(Snowbird) wrote
Here, let me restore the point I was trying to make:
I feel the ability to legally request and fly GPS approaches
is more than just an issue of whether there are other IAPs and
what their minima are.

Approaches where the navaid is off the field are of necessity
constrained by the location of the navaid.

Actually, whether the navaid is on or off the field, there are still
plenty of constraints on the approach unless it's in the middle of
nowhere on flat ground. Check out the NDB and GPS approaches to my
home field of EYQ for a perfect example of what happens when you're
not in the middle of nowhere.

Stand-alone GPS
approaches IMO add significant capability vs. using VFR GPS
to fly an impromptu overlay approach.

I fail to see how this is relevant to the protection offered on
approach. The hazard on the approach into LVJ is a 1200 ft tower.
That tower is actually much CLOSER to the FAC on the GPS approach.

It's simply that the GPS (VFR or IFR) is so much more accurate than
the VOR, and thus the pilot can easily avoid the hazard without the
need to keep the needle perfectly centered. If a VFR GPS is used to
back up the VOR approach, then I would argue that safety is increased
over the standalone GPS approach, since (a) the hazard is
significantly farther from the FAC and (b) a second source of
navigation, relying on a completely different signal source, is
available as a sanity check.

You don't have to agree with my point, but please don't delete
it and then surmise that I must have been making a different
one.

It simply never occurred to me that your point was that having the IFR
rather than a VFR GPS was a safety issue, especially when flying into
an airport like LVJ. If that is your point, I see no support for it
whatsoever.

One thing you are failing to realize is that the reason for the use of
the MHF VOR/DME as the basis of the sole non-GPS approach to LVJ has
NOTHING to do with the lack of a suitable closer navaid. HUB VOR/DME
is much closer, and would allow an approach to 32 with straight-in
minima. In fact there was such an approach. It was decomissioned
because too many people were using it. There are several flight
schools on the field, and when the CFII's filed IFR they were
interfering with arrivals into Hobby. Once IFR GPS becomes
sufficiently popular, you can rest assured the GPS 32 approach into
LVJ will be decomissioned as well, and will probably be replaced with
an approach much like the VOR-B.

Michael