is now implemented and IFR approved as of the past week.

If a receiver were approved for WAAS approaches, then TODAY you could use
VNAV/LNAV miniums on GPS RNAV approaches instead of LNAV minimums.
Presumably (though I am not certain) a VNAV/LNAV GPS RNAV approach would be
considered a precision approach. UPSAT's CNX80 web page touts the airports
you have access to today with WAAS; yet the version of the POH supplement
posted on their site says in the legal fineprint that precision approaches
are NOT permitted. So I am not certain if you can or cannot fly VNAV/LNAV
GPS approach mininums TODAY on a CNX-80.

> What I would like to see from Garmin is a controlled descent option
> on non-precision GPS approaches, which would be perfectly legal to
> implement right now (because it is inside the "dive and drive"

If you want to do this as a backup to other navigation, you can do this now
with the VNAV function on the Garmin 430/530, albeit not yet with WAAS.

Nonetheless, there is a big question re: whether this will make sense for an
approach not explicitly designed as a precision approach. Many
non-precision approaches have a missed approach point from which a suitable
straight-in landing cannot be made; so you could well have a controlled
descent to the middle of the field an then in turn have to circle.

--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[[email protected]]

Richard Kaplan wrote:

> "Scott Moore" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Speaking only for myself, its pretty damm confusing exactly what would be
> > done with WAAS even if implemented. Garmins' other units that accept
>
> WAAS is now implemented and IFR approved as of the past week.
>
> If a receiver were approved for WAAS approaches, then TODAY you could use
> VNAV/LNAV miniums on GPS RNAV approaches instead of LNAV minimums.
> Presumably (though I am not certain) a VNAV/LNAV GPS RNAV approach would be
> considered a precision approach. UPSAT's CNX80 web page touts the airports
> you have access to today with WAAS; yet the version of the POH supplement
> posted on their site says in the legal fineprint that precision approaches
> are NOT permitted. So I am not certain if you can or cannot fly VNAV/LNAV
> GPS approach mininums TODAY on a CNX-80.

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

[Lockheed employee]

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

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


On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 05:47:50 -0700, wrote:

>
>
>Richard Kaplan wrote:
>
>> "Scott Moore" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > Speaking only for myself, its pretty damm confusing exactly what would be
>> > done with WAAS even if implemented. Garmins' other units that accept
>>
>> WAAS is now implemented and IFR approved as of the past week.
>>
>> If a receiver were approved for WAAS approaches, then TODAY you could use
>> VNAV/LNAV miniums on GPS RNAV approaches instead of LNAV minimums.
>> Presumably (though I am not certain) a VNAV/LNAV GPS RNAV approach would be
>> considered a precision approach. UPSAT's CNX80 web page touts the airports
>> you have access to today with WAAS; yet the version of the POH supplement
>> posted on their site says in the legal fineprint that precision approaches
>> are NOT permitted. So I am not certain if you can or cannot fly VNAV/LNAV
>> GPS approach mininums TODAY on a CNX-80.
>
>I wouldn't be so certain of that. Today's VNAV minimums are predicated on
>IFR-certified Baro VNAV equipment, not WAAS. WAAS approaches have yet to appear
>from the FAA>

[Mike Rapoport]

So does the CNX-80 meet the requirement today? Is it "WAAS equipment
approved for precision approach"?

