I am looking at LPV from the point of view of whether it is worth spending the money to get it.
Exactly this is why I am not still convinced to go change my KLN90B for 530W or GTN box …it’s expensive…
On both my destinations there are ILS’s available in case LNAV doesn’t work or vice verca…
France is decommissioning ILS’s on a lot of AD’s…only GNSS APP available..(that’s maybe another situation)
But looking at the Map I see a way lot more just LNAV approaches available..I mean there is 2-300 Ft delta btw an LNAV and LPV approach….on the DA/MDA
And in a lot of cases accept France maybe LPV is available where an ILS is available….just saying.. 
It is almost 7 years since I flew an ILS in actual conditions, even though many of the airports that I fly into have both ILS and LPV. I much prefer flying the LPV because it is seamless with fewer steps to screw up on. Using a GNS430W, to fly an ILS using the approach function, the W will load the ILS and put the frequency in the standby Nav window. The pilot has to swap the localizer frequency to make it active. Then they must listen and verify the localizer ident. Presuming that the GPS is being used for navigation prior to joining the approach, the HSI source needs to be switched from GPS to VLOC. This can be accomplished automatically, but there are conditions under which it will not auto-switch. From this point, the ILS and LPV are similar although the LPV angular course width is fixed but is a variable depending on runway length for an ILS. At the MAP, the pilot must remember on an ILS to change the Nav source back to GPS if they intend to use the missed approach guidance. With an LPV, none of these extra steps are required.
LNAV+V is perhaps more applicable, because you get an ILS-like glideslope, with autopilot guidance too, down to the MAP.
The +V is advisory and as you indicate you can get an ILS like GS on an approach that only has LNAV minimums. Since the +V is not based on any consideration for obstacle clearance in the visual segment, it is only safe to use it down to the MDA, not the MAP which is often located at the runway threshold. Note that on a vertically guided procedure, PA or APV, the correct term for the angle and TCH values printed on the approach chart is a GS, but on an NPA it is termed a VDA (Visual Descent Angle).
Recently, in the US, the FAA has been flight testing following the +V guidance based on the VDA with a 1 dot fly up profile and if they get a TAWS warning or the flight crew detects an unsafe obstacle situation, they report this back to the procedure designer. The procedure designer then removes the VDA from the approach chart and adds a note “Descent Angle NA” to the chart. The database provider is supposed to remove the +V from the procedure when this is done. So far, this is a new policy and only a handful of the thousands of LNAV only procedures have been evaluated, but over time the more obstacle challenged ones will end up with +V removed. This also applies to LP procedures.
NCYankee some good points …(it’s the famous 500U$ button..; 
)….
t is almost 7 years since I flew an ILS in actual conditions, even though many of the airports that I fly into have both ILS and LPV.
Unfortunate the old continent is not there yet…
Peter has a point also that LPV seems to be implemented on the bigger Airports in Europe (except France, where the motivation is different that the aerodrome operator has to hick up the money for the ILS’s certification. maintenance etc… now and GNSS is cheaper….. )…
Some non vertical guidance features that come with the WAAS GPS units:
1) Roll steering output adds guidance for PT and holds on an approach. If you have GPSS, this is a great feature.
2) PRNAV is supported
3) Installation is via STC and AML, no special FAA approvals required for 337, AFMS etc.
4) Terrain and Obstacle feature is integrated
5) 530W and GTN support TAWS option add on
6) GTN750 support of Chartview
Unfortunate the old continent is not there yet…
Peter has a point also that LPV seems to be implemented on the bigger Airports in Europe (except France, where the motivation is different that the aerodrome operator has to hick up the money for the ILS’s certification. maintenance etc… now and GNSS is cheaper….. )…
Understood, my point was not that we have a bunch of LPV approaches, but that where an LPV and an ILS are both available, I prefer the LPV, This was to counter Peter’s point that there was little benefit when their was already an ILS.
