Yes -- VHF comm and VOR navigation. But that's no different than a non-WAAS 430 over a 496.
Are you sure about that? I know there was an issue with some 28v only units (W or non-W, I can't remember which) but AFaIK Garmin still repairs non-W units they just don't sell new ones any more.
There are several advantages of WAAS GPS over non-WAAS on IFR flights such as lower mins on many approaches, vertical guidance on almost all approaches, being legal to fly IFR without having logged a VOR check in the last 30 days, using airports with only GPS approaches for alternates, etc. But none of that applies to VFR flights.
No I'm not sure.
They will, if the right interfacing is also installed. My comments were primarily directed at hand-flying in that situation. Obviously, if the airplane has a 2-axis autopilot and the pilot knows how to use it to its fullest extent, then there's a big advantage in a weather emergency, and WAAS will increase the number of airport/runways to which you can fly a 2-axis coupled approach. But overall, I agree with John Collins -- if you can't do both, spend the money on training, rather than equipment. To misquote Freewheelin' Franklin, "Training will get you through times of no equipment better than equipment will get you through times of no training."I thought the WAAS versions would fly the GPS "glideslopes" with the correct autopilot.
Yes they will, and with GPSS they'll do an even better job. But relying on that to pull your bacon out of the fire after getting into IMC as a VFR pilot would be foolhardy and extremely dangerous. I'm not saying one shouldn't try that if there were no other options, just that it shouldn't be a part of anyone's plan.I thought the WAAS versions would fly the GPS "glideslopes" with the correct autopilot.
I seem to remember a doctor who flew his Bonanza out of Louisville years ago. No IR, but he flew IFR in the clouds all the time -- told everyone the autopilot took care of everything. One day, the autopilot failed at about 1500 feet on departure -- into a 400-foot ceiling. RIP*.
...but not, for LNAV+V, at the same level of accuracy as LPV approaches. Yes, it may be better than no GS, but there are limitations associated of which the non-IR pilot would probably not be aware.
I certainly agree that one shouldn't depend on it, but it's reasonable to expect to survive an emergency IFR approach as a VFR pilot with an autopilot (even without an AP). Sure it wouldn't be fun, but it's perfectly doable if you're a reasonably proficient pilot.
You mean "a reasonably proficient instrument pilot"? Because not many of the folks I've trained for IR over the last four years would have survived an emergency IFR approach, even with an autopilot, before they started the training.
No, I mean a reasonably proficient VFR only pilot. We're talking about emergencies here, right? Obviously, I would never rely on doing this if I didn't have my IR, nor would it be legal.
Ummmm....yes? And you don't think this minimum level of training can be expected? The very first thing I would do is hit ONE button and engage the AP in wing level mode.
No, it's not akin to that. It's akin to expecting someone who's got a motorcycle license but has only driven a car for a few hours to take over. Which he'll probably be able to do.
I think that's a matter of opinion. Mine's based on observation over the last four years of several dozen IR trainees with no instrument training beyond that required for PP. YMMV.
No, they're usually very good students, and are fine instrument pilots once trained. However, going into the IR course, they've just not had any training on or practice in flying by instruments (I mean zero instrument time) beyond the 3 hours (or less, for some of the older ones) they got for their private many years ago, including quite a few flight reviews without any instrument work (another story entirely). And it shows.