Mike
MU-2


"Lockheed employee" <Mississippi@ home.com> wrote in message
...
> I have a Jeppesen briefing bulletin (DEN 00-A) that states:
>
> LNAV/VNAV must have WAAS equipment approved for precision approach, or
> RNP-0.3 system based on GPS or DME/DME, with an IFR approach approved
> Baro-VNAV system. It appears that either is suitable for going to
> VNAV minimums
>
>
> On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 05:47:50 -0700, wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Richard Kaplan wrote:
> >
> >> "Scott Moore" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > Speaking only for myself, its pretty damm confusing exactly what
would be
> >> > done with WAAS even if implemented. Garmins' other units that accept
> >>
> >> WAAS is now implemented and IFR approved as of the past week.
> >>
> >> If a receiver were approved for WAAS approaches, then TODAY you could
use
> >> VNAV/LNAV miniums on GPS RNAV approaches instead of LNAV minimums.
> >> Presumably (though I am not certain) a VNAV/LNAV GPS RNAV approach
would be
> >> considered a precision approach. UPSAT's CNX80 web page touts the
airports
> >> you have access to today with WAAS; yet the version of the POH
supplement
> >> posted on their site says in the legal fineprint that precision
approaches
> >> are NOT permitted. So I am not certain if you can or cannot fly
VNAV/LNAV
> >> GPS approach mininums TODAY on a CNX-80.
> >
> >I wouldn't be so certain of that. Today's VNAV minimums are predicated
on
> >IFR-certified Baro VNAV equipment, not WAAS. WAAS approaches have yet to
appear
> >from the FAA>
>

[Tarver Engineering]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
...
> So does the CNX-80 meet the requirement today? Is it "WAAS equipment
> approved for precision approach"?

Why are you asking a sock a technical question, Mike?

Uspat spent their own money to develop the idea of merging pressure altitude
and a subset of the TAWS database and for that they deserve the market. At
least until the other manufacturers catch up.

[Mike Rapoport]

I don't know if "behind" is the right word. Garmin has had WAAS on numerous
products for a couple of years now. There are valid reasons to try to have
the best product on the market instead of the first product.

Mike
MU-2


"Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message
news:6823bf21e87c61799d150096f329071b@TeraNews...
> Garmin's website now says they are "committed" to providing WAAS GPS
> approach capability for the 400/500 series by the "end of 2004."
>
> UPSAT's site states that their CNX-80 is WAAS approved now but I cannot
find
> an explicit statement that it supports WAAS approaches at this point.
>
> Does anyone know for sure if the CNX-80 supports WAAS GPS approaches
*now*?
>
> In any event, can Garmin really be that far behind the curve as to plan
WAAS
> only fo rthe "end of 2004"? This seems very much atypical for Garmin and
> almost an embarrassment for them.
>
>
> --
> Richard Kaplan, CFII
>
> www.flyimc.com
>
>

[Tarver Engineering]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
...
> I don't know if "behind" is the right word. Garmin has had WAAS on
numerous
> products for a couple of years now. There are valid reasons to try to
have
> the best product on the market instead of the first product.

Garmin is behind because Upsat did the sensor merging on their own
initiative. I stood right there and watched the Transport Directorate say
"no" to the idea and FAA's chief scientist start running numbers in his
head. UPS was on the phone before the smoke break ended. WAAS alone could
not add any new services to existing GPS.

John P. Tarver, MS/PE

[C J Campbell]

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message
news:6823bf21e87c61799d150096f329071b@TeraNews...
| Garmin's website now says they are "committed" to providing WAAS GPS
| approach capability for the 400/500 series by the "end of 2004."
|
| UPSAT's site states that their CNX-80 is WAAS approved now but I cannot
find
| an explicit statement that it supports WAAS approaches at this point.
|

UPS told us that the CNX-80 database needs an upgrade before you can do WAAS
approaches and has promised that it has already been release and that we
should get it soon.

[Leland Vandervort]

My own 5 euro cents:

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

Leland
'71 PA28R-200




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

>Richard Kaplan wrote:
>> Garmin's website now says they are "committed" to providing WAAS GPS
>> approach capability for the 400/500 series by the "end of 2004."
>>
>> UPSAT's site states that their CNX-80 is WAAS approved now but I cannot find
>> an explicit statement that it supports WAAS approaches at this point.
>>
>> Does anyone know for sure if the CNX-80 supports WAAS GPS approaches *now*?
>>
>> In any event, can Garmin really be that far behind the curve as to plan WAAS
>> only fo rthe "end of 2004"? This seems very much atypical for Garmin and
>> almost an embarrassment for them.
>>
>>
>
>Garmin lobbied the FAA on the final specs for WAAS so their current
>processors could meet the spec. They lost. They now have to replace
>the processors in order to meet the spec. I think the issue was that
>they could get 3 updates per second and the spec was for 5. This is
>from my memory of an FAA session at the Great Lakes Aviation Conference
>back in January.

