FAA Approves First WAAS LPV Helicopter IFR Approach
Thread Starter
FAA Approves First WAAS LPV Helicopter IFR Approach
Helicopter specific IFR procedures now coming into effect in the USA.
Particularly useful for HEMS operators and should be an improvement in standards of safety....and long over due.
Hickok & Associates' First Helicopter WAAS LPV Instrument Flight Procedures Approved by FAA - Vertical Online
Particularly useful for HEMS operators and should be an improvement in standards of safety....and long over due.
Hickok & Associates' First Helicopter WAAS LPV Instrument Flight Procedures Approved by FAA - Vertical Online
WAAS LPV procedures provide CALSTAR with significantly reduced approach minimums, even in a challenging terrain environment. CALSTAR's approach to the Ukiah Valley Medical Center provides a Decision Altitude (DA) of 972 feet Mean Sea Level (MSL), 364 feet Height Above Landing (HAL), and ¾ Statute Mile (SM) visibility … which is 748 feet lower than the lowest minimums available at Ukiah Muni Airport, where the Localizer/DME minimums are 1,720 feet MSL, 1,106 feet HAL, Ukiah Muni Airport, where the Localizer/DME minimums are 1,720 feet MSL, 1,106 feet HAL, and 1-¼ SM visibility. Ukiah Muni is only 1-½ miles south from the hospital, in the same valley. Prior to their WAAS LPV approach, the ILS approach at Santa Rosa … 40 miles south of Ukiah … was the nearest airport with minimums lower than Ukiah Muni's Localizer/DME.
Interesting. First helicopter certified for LPV helicopter approaches is Italian, not French, not American, but that sad little 109. With a Garmin.
It also mentions a United Technologies coming up next with either their S76B or S76C+ using a UNS-1FW. Wonder why they just wouldn't go with a Garmin as well. Must be that corporate thing about needing more keyboards and buttons to push, whereas the 109 is EMS, probably single-pilot, and needs what works easily instead of what looks impressive.
It also mentions a United Technologies coming up next with either their S76B or S76C+ using a UNS-1FW. Wonder why they just wouldn't go with a Garmin as well. Must be that corporate thing about needing more keyboards and buttons to push, whereas the 109 is EMS, probably single-pilot, and needs what works easily instead of what looks impressive.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Tasmania and High Wollemi
Posts: 439
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GPS approach
Always good to see some support to the ems industry. Hope they can catch up with the rest of the world.
Check this out and note the publication date.
http://www.airservicesaustralia.com....LGGN02-101.pdf
or
http://www.airservicesaustralia.com....GSGN01-101.pdf
Safest way to get into difficult sites.
The Eye
Check this out and note the publication date.
http://www.airservicesaustralia.com....LGGN02-101.pdf
or
http://www.airservicesaustralia.com....GSGN01-101.pdf
Safest way to get into difficult sites.
The Eye
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Over here
Posts: 1,030
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Malabo, the FMS is far more capable, and easier to use, than the Garmin. I've flown S76C+ & C++ with both installed, and we mostly just used the Garmin for the moving map, never bothering to use it for actual navigation in the field. If I were flying single-pilot IFR, I would take the FMS every time.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Homer, Alaska
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While that FMS may be much more capable in many ways -- not so when it comes to LPV approaches. The Collins 3000 FMS in the Citation Jet 3 we fly has no WAAS/LPV capability. The Cessna 185 we fly with a Garmin 530W has legal, LPV capability offering many lower approaches than the jet with supposedly the "latest and greatest jet avionics from Collins.". Even though the Citation also has a Garmin 500 as a second long range nav, Collins won't interface a Garmin 500W to their Pro Line 21, leaving us waiting for the WAAS upgrade to our FMS that has been about 3-6 months off for the last year or two.
I won't even mention the capability of a Cessna T206 with G1000 and the Garmin AP/FD that just runs circles around Pro Line 21 with the Collins FMS and Collins auto pilot.
I won't even mention the capability of a Cessna T206 with G1000 and the Garmin AP/FD that just runs circles around Pro Line 21 with the Collins FMS and Collins auto pilot.
Give me an FMS over a Garmin any day.
We currently fly SPIFR in S76C++ and B and A109E and S.
The S76s have a Universal UNS1F and B respectively and the A109s have Garmin 530 and 430. I have seen an A109 with a mini Universal FMS think it was a UNS-1M.
The FMS is so much quicker and easier than the Garmin to use single pilot, too much rotating of inner and outer knobs when single pilot IMC with the Garmin. Find the Garmins too complicated to carry out simple functions.
Also the ability to plot routes, waypoints and build approaches on a laptop and then load into the aircraft is far easier than the Garmin way of importing data manually. We recently lost all data on our Garmins so had to reload them manually, what a pain!!
Also the FMS is usually a multi sensor unit so isn't just reliant on GPS.
If Garmins were so good why do the big boys in the airlines, were cost drives everything, use Honeywell and Universal FMS?
FNW
We currently fly SPIFR in S76C++ and B and A109E and S.
The S76s have a Universal UNS1F and B respectively and the A109s have Garmin 530 and 430. I have seen an A109 with a mini Universal FMS think it was a UNS-1M.
