![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 14 Apr 2007 06:04:57 -0700, "Mooney" wrote:
On Apr 13, 11:27 pm, "Viperdoc" wrote: I have a 530W/430W combo recently, and in fact did some RNAV/GPS approaches tonight. I find it easier to let the autopilot track the GS in LNAV/VNAV approaches rather than dive and drive. It's identical to an ILS- when the DH is reached, then either land or go around. It's probably the same reason why precision approaches with GS are easier to fly than non precision approaches. By the way, tracking the VNAV or LPV glideslope and GPS "localizer" were much smoother than a traditinional ILS or localizer approach. I agree that this is easier to just fly the GPS glideslope and my temptation is to just do it that way, but I'm trying to figure out why my instructor is adamant that I use the stepdown process. Not sure. If you're flying the GPS overlay then the GPS, WAAS or not, is just as valid as the VOR radials for identifying fixes. Can you be confident if you fly the glideslope that you will not violate the minimum altitudes at each stepdown fix? Not unless it's an LPV approach, which none of the approaches to LWM are. The manual says "GPS approaches with vertical guidance may be either LNAV/VNAV or LNAV approaches with advisory vertical guidance. LNAV-only approaches with advisory vertical guidance only have LNAV minima listed on the bottom of the approach plate. The glidepath if typically denoted by a light dashed line on the vertical profile (Jeppesen only) with an associated glidepath angle (usually in the 3.00deg range). These approaches are indicated with "LNAV+V". So, if there is a dashed line on your Jepp chart, then you should be above or at the altitudes at each fix. If you are below these BUT ON THE GS are you legal or does the GS have no legal status? More importantly is there any safety issue of just flying the GS? If you are below the listed altitude for any segment of the approach it's not legal, regardless of how you got there. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Peter Clark" wrote in message ...
On 14 Apr 2007 06:04:57 -0700, "Mooney" wrote: Can you be confident if you fly the glideslope that you will not violate the minimum altitudes at each stepdown fix? Not unless it's an LPV approach, which none of the approaches to LWM are. The manual says "GPS approaches with vertical guidance may be either LNAV/VNAV or LNAV approaches with advisory vertical guidance. LNAV-only approaches with advisory vertical guidance only have LNAV minima listed on the bottom of the approach plate. The glidepath if typically denoted by a light dashed line on the vertical profile (Jeppesen only) with an associated glidepath angle (usually in the 3.00deg range). These approaches are indicated with "LNAV+V". So, if there is a dashed line on your Jepp chart, then you should be above or at the altitudes at each fix. If you are below these BUT ON THE GS are you legal or does the GS have no legal status? More importantly is there any safety issue of just flying the GS? If you are below the listed altitude for any segment of the approach it's not legal, regardless of how you got there. Jeppesen says their VNAV depiction meets all altitude restrictions. I don't see a specific restriction to LPV approaches. Here is a small extract from a 2002 Jeppesen Briefing Bulletin at: http://www.jeppesen.com/download/bri...ulletin02C.pdf "VNAV path information illustrates the geometric descent path with a descent angle from the Final Approach Fix (FAF) to the Threshold Crossing Height (TCH). The inclusion of VNAV angles on non-precision approach charts was done on a limited basis. For those non-precision approach procedures for which the State authority did not specify a descent gradient or did not provide a recommended DME/ Altitude table, a descent angle derived from the Jeppesen NavData database is to be shown on the corresponding approach chart. This angle, if used by certified VNAV-capable avionics equipment, will ensure a stable, constant rate of descent clearing all intervening altitude restrictions (step-down fixes) established by the State authority." For the O.P. "Mooney", that says your altitudes will be OK because your 430W is computing vertical guidance from its NavData database. If you find an example where you'd be below the stepdown altitudes, yet "on the glide slope", please post more details here. Jeppesen doesn't seem to expect that to happen. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Dual glide slope, $95...priceless! | Jack Allison | Owning | 20 | October 22nd 06 03:45 AM |
Can a failed Glide Slope also void the Localizer approach? | Jim Carter | Instrument Flight Rules | 17 | August 24th 06 09:01 PM |
Glide Slope Antenna Ground Plane | JKimmel | Home Built | 6 | August 1st 06 01:28 AM |
En route glide slope? | Andrew Gideon | Piloting | 17 | November 21st 04 05:49 PM |
Effect of airbrake blade height on glide slope | Mike | Soaring | 1 | January 30th 04 08:24 PM |