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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
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 what the actual approved status is for the CNX-80. -- Richard Kaplan, CFII www.flyimc.com |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
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..... |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
"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.... |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|