ILS or LPV?

I fly what the controller tells you to expect.
 
midlifeflyer said:
That raises an interesting question. How much of that do they actively protect and for what period of time? I know that alternate missed instructions tend to be because of airspace use.

The NYC area with its multiple major airports use a very small amount of space would be a good example. Assuming everyone is giving alternate missed instructions is it necessary to keep traffic out of the published missed for each airport before there is a lost comm situation?
Click to expand...
Mark,
Do you mean by "alternate missed approach instruction" a radar vector instead of the published missed approach or a non-radar missed approach, which is indicated by an alternate missed approach holding pattern on the chart? The latter is published (on the 8260-3/5) only when a second nav aid is required for the charted missed approach.
 
Absolutely.
aterpster said:
Mark,
Do you mean by "alternate missed approach instruction" a radar vector instead of the published missed approach or a non-radar missed approach, which is indicated by an alternate missed approach holding pattern on the chart? The latter is published (on the 8260-3/5) only when a second nav aid is required for the charted missed approach.
Click to expand...
i was referring to a radar vector miss, not the NOTAM'ed use of the published alternate missed approach hold.
 
I prefer LPV. Sometimes the controllers want you on the ILS like everyone else, even if it's the same FAC sometimes the fixes are different so if they're putting everyone on the ILS often we'll just take that to not confuse anyone.

But I do prefer the LPV.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
I tell the controller what I want to fly.
Click to expand...

I'm a believer in that same thought pattern.

And LPV over an ILS for me

On our trip into Waco, TX.

We were just past the two hour mark and in the clag, moderate turbulence and intermittent showers. I provided approach with a PIREP.



The remainder of this leg was more work than fun. Cloud surfing was pretty sweet until we got tossed around a bit. I know, it comes with the instrument rating. I was handed off to Waco approach and was given vectors to an intermediate fix. Maybe that was easier for approach but I had briefed the RNAV GPS 19 and already had my mind set. As a friend and fellow pilot pointed out, the ILS would have a lower decision height, but in fact they are both 704'. The ILS also had a NOTAM for a change in the missed procedure. I advised approach I did not have the fix on the RNAV selected and instead I advised I wanted FEPHY on the RNAV GPS 19 approach.



Sometimes you just have to play the PIC card. Approach approved and I was on my way, more relaxed and with a clear picture in my minds eye. I managed an ok landing and taxied for the ramp at Texas Aero.
 
Last edited:
If I'm using a laser ring gyro coupled to an IFR GPS with auto course setting, I'll fly an advertised ILS with equivalent minimums so the controller doesn't need to think about the fact that I'm flying exactly the same approach. Otherwise, I prefer an LPV. If I'm in something with round dial radio CDIs, I want the RNAV every time.

midlifeflyer said:
Pilots who are maintaining currency by flying 6 coupled approaches, sometimes the exact approach into their home base they have memorized anyway. Legally current but a lot of skills, not just hand-flying, degrade
Click to expand...

I'll never understand people who do practice approaches coupled. Maybe 1 to test out that the AP is working correctly, but otherwise? Forget it. What's the point of doing that in VMC? I couple probably half my actual IMC approaches, though sometimes I end up taking over from the AP because of a bad vector or whatever.

luvflyin said:
You had DME?? DME is just a crutch.:D
Click to expand...

LMAO
 
N1120A said:
I'll never understand people who do practice approaches coupled. Maybe 1 to test out that the AP is working correctly, but otherwise?
Click to expand...
From what I've seen during IPCs and checkouts you need both. An awful lot of pilots don't understand their autopilots that well. I always insist on at least one approach with an autopilot during an IPC. If it's an autopilot I don't know hat well, I try to learn at least one "glitch" to use.

You can see it in YouTube videos too. In one series, the pilot, who generally understands his avionics pretty well, was completely flummoxed because he expected his autopilot to fly a GTN750 vertical navigation profile down a series of stepdowns on an approach, eventually transitioning to the LPV glidepath. Ended up behind the airplane when he tried. Eventually it was resolved, but it was all about the pilot/autopilot interface.
 
midlifeflyer said:
From what I've seen during IPCs and checkouts you need both. An awful lot of pilots don't understand their autopilots that well. I always insist on at least one approach with an autopilot during an IPC. If it's an autopilot I don't know hat well, I try to learn at least one "glitch" to use.

You can see it in YouTube videos too. In one series, the pilot, who generally understands his avionics pretty well, was completely flummoxed because he expected his autopilot to fly a GTN750 vertical navigation profile down a series of stepdowns on an approach, eventually transitioning to the LPV glidepath. Ended up behind the airplane when he tried. Eventually it was resolved, but it was all about the pilot/autopilot interface.
Click to expand...

I agree. Hence why at least one of the approaches should be coupled, but it's a lot easier to use routing VMC and even VFR flying to get familiar with avionics than to maintain hand flying proficiency.
 
midlifeflyer said:
From what I've seen during IPCs and checkouts you need both. An awful lot of pilots don't understand their autopilots that well. I always insist on at least one approach with an autopilot during an IPC. If it's an autopilot I don't know hat well, I try to learn at least one "glitch" to use.

