X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 08:11:45 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from imo-m27.mx.aol.com ([64.12.137.8] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.12) with ESMTP id 3513445 for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 10:11:07 -0500 Received: from Sky2high@aol.com by imo-m27.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v39.1.) id q.ced.50dcbc5b (39952) for ; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 10:11:02 -0500 (EST) From: Sky2high@aol.com X-Original-Message-ID: X-Original-Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 10:11:02 EST Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Ryan 9900B X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-----------------------------1235488262" X-Mailer: AOL 9.1 sub 5003 X-Spam-Flag:NO -------------------------------1235488262 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mike, 'Twas only my opinion. Here is further useless info extracted from GA NTSB data for the last 14 Months: Midairs - 3 - at or near uncontrolled airports. 1. VFR, 5 miles from airport, non-fatal. 2. VFR, 14 miles from airport, head on, prisoner flight climbing thru 10,000, other flight descending thru 10,000 looking for deer instead of aircraft, non-fatal. 3. VFR, approach end of runway, fatal. Radio work?? Crashes on GPS approaches - 4. 1. IFR GPS 24 at LOU, engine failure on approach. Vertical nav available. 2. Night VFR practice VOR GPS-A SFZ, circle to land, fell out of sky. No VNAV. 3. IFR Angel Fire, NM 8800 MSL, 1600 MDA, 1800 foot Ceiling, Circle to land (in pattern), fell out of sky. No VNAV. 4. IFR GPS 36 MWK, no VNAV, fell out of sky on missed. No info on number of successful near misses, successful GPS approaches, WAAS devices in use or traffic alerters nagging. Oh well, Scott In a message dated 2/23/2009 5:17:06 P.M. Central Standard Time, mlas@cox.net writes: Scott, I fail to really see where your going with this. I get that if you don't have enough money to buy both units discussed, you would pick WAAS. That is a personal choice! now lets look at it from a more realistic view. If you are IFR and you don't have WAAS you have to shoot a different type approach or wait for the weather to get better. Even if you have WAAS your are still going need the capability to shoot ILS, VOR, and LOC approaches for the next few years because ATC still uses them. You can't go into Midway up there in Chicago and say I want to use the WAAS to RW9. The response would be expect the ILS. Also you don't need WAAS to shoot a GPS approach. You only need WAAS for low GPS approach, so that would eliminate the (how did you put it) "risky circle-to-land procedure". Side note, circle-to lands are not risky, they are difficult. A properly flown circle is no big deal of you know how to do it properly and you have the weather for it. If your weak you can die doing a circle but that goes for any IFR approach. Most of the new avionics are now providing virtual approach modes that allow you to do ILS like approach on all approaches, this might be a better choice then WAAS. Now going back to the first point WAAS vx TCAS: TCAS works all the time. It tells you when you have a traffic conflict. It is saving you from something you can't plan for or expect. When it works it is the difference between life or death. Non of this can be said about WAAS. My position is that most pilots would get more value out of TCAS over WAAS. The problem is most people thing the other guy will have the mid-air, not me. Ad most importantly it costs to much, TCAS is very expensive. I have TIS and the Monroy 600 in my Lancair Legacy. I wish I had TCAS and am thinking about upgrading my airplane. I do use TCAS at work and could not do my job without it. As for you statement about TCAS being a distraction that is just not true. If you are trained on how to use it you will understand my statement, your statement sir is just fodder. That Monroy 600 never shuts up! It gets the mute switch all the time or I just shut off. Since 2005 I have had WAAS in my Lancair and since 2003 in my Airbus. I fly the Airbus all over the world, and the Lancair has been to almost every State in the US and Mexico. I have used the WAAS (actually a little different on the Bus but almost the same we use RNP) on the Airbus once in the last six years, and I have never used it in the Lancair. Most of the time the weather is good enough, the approach in use is not a WAAS, or WAAS approach was not available. So dollar for dollar based on what you get out of the unit the TCAS is far superior. TCAS=active traffic WAAS=Better Approach capability. TCAS= $10,000 WAAS (over and above non WAAS)= $2,000 WAAS worth when working and easier day. TCAS worth when working=PRICELESS. I think both units are great to have and in the future both will be required to fly IFR or they will replace it with ADS-B which does both. Overall this is an apples to oranges comparison. Mike Larkin Lancair Legacy (I built it from day one) Kit fox IV TS-11 Iskra A-320 Larkin Aviation Consulting Angier, This could be the start of an interesting discussion. If one primarily flies VFR, TCAS is perhaps more valuable than WAAS (in an FAA approved IFR approach and sole-source navigation box). If one flies more than occasionally under IFR, the WAAS equipment ranks at the top of the list. "Why?" You might ask. Well....... 1. Sole source navigation devices are usable in non-radar environments - such as during terrain challenged aviating above piles of granite. This also pertains to IFR flights in VFR conditions. 2. There are more GPS approaches with vertical guidance than ILS approaches here in the US and with minimums almost as good as ILS. This virtually eliminates the need to perform risky circle-to-land procedures. It also opens up more airports (GPS only) to choose from in nasty weather flying (more and better located alternates). There are more GPS approaches added continuously at no cost to the Stimulus Plan nor added jobs. 3. TCAS is less valuable because of ATC traffic separation when flying under IFR rules (or even flight following, conditions permitting). You would have to pry my WAAS device (in my case, a 430W) from my cold dead hands before I would give it up. GPSS navigation (laterally coupled to auto pilot) and approach vertical guidance is a beautiful thing to behold. In general, GPS approaches consist of three 5-mile-long legs (most often in a T configuration). IAF to AF = get to correct altitude and approach speed. AF to FAF = Stabilize approach, check everything twice, hand hovering on gear switch. FAF to RWY (or missed) = descend on VNAV glide slope, shut off AP at DA, make perfect landing. OR, one button-push for guidance thru missed approach procedure. The GPS approaches are so similar that even minimal practice raises one's confidence in a successful outcome during their use, personal limitations, lack of ice build up and all other things considered. However, my cheap Monroy traffic alerter (TCAS like, approximate distance and altitude difference, no azimuth) usually wakes me up once or twice on long VFR trips (no flight plan or following) with a screaming TRAFFIC NEARBY! and it has saved me from one sure midair, if not more (details released upon any request). You are right to consider disabling TCAS in an airport environment as it can be most distracting (unless is has non-critical traffic suppression). Scott Krueger AKA Grayhawk Lancair N92EX IO320 SB 89/96 Aurora, IL (KARR) = **************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1218822736x1201267884/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Fwww.freecreditreport.com%2Fpm%2Fdefault.aspx%3Fsc%3D668072%26hmpgID %3D62%26bcd%3DfebemailfooterNO62) -------------------------------1235488262 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mike,
 
