LPV vs ILS (Pole)

[201er]

Given an airport with an LPV and ILS approach and the opportunity to select the one you fly, do you opt for the LPV or the ILS and why? Minimums for both are the same but which do you suspect is more accurate and safer?

 

I bet most pick the ILS but are you selecting it merely out of habit or is it still superior to LPV?

[spaz]

Prefer ILS if available, mostly out of habit and comfort.  My home field does not have an ILS, so LPV is the only option though.

[Seth]

My original airplane did not have a GPS in panel so ILS was what I would have preferred.  However, now that I'm flying behind a Garmin 430, I find that when flying an LPV the autopilot (which I also did not have in the former aircraft) flies a much more stabilized approach over a couple ILS approach.  Thus, if I had to choose, I'd go with the LPV (WAAS).  Also, my home field has a VOR and LPV appraoch - the LPV gets you down much lower, thus that's what I choose now. 

 

However, if I'm heading into an airport and hear the active approach on ATIS, I just use what the controller states as active and usually do not request a change. 

 

-Seth

[John Pleisse]

ILS...always. The likelihood of getting a vector close in is better. ATC seems rigid about GPS approaches, always requiring one go to a fix or waypoint (at least it seems this way). ILS, they'll dump you anywhere. I always hear, "join the localizer". I never hear "join the LPV". Neither has a "pole" :).

[201er]

ILS...always. The likelihood of getting a vector close in is better. ATC seems rigid about GPS approaches, always requiring one go to a fix or waypoint (at least it seems this way). ILS, they'll dump you anywhere. I always hear, "join the localizer". I never hear "join the LPV". Neither has a "pole" :) .

Yeah but if you requested the approach a ways out, they just send you to a fix and on you go. Not a big deal if it was deliberate and planned.

[Hank]

I'll take a good pole over either one! 

 

Put me down for the missing choice:  either one, I don't much care, there's just not much difference.

 

I usually accept what they give me, except the one time I was coming in in IMC and ATIS said "expect Back-Course ILS Runway 5." Approach told me the same story; a quick check showed a GPS 5 approach. I had never flown a back course [still haven't, they're going away], and was not excited about doing my first one in actual, so I asked for and received the GPS approach. Quick and easy.

[201er]

I usually accept what they give me, except the one time I was coming in in IMC and ATIS said "expect Back-Course ILS Runway 5." Approach told me the same story; a quick check showed a GPS 5 approach. I had never flown a back course [still haven't, they're going away], and was not excited about doing my first one in actual, so I asked for and received the GPS approach. Quick and easy.

Easy trick for backcourse, just flip your HSI 180 degrees from the intended course and you're just flying a normal localizer

[1964-M20E]

I'm not WAAS yet so ILS woudl be my choice and I have some issue with the glidslope so LOC or GPS approach for me.

[DonMuncy]

It depends on where I am. If the approach is given far enough out, I will take the LPV, as I am already (usually) in GPS mode. If on vectors, I will take the ILS to avoid the IAF.  

[Super Dave]

I will request an RNAV approach any time there is an advantage such as shorter flight/taxi, quicker/easier transition, or more favorable winds. But if it is a choice between an LPV RNAV and an ILS to the same runway, I typically stick with the ILS. Less to set up, less to monitor and less to go wrong (not so much with equipment, but operator error). Also, there are still a lot of approaches where the LPV mins are not as low as the ILS mins to the same runway.

[Jeff_S]

I've got a GNS480 (WAAS of course) and a fully-coupled S-TEC55 with GPSS. So I'll take the LPV any day. I can literally let the A/P fly it all the way in and just manage speed through power settings.  The ILS is almost as simple, but once on final approach I have to hit the APR button on the S-TEC because the GNS480 will automatically switch over to the ILS signal which the GPSS won't read.  While it sounds like a simple thing, I have forgotten to hit that little APR button and then wondered why my plane didn't capture the GS and just kept truckin' straight and level.

[Marauder]

I was weaned on ILS, VOR and NDB approaches and only recently have a WAAS unit in the panel. My comfort is still with ILS approaches but the LPVs I have flown have been fine so far. As Jeff mentioned, with the GPSS turned on, it is unbelievable. Being able to fly the whole approach including the missed has been mind blowing.

One thing I won't miss are the NDB approaches, especially on really gusty, windy days.

[N9453V]

I prefer the ILS since I have 2 ILS receivers (Garmin 430W and King KX-155) and only 1 WAAS GPS Receiver (Garmin 430).

 

-Andrew

[gjkirsch]

I also have the garmin 480 coupled to a KFC 150.  It seems to intercept and fly a GPS approach smoother than the ILS and I have also had issues with intercepting the GS on the ILS.  I end up focusing too much on the switch between the GPS and ILS frequency when I should be focused on the overall approach and the configuration of the plane 

[Nathan Peterson]

Either one is fine with me.  

[Hank]

Easy trick for backcourse, just flip your HSI 180 degrees from the intended course and you're just flying a normal localizer

 

If I just had an HSI . . . but my DG with Brittain heading bug works pretty well.

 

That brings up a question:  on the 430W, if flying a back course, which way would the needle on the CDI screen move? Would it show "correct" motion, or would it give "reverse sensing" to match the VOR head?

 

Or since these are going away, does it matter? I'm just curious because KFAY is where I received the back course, and that's where my in-laws live.

[Z W]

I prefer the LPV. The needles never bounce. No need to tune and identify, or risk having the wrong frequency . No need to remember to switch the radio. Just fly the needle and cross check the moving map. Watch for a RAIM warning is all. If you accidentally select the wrong LPV approach the worst thing that can happen is you land on the wrong runway. Select the wrong ILS frequency and you can fly into the side of a mountain.

[RocketAviator]

Both they are virtually equal to me with the equipment I have!  I think the LPV is going or at least could be a great factor in airports that dont have ILS due to cost!  More than that I think LPV or something like them may eventually replace the conventional ILS... just my 2 cents!  Did someone say "backcourse"!!

[PTK]

Given the choice between an ILS approach and LPV minima I prefer the LPV.

For the sake of technicalities and being pc, there's no such animal as an LPV "Approach." LPV refers to the lowest of several WAAS GPS minima. (LNAV being the only minima that can be flown with nonWAAS.)

[danb35]

I'm with Zane--if minima aren't a factor (either the LPV and ILS are the same, or either is plenty low for the weather), and there won't be an operational effect, I prefer the LPV for the reasons he mentioned, mostly the stable needles.

[M016576]

I prefer the one that gets me on the ground (safely) the quickest. Outside of that, don't care. Will take a VOR/DME or NDB too over the ils or GPS if they are faster based on my DOA and weather. Luckily, out here in the west, 95% of the time it's VMC. Keeps my travel costs down ;-)