You can see it in YouTube videos too. In one series, the pilot, who generally understands his avionics pretty well, was completely flummoxed because he expected his autopilot to fly a GTN750 vertical navigation profile down a series of stepdowns on an approach, eventually transitioning to the LPV glidepath. Ended up behind the airplane when he tried. Eventually it was resolved, but it was all about the pilot/autopilot interface.
Click to expand...
Which is probably one of the reasons the ATP ACS requires an approach using autopilot.
 
jordane93 said:
We have to use the autopilot and FD for every ILS if weather is below 4000 RVR or 3/4. The autopilot is also required for every non precision approach in IMC.
Click to expand...

Really? Huh. Was going to ask about the ILS to 4 at LGA, but those mins are 3/4 miles anyway.
 
kayoh190 said:
Really? Huh. Was going to ask about the ILS to 4 at LGA, but those mins are 3/4 miles anyway.
Click to expand...
Should have put an asterisk. Except when an approach notes dictate otherwise like the ILS 4 into LGA. I asked the sim instructor and he’s like, we’ll never make you do a hand flown non precision for practice or on a checkride because Delta prohibits it in IMC. We did hand flown single engine non precisions all the time at Endeavor. My last recurrent was a two engine hand flown RNAV 22 LGA to mins.
 
jordane93 said:
Should have put an asterisk. Except when an approach notes dictate otherwise like the ILS 4 into LGA. I asked the sim instructor and he’s like, we’ll never make you do a hand flown non precision for practice or on a checkride because Delta prohibits it in IMC. We did hand flown single engine non precisions all the time at Endeavor. My last recurrent was a two engine hand flown RNAV 22 LGA to mins.
Click to expand...

I see. We don't have any restrictions down to 1800 RVR for an ILS (incidentally below that I'm *required* to hand fly down to 600 RVR using the HUD), but for a non-ILS it's similar to you - we need 1000/3 to hand fly unless we have the runway environment in sight.
 
I was thinking about this thread when I shot an LPV approach today. I flew autopilot in VMC to minimums yesterday, so I hand flew out of 5000 on the vectors to final, down into a small cloud layer (approach counted). Of course, the controller was one of those who gives such smooth vectors that I may as well have been on autopilot.
 
N1120A said:
I was thinking about this thread when I shot an LPV approach today. I flew autopilot in VMC to minimums yesterday, so I hand flew out of 5000 on the vectors to final, down into a small cloud layer (approach counted). Of course, the controller was one of those who gives such smooth vectors that I may as well have been on autopilot.
Click to expand...

What is the difference between a smooth vector and a rough vector?
 
midlifeflyer said:
No need to switch CDIs from GPS to LPV
Click to expand...
that's the big one. Although it always feels "fake" to me.. like I'm not pressing enough buttons or something. The glideslope is just there..

I always dial the ILS freq into the NAV though, just in case, to have it. GPS still feels a little bit like witchcraft to me
 
Some navigators will auto switch to ILS depending on which angle you are intercepting it from
 
kayoh190 said:
Really? Huh. Was going to ask about the ILS to 4 at LGA, but those mins are 3/4 miles anyway.
Click to expand...
LGA ILS4 mins are RVR5000 or 1SM, but there is also a note where coupled approaches must be hand flown. There's constant ground interference and buildings surrounding the entire approach course. Into LGA the needles have a mind of their own, especially ILS4. The funny thing is, it's such a small note and cause an easy bust on a check ride if you miss it.
 
Matt James said:
LGA ILS4 mins are RVR5000 or 1SM, but there is also a note where coupled approaches must be hand flown. There's constant ground interference and buildings surrounding the entire approach course. Into LGA the needles have a mind of their own, especially ILS4. The funny thing is, it's such a small note and cause an easy bust on a check ride if you miss it.
Click to expand...
Um...how do you hand fly a coupled approach? ;)

technically, the note says “autopilot coupled approach not authorized”.
 
Matt James said:
L but there is also a note where coupled approaches must be hand flown.
Click to expand...
Eh? How can you hand-fly a coupled approach? OK, it doesn't say that. It says, "coupled approaches NA."
 
Jmcmanna said:
This is why ILS critical areas exist
Click to expand...

Yep, but they aren't protected unless the weather is low, and if the airport is uncontrolled, most pilots don't know when they have to hold short of the ILS critical area. It is one of the few regs I know.
 
Groundpounder said:
Yep, but they aren't protected unless the weather is low, and if the airport is uncontrolled, most pilots don't know when they have to hold short of the ILS critical area. It is one of the few regs I know.
Click to expand...
Got a reference to that reg?
 
kgruber said:
Sounds like you have an autopilot problem................not fuel truck problem.
Click to expand...
It is a very real thing, especially in transport category aircraft that use Autoland. Here is an example of what happens when an aircraft enters the critical area. On a side note, the crew did not notify the tower they were executing an autoland - thus, the blame falls on the crew.

 
Groundpounder said:
AIM, reg, tomato/tomato. Yes, the AIM isn’t regulatory, but you’d better have a damn good excuse for not following it.
Click to expand...
The directive parts of the AIM are de facto regulatory. There have been more than a few enforcement actions for not following AIM directive procedures. 91.13 is the hook.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top