[Mike Rapoport]

This is my understanding too. In order for the box to drive the glideslope
needle, the altitudes have to be in the database. Currently I don't think
that they are..

Mike
MU-2


"Scott Moore" > wrote in message
...
> Richard Kaplan wrote:
> >
> > "Scott Moore" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Speaking only for myself, its pretty damm confusing exactly what would
be
> > > done with WAAS even if implemented. Garmins' other units that accept
> >
> > WAAS is now implemented and IFR approved as of the past week.
> >
> > If a receiver were approved for WAAS approaches, then TODAY you could
use
> > VNAV/LNAV miniums on GPS RNAV approaches instead of LNAV minimums.
> > Presumably (though I am not certain) a VNAV/LNAV GPS RNAV approach would
be
> > considered a precision approach. UPSAT's CNX80 web page touts the
airports
> > you have access to today with WAAS; yet the version of the POH
supplement
> > posted on their site says in the legal fineprint that precision
approaches
> > are NOT permitted. So I am not certain if you can or cannot fly
VNAV/LNAV
> > GPS approach mininums TODAY on a CNX-80.
> >
> > > What I would like to see from Garmin is a controlled descent option
> > > on non-precision GPS approaches, which would be perfectly legal to
> > > implement right now (because it is inside the "dive and drive"
> >
> > If you want to do this as a backup to other navigation, you can do this
now
> > with the VNAV function on the Garmin 430/530, albeit not yet with WAAS.
>
> I was talking about driving the glideslope needle. Pretty much by
definition,
> WAAS is going to have to drive the needle to be a precision device. On my
430,
> the glideslope needle is driven (obviously) by the box, and when Garmin
talks
> about "WAAS compatibility" I have to presume that it means ability to
drive
> the glideslope from the GPS side. What else would it mean ? We can add
boxes
> to make WAAS work ? Anybody could say that.
>
> --
> For most men, true happiness can only be achieved with a woman.
> Also for most men, true happiness can only be achieved without a woman.
> Sharp minds have noted that these two rules tend to conflict.....

[Mike Rapoport]

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

Mike
MU-2


"Leland Vandervort" > wrote
in message ...
>
> My own 5 euro cents:
>
> Garmin missed the boat on one "minor" point with both the GNS430 and
> the GNS530... for something that is purportedly a "fully integrated
> comm and navigation system" where is the DME? (Required for Airways
> certification). GPS derrived distances are not DME, and in Europe are
> not acceptable as a substitute. As a result, a VERY nice panel with a
> couple of GNS530 is still not airways approved unless there is a DME
> (doesn't necessarily have to be slaved), and hence another 1 radio
> unit (height) taken up on the panel. If I'm not mistaken, the UPS kit
> has both DME and transponder integrated... I personally prefer the
> garmin kit though. Could the engineers at Garmin catch up with
> everyone else please? </tongue in cheek>
>
> Leland
> '71 PA28R-200
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 07:48:57 -0400, John Mireley >
> wrote:
>
> >Richard Kaplan wrote:
> >> Garmin's website now says they are "committed" to providing WAAS GPS
> >> approach capability for the 400/500 series by the "end of 2004."
> >>
> >> UPSAT's site states that their CNX-80 is WAAS approved now but I cannot
find
> >> an explicit statement that it supports WAAS approaches at this point.
> >>
> >> Does anyone know for sure if the CNX-80 supports WAAS GPS approaches
*now*?
> >>
> >> In any event, can Garmin really be that far behind the curve as to plan
WAAS
> >> only fo rthe "end of 2004"? This seems very much atypical for Garmin
and
> >> almost an embarrassment for them.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Garmin lobbied the FAA on the final specs for WAAS so their current
> >processors could meet the spec. They lost. They now have to replace
> >the processors in order to meet the spec. I think the issue was that
> >they could get 3 updates per second and the spec was for 5. This is
> >from my memory of an FAA session at the Great Lakes Aviation Conference
> >back in January.
>

[Leland Vandervort]