The FMS is so much quicker and easier than the Garmin to use single pilot, too much rotating of inner and outer knobs when single pilot IMC with the Garmin. Find the Garmins too complicated to carry out simple functions.
Also the ability to plot routes, waypoints and build approaches on a laptop and then load into the aircraft is far easier than the Garmin way of importing data manually. We recently lost all data on our Garmins so had to reload them manually, what a pain!!
Also the FMS is usually a multi sensor unit so isn't just reliant on GPS.
If Garmins were so good why do the big boys in the airlines, were cost drives everything, use Honeywell and Universal FMS?
FNW
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: USA (PA)
Age: 47
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While we are creeping along... (on the thread topic that is)
Has been some time since I flew the G1000.
Did they finally figured out, that maybe someone wants to hold on fixes with no published hold?
The Garmin 430 doesn't even has airways in the database, let alone provisions to create your own holding patterns - yes, you might be able to fly lower approaches, but having to dig through the charts after each re-route, to see if there's no heading change, sux!
...other than that I like the Garmins continuity when it comes to menus and functions across platforms.
Has been some time since I flew the G1000.
Did they finally figured out, that maybe someone wants to hold on fixes with no published hold?
The Garmin 430 doesn't even has airways in the database, let alone provisions to create your own holding patterns - yes, you might be able to fly lower approaches, but having to dig through the charts after each re-route, to see if there's no heading change, sux!
...other than that I like the Garmins continuity when it comes to menus and functions across platforms.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Homer, Alaska
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Current G1000 systems have airways. The 430/530 doesn't. Both G1000 and 430W/530W will fly a procedure turn. The G1000, and I believe the 430/530W boxes, will fly the missed approach and enter the hold. I don't believe either system allows you to build a complete hold off a procedure, like in our FMS, but you can accomplish most of it with OBS, and the auto pilot in heading mode.
My point wasn't that the 430W/530W is better than an FMS, but rather it is ridiculous that any run of the mill 172 with a 430 or 530W box gets access to LPV approaches with much lower minimums than the MDA/VNAV type approaches that show on our "sophisticated" FMS driven systems. So, despite all the advantages of an FMS, for LPV approaches the 430/530W is "better" in my book.
My point wasn't that the 430W/530W is better than an FMS, but rather it is ridiculous that any run of the mill 172 with a 430 or 530W box gets access to LPV approaches with much lower minimums than the MDA/VNAV type approaches that show on our "sophisticated" FMS driven systems. So, despite all the advantages of an FMS, for LPV approaches the 430/530W is "better" in my book.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: USA (PA)
Age: 47
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
George: exactly what I said. Just to clarify: yes, the G1000 has airways, the 430/530 e.g. not. I was aware of the procedure turn capability and understand your point that a single engine airplane steered by a 100 hour pilot could fly lower approaches. Strange but true. No argument here!
So, you guys really fly a lot of holds in helicopters? We don't, just slow it down until the arrival time at the hold fix matches the expected approach time. For the once or twice in a lifetime you get a non-published hold they are a piece of cake in the Garmin using the OBS function. If we really wanted to thread drift we'd ask if anyone uses marker beacon receivers anymore - yet they are still installed in new aircraft.
But back to the LPV approaches - weren't they being flown up in Norway somewhere using some fancy-pants Universal unit in a Dash-8? I think the guys here in Ontario can fly them with their S76A models using Garmin 530W, but the C+ and C++ can't because something about the way the old CRT (cathode ray tube for you young'uns - yep, they're that old!) displays interact with the Garmin and the SPZ7600. May be a good reason for UT to go FMS in their quest to keep up with the Garmin'd A109.
But back to the LPV approaches - weren't they being flown up in Norway somewhere using some fancy-pants Universal unit in a Dash-8? I think the guys here in Ontario can fly them with their S76A models using Garmin 530W, but the C+ and C++ can't because something about the way the old CRT (cathode ray tube for you young'uns - yep, they're that old!) displays interact with the Garmin and the SPZ7600. May be a good reason for UT to go FMS in their quest to keep up with the Garmin'd A109.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: USA (PA)
Age: 47
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote malabo:
If we really wanted to thread drift we'd ask if anyone uses marker beacon receivers anymore - yet they are still installed in new aircraft.
If we really wanted to thread drift we'd ask if anyone uses marker beacon receivers anymore - yet they are still installed in new aircraft.
Who brought the FMS vs. Garmin up again? Oh! it was you!
...and no we don't fly a lot of holds in the helicopter, but I have yet to see a Garmin 1000 installation in one either. I apologize that I pointed out the discrepancy of the outstanding effort of Garmin to include new procedures/technologies like WAAS/LPV approaches on the one hand, but at same time lacking the most basic IFR functions such as airways/holds on the other. [/creep]
Thread Starter
Malabo,
Sounds like you never figured out flying a holding pattern....and one day you will have to do one for real if you cannot slow down long enough. Would it not be better practice (as in professional standards as well as training) to fly the hold as instructed?
I assume you notify ATC of your decrease in speed and your intentions while doing this "delay the game" maneuver?
Sounds like you never figured out flying a holding pattern....and one day you will have to do one for real if you cannot slow down long enough. Would it not be better practice (as in professional standards as well as training) to fly the hold as instructed?
I assume you notify ATC of your decrease in speed and your intentions while doing this "delay the game" maneuver?
