Jump to content

How many ACTUAL LPV approaches do you do?


cliffy

Recommended Posts

I practice a few per year, but I usually practice the ILS locally--they're slightly faster since the procedures are a little shorter.  Realistically, I've done 2-3 LPV approaches per year on trips.  When the marine layer rolls in at KSMO, for example, there is no ILS and the VOR-A has minimums 250' higher

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, cliffy said:

With all your installed equipment and expensive data bases, how many ACTUAL LPV approaches do you do, per year,  that are lower than NON-precision ceilings?

You should add... in your Mooney. There are obviously a lot of pro's on this forum who do this stuff every day.

Your point is well taken that WAAS is not required for most IFR operations. I've only used my WAAS capability to shoot an LPV approach to minimums where an ILS wasn't available, three times.

For me, I think WAAS is important for the following reasons: 

  1. It's another tool in my tool kit for IFR flight.
  2. I believe in pushing myself to increase my skill, confidence, and capability with IFR flight and so I want the airplane I own to be as capable as well.
  3. It certainly has an effect on the resale value of the airplane.
  4. Having a WAAS GPS can also provide additional options for ADSB.

Even those reasons might not justify the expense for a lot of owners. And I certainly couldn't argue that point. But it's justification enough for me. 

*I've actually never bought an airplane that didn't already have WAAS installed. Letting someone else pay for the upgrade to WAAS is a very cost effective way to get WAAS.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my Mooney I’ve shot 1 LPV approach where I wouldn’t have gotten in without it (no-ILSat this airport either). My personal minimums are high enough that my number is very low. In this particular case weather deteriorated en route. We shot the approach expecting to go to our alternate but LPV got us in.  -Kris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, gsxrpilot said:

You should add... in your Mooney. There are obviously a lot of pro's on this forum who do this stuff every day.

Your point is well taken that WAAS is not required for most IFR operations. I've only used my WAAS capability to shoot an LPV approach to minimums where an ILS wasn't available, three times.

For me, I think WAAS is important for the following reasons: 

  1. It's another tool in my tool kit for IFR flight.
  2. I believe in pushing myself to increase my skill, confidence, and capability with IFR flight and so I want the airplane I own to be as capable as well.
  3. It certainly has an effect on the resale value of the airplane.
  4. Having a WAAS GPS can also provide additional options for ADSB.

Even those reasons might not justify the expense for a lot of owners. And I certainly couldn't argue that point. But it's justification enough for me. 

*I've actually never bought an airplane that didn't already have WAAS installed. Letting someone else pay for the upgrade to WAAS is a very cost effective way to get WAAS.

I should point out in fairness, that the cost-benefit analysis of installing WAAS needs to be compared against the installation of a non-WAAS GPS rather than no GPS.  For new equipment, that practically is a moot point since there aren't many (any?) installed non-WAAS options nowadays.  For old equipment, the cost difference between WAAS and no WAAS still might not be enough to really be significant.

To compare WAAS to no GPS would be disingenuous, since base GPS provides significant benefits most people would agree is significant (routing, safety, convenience, etc).

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had to go missed at KHAF since I only had the RNAV Y Rwy 30 available.  With the WAAS upgrade I could have made it in with the RNAV Z LPV. 

I have barely made it into my local airport with a 800' MDA.  would be nice to have LPV minimums , but the terrain won't allow it.   The backup is the local Class C with ILS to 3 runways and LPV to all 4.    the LPV 6 has a 200' HD and 1800'RVR if you have AP coupling  FD or HUD, same as the ILS. 

So 2-3 a year.   worth it if any of your normal airports has an LPV without an ILS. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just did one Monday into Rochester MN.  The ILS was out of service, so if you didn't have LPV you were not landing on Monday until after 3-4 PM when the weather finally broke.

I LIKE the ILS better, but that's the old school in me.  I probably do 60% ILS and 40% LPV, doing +/- 12 approaches a year to under non-precision limits.

Tom

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well...

One in actual weather.  About 6 or 7 each year for currency.  I still prefer the LPV over the ILS or LNAV.

I don't fly many approaches to get into a destination.  The reason?  When the weather around here is low enough to need an approach, it's usually winter and icing potential has kept me on the ground.

