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 |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
LPV vs LNAV/VNAV?
"Sam Spade" wrote in message ... Stan Prevost wrote: \ Beats me. Have you tried to find out in the Garmin Handbook and couldn't find it? Having said that, the advisory vertical path is provided to Garmin, and other avionics vendors, by Jeppesen. That's why I didn't even look in Garmin material. :-) So, assuming no errors on the part of Jeppesen, it doesn't matter whether you are using their chart or NACO's. Whether it matters depends on how much you care about 30 feet. If the GPS box has you begin the Jepp descent angle at the FAWP, then you wind up 30 feet low at the stepdown fix, if I did the numbers right. If my butt were on the line I would be keeping an eye on that stepdown fix. For sure! |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
LPV vs LNAV/VNAV?
test
"paul kgyy" wrote in message ups.com... Can someone explain to me the difference between these two approach types, and how they relate to WAAS? A sample approach that has both is KARR RNAV(GPS) RWY 9. LPV DA is 956, LNAV/VNAV DA is 990. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
LPV vs LNAV/VNAV?
Andrew Sarangan wrote:
Peter R. wrote: Andrew Sarangan wrote: Something I never understood is why LNAV approaches don't automatically show a glideslope so that the airplane arrives at the MDA at the VDP. Perhaps because it wasn't part of the certification at the time? Perhaps my comment was not clearly stated. When you fly an LNAV approach (or any nonprecision approach for that matter) instead of the traditional dive and drive you can mentally calculate the vertical speed required (VSR) to arrive at the VDP at a constant glide angle . That mental calculation could be easily performed by the GPS and displayed as a glideslope. But I have not seen any GPS do that. Certification is irrelevant. We are not talking about a lower minimum or anything new that we not already allowed to do. Perhaps because that functionality is not at all desirable. The "dive and drive" term is derisive, however, it is important to get to minimums in order to be able to see the airport. Arriving right at the minimum altitude just as you reach the place/time for going missed does not do you any favors. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
LPV vs LNAV/VNAV?
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 10:33:43 -0400, Tim wrote:
Something I never understood is why LNAV approaches don't automatically show a glideslope so that the airplane arrives at the MDA at the VDP. Many LNAV approaches have what is termed "advisory vertical guidance". ON those approaches, a TSO146c box will output a GP signal that can be used for a stabilized approach (versus the dive and drive approach). MDA does not change. On the approaches with which I am familiar, the interception of the advisory vertical guidance with the MDA may be prior to a VDP, although they are designed to cross at that point. The guidance goes down to the MAP or runway end. Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA) |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
LPV vs LNAV/VNAV?
"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message ... On the approaches with which I am familiar, the interception of the advisory vertical guidance with the MDA may be prior to a VDP, although they are designed to cross at that point. Ron, do you have any idea why the actual intercept is not at the designed point? Stan |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
LPV vs LNAV/VNAV?
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 19:31:58 -0500, "Stan Prevost"
wrote: "Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message .. . On the approaches with which I am familiar, the interception of the advisory vertical guidance with the MDA may be prior to a VDP, although they are designed to cross at that point. Ron, do you have any idea why the actual intercept is not at the designed point? Stan Stan, I miswrote. Actually, at KEPM, the vertical path does intercept the MDA at the VDP for both GPS approaches. What I was thinking about when I wrote, was that the VDP is further from the MAP than the minimum visibility for the approach. (VDP is 1.3 NM from AER; visibility minimums is 1.0 NM) For an interesting GPS GP, look at the Jepp chart, if you have it, for the RNAV (GPS) RWY 28 at KPQI. The GP starts down about 0.3 NM after the FAF. This appears to be done in order to meet a crossing altitude restriction insice the FAF, and still have a profile that brings you to an appropriate height closer in to the runway. Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA) |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
LPV vs LNAV/VNAV?