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

Leland
'71 PA28R-200



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

>
>Leland Vandervort >
>wrote
>
>>Garmin missed the boat on one "minor" point with both the GNS430 and
>>the GNS530... for something that is purportedly a "fully integrated
>>comm and navigation system" where is the DME? (Required for Airways
>>certification). GPS derrived distances are not DME, and in Europe are
>>not acceptable as a substitute. As a result, a VERY nice panel with a
>>couple of GNS530 is still not airways approved unless there is a DME
>>(doesn't necessarily have to be slaved), and hence another 1 radio
>>unit (height) taken up on the panel. If I'm not mistaken, the UPS kit
>>has both DME and transponder integrated... I personally prefer the
>>garmin kit though. Could the engineers at Garmin catch up with
>>everyone else please? </tongue in cheek>
>
>Perhaps, like Cirrus, they aim for the US market (90% of world GA) and
>see what might develop elsewhere. Outside the USA, everybody who wants
>to fly anywhere seriously needs to fit an ADF and a DME, and once you
>aren't a virgin anymore it doesn't really matter what you do....
>
>
>Peter.

[Jon Parmet]

wrote in message >...
> Lockheed employee wrote:
>
> > I have a Jeppesen briefing bulletin (DEN 00-A) that states:
> >
> > LNAV/VNAV must have WAAS equipment approved for precision approach, or
> > RNP-0.3 system based on GPS or DME/DME, with an IFR approach approved
> > Baro-VNAV system. It appears that either is suitable for going to
> > VNAV minimums
> >
>
> There are a whole new set of criteria for WAAS approaches, which are called "LPV"
> instead of "VNAV." Jeppesen *may* be correct, in that WAAS-certified equipment that
> can use the LPV IAPs when they appear can also use existing VNAV minimums. But, I'd
> feel a lot better hearing that directly from FAA's Flight Standards instead of
> Jeppesen. ~

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

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

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

LNAV/ | 555.6 | 50.0 |
VNAV

LPV | 40.0 | 50.0 |

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


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


Regards,
Jon

[Richard Kaplan]

> wrote in message ...>

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

From TERPS section 6:

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

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

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

--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Richard Kaplan]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...

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

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

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

--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Richard Kaplan]

"Scott Moore" > wrote in message
...

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

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

--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Scott Moore]

Leland Vandervort wrote:
>
> My own 5 euro cents:
>
> Garmin missed the boat on one "minor" point with both the GNS430 and
> the GNS530... for something that is purportedly a "fully integrated
> comm and navigation system" where is the DME? (Required for Airways
> certification). GPS derrived distances are not DME, and in Europe are
> not acceptable as a substitute. As a result, a VERY nice panel with a
> couple of GNS530 is still not airways approved unless there is a DME
> (doesn't necessarily have to be slaved), and hence another 1 radio
> unit (height) taken up on the panel. If I'm not mistaken, the UPS kit
> has both DME and transponder integrated... I personally prefer the
> garmin kit though. Could the engineers at Garmin catch up with
> everyone else please? </tongue in cheek>
>
> Leland
> '71 PA28R-200

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

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

[Tarver Engineering]

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > head. UPS was on the phone before the smoke break ended. WAAS alone
could
> > not add any new services to existing GPS.
>
> So are you saying that the CNX-80 is approved or will be approved to fly
> approaches which the Garmin 530 never will be able to fly?

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

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

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

John P. tarver, MS/PE

[[email protected]]

Richard Kaplan wrote:

> "Scott Moore" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > I was talking about driving the glideslope needle. Pretty much by
> definition,
> > WAAS is going to have to drive the needle to be a precision device. On my
> 430,
> > the glideslope needle is driven (obviously) by the box, and when Garmin
> talks
>
> OK, you can do it today (legally actually) by using any IFR
> approach-approved GPS of your choice plus a handheld Garmin 295 or Garmin
> 196. Both of these handheld Garmin units are WAAS-enabled and have an
> electronic HSI page with a synthetic glideslope needle linked to a VNAV
> function. You can legally use an IFR approach GPS and then you can
> supplement this with the VNAV data from the handheld GPS ** as long as you
> do no go below any published altitudes on the approach **.