I have only flown maybe 3 or 4 approaches in the Mooney to get into an airport.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My home drome only has a loc-d with circling minimums at the TPA altitude and a LP with lower but still high straight in mins. Without WAAS, the LP would become an LNAV. Not a big difference. But all of our local dromes have ILS and LPV both with 200' and 1/2 mi. I'll alwsys pick the LPV, I prefer them. Frankly, they've proven more reliable. Till recently, my ILS glide slope was out for a month, before that both the LOC and GS were out and some kind of maintenance outage is common. GPS Approaches don't have this problem till we have a major issue. The worse I've seen is only a loss of WAAS in the fringe area back in the day when we only had 1 waas satellite up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Bob - S50 said:

Well...

One in actual weather.  About 6 or 7 each year for currency.  I still prefer the LPV over the ILS or LNAV.

I don't fly many approaches to get into a destination.  The reason?  When the weather around here is low enough to need an approach, it's usually winter and icing potential has kept me on the ground.

I have only flown maybe 3 or 4 approaches in the Mooney to get into an airport.

Hey, come on down to the Willamette Valley for a visit some day during the winter!  On cold, clear days, we get a nice inversion layer, and we don't have the urban areas to heat it up, so you get a nice cloud layer about 1000' thick down to 500' AGL or so.  Last weekend we had a day like that where it didn't burn off the entire day, great for IFR practice!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So  not many who have invested in full LPV capability use it so why all the histrionics about a guy wanting to save money by using a non WAAS GPS to keep the costs down as a new airplane owner?

He could do a lot of IFR training with his ILS, VOR and non WAAS GPS. For some (a notable few) the full WAAS capability might be needed but it isn't really required especially for a new IFR guy trying to keep costs down and stay alive at the same time. 

Again, nice to say you have full LPV capability but if you don't use it regular what did you spend the money for? Bragging rights? Think again about a low time, new IFR rated pilot trying to "learn" IFR work and thinking he can go into <500 ceilings all the time just because he has a WAAS GPS. Not the brightest thinking to promote. Maybe I've just seen too many smoking holes in my career

BTW, done all the 200& 1/2 and 600 RVR Autolands I ever want to do. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So  not many who have invested in full LPV capability use it so why all the histrionics about a guy wanting to save money by using a non WAAS GPS to keep the costs down as a new airplane owner?
He could do a lot of IFR training with his ILS, VOR and non WAAS GPS. For some (a notable few) the full WAAS capability might be needed but it isn't really required especially for a new IFR guy trying to keep costs down and stay alive at the same time. 
Again, nice to say you have full LPV capability but if you don't use it regular what did you spend the money for? Bragging rights? Think again about a low time, new IFR rated pilot trying to "learn" IFR work and thinking he can go into BTW, done all the 200& 1/2 and 600 RVR Autolands I ever want to do. 


I think you’re missing a valuable point about what the industry standard is today. In 2012, I was still flying nothing but VOR and ILS approaches because that is all what I had in the plane and all I needed. That is until, two of the airports I flew into regularly eliminated their VOR approaches in favor of GPS approaches. When I decided it was time to enter the world of GPS, a non-WAAS unit was not an option. All new units had WAAS. I certainly wasn’t going to buy a used non-WAAS unit at that point.

Once I began flying the GPS, I realized that the GPS was smart enough to pick the best available approach and certainly made IFR flying easier, especially with the addition of GPSS.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, cliffy said:

So  not many who have invested in full LPV capability use it so why all the histrionics about a guy wanting to save money by using a non WAAS GPS to keep the costs down as a new airplane owner?

He could do a lot of IFR training with his ILS, VOR and non WAAS GPS. For some (a notable few) the full WAAS capability might be needed but it isn't really required especially for a new IFR guy trying to keep costs down and stay alive at the same time. 

Again, nice to say you have full LPV capability but if you don't use it regular what did you spend the money for? Bragging rights? Think again about a low time, new IFR rated pilot trying to "learn" IFR work and thinking he can go into <500 ceilings all the time just because he has a WAAS GPS. Not the brightest thinking to promote. Maybe I've just seen too many smoking holes in my career

BTW, done all the 200& 1/2 and 600 RVR Autolands I ever want to do. 

At the risk of offending... this is a common sentiment of older pro pilots who have had a long career but it was work and they're just over it. And why the hell would anyone do this if you didn't have to because it was your job. And you'd be in good company with pilots I know who after many years flying the line, won't fly IFR in a single engine period. And there's nothing wrong with that. There's five of these guys at my little airport who sit there and watch while I take off in my Mooney on low IFR days. I love it, and they're just over it. Neither of us is wrong.

