ILS vs LPV

[m20kmooney]

Relax folks! I don’t see anything to get bent out of shape about! Is there something wrong with an approach to one runway and circle to land on another? And what’s with name calling @Andy95W? 

 

Edited January 4, 2019 by m20kmooney

[Jerry 5TJ]

1 minute ago, m20kmooney said:

Relax folks! I don’t see anything to get bent out of shape about! Is there something wrong with an approach to one runway and circle to land on another?

 

Yes. 

[Andy95W]

31 minutes ago, m20kmooney said:

Relax folks! I don’t see anything to get bent out of shape about! Is there something wrong with an approach to one runway and circle to land on another? And what’s with name calling @Andy95W? 

 

It wasn't just this one video, it was his entire body of work as an attention-seeker.  Reminds me too much of people like the Kardashians/Jenners.  But since I've offended, I'll delete my hurtful words.

[Andy95W]

3 hours ago, midlifeflyer said:

Here's a pretty good example. The link begins at the interesting part.

 

For someone so willing to post a video, you'd think he'd spend more time trying to actually land on the centerline.

[midlifeflyer]

16 hours ago, m20kmooney said:

Relax folks! I don’t see anything to get bent out of shape about! Is there something wrong with an approach to one runway and circle to land on another? 

 

Of course not. The first time I saw it, I did a wow! But then I realized he did it all the time and the maneuver was always under control. Plus, I know from experience that these little action cams make things appear much closer than they are.

The more I watched Jerry the more I realized a few things. He is a bit of a cowboy. As he says, "I like speed." He really enjoys low-level flight, even if he scares his passengers from time to time, but, he actually seems pretty skilled as a seat-of-the-pants VFR pilot.

IFR is a whole different story. Doesn't really understand IFR procedures*, is consistently behind the airplane,  and somehow manages to repeatedly screw up an instrument approach he knows like the back of his hand. It's much worse when he's somewhere unfamiliar.

 

[* procedures in general. He once got int an argument because, according to him, the traffic pattern direction rules are a suggestion and only applies to towered airports when the tower is closed. Yes, I think he eventually realized he was wrong, but it illustrates the point.]

Edited January 5, 2019 by midlifeflyer

[Steve W]

Remind me never to share my YouTube videos with you guys.

 

[exM20K]

3 hours ago, Andy95W said:

It wasn't just this one video, it was his entire body of work as an attention-seeker.  Reminds me too much of people like the Kardashians/Jenners.  But since I've offended, I'll delete my hurtful words.

Sorting through all the click bait on youtube is getting harder and harder.  One showed up for me as recommended: EMERGENCY SR22 over Illinois.  75k views, lots of fanboy comments.  The emergency? Alternator failure while VMC. GADZOOKS,!, PULL THE CHUTE!!!

[Marauder]

For someone so willing to post a video, you'd think he'd spend more time trying to actually land on the centerline.

And what? Ruin is track record?!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[ilovecornfields]

5 hours ago, exM20K said:

Sorting through all the click bait on youtube is getting harder and harder.  One showed up for me as recommended: EMERGENCY SR22 over Illinois.  75k views, lots of fanboy comments.  The emergency? Alternator failure while VMC. GADZOOKS,!, PULL THE CHUTE!!!

Except he doesn’t have any bad comments because he openly admits to deleting them “because it’s my channel.” I thought that was pretty lame. Didn’t know where the nearest airport was or how to find it. I’m not saying I’ve never done anything that embarrassing, but I certainly wouldn’t post it on YouTube.

[midlifeflyer]

12 hours ago, exM20K said:

Sorting through all the click bait on youtube is getting harder and harder.  One showed up for me as recommended: EMERGENCY SR22 over Illinois.  75k views, lots of fanboy comments.  The emergency? Alternator failure while VMC. GADZOOKS,!, PULL THE CHUTE!!!