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

[Jon Parmet]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message >...
> "Jon Parmet" > wrote in message
> om...
> > wrote in message >...
> > > Lockheed employee wrote:
> > >
> > > > I have a Jeppesen briefing bulletin (DEN 00-A) that states:
> > > >
> > > > LNAV/VNAV must have WAAS equipment approved for precision approach, or
> > > > RNP-0.3 system based on GPS or DME/DME, with an IFR approach approved
> > > > Baro-VNAV system. It appears that either is suitable for going to
> > > > VNAV minimums
> > > >
> > >
> > > There are a whole new set of criteria for WAAS approaches, which are
> called "LPV"
> > > instead of "VNAV." Jeppesen *may* be correct, in that WAAS-certified
> equipment that
> > > can use the LPV IAPs when they appear can also use existing VNAV
> minimums. But, I'd
> > > feel a lot better hearing that directly from FAA's Flight Standards
> instead of
> > > Jeppesen. ~
> >
> > Agreed,
>
> My goodness. :)

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

oops... forgot.... :D

[[email protected]]

Richard Kaplan wrote:

> > wrote in message ...>
>
> > Check the RNAV Runway 24 at KCRQ, then pass that one by us again.
>
> Could you be more specific? What are the interesting features of this
> approach and how does that relate to this discussion?
>

I believe you said you could continue to VNAV minimums so long as you didn't
violate any LNAV stepdown fixes. Note the huge difference in LNAV vs. VNAV
minimums on that IAP and there are no LNAV stepdown fixes to use to stay out of
harm's way.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message
news:08e5297f8b04a12ba98b54fe2071e26e@TeraNews...
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > No. I am writing that Garmin is now going to have to play catch up.
>
> Then what did you mean when you said "WAAS alone could not add any new
> services to existing GPS"?

The use of a data base and pressure altitude are being used to pump the
probabilities for the UPS box.

[Jedi Nein]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message >...
> "Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message
> news:6823bf21e87c61799d150096f329071b@TeraNews...
> | Garmin's website now says they are "committed" to providing WAAS GPS
> | approach capability for the 400/500 series by the "end of 2004."
> |
> | UPSAT's site states that their CNX-80 is WAAS approved now but I cannot
> find
> | an explicit statement that it supports WAAS approaches at this point.
> |
>
> UPS told us that the CNX-80 database needs an upgrade before you can do WAAS
> approaches and has promised that it has already been release and that we
> should get it soon.

Howdy!

1. WAAS is turned on but only "approved operators with approved
equipment" may do the LNAV/LPV/WAAS/GPS Precision Approaches.
2. The CNX80 is ONLY approved equipment for NON-PRECISION GPS
Approaches.
3. The CNX80 is NOT approved for PRECISION GPS Approaches
(RNAV/VNAV/etc) and will not be for several months to come.
4. GARMIN's 530/430 equipment is only approved for NON-PRECISION GPS
Approaches.
5. GARMIN's 530/430 equipment may or may not beat UPSAT's CNX80 in the
quest for PRECISION GPS Approach Approval.
6. IFR Enroute, Terminal, and Oceanic IFR-Approved GPS units with an
IFR-Approved installation AND CURRENT database may be used as a
substitute for DME in the U.S. (Consider that the rest of the world
still thinks NDBs are a pretty neat idea and the U.S. DOD OWNS and
OPERATES GPS. Of course the rest of the world still has their heads up
their arses when it comes to GPS, they didn't think of it first, and a
valid concern about the US military's ability to turn off GPS.)

I don't think GARMIN has missed the boat at all. Their delay in
implementing WAAS upgrades is deliberate to allow the FAA to turn on
WAAS all over the country and not just the 16 Approaches that could be
flown with GPS/WAAS equipment. WAAS and LAAS are not fully
operational, and GARMIN wants to see which system will win, if not
both, and GARMIN's upgrade will handle the appropriate system. This is
why GARMIN is implementing Terrain and TAWS this year, and WAAS next
year. At this time, terrain is a software upgrade, TAWS is a hardware
upgrade, and that will probably change before GARMIN ships the units.
GARMIN is planning for WAAS to be a software upgrade. The difference?
Software upgrades can be done at a dealer.

