WAAS for GNS 430/530?

According to Garmin's product literature, the GNS 430 and 530 are
"WAAS-upgradeable", yet there is no information as to when this
upgrade might be available. Does anyone have any other information
on this?

-- Dane

Significantly delayed due to a software issue. See current AOPA or Flying
magazine

"Dane Spearing" wrote in message
...
According to Garmin's product literature, the GNS 430 and 530 are
"WAAS-upgradeable", yet there is no information as to when this
upgrade might be available. Does anyone have any other information
on this?

-- Dane

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.

It sucks but realistically, how many airports have LPV approaches without an
ILS somewhere? Then compare that list to what you will realistically fly;
then pare it down to to chances of requiring the 250ft DH to break out of
the ceiling. I'd think anyone would come up with a very short list of pilots
this would impact.

That being said, it STILL bums me out!

Marco Leon


"Tom Fleischman" k wrote in
message
news:2005060714500516807%bodhijunkoneeightyeightju nkatmacdotcom@junkjunk...
On 2005-06-06 18:13:06 -0400, (Dane Spearing)
said:

According to Garmin's product literature, the GNS 430 and 530 are
"WAAS-upgradeable", yet there is no information as to when this
upgrade might be available. Does anyone have any other information
on this?

It will never happen. Those are obsolete boxes already. Garmin will put
all it's eggs into the not-yet-WAAS-ready G1000 and the
already-WAAS-capable GNS-480.

To upgrade the 430/530 involves building a completely new box; a major
software, hardware, and processor upgrade. It ain't gonna happen as
long as they've got their hands full getting the G1000 up to speed.

Marco Leon mmleon(at)yahoo.com wrote:
It sucks but realistically, how many airports have LPV approaches without an
ILS somewhere? Then compare that list to what you will realistically fly;
then pare it down to to chances of requiring the 250ft DH to break out of
the ceiling. I'd think anyone would come up with a very short list of pilots
this would impact.

One of the cool things about WAAS is the ability to fly a synthetic
glideslope on a non-precision approach. I'd much rather follow a
needle smoothly down to MDA than dive-and-drive through a couple of
stepdowns, even if the MDA is still the same 500 AGL or whatever.

But does this feature work as enhancements to existing SDF/LOC approaches?

I don't think so. We'll have to wait years, if ever, for these LPV
approaches to come to our area.

My $0.02, {|;-)

Victor J. (Jim) Osborne, Jr.

VOsborne2 at charter dot net
"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...
Marco Leon mmleon(at)yahoo.com wrote:
It sucks but realistically, how many airports have LPV approaches without
an
ILS somewhere? Then compare that list to what you will realistically fly;
then pare it down to to chances of requiring the 250ft DH to break out of
the ceiling. I'd think anyone would come up with a very short list of
pilots
this would impact.

One of the cool things about WAAS is the ability to fly a synthetic
glideslope on a non-precision approach. I'd much rather follow a
needle smoothly down to MDA than dive-and-drive through a couple of
stepdowns, even if the MDA is still the same 500 AGL or whatever.

"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...
One of the cool things about WAAS is the ability to fly a synthetic
glideslope on a non-precision approach. I'd much rather follow a
needle smoothly down to MDA than dive-and-drive through a couple of
stepdowns, even if the MDA is still the same 500 AGL or whatever.

Problem with a smooth descent is that when you arrive at the sectors MDA,
you have immediately start down again rather than taking a few moments to
sift things out. Stable approaches were build for the heavy metal/turbine
crowd.

http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182091-1.html
Pelican's Perch #24:
Sloppy, Sorry VNAV

Flying a non-precision approach has traditionally been a "Dive and Drive"
affair in which the pilot descends rapidly to the MDA or step-down altitude
and then levels off. Recently, however, pilots of aircraft equipped with
glass cockpit FMS systems or VNAV-capable GPS receivers have been encouraged
to fly such approaches using a constant descent path. There's even a
buzzword for this: CANPA (constant-angle non-precision approach), and these
calculated pseudo-glideslopes are now starting to show up on Jeppesen
approach plates. AVweb's John Deakin thinks this is a bad idea, one that
will result in a lot more missed approaches and perhaps even some accidents.
Deakin explains why, and makes a compelling case for flying non-precision
approaches the traditional, old-fashioned way that God and Cap'n Jepp
intended.

----------------------------------------------

Stable approaches for the heavy metal???? Stable approaches work for all
aircraft on non-precision approaches. Maybe someone explained them to you
poorly or incorrectly. Stable means a constant descent rate that puts you
at MDA shortly before the MAP. Dive and drive is frowned on by the FAA
because of the multiple accidents nor near mishaps or altitude busts that
occur.


