PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - Turkish A330 incident, Kathmandu
View Single Post
Old 8th Apr 2015, 18:14
  #218 (permalink)  
7478ti
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Mercer Island WA
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Aterpster partially correct !!!

Aterpster, I agree that LPV was once a useful idea, back in the 50s and 60s, and maybe continuing into the 70s. But we had the chance to make the change in the 90s to go directly to (vastly superior) RNP, and bypass the entire generation of SBAS driven angular-straight-in criteria and systems. Sadly authorities didn't capitalize on the opportunity. Now we have a global mess, just as predicted. But I do agree that LPV is (temporarily) less bad than VOR, NDB, LOC, BCRS and even 2D RNAV, .... but that could easily and instantly change with simple revision of authority criteria. It is an authority issue, that primarily fouled this all up, and it is now up to the industry to help fix it. RNP can be simple, easy, and done by anybody down to LSAs. It isn't rocket science. It is only being made unnecessarily complex by authorities lacking vision, experience, and technical knowledge to implement the right criteria. Remember back to the days when basic TJ minima were 300 and 3/4, and only "expert pilots" could fly Cat I minima!!! That was all baloney, fixed by any modern AFDS, so that now any basic instrument pilot flying a C172 can do it, as well as any air-carrier airplane delivered out of the box. The exact same possibility could now be true for RNP. It is vastly safer, simpler, easier, better, more capable for efficient airspace use, and could even be less costly than any other alternative. The same goes for GBAS/GLS which is already vastly better (and safer) than the Wilcox ILSs we first approved for Cat III use back at KIAD, KDEN, KATL and KSFO, as well as the AN-GRN27s we used at the 31 other sites nationally with publication of AC120-28B on Dec 1st 1977.
7478ti is offline