WAAS for GNS 430/530?

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
gonline.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
agonline.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