"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...
One of the cool things about WAAS is the ability to fly a synthetic
glideslope on a non-precision approach. I'd much rather follow a
needle smoothly down to MDA than dive-and-drive through a couple of
stepdowns, even if the MDA is still the same 500 AGL or whatever.

Problem with a smooth descent is that when you arrive at the sectors MDA,
you have immediately start down again rather than taking a few moments to
sift things out. Stable approaches were build for the heavy metal/turbine
crowd.

http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182091-1.html
Pelican's Perch #24:
Sloppy, Sorry VNAV

Flying a non-precision approach has traditionally been a "Dive and Drive"
affair in which the pilot descends rapidly to the MDA or step-down
altitude
and then levels off. Recently, however, pilots of aircraft equipped with
glass cockpit FMS systems or VNAV-capable GPS receivers have been
encouraged
to fly such approaches using a constant descent path. There's even a
buzzword for this: CANPA (constant-angle non-precision approach), and
these
calculated pseudo-glideslopes are now starting to show up on Jeppesen
approach plates. AVweb's John Deakin thinks this is a bad idea, one that
will result in a lot more missed approaches and perhaps even some
accidents.
Deakin explains why, and makes a compelling case for flying non-precision
approaches the traditional, old-fashioned way that God and Cap'n Jepp
intended.

----------------------------------------------

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.

One thing you frequently hear is that you could IMMEDIATELY descend
(helicopter) to the next altitude once you pass the waypoint. NOT true.
There is a maximum decent allowed. I don't know what it is, and it is
quite steep, but it's not vertical.

I learned in my training to do constant descents. Figure a VSI that
will work and use it all the way down. I don't like having to make
adjustments to my airplane on the way down. Pick one vertcal rate and
stick to it all the way in. The disadvantage is, I might have more
tailwind and when I break out the airport might be behind me. I guess
I'd rather take that risk vs the risks inherent in the dive and drive
method. Also, this way, my approaches are all basically the same, ILS
or non-precision. Configure the airplane for the desent rate and keep
that all the way in until I break out. If you figure it out right, with
GPS, using groundspeed, you always know where you are.

The altitude depicted for a published route segment of an approach is
safe to fly along any portion of that route segment. Rate of descent
is not an issue. Check the TERPS guidance.


On 7 Jun 2005 19:46:44 -0700, "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.

One thing you frequently hear is that you could IMMEDIATELY descend
(helicopter) to the next altitude once you pass the waypoint. NOT true.
There is a maximum decent allowed. I don't know what it is, and it is
quite steep, but it's not vertical.

I learned in my training to do constant descents. Figure a VSI that
will work and use it all the way down. I don't like having to make
adjustments to my airplane on the way down. Pick one vertcal rate and
stick to it all the way in. The disadvantage is, I might have more
tailwind and when I break out the airport might be behind me. I guess
I'd rather take that risk vs the risks inherent in the dive and drive
method. Also, this way, my approaches are all basically the same, ILS
or non-precision. Configure the airplane for the desent rate and keep
that all the way in until I break out. If you figure it out right, with
GPS, using groundspeed, you always know where you are.

"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.

Maybe someone explained them to you
poorly or incorrectly. Stable means a constant descent rate that puts you
at MDA shortly before the MAP.

I know what they mean.

Dive and drive is frowned on by the FAA
because of the multiple accidents nor near mishaps or altitude busts that
occur.

Do you have a cite for that?

INHMB


"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...
One of the cool things about WAAS is the ability to fly a synthetic
glideslope on a non-precision approach. I'd much rather follow a
needle smoothly down to MDA than dive-and-drive through a couple of
stepdowns, even if the MDA is still the same 500 AGL or whatever.

Problem with a smooth descent is that when you arrive at the sectors
MDA,
you have immediately start down again rather than taking a few moments
to
sift things out. Stable approaches were build for the heavy
metal/turbine
crowd.

http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182091-1.html
Pelican's Perch #24:
Sloppy, Sorry VNAV

Flying a non-precision approach has traditionally been a "Dive and
Drive"
affair in which the pilot descends rapidly to the MDA or step-down
altitude
and then levels off. Recently, however, pilots of aircraft equipped with
glass cockpit FMS systems or VNAV-capable GPS receivers have been
encouraged
to fly such approaches using a constant descent path. There's even a
buzzword for this: CANPA (constant-angle non-precision approach), and
these
calculated pseudo-glideslopes are now starting to show up on Jeppesen
approach plates. AVweb's John Deakin thinks this is a bad idea, one that
will result in a lot more missed approaches and perhaps even some
accidents.
Deakin explains why, and makes a compelling case for flying
non-precision
approaches the traditional, old-fashioned way that God and Cap'n Jepp
intended.

----------------------------------------------