Anyone flown atn LPV yet?

Stan Prevost wrote:
"Sam Spade" wrote in message
...

The 530W also has a nice feature, not present in th 530. ......snip...
Positive course gudiance in holds and procedure turns using highly
accurate roll-steering is great, too. (For FD or autopilot, those too
need to have roll steering to get the most out of these curved flight
paths.)


According to the GNS430W manual, the unit does not provide positive course
guidance in holds except on the inbound leg, which is not a change from the
430, and does not provide positive course guidance on a PT except on the
outbound and inbound portions (not during the reversal itself), which is
also not a change from the 430.

Regarding roll steering, it says "For roll steering autopilots: roll
steering is terminated when approach mode is selected on the autopilot and
is available once the missed approach is initiated." I don't really
understand this statement.

I didn't read the 530W manual. Is it different?



I got the straight scoop from a Garmin soothsayer. First, with a Garmin
autopilot there would not be such a limitation. But, this manual is
written on the presumption the aircraft has Brand K or Brand S
autopilots that do have roll steering. But, those brands have to switch
to CDI steering to fly an ILS so roll steering is not allowed in the
final segment, even though it would be okay with RNAV.

"Sam Spade" wrote in message
news
Stan Prevost wrote:

I got the straight scoop from a Garmin soothsayer. First, with a Garmin
autopilot there would not be such a limitation. But, this manual is
written on the presumption the aircraft has Brand K or Brand S autopilots
that do have roll steering. But, those brands have to switch to CDI
steering to fly an ILS so roll steering is not allowed in the final
segment,

Interesting, but not totally clear. The implication is that the Garmin GPS
outputs roll steering commands derived from tracking the localizer signal.
Is that what the source was saying? Also, it implies that on the
non-brand-G autopilots, the entire ILS logic is based on using CDI steering
inputs. That may depend on whether the unit has "native" GPSS or add-on
GPSS. I have a brand-S unit without GPSS, but it can be added using the
external GPSS converter box that translates the roll steering commands into
inputs to the heading mode of the autopilot. I don't know how the add-on
box works on an ILS, probably can't be used.

even though it would be okay with RNAV.

How about VOR?

Stan Prevost wrote:

"Sam Spade" wrote in message
news
Stan Prevost wrote:

I got the straight scoop from a Garmin soothsayer. First, with a Garmin
autopilot there would not be such a limitation. But, this manual is
written on the presumption the aircraft has Brand K or Brand S autopilots
that do have roll steering. But, those brands have to switch to CDI
steering to fly an ILS so roll steering is not allowed in the final
segment,


Interesting, but not totally clear. The implication is that the Garmin GPS
outputs roll steering commands derived from tracking the localizer signal.
Is that what the source was saying? Also, it implies that on the
non-brand-G autopilots, the entire ILS logic is based on using CDI steering
inputs. That may depend on whether the unit has "native" GPSS or add-on
GPSS. I have a brand-S unit without GPSS, but it can be added using the
external GPSS converter box that translates the roll steering commands into
inputs to the heading mode of the autopilot. I don't know how the add-on
box works on an ILS, probably can't be used.


even though it would be okay with RNAV.


How about VOR?

He may have mention that but, if he did, I forget already. ;-)

Wouldn't folks normally use RNAV instead of VOR? (unlike ILS where you
are required to use the actual LOC and G/S)

"Sam Spade" wrote in message
...

Wouldn't folks normally use RNAV instead of VOR? (unlike ILS where you
are required to use the actual LOC and G/S)

Probably, when there is a suitable RNAV approach available.

Stan Prevost wrote:
"Sam Spade" wrote in message
...

Wouldn't folks normally use RNAV instead of VOR? (unlike ILS where you
are required to use the actual LOC and G/S)


Probably, when there is a suitable RNAV approach available.

If there isn't a suitable RNAV approach available, then the VOR approach
should be "...or GPS."

"Sam Spade" wrote in message
...
Stan Prevost wrote:
"Sam Spade" wrote in message
...

Wouldn't folks normally use RNAV instead of VOR? (unlike ILS where you
are required to use the actual LOC and G/S)


Probably, when there is a suitable RNAV approach available.

If there isn't a suitable RNAV approach available, then the VOR approach
should be "...or GPS."

"Suitable".

Take my home field, for example. There used to be only a VOR/DME or GPS
cirling approach. Then the first RNAV straight-in approach went in and the
"or GPS" came off the other approach, as you say.

That RNAV approach comes in from the north, the VOR/DME comes in from the
west. Which one is most suitable depends on my direction of arrival. I'm
not going to fly 30 or more miles out of my way just to use the RNAV
approach, unless there is an advantage given the weather, making it more
suitable.

That's how I was using "suitable".

On 01/12/07 14:13, Stan Prevost wrote:
"Sam Spade" wrote in message
...
Stan Prevost wrote:
"Sam Spade" wrote in message
...

Wouldn't folks normally use RNAV instead of VOR? (unlike ILS where you
are required to use the actual LOC and G/S)


Probably, when there is a suitable RNAV approach available.

If there isn't a suitable RNAV approach available, then the VOR approach
should be "...or GPS."

"Suitable".

Take my home field, for example. There used to be only a VOR/DME or GPS
cirling approach. Then the first RNAV straight-in approach went in and the
"or GPS" came off the other approach, as you say.

So why would they kill the GPS Overlay approach in this case? It seems the GPS
overlay would still have value given the direction of arrival, as you state below.


That RNAV approach comes in from the north, the VOR/DME comes in from the
west. Which one is most suitable depends on my direction of arrival. I'm
not going to fly 30 or more miles out of my way just to use the RNAV
approach, unless there is an advantage given the weather, making it more
suitable.

That's how I was using "suitable".






--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

Stan Prevost wrote:
"Sam Spade" wrote in message
...

Stan Prevost wrote:

"Sam Spade" wrote in message
...


Wouldn't folks normally use RNAV instead of VOR? (unlike ILS where you
are required to use the actual LOC and G/S)


Probably, when there is a suitable RNAV approach available.

If there isn't a suitable RNAV approach available, then the VOR approach
should be "...or GPS."


"Suitable".

Take my home field, for example. There used to be only a VOR/DME or GPS
cirling approach. Then the first RNAV straight-in approach went in and the
"or GPS" came off the other approach, as you say.

That RNAV approach comes in from the north, the VOR/DME comes in from the
west. Which one is most suitable depends on my direction of arrival. I'm
not going to fly 30 or more miles out of my way just to use the RNAV
approach, unless there is an advantage given the weather, making it more
suitable.

That's how I was using "suitable".



Understood.

If someone had objected when they proposed to delete "or GPS" from the
circling approach, they probably would have left it alone.

The policy is ambiguous when it is not a straight-in replacing a
straight-in IAP.

"Mark Hansen" wrote in message
...
Take my home field, for example. There used to be only a VOR/DME or GPS
cirling approach. Then the first RNAV straight-in approach went in and
the
"or GPS" came off the other approach, as you say.

So why would they kill the GPS Overlay approach in this case? It seems the
GPS
overlay would still have value given the direction of arrival, as you
state below.



I thought it was specified in the TERPS or associated policy, but Sam says
it is ambiguous in this case.

I wasnt aware Garmin makes an autopilot. Is this new?