Yeah but a Jerry IFR flight is always good for entertainment value

i get your point. I'm actually a bit of an addict for these videos. Click bait is a definite, but the ones that get me are some of the guys who do really good videos, but then become "stars." 

There are exceptions, but what started as an amateur artistic outlet for many of these guys gets supplanted by videos having nothing more than special features and self promotional advertising. But they are easy to avoid.

[eman1200]

...Ironically, his newly installed clock above the TXi is showing the time when he says he is going to do the checklist and then when he says he is done. Only one minute elapsed on the clock. I can’t even do a single engine run up and complete a checklist in one minute.

Maybe it took him 24 hours and one minute. Seems like a pretty thorough guy.....

[midlifeflyer]

17 hours ago, midlifeflyer said:

[* procedures in general. He once got int an argument because, according to him, the traffic pattern direction rules are a suggestion and only applies to towered airports when the tower is closed. Yes, I think he eventually realized he was wrong, but it illustrates the point.]

FWIW, here's part of the Reddit discussion from two years ago:

He enters a right base on 07 even though it's left traffic. Isn't that a pretty big no no? I would think maneuvering for straight in would be preferable. Edit- isn't it a violation of 91.126?

n3318Q [Jerry]:  Not a big no no, according to the FAR/AIM traffic patterns are "suggested" but not mandatory, on most of my videos I explain the reason for right traffic on RWY 7. Straight in is not the best choice but is the procedure if your on the RNAV approach. I use right traffic when no one else is in the pattern, the pattern traffic for RWY 25 is on the south side of the airport and by entering right traffic on the south side with no one else in the pattern gets you on the ground sooner and avoids any traffic conflicts overhead with transitioning traffic.

 

Edited January 5, 2019 by midlifeflyer

[jeffschnabel]

after you have made a couple thousand approaches, one is as good as the other.  I don't think its worth debating.  Eventually, the ILS system will go the way of the NDB and VOR.

That said, I still like the ol ILS in case Skynet takes over and blows up all our satellites and terminators show up. 

[ilovecornfields]

Was just looking at the ILS and LPV approaches into MOD. It looks like the ILS has lower minimums but has this restriction that the LPV approach does NOT have. Anyone know why?

“Autopilot coupled approach not authorized below 1080’”

Seems like the opposite of HHR where it says:

8. Use of Flight Director or Autopilot providing RNAV track guidance 
required during simultaneous operations.

 

Why do they care about or restrict/require AP use?

[jaylw314]

6 minutes ago, ilovecornfields said:

Was just looking at the ILS and LPV approaches into MOD. It looks like the ILS has lower minimums but has this restriction that the LPV approach does NOT have. Anyone know why?

“Autopilot coupled approach not authorized below 1080’”

Seems like the opposite of HHR where it says:

8. Use of Flight Director or Autopilot providing RNAV track guidance 
required during simultaneous operations.

 

Why do they care about or restrict/require AP use?

I vaguely remember reading somewhere that AP might not be authorized for an approach if the GS signal is too noisy or has some kind of transient artifacts (presumably due to terrain or installation foibles).  The idea seemed to be that fast digital autopilots might attempt to react to these artifacts with sudden inputs, or assume it means the ILS has failed.  On the other hand, a pilot might simply see this as his needle twitching and fly through the artifacts without a problem.

Can't say I remember where I read that, and I'm not sure if that's the actual reason

[Andy95W]

⬆️⬆️

I also don't know the technical and official reason why, but I have seen an autopilot "snatch" at a twitchy glideslope when I hadn't noticed the note.

[ArtVandelay]

I vaguely remember reading somewhere that AP might not be authorized for an approach if the GS signal is too noisy or has some kind of transient artifacts (presumably due to terrain or installation foibles).  The idea seemed to be that fast digital autopilots might attempt to react to these artifacts with sudden inputs, or assume it means the ILS has failed. 

Maybe this is why GFC 500 uses GPS on ILS approaches.


Tom

[neilpilot]

43 minutes ago, ArtVandelay said:

Maybe this is why GFC 500 uses GPS on ILS approaches.


