Jump to content
This Topic

ILS vs LPV

ilovecornfields
 Share

Recommended Posts

Marauder Grand Master

Marauder

Posted
Posted
  On 12/16/2018 at 10:34 AM, midlifeflyer said:
Could be either way. He might have heard that takeoff minimums don't apply to Part 91 and figured 0/0 landings were ok too. After all, this is the same guy who insisted in some early videos that 91.126 (the pattern direction rule) was only a recommendation.


Or flying below 500 feet near houses surrounding the Bay was okay as well.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
  • Like 2
  • Replies 270
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Deb
Deb

It’s actually a bit more nuanced; here’s the definitive answer from John Collins: The LPV CDI FSD (Full Scale Deflection) is 1 NM until reaching a point 2 NM prior to the FAF. The FSD then transi

Jerry 5TJ
Jerry 5TJ

Old guy & I prefer the LPV. A technical aside: Even if the published minimum for the LPV is higher than the ILS the GPS-based steering information is valid below DA.   The ILS is surveyed to

midlifeflyer
midlifeflyer

Answer to one of the sub-threads. Yes, LPV takes you down to the runway. Tested this afternoon using a Garmin 530. Glidepath alive and centered on touchdown.

Posted Images

Marcopolo Rising Star

Marcopolo

Posted
Posted

  I was invited to sit in on an Instrument ground school class recently (got my IR last December) and there was a pretty heated discussion that took place concerning ILS and LPV approaches.  The discussion centered around the alternate minimums and what approaches can be used.  As I understand it, If the expected minimums are expected to be 600-2, or anything lower than 800-2, then there would have to be an ILS at the alternate as its the only approach recognized as a "precision" approach.  

What say you?

 

Ron

Bob - S50 Grand Master

Bob - S50

Posted
Posted

From my memory, if you have a WAAS GPS you can plan on RNAV approaches at both locations.  However, minimums weather at the alternate must be based on the minimums for a non-precision (LNAV) approach, so 800 & 2.  However, if you actually divert to your alternate and the LPV is available you may fly the approach to LPV minimums.

If you have a non-WAAS GPS, you may only plan on a GPS based approach at either your destination or your alternate but not both.

If your alternate has an ILS you may use minimums based on that approach.

Personally, I want a lot better weather than that.  I've flown hundreds of approaches including a CAT II ILS to minimums at DTW in an airplane without autoland and a CAT I approach to 100' based on having the lights in sight at 200' at GRB.

I understand that this was just an academic situation, but there is no place I need to get so badly that I'm quibbling about the 200' difference in required weather between a precision/non-precision approach at my alternate or adjusting my takeoff time by 15 or 30 minutes so the forecast will finally be good enough.

My personal minimums are 200 & 1/2 above minimums at my destination and essentially VFR at my alternate.

 

  • Like 1
xcrmckenna Veteran

xcrmckenna

Posted
Posted
  On 12/17/2018 at 2:59 PM, Marcopolo said:
  I was invited to sit in on an Instrument ground school class recently (got my IR last December) and there was a pretty heated discussion that took place concerning ILS and LPV approaches.  The discussion centered around the alternate minimums and what approaches can be used.  As I understand it, If the expected minimums are expected to be 600-2, or anything lower than 800-2, then there would have to be an ILS at the alternate as its the only approach recognized as a "precision" approach.  
What say you?
 
Ron
Expand  


ILS and PAR are available for the 600/2 minimums but LPV’s still require the 800/2. On the written test if they choose 600/2 for the LPV question it will be wrong. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Marcopolo Rising Star

Marcopolo

Posted
Posted
  On 12/17/2018 at 4:10 PM, xcrmckenna said:

ILS and PAR are available for the 600/2 minimums but LPV’s still require the 800/2. On the written test if they choose 600/2 for the LPV question it will be wrong. 

Expand  

Agreed, I should/could have included the rare PAR approach and also GBAS, and MLS and a couple of others as options for precision approaches.

 

Thanks

  • Like 1
midlifeflyer Grand Master

midlifeflyer

Posted
Posted
  On 12/17/2018 at 2:59 PM, Marcopolo said:

  I was invited to sit in on an Instrument ground school class recently (got my IR last December) and there was a pretty heated discussion that took place concerning ILS and LPV approaches.  The discussion centered around the alternate minimums and what approaches can be used.  As I understand it, If the expected minimums are expected to be 600-2, or anything lower than 800-2, then there would have to be an ILS at the alternate as its the only approach recognized as a "precision" approach.  

What say you?

 

Ron

Expand  

That's true. The alternate minimums for a GPS approach are the nonprecision alternate minimums, 800/2. For the purpose of alternate minimums, only an ILS is a "precision approach."

But I don't say so. The FAA does (actually ICAO does). It's in TERPS Section 3-4, and the FAA's Instrument Procedures Handbook for example. From the IPH:

"For flight planning purposes, weather information must be reviewed in order to determine the necessity and suitability of alternate airports. For Part 91 operations, the 600-2 and 800-2 rule applies to airports with precision and non-precision approaches, respectively. Approaches with vertical guidance (APV) are non-precision approaches because they do not meet the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Annex 10 standards for a precision approach."