"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message ... On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 19:31:58 -0500, "Stan Prevost" wrote: For an interesting GPS GP, look at the Jepp chart, if you have it, for the RNAV (GPS) RWY 28 at KPQI. The GP starts down about 0.3 NM after the FAF. This appears to be done in order to meet a crossing altitude restriction insice the FAF, and still have a profile that brings you to an appropriate height closer in to the runway. I only have the NACO chart, and it doesn't show up that way. Shouldn't they be the same if it is necessary to meet obstacle criteria? |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
LPV vs LNAV/VNAV?
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 21:53:19 -0500, "Stan Prevost"
wrote: "Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message .. . On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 19:31:58 -0500, "Stan Prevost" wrote: For an interesting GPS GP, look at the Jepp chart, if you have it, for the RNAV (GPS) RWY 28 at KPQI. The GP starts down about 0.3 NM after the FAF. This appears to be done in order to meet a crossing altitude restriction insice the FAF, and still have a profile that brings you to an appropriate height closer in to the runway. I only have the NACO chart, and it doesn't show up that way. Shouldn't they be the same if it is necessary to meet obstacle criteria? I didn't think the NACO charts showed the GPS GP profile. Let me check at KPQI ... Interesting difference. On the Jepp chart it also shows a 3.25° GP, which intersects PESIC at 1200'. The GP runs level from LISDE for 0.3 NM, with top of descent 4.4 NM from HUMAX and ends at HUMAX but below the MDA. The NACO chart also shows a 3.25° GP intersecting at PESIC at 1200', but it appears to run smoothly from LISDE (which is 4.7 NM from HUMAX. Obviously both cannot be correct. Doing some trigonometry it appears the JEPP chart is correct: PESIC--LISDE = 3.2 NM PESIC--Top of Descent of GP = 2.9 NM (4.4-1.5) The "triangle: Height = 1000' (LISDE 2200- PESIC 1200) Angle = 3.25° Base = 1000 / tan (3.25°) = 2.9 NM Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA) |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
LPV vs LNAV/VNAV?
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 21:53:19 -0500, "Stan Prevost"
wrote: "Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message .. . On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 19:31:58 -0500, "Stan Prevost" wrote: For an interesting GPS GP, look at the Jepp chart, if you have it, for the RNAV (GPS) RWY 28 at KPQI. The GP starts down about 0.3 NM after the FAF. This appears to be done in order to meet a crossing altitude restriction insice the FAF, and still have a profile that brings you to an appropriate height closer in to the runway. I only have the NACO chart, and it doesn't show up that way. Shouldn't they be the same if it is necessary to meet obstacle criteria? Looking at it another way, also using trig and the same values, if you were to start down at LISDE at 3.25°, by the time you got to PESIC (3.2 NM) you would have descended 1104' instead of only 1000', so you would be 104' low at PESIC. Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA) |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
LPV vs LNAV/VNAV?
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 21:53:19 -0500, "Stan Prevost"
wrote: "Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message .. . On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 19:31:58 -0500, "Stan Prevost" wrote: For an interesting GPS GP, look at the Jepp chart, if you have it, for the RNAV (GPS) RWY 28 at KPQI. The GP starts down about 0.3 NM after the FAF. This appears to be done in order to meet a crossing altitude restriction insice the FAF, and still have a profile that brings you to an appropriate height closer in to the runway. I only have the NACO chart, and it doesn't show up that way. Shouldn't they be the same if it is necessary to meet obstacle criteria? I don't use NACO charts, but could it be that on the NACO chart, the 3.25° notation only applies to the segment after PESIC? Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
LNAV, VNAV and LPV | Andrew Sarangan | Instrument Flight Rules | 5 | January 14th 07 01:57 PM |
LNAV preferable over LNAV/VNAV | [email protected] | Instrument Flight Rules | 4 | October 16th 05 06:34 PM |
GPS approaches with VNAV vertical guidance | Doug | Instrument Flight Rules | 18 | November 2nd 04 10:36 PM |
CNS-80 VNAV | John R. Copeland | Instrument Flight Rules | 17 | October 28th 04 04:24 AM |
Which GPS Support LNAV/VNAV? | C Kingsbury | Instrument Flight Rules | 1 | October 23rd 04 12:28 AM |