Tom

I’ll assume you’re comment is serious and point out that unless you use a VOR and GS signal, it’s likely not a legal ILS.

[ArtVandelay]

I’ll assume you’re comment is serious and point out that unless you use a VOR and GS signal, it’s likely not a legal ILS.

I understand that, but I don’t get your point?


Tom

[neilpilot]

7 hours ago, ArtVandelay said:

I understand that, but I don’t get your point?


Tom

Point is simply that if the GFC 500 uses gps for an ILS, then it’s advisory only and it’s not an ILS approach as you indicated.

[M016576]

9 hours ago, ArtVandelay said:

Maybe this is why GFC 500 uses GPS on ILS approaches.


Tom

Really?  Or is it an input from a GPS that the GFC couples too... and the pilot sets the input.  On a 430W, from what I remember, you can load the gps with an ils approach... but it’s only for advisory- or you can switch it over to the actual approach (nav) and fly it the legal way.

seems silly that garmin would have its autopilot only able to couple to a GPS signal.. or worse- use a nav input that isn’t the primary nav input being flown (couple to gps when ils/nav is selected as primary).

Disclaimer- I don’t own any garmin stuff.

[midlifeflyer]

13 hours ago, jaylw314 said:

I vaguely remember reading somewhere that AP might not be authorized for an approach if the GS signal is too noisy or has some kind of transient artifacts (presumably due to terrain or installation foibles).  The idea seemed to be that fast digital autopilots might attempt to react to these artifacts with sudden inputs, or assume it means the ILS has failed.  On the other hand, a pilot might simply see this as his needle twitching and fly through the artifacts without a problem.

Can't say I remember where I read that, and I'm not sure if that's the actual reason

Yup. I don't  have a reference, but it's an anomaly in the G.S. signal an autopilot reacts to but a pilot hand-flying wouldn't notice. If I recall correctly, it is based on flight checking the approach and the altitude is about 50 feet above where the anomaly was found. 

Someone with more inclination than I to delve into TERPS  or procedure design can probably find it. 

[ArtVandelay]

Point is simply that if the GFC 500 uses gps for an ILS, then it’s advisory only and it’s not an ILS approach as you indicated.

Maybe it uses the GPS as an backup, it checks the GS signal and if varies beyond a reasonable amount the autopilot ignores it and uses GPS to maintain descent until the GS returns. So it doesn’t react to momentary signal fluctuations as described.

 

 

Tom

[Marauder]

Maybe it uses the GPS as an backup, it checks the GS signal and if varies beyond a reasonable amount the autopilot ignores it and uses GPS to maintain descent until the GS returns. So it doesn’t react to momentary signal fluctuations as described.
 
 
Tom

I think it is probably more of an error checking algorithm rather than a correction mechanism. I wonder if the GFC 500 manual talks about conditions where the autopilot may disconnect due to unreliable signals.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[midlifeflyer]

6 hours ago, midlifeflyer said:

Yup. I don't  have a reference, but it's an anomaly in the G.S. signal an autopilot reacts to but a pilot hand-flying wouldn't notice. If I recall correctly, it is based on flight checking the approach and the altitude is about 50 feet above where the anomaly was found. 

Someone with more inclination than I to delve into TERPS  or procedure design can probably find it. 

Found it. There are a few of them. TERPS itself doesn't use the term, but, FAA Order 8260.19F, "Flight Procedures and Airspace," talks about it when adding notes to instrument procedures"

¶8-6-5(d) When the rate of reversal in the GS exceeds the tolerances of Order 8200.1, United States Standard Flight Inspection Manual, 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."

The inspection manual, currently Order 8200.1C, also talks about it in terms of NOTAM whe "Glide slope does not meet change/reversal tolerances below a point on the glidepath. NOTAM Ashville Regional, NC: Rwy 16, autopilot coupled approaches NA below 2,000 feet MSL."

 

 

Edited February 1, 2019 by midlifeflyer