There are plenty of G1000 equipped aircraft without WAAS
But then wouldn’t it be better use of limited funds to add LPV capability instead of adding Baro VNAV?
But then wouldn’t it be better use of limited funds to add LPV capability instead of adding Baro VNAV?
For GA, definitely.
For commercial stuff, the issue seems to be not technology but geting the AOC manuals approved, and why should the operator spend the money when he can fly an ILS for nothing? The proposed EASA regs that require special crew training for GPS approaches (not just LPV but the old ones too) will just play into that hand.
On the holds, I do wonder just how many European procedures are incompletely depicted in the GNS GTN G500 and G1000 boxes? My KLN94 has very little of that anyway but if holds in STARs and IAPs are missing in the noew stuff, a capability to enter and fly a hold is basically useless unless the box can fly an unpublished hold and the hold is really easy to configure (because when you get one it will be at a very short notice). In Europe the holds one might get are terminal area (delaying) holds, not holds at the IAP holding fix (which tend to be used mostly for “fun”, in IR training).
Adding Baro-VNAV will only need some certification of the static system. It is otherwise a software update.
In Europe the holds one might get are terminal area (delaying) holds, not holds at the IAP holding fix (which tend to be used mostly for “fun”, in IR training).
In my experience it is 50/50 for the two types. Plenty of holds at the IAF.
Hold guidance via roll steering (AKA GPSS) is only available on approach procedures, and only when the hold is a MAP hold or a Hold in Lieu of a PT. All other holds, depicted or not are not supported by the GNSXXXW, GTN, or G1000 prior to this enhancement. The GNS480 has always had the capability to establish a hold at any fix, either a timed or distance hold. This feature is a nice to have feature when holds are used outside of an approach procedure.
The G1000 has had Baro VNAV capability as a feature ever since the introduction of the WAAS version. The Baro VNAV feature goes by the name of VNV and it only applies to descents in the G1000. It was approved for use in terminal or enroute modes, but not for the final descent phase. This adds the capability to use it on the intermediate and final approach segments of an approach. A WAAS TSO C145/146 GPS system has been authorized to be flown when a RNAV (GPS) LNAV/VNAV minimum is on the approach chart, but this capability does not extend outside of the WAAS service volume. So, here in the US, we can fly these procedures, but if we fly to Puerto Rico, WAAS support is not good enough to support vertical guidance, so a Baro VNAV system is required. There are still large portions of the world where WAAS or EGNOS or other SBAS doesn’t exist and Baro VNAV is the only game in town. The airlines are equipped with Baro VNAV for the most part, so if one wants vertical guidance in many parts of the world, it is available where WAAS is not. Here in the US, with WAAS for vertical guidance, it an alternate is chosen that requires GPS and the approach qualifies for use as an alternate, we must plan on the LNAV alternate minimums, that is unless there is a LNAV/VNAV option and the aircraft is equipped with Baro VNAV, then we can use the lower minimums since the vertical guidance isn’t tied to WAAS.
Yes I believe Baro-VNAV is a safety feature. There are plenty of G1000 equipped aircraft without WAAS, and vertical guidance in a continuous descent is safer than dive and drive.
I agree that Baro-VNAV is a safety feature. However the assertion that a continuous descent is safer than dive and drive, although easily demonstrated by studies of Turbojet aircraft, this assertion has not been demonstrated to be true for piston GA class aircraft. In fact the study indicates that the dive and drive is statistically just as safe as the vertical guidance continuous descent, in fact the D&D has a better safety record. Airline and Jet operation is one thing and piston GA is another. I have an article in the April IFR Magazine discussing the differences and there are many times when a D&D is the safer choice for the piston GA. One of the main reasons has to do with whether or not the constant angle will clear all obstacles. I show one example in the article, where it takes the aircraft thru the side of a ridge line. The airports that GA flies into are no where near the standards as those that service the airlines. No approach lights, no PAPI, no analysis of obstacles below the MDA, think low visibility, short and narrow runways, tree lined, off the end of a shopping mall parking lot. What the pilot needs is time at the MDA to look for the runway before they decide if it is safe to descend or not. A brief moment at the MDA is just not sufficient time to make that decision in the case of many GA approaches.
The G1000 Baro-VNAV has at least 20 foot or better resolution. Also Baro VNAV may be applied to ground based procedures, IOW not a RNAV (GPS) procedure.
Also Baro VNAV may be applied to ground based procedures, IOW not a RNAV (GPS) procedure.
Now there is an interesting one!
Airlines (AOC ops) are permitted to fly navaid based NP approaches (NDB, VOR and LOC basically) using their FMS, and crucially using a “glideslope” which comes from the FMS, which I think gets its guidance from baro VNAV (i.e. an altimeter).
They are supposed to make sure the underlying navaids are not notamed INOP, and in some cases they are supposed to ident them and in some cases even monitor them on the way down. One Italian airline pilot, landing at Oristano, told me they just need to make sure the navaid is not notamed INOP but they don’t need to monitor it in any way.
I wonder what the regs might be for non AOC ops if baro VNAV is available to GA? Currently we have the LNAV+V “glideslope” from FAF to MAP but that exists only on GPS/LNAV approaches. Baro VNAV could be used to deliver a glideslope on any type of approach, but who is going to code the approach plate?
But then wouldn’t it be better use of limited funds to add LPV capability instead of adding Baro VNAV?
It costs about $35,000 to upgrade a non WAAS G1000 to a WAAS standard. You need two new GIA63 GPS units
Baro VNAV is a software only solution.
