LPV vs LP+V

[kortopates]

 

22 hours ago, RobertGary1 said:

Yours is a bit unique because the FAA has designed the approach for a 3 degree slope. That only works when terrain allows, not the norm in my experience. 

Just an FYI, although I thought your example was a great one regarding the dangers of following +V below the MDA, its not a good example of an approach that terrain prohibits it from using a 3 degree descent angle. But from the government chart you'd never know what it is since they don't show it - one of my pet peeves with government charts but the Jepp version shows its clearly as 3.04 degrees. Additionally, we get more details about the visual segment warning us that the 34:1 is not clear, which is to say the 3 degree angle is not clear - which is why R35 has a 4 degree VASI which I am sure you're well aware of. The Jepp chart also helps us with the stabilized approach by charting what descent rate we need to maintain for our groundspeed - such as 538 Ft/min at 100 kts and to look left for the VASI and to expect to see Runway End Identifier Lights (REIL).

Edited October 13, 2020 by kortopates

[carusoam]

Great details Dr. Kortopates!

Thanks for spelling this all out with such great detail... that even I can understand it.

Best regards,

-a-

[John Mininger]

13 hours ago, carusoam said:

Great details Dr. Kortopates!

Thanks for spelling this all out with such great detail... that even I can understand it.

Best regards,

-a-

Hear, Hear! Thank you Dr. Kortopates! 
It’s finally good to hear from someone else who feels that the removal of what we’ve come to know as “+V” on RNAV approaches was a knee jerk mistake by the FAA some 10 or so  years ago.
There’s nothing wrong with a stabilized approach for the average, or even above average instrument pilot. 
I frankly, had no idea about the issues with the G1000.