But there are also plenty of us who are either young enough (not me) or got started late enough (that's me) to still have the passion to become a really good stick. I'm sure you've gone missed on more approaches than I'll ever even attempt as long as I fly. But I'm confident I can shoot an approach to the minimums published on any plate. And I didn't get here by flying IFR on VFR days. I'm still a low time IFR pilot and compared to the pro's, always will be. But either you can keep the needles centered or you can't. I certainly can on most days, and on the days I can't I'll go missed. 

It's very much like getting a PPL and then buying the C172 because someone said you need another 500 hours or so before you're up to flying something as advanced as a Mooney. Or how about, as many others recommend, buy your second plane first and work into it. Those hours go by quickly when you own the plane, and next thing you know you've got those needles rock steady and you're wishing you had the WAAS GPS. I know I'm glad I didn't buy that C172 which I would have grown out of in 3 months. And I'm glad I've got a WAAS GPS for when the opportunity presents its self. 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, cliffy said:

So  not many who have invested in full LPV capability use it so why all the histrionics about a guy wanting to save money by using a non WAAS GPS to keep the costs down as a new airplane owner?

He could do a lot of IFR training with his ILS, VOR and non WAAS GPS. For some (a notable few) the full WAAS capability might be needed but it isn't really required especially for a new IFR guy trying to keep costs down and stay alive at the same time. 

Again, nice to say you have full LPV capability but if you don't use it regular what did you spend the money for? Bragging rights? Think again about a low time, new IFR rated pilot trying to "learn" IFR work and thinking he can go into <500 ceilings all the time just because he has a WAAS GPS. Not the brightest thinking to promote. Maybe I've just seen too many smoking holes in my career

BTW, done all the 200& 1/2 and 600 RVR Autolands I ever want to do. 

Some of us bought / upgraded to WAAS GPS back when the unit provided only GPS, ILS and VOR / VOR-A approaches. Since then, however, the FAA keeps making and releasing additional categories of GPS-only approaches:   LNAV, LNAV + VNAV, LPV, etc. So for me, these began as bonus approaches, but now I find they are replacing some of the original, simple GPS T-type approaches with improved capability, lower ceilings and more.

Would I recommend someone buy and install a WAAS GPS just to get LPV capability? No. But would I recommend one for the ability to fly into many airports that either never had a pre-GPS approach or whose VOR / NDB has been shut down and only GPS approaches of one flavor or another are available? YES!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, cliffy said:

So  not many who have invested in full LPV capability use it so why all the histrionics about a guy wanting to save money by using a non WAAS GPS to keep the costs down as a new airplane owner?

He could do a lot of IFR training with his ILS, VOR and non WAAS GPS. For some (a notable few) the full WAAS capability might be needed but it isn't really required especially for a new IFR guy trying to keep costs down and stay alive at the same time. 

Again, nice to say you have full LPV capability but if you don't use it regular what did you spend the money for? Bragging rights? Think again about a low time, new IFR rated pilot trying to "learn" IFR work and thinking he can go into <500 ceilings all the time just because he has a WAAS GPS. Not the brightest thinking to promote. Maybe I've just seen too many smoking holes in my career

BTW, done all the 200& 1/2 and 600 RVR Autolands I ever want to do. 

Not sure about the “histrionics” but your post is not internally consistent. If a new pilot is flying into low ceilings it has nothing to do with WAAS vs non-WAAS and everything to do with poor training and decision making. The exact same argument could be made for flying an ILS approach. Judgment issue, not a GPS issue.

I get that everyone has different resources and priorities. If I could afford it, I would buy a Pilatus. I can’t, so I fly a Mooney. 

It seems like the only reason you started this thread was to “prove” that WAAS GPS isn’t worth it and (not surprisingly) you have confirmed your predetermined conclusion by your very unscientific sampling methods. I’m not entirely sure what that was supposed to accomplish.

If you want to fly an ILS, that’s great. If you want to fly an LPV, that’s pretty awesome as well. Why don’t we spend more time talking about these amazing planes we get to fly, the places we get to go and the people we meet instead of judging other people on how they choose to spend their own money?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is going way of course here. Not trying to prove GPS WAAS or anything else just looking at the treatment of a new Mooney pilot who wants to get his IR and needs to keep his costs low. Most of what was "offered" was to get a 430W instead of the affordable (for him) non WAAS 430 he was looking at. 

My feeling is given his new status and his need to keep costs low so he could keep flying he could do a lot of IFR work with what he had picked out and didn't need to be hammered to get the WAAS unit above all. 

His choices were good for what he was doing right now. He didn't need to be told he was wrong for making them.  