  • Like 2
kpaul Mentor

kpaul

Posted
Posted
  On 12/24/2018 at 6:27 AM, Marauder said:

He’s back. Shooting a night LPV approach and forgets to turn on the runway lights.

https://youtu.be/lD6NPNsC39E


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

Expand  

All the more reason to fly behind a G100 w/ synthetic vision...interesting that he gets a lot of kudos from followers, so positive feedback for stupid decision making.

I've had a couple of similar experiences.  Just recently flying the LPV into my home field at night through the weather, I broke out at about 500 AGL only to find out the lights had not turned on even though I had keyed the mic.   The other time we were training on NVGs (not in a Mooney) and did a touch and go or two before we realized the airfield lights were not on.  It was a full moon night and under the NVGs the runway was easily seen, still not strictly legal though.

  • Like 2
Bryan Experienced

Bryan

Posted
Posted

Is the ILS an alternate precision approach because the system is ground monitored and can be verified?  vs. LPV

M016576 Grand Master

M016576

Posted
Posted
  On 12/24/2018 at 1:05 PM, kpaul said:

All the more reason to fly behind a G100 w/ synthetic vision...interesting that he gets a lot of kudos from followers, so positive feedback for stupid decision making.

I've had a couple of similar experiences.  Just recently flying the LPV into my home field at night through the weather, I broke out at about 500 AGL only to find out the lights had not turned on even though I had keyed the mic.   The other time we were training on NVGs (not in a Mooney) and did a touch and go or two before we realized the airfield lights were not on.  It was a full moon night and under the NVGs the runway was easily seen, still not strictly legal though.

Expand  

Tanking and/or landing on NVG's... can get dicey really quickly

kpaul Mentor

kpaul

Posted
Posted
  On 12/24/2018 at 3:57 PM, M016576 said:

Tanking and/or landing on NVG's... can get dicey really quickly

Expand  

When I was younger I loved NVG operations, I am not as excited about it anymore.  I had my fill of landing blacked out on "runways".  NVGs are great for being able to clear at night and would defiantly come in handy if one happened to need to land off airport at night. 

  • Like 1
midlifeflyer Grand Master

midlifeflyer

Posted
Posted
  On 12/25/2018 at 3:20 PM, flyboy0681 said:

First time I've seen this. This guy has a lot of cojones. Did the tower think that he found a hole in the fog at 200 feet or did they just not want to bother reporting him?

Expand  

What would they report?

Part 91, he's allowed to take a look and is not bound by reported RVR. He landed safely and didn't cause a problem (ATC isn't interested in extra paperwork). And, as he did in response to comments when the video was originally up, he would insist he had the required approach lights in sight at  DA, the rest of the runway environment in sight 100' lower, and 1/2 mile flight visibility from DA on. The only thing to "prove" him wrong is a video taken with an action cam with a limited-capability lens  in low light conditions.

  • Like 1
flyboy0681 Grand Master

flyboy0681

Posted
Posted
  On 12/25/2018 at 3:46 PM, midlifeflyer said:

What would they report?

Part 91, he's allowed to take a look and is not bound by reported RVR. He landed safely and didn't cause a problem (ATC isn't interested in extra paperwork). And, as he did in response to comments when the video was originally up, he would insist he had the required approach lights in sight at  DA, the rest of the runway environment in sight 100' lower, and 1/2 mile flight visibility from DA on. The only thing to "prove" him wrong is a video taken with an action cam with a limited-capability lens  in low light conditions.

Expand  

So why have a DA at all for Part 91?

gsxrpilot Grand Master

gsxrpilot

Posted
Posted
  On 12/25/2018 at 4:17 PM, flyboy0681 said:

So why have a DA at all for Part 91?

Expand  

There are rules that must be followed. All we're saying is that there isn't any way to prove he violated the rules. Rules still set a standard that most everyone will follow. And truthfully, he might have been within the rules on this approach. None of us were in the cockpit to know. 

  • Like 2
flyboy0681 Grand Master

flyboy0681

Posted
Posted
  On 12/25/2018 at 4:21 PM, gsxrpilot said:

There are rules that must be followed. All we're saying is that there isn't any way to prove he violated the rules. Rules still set a standard that most everyone will follow. And truthfully, he might have been within the rules on this approach. None of us were in the cockpit to know. 

Expand  

So what I'm hearing is that flagrantly busting the minimums is an unenforceable action since the pilot could always claim that he had all of the required elements in sight.

M20F Grand Master

M20F

Posted
Posted

One thing being left out of the discussion is ILS stands for instrument landing system.  It has specific requirements for lights, runway markings, etc. not just a radio beam. An LPV does not have the same requirements.  When you do an ILS you know exactly what you will get when you swivel your head up and out the window.  With an LPV each approach can be very differing. 

LPV 10 / ILS 10 it’s 6 to 1, half a dozen to another.  ILS 10R versus LPV 10L odds are I pick the ILS because I like lots of lights and markings. 

In most cases LPV’s lacking specific lights/marks will have higher minimums as well though not in all cases. 

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.