UPSAT's CNX80's WAAS-Enabled GPS is a bunch of marketing hype until
such time that the FAA allows Precision GPS approaches. Aloft, a
difference of 1' (WAAS) versus 3' (GPS) doesn't make a critical
difference in avoiding terrain or other obstacles. Being 200' over the
end of the runway, 1 foot versus 3 feet might make a critical
difference, hence the extended wait for GPS Precision Approaches.

The FAA's slowness in implementing WAAS approaches and approvals might
be deliberate due to the number of airspace and altitude busts by
pilots with the fancy GPS units on board. The FAA may be waiting for
the pilot community to get themselves trained on these GPS units
before certifying the system as safe for the general aviation pilots.

Where is my information from? The technical standard orders for
precision and non-precision GPS units, several days at the Aircraft
Electronics Association Convention, digging through the pounds of
manuals and installation manuals for the various units, and from the
mouths of the engineers and techs themselves at GARMIN, UPSAT, and L3.

Fly SAFE!
Jedi Nein
www.slantgolf.com (in progress)

[Bob Gardner]

Slightly off topic, but interesting in this context:

The latest edition of the FAA's SatNav News contains a graphic of
projections for various navaids through 2020. It shows the current number of
VORs (1033) diminishing to about 500 beginning in 2010; however, the listing
for VOR-DME/VORTAC shows an increase from 878 to more than 930. TACAN shows
no change from 2002 through 2020. Long range NDBs are retained in Alaska and
coastal. ILS Cat I and LOC approaches diminish from 1158 to about 546, while
the number of Cat III ILSs increases slightly.

GPS is strong throughout...WAAS comes up in 2003 and LAAS Cat 1 in 2005.

The decision on the fate of Loran is still up in the air.

Bob Gardner

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message
news:6823bf21e87c61799d150096f329071b@TeraNews...
> Garmin's website now says they are "committed" to providing WAAS GPS
> approach capability for the 400/500 series by the "end of 2004."
>
> UPSAT's site states that their CNX-80 is WAAS approved now but I cannot
find
> an explicit statement that it supports WAAS approaches at this point.
>
> Does anyone know for sure if the CNX-80 supports WAAS GPS approaches
*now*?
>
> In any event, can Garmin really be that far behind the curve as to plan
WAAS
> only fo rthe "end of 2004"? This seems very much atypical for Garmin and
> almost an embarrassment for them.
>
>
> --
> Richard Kaplan, CFII
>
> www.flyimc.com
>
>

[Snowbird]

(Jedi Nein) wrote in message >...

> Howdy!

> GARMIN is planning for WAAS to be a software upgrade. The difference?
> Software upgrades can be done at a dealer.

Um, is the terrain stuff going to be a processor upgrade then?

I thought part of the issue w/ the Garmin units was that they
update 3x at an interval where FAA's WAAS spec requires 5x,
and Garmin was unsuccessful at lobbying the FAA to decrease
the time interval. Doesn't sound like a software issue to me
but whatdoIknow.

OTOH, if they take care of the hardware now, they can handle
WAAS as a software upgrade later.

> UPSAT's CNX80's WAAS-Enabled GPS is a bunch of marketing hype until
> such time that the FAA allows Precision GPS approaches. Aloft, a
> difference of 1' (WAAS) versus 3' (GPS) doesn't make a critical
> difference in avoiding terrain or other obstacles.

Hmmm, somehow I thought the difference in precision was greater
than that.

> The FAA's slowness in implementing WAAS approaches and approvals might
> be deliberate due to the number of airspace and altitude busts by
> pilots with the fancy GPS units on board. The FAA may be waiting for
> the pilot community to get themselves trained on these GPS units
> before certifying the system as safe for the general aviation pilots.

Documentation on said number of airspace and altitude busts? As
far as I know, if one does bust altitude or airspace, no one keeps
track of what sort of GPS one had on board.

Cheers,
Sydney