So it is me or....
- Thread starter CT Arrow
- Start date
AdamZ
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2005
- Messages
- 14,866
- Location
- Montgomery County PA
- Display Name
Display name:
Adam Zucker
You may have only paid for two letters 
azure
Final Approach
Lucky you.
There are a bunch of approaches that have had the new LP minimums added. Apparently the LP minimums are considered better than LPV, so your WAAS GPS automatically selects them. I don't think there is any way to make it annunciate LPV or any approach level that gives you vertical guidance, so you're stuck with lateral guidance forever and ever now. If I'm wrong I'm sure John Collins will be along to correct me.
There are a bunch of approaches that have had the new LP minimums added. Apparently the LP minimums are considered better than LPV, so your WAAS GPS automatically selects them. I don't think there is any way to make it annunciate LPV or any approach level that gives you vertical guidance, so you're stuck with lateral guidance forever and ever now. If I'm wrong I'm sure John Collins will be along to correct me.
bbchien
Touchdown! Greaser!
The LP apporach is no vertical guidance, but the lateral aspects are closer to a localizer. No proprietary synthesized v-guidance, either.
John Collins
En-Route
Lucky you.
There are a bunch of approaches that have had the new LP minimums added. Apparently the LP minimums are considered better than LPV, so your WAAS GPS automatically selects them. I don't think there is any way to make it annunciate LPV or any approach level that gives you vertical guidance, so you're stuck with lateral guidance forever and ever now. If I'm wrong I'm sure John Collins will be along to correct me.
I think you meant to say that LP minimums are considered better than LNAV. If a runway doesn't qualify for a LPV, then LP is considered. If the MDA is at least 20 feet lower than the LNAV, the LP is published. There are more than 100 of the 400+ LP procedures that the 20 foot MDA improvement requirement wasn't the policy and the LP has the identical MDA as the LNAV.
The reason that the LP is able to lower the MDA over the LNAV has to do with the increased accuracy of the WAAS path which in turn means that a smaller area may be evaluated for obstacles, so an obstacle that affects the LNAV may or may not affect the LP.
You can only fly the LP minimums if LP is annunciated on the WAAS GPS. As of now, no vertical guidance is available if the GPS supports the LP procedure type. If the integrity doesn't support the LP procedure, it will fail down to LNAV, also without any vertical guidance. For your GNS480, software version 2.3 is required. For the GNS430W/530W software version 3.3 or later is required. The GTN series support the LP procedure type. The G1000 WAAS systems do not as of yet.
John Collins
En-Route
The first one was published on the charts in Jan 2011. There are over 400 now published. Jeppesen was unable to support the database with coding of the LP procedures until the 1302 cycle on Feb 7, 2013. Which approach are you referring to. I don't recall any that had LPV removed and replaced by LP, but I guess it is possible. You might mean that the approach used to support LNAV+V and now supports LP.
wabower
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2008
- Messages
- 12,013
- Display Name
Display name:
Wayne
So you won't be surprised if his response includes just F and Y?
You may have only paid for two letters
azure
Final Approach
Interesting, thanks for the info. No, I took the OP at his word that an RNAV approach that he had flown to LPV minimums was now annunciating as LP. Since the LPV already has localizer-like lateral guidance, I couldn't see any advantage to LP over LPV unless for whatever reasons, the minimums were lower.
I really need to get out the books and commit all the different RNAV approach specifications to memory.
JasonCT
Pattern Altitude
So you won't be surprised if his response includes just F and Y?
That was pretty funny!