RussR
En-Route
Often only 20 feet.
Or even zero in some cases.
Often only 20 feet.
I thought the policy was to not chart LP unless a 20' or more reduction in MDA over LNAV could be achieved.Or even zero in some cases.
I thought the policy was to not chart LP unless a 20' or more reduction in MDA over LNAV could be achieved.
Thanks Russ. My TERPs currency is waning.That was the policy under the 8260.58. The .58A removed that stipulation.
All of the SBAS boxes I’ve dealt with were certified before LP existed, and can fly LPV but not LP.
but again, it’s the documentation that provides the answer, not assumptions, no matter how logical they may be.
The disagreement I mentioned (and am not answering) is what happens if you have LNAV/VNAV minimums lower than LPV minimums and the system annunciates LPV. Can you fly to the lower LNAV/VNAV minimums?
My home base, KTTA, has one n the GPS 21. It's only 12 feet and 1/8 mile vis, so it's not too significant practically speaking. But it is an interesting academic exercise.This was an issue we ran into more than 12 years ago when I was a contractor on the WAAS program. At the time, this generally happened when the LPV approach was designed using a different survey from what was used to design the LNAV/VNAV. I figured by now most of those situations would have been corrected.
A.6.4 LNAV/VNAV Line of Minima Qualification.
A.6.4.1 Stand-Alone Systems. Stand-alone TSO-C146 Class 2 or 3 systems meet the aircraft qualification requirements for RNP APCH operations using the LNAV/VNAV line of minima provided that the installations meet at least the performance and functional requirements of this AC.
Flying LP or LP+V is dependent on the software version for the GNS (3.30 added LP, 5.10 added LP+V, current version is 5.40), GTN (LP was approved in the initial release 2.0, 6.11 added LP+V, current version 6.70), and G1000 systems. Early GNS and G1000 systems don't support LP or LP+V, but if the software is upgraded, they do.
Unfortunately there’s also certification that has to take place before software can be changed. You’d have to install the update as well as the new manuals and avionics tech signature for your installation.I love that software updates can make things better.
I loathe that in aviation this isn’t just automatic like every other piece of significant software that I own or rent.
It’s utterly stupid that we have to schedule time in a shop to upload stuff from an iPad to the panel, considering the state of the art in all other software.
“There’s a new update. Install? (y/n)” should be the norm by now.
I love the way Garmin has everyone assuming that no other avionics manufacturers exist.Flying LP or LP+V is dependent on the software version for the GNS (3.30 added LP, 5.10 added LP+V, current version is 5.40), GTN (LP was approved in the initial release 2.0, 6.11 added LP+V, current version 6.70), and G1000 systems. Early GNS and G1000 systems don't support LP or LP+V, but if the software is upgraded, they do.
Unfortunately there’s also certification that has to take place before software can be changed. You’d have to install the update as well as the new manuals and avionics tech signature for your installation.
Probably get there eventually...it hasn’t been much more than 25 years ago now that we had to find a live weather observer so we could shoot an approach under Part 135 because we didn’t have a training program on how to use AWOS/ASOS.Understood. It’s outdated.
Print the new manual at home yourself and upload the update. Done.
There’s nothing special about my avionics guy’s crappy inkjet printer over my much better color laser one.
Ramp check me. If I didn’t print the damn thing, cite me. I’ll print it. Not rocket science.
What’s the tech signature adding? If the update software says it worked, he’s signing. He didn’t write the code and didn’t do anything. His iPad isn’t any better than mine.
If it requires a flight test, that’s different. But a firmware update? Just move that to the owner/operator. There’s no value add anymore for avionics shop firmware updates unless you just don’t feel like doing it.
Probably get there eventually...it hasn’t been much more than 25 years ago now that we had to find a live weather observer so we could shoot an approach under Part 135 because we didn’t have a training program on how to use AWOS/ASOS.
I would agree that we should be able to update the software version ourselves. However having just sat with my avionics shop as the updated my GTN they told me several steps along the way that if done in the wrong order etc would (and has) brick the unit. Not that that couldn’t be communicated in a readme file or instructions but something to be careful with in a $15k instrument.Yeah. We can already update the database which has plenty of possibility to kill us. Updating firmware really is no different if the devices are handling error checking and such. And printing the PDF from the website to cram into page X - Y of the aircraft manual isn’t exactly a big deal.
Not sure that the avionics person’s signature really buys in that process other than they have secret squirrel access to that web page at Garmin, these days.
I would agree that we should be able to update the software version ourselves. However having just sat with my avionics shop as the updated my GTN they told me several steps along the way that if done in the wrong order etc would (and has) brick the unit. Not that that couldn’t be communicated in a readme file or instructions but something to be careful with in a $15k instrument.
And the manufacturer can simply code the correct order into the iPad uploader anyway.
Just curious, what avionics can you update software on via iPad?
Be sure to have your Kodak with you if you want to take pictures.I love the way Garmin has everyone assuming that no other avionics manufacturers exist.
it’s kind of like talking about furniture and people asking which IKEA store you went to.
Be sure to have your Kodak with you if you want to take pictures.