There is a big difference most of the time between flying into weather that is consistently above non-precision ceilings and going into low IFR of 200 or 300 feet for a newly rated IR pilot. Sure judgement is needed but to push that he HAS to spend the extra money for a WAAS unit right away was not needed. My point was that WAAS is nice to have but its capability isn't used that much in real life by most pilots (and yes I have owned WAAS equipped airplanes) and the necessity for having it when he was just starting out just wasn't there. He was looking for encouragement on his choice and we let him down by telling him it wasn't a good choice. For his current situation it was a good choice. 

To infer anything else from my post is way off the mark

Over and out

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, cliffy said:

So  not many who have invested in full LPV capability use it so why all the histrionics about a guy wanting to save money by using a non WAAS GPS to keep the costs down as a new airplane owner?

He could do a lot of IFR training with his ILS, VOR and non WAAS GPS. For some (a notable few) the full WAAS capability might be needed but it isn't really required especially for a new IFR guy trying to keep costs down and stay alive at the same time. 

Again, nice to say you have full LPV capability but if you don't use it regular what did you spend the money for? Bragging rights? Think again about a low time, new IFR rated pilot trying to "learn" IFR work and thinking he can go into <500 ceilings all the time just because he has a WAAS GPS. Not the brightest thinking to promote. Maybe I've just seen too many smoking holes in my career

BTW, done all the 200& 1/2 and 600 RVR Autolands I ever want to do. 

Boy Cliff, if that's all you think about WAAS, you're really missing the point of what it provides. LPV approaches down to ILS minimums is only the tip of iceberg. And just because they go down to 200' and 1/2 mile doesn't mean we should set our personal minimums that low either. You're far more experienced than I have had much more training and I realize from reading your post that regardless of your expertise and knowledge you would set conservative minimums within the capabilities of your equipment and your proficiency - as do most of us that wish to avoid the smoking hole you referred too. 

But what your missing about WAAS is that we no longer need an ILS to get a glide slope. Of course WAAS adds either a real glide slope in the form of LPV or LNAV/VNAV. But it also adds Advisory glide slope in the form of LNAV +V, and LP +V which when available allow us to fly the calculated descent angle on the chart to fly a stabilized descent or perhaps what you did in the airlines as CDFA or Continuous Descent from the Final Approach. Of course its well proven that a stabilized descent or CDFA is much safer for us to fly than the Dive and Drive method. Its WAAS that automates this concept for us in the GA world to fly these easily with a Advisory Glide slope. (See AC 120-08) So WAAS adds in addition to capability is also lot of added safety to GA pilots by offering us so many more options over the older legacy approaches with the ability to fly NPA in a stabilized CDFA approach with real or advisory vertical guidance. Which is especially good for us since ILS's are not all that common at our GA airports. 

But I disagree about a new instrument pilot getting a good IFR training and background based on a LNAV only GPS. GPS navigation and approaches are far more complicated than old the legacy ground based approaches but they are much easier to fly which I'll argue adds to safety. But my point is there is so much to learn with GPS Nav and procedures that without a WAAS box you'll only be getting less than half the training of what you'll need with one.   

So if you look at WAAS for only LPV minimums you're not seeing the bigger picture of what its all about.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, cliffy said:

This is going way of course here. Not trying to prove GPS WAAS or anything else just looking at the treatment of a new Mooney pilot who wants to get his IR and needs to keep his costs low. Most of what was "offered" was to get a 430W instead of the affordable (for him) non WAAS 430 he was looking at. 

My feeling is given his new status and his need to keep costs low so he could keep flying he could do a lot of IFR work with what he had picked out and didn't need to be hammered to get the WAAS unit above all. 

His choices were good for what he was doing right now. He didn't need to be told he was wrong for making them.  

There is a big difference most of the time between flying into weather that is consistently above non-precision ceilings and going into low IFR of 200 or 300 feet for a newly rated IR pilot. Sure judgement is needed but to push that he HAS to spend the extra money for a WAAS unit right away was not needed. My point was that WAAS is nice to have but its capability isn't used that much in real life by most pilots (and yes I have owned WAAS equipped airplanes) and the necessity for having it when he was just starting out just wasn't there. He was looking for encouragement on his choice and we let him down by telling him it wasn't a good choice. For his current situation it was a good choice. 

To infer anything else from my post is way off the mark

Over and out

I apologize if I misinterpreted your intent. I haven’t read the thread you’re talking about but I think I get where you’re coming from. Still disagree, but I get it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

×
×
  • 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.