It’s a very interesting but complex subject..I think in Europe for GA GPS approach capability only LNAV and LPV are of major considerations as LNAV/VNAV is for the Big boys where there is an Airdata (BARO VNAV) Input to the FMS (If I am correct..)..and even those minima are higher then LPV
My KLN90B will never be good for anything else then LNAV (B-RNAV) TSO C129 it can’t fly PT and holds through GPSS…
For LPV it’s for the GPS… TSO C145 & C146 WAAS GPS
1) Question I think a NON WAAS GNS430/530 has PT also and outputs holds for GPSS also…correct when GPSS is enabled (Bien Sure)?
as LNAV/VNAV is for the Big boys where there is an Airdata (BARO VNAV) Input to the FMS (If I am correct..)..and even those minima are higher then LPV
You are indeed correct. Regarding the minima: Right now, at least here in Germany, the minima for a typical RNAV/GPS approach are something like 400ft for LNAV/VNAV and LPV and 450ft for LNAV only. Our authority has not yet been confident enough to allow LPV down to ILS CAT I minima.
So personally, I would not invest any money in my avionics to get these extra 50ft. Only when LPV down to 200ft becomes reality everywhere, it might be worth considering. What people also tend to forget is the fact that those kinds of minima are only possible with a matching approach light system. This is why we will only see 200ft LPV approaches in the near to medium future at airfields that already have an ILS. The lights are the most expensive part of an ILS installation (together with the calibration flights).
From my experience, it is very nice to have some kind of VNAV guidance on final. Our installation (*L*NAV only) produces a synthetic glideslope installation which is displayed on the ILS cross pointer but can not be coupled to the flight director and autopilot (unless you pull a jumper from one of the boards inside the FMS but that would constitute a violation of some kind). Still better than nothing, but no lower minima.
Regarding the question of holds and PTs for the non-WAAS GNS430: AFAIK, these are included, but only if they are part of an installed procedure. Enroute holds and PTs can not be generated.
LNAV/VNAV is for the Big boys where there is an Airdata (BARO VNAV) Input to the FMS
Currently we have a situation where if an LNAV/VNAV approach is available, LNAV+V is suppressed. I hear this will be fixed soon.
but that where an LPV and an ILS are both available, I prefer the LPV
I don’t doubt LPV is better than ILS (for both hand flying and autopilot-coupled) but that’s valid only if you have already spent the money
Getting this capability is very expensive. Moreover there are extremely few avionics installers who I would trust to open up my plane and poke around inside. My TAS605 experience has put me off for a long while. So I am interested in monitoring the LPV deployment situation to see if/when it becomes worth looking at seriously.
I suspect there is a lot of optimistic reporting – as you would expect from those pushing EGNOS who at one stage were claiming 100k new jobs will be created. For example that PDF lists EGKA (my base) as “planned” and that is indeed what the operator has stated but I don’t know any local pilot who thinks it will ever come. I will be delighted to be proved wrong, and the current virtually useless 800ft GPS/LNAV MDH would hopefully benefit enormously.
it can’t fly PT and holds through GPSS
I suspect that function will be utilised less than once a year. And you can fly all that stuff by twiddling the heading bug, if you have a moving map GPS. It is utterly trivial to fly DCT to the overhead and then fly the outbound etc using HDG mode. And if you use it less than once a year, you will probably misconfigure it anyway
France is decommissioning ILSs on a lot of ADs
Which ones? Thus far I have not noticed any, but I don’t land there that often, and have to always fly to a Customs airport.
Enroute holds and PTs can not be generated.
The GNS480 can do enroute holds (no idea about PTs) but it is non-8.33 so vulnerable to a future (ridiculous) interpretation of the stupid EASA 8.33 wording whereby the removal of all non-8.33 radios may be mandated and (hugely unlikely) enforced – outside Germany that is, which is the one place where any equipment regs can be enforced via their IFR Certificate system.
bq. France is decommissioning ILSs on a lot of ADs
Which ones? Thus far I have not noticed any, but I don’t land there that often, and have to always fly to a Customs airport.
I can’t really imagine that as it would drive away a lot of airline traffic. Last fall the ILS for runway 07 at my home base was on maintenance for several months with only an RNAV procedure awailable. Many airlines preferred (or mandated by their equipment and/or SOPs) to fly an opposite ILS with tailwind landing and delaying vectors and holdings over the GPS approach. Even with VFR conditions! Among them some major European flag carriers. For them it is either ILS or “we don’t fly there”.
