KLVK ILS 25R

My guess is terrain. THAT approach seems to have some real fun with reflections off the mountains. I've had the GS couple prior to intercept (well above 1700), resulting in a pretty aggressive climb.
 
The short answer is that when FAA Flight Inspection flew it, the signal did not meet required parameters for a coupled approach.

For the slightly longer answer, I could find this in FAAO 8260.19G:

(d) When the rate of reversal in the GS exceeds the tolerances of Order 8200.1 establish a restriction for autopilot coupled approach 50 feet above the point (MSL) where the out-of-tolerance condition exists. Use: “Chart note: Autopilot coupled approach NA below (Decision Altitude).” Flight inspection may also request that an autopilot coupled approach not be allowed at all. If that is the case, use: “Chart note: Autopilot coupled approach NA.”

I think that (Decision Altitude) should actually read (Altitude), based on context from the rest of the paragraph.

The truly long answer is found in FAAO 8200.1D: http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/8200.1D_USSFIM_(07.28.15).pdf

Where if you search for "coupled" you will find out all about microvolt levels required at the receiver and those sort of things.
 
Last edited:
Use the LPV 25R and have a solid, stable indication down to the runway.
 
Use the LPV 25R and have a solid, stable indication down to the runway.

The indication is plenty stable on the ILS, at least to the eye. Hand flown, this ILS is trivial. The missed isn't very nice, but that doesn't use the GS.

Not all aircraft have a usable RNAV. Even with those that do, sometimes I have to release the MFD (and its flight plan) to my observer while I fly using the nav radios, in a G1000. He may have a lot to do in a short period of time, depending on what we're doing.
 
Can you explain that statement further?
The right seat often has to do extensive work in flight on the MFD in a real world CAP sortie. Photorecon of disaster areas is a prime example, which requires quite a lot of user waypoints, manually verified. It's not common to do it on an approach, but it has happened in the context of a fuel stop prior to a lengthy photo survey.
 
The right seat often has to do extensive work in flight on the MFD in a real world CAP sortie. Photorecon of disaster areas is a prime example, which requires quite a lot of user waypoints, manually verified. It's not common to do it on an approach, but it has happened in the context of a fuel stop prior to a lengthy photo survey.
I'm still not understanding this...why do you have to fly NAV radios while they program, and are you creating user waypoints on an approach?
 
I'm pretty sure the user waypoints he's referring to have to do with the execution of the airborne photography mission, not flying an approach to landing.
 
I'm still not understanding this...why do you have to fly NAV radios while they program, and are you creating user waypoints on an approach?
No. The right seat often needs the MFD to do his job. I can fly nav radios to let him have it. I don't make user waypoints from the left seat.

He can deal with whatever pattern we need while I fly. The autopilot is needed for aircraft mounted cameras, so it all has to be in a flight plan.
 
No. The right seat often needs the MFD to do his job. I can fly nav radios to let him have it. I don't make user waypoints from the left seat.

He can deal with whatever pattern we need while I fly. The autopilot is needed for aircraft mounted cameras, so it all has to be in a flight plan.
Ok...your initial response looked like it was about ILS vs LPV...I was confused
 
The indication is plenty stable on the ILS, at least to the eye. Hand flown, this ILS is trivial. .

Could be. I have no experience with Livermore. But, not all CAT I ILS are created equal. They rely on RF ground plane reflections, which at some locations create issues. LPV is not subject to those problems.
 
Back
Top