'Twas only my opinion.  Here is further useless info extracted fro= m=20 GA NTSB data for the last 14 Months:
 
Midairs - 3 - at or near uncontrolled airports.
1. VFR, 5 miles from airport, non-fatal.
2. VFR, 14 miles from airport, head on, prisoner flight climbing thru=20 10,000, other flight descending thru 10,000 looking for deer instead of=20 aircraft, non-fatal.
3. VFR, approach end of runway, fatal.  Radio work??
 
Crashes on GPS approaches - 4.
1. IFR GPS 24 at LOU, engine failure on approach. Vertical nav=20 available.
2. Night VFR practice VOR GPS-A SFZ, circle to land, fell out of sky. N= o=20 VNAV.
3. IFR Angel Fire, NM 8800 MSL, 1600 MDA, 1800 foot Ceiling, Circle to=20= land=20 (in pattern), fell out of sky.  No VNAV.
4. IFR GPS 36 MWK, no VNAV, fell out of sky on missed.
 
No info on number of successful near misses, successful GPS approaches,= =20 WAAS devices in use or traffic alerters nagging.
 
Oh well,
 
Scott
 
In a message dated 2/23/2009 5:17:06 P.M. Central Standard Time,=20 mlas@cox.net writes:
<= FONT=20 style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size= =3D2>
Scott,

I fail to really see where your going with this.= =20  I get that if you don't have enough money to buy both=20 units discussed, you would pick WAAS.   That is a personal=20 choice!  now lets look at it from a more realistic view.  If you= are=20 IFR and you don't have WAAS you have to shoot a different type approach or= =20 wait for the weather to get better.  Even if you have WAAS your are s= till=20 going need the capability to shoot ILS, VOR, and LOC approaches=20= for=20 the next few years because ATC still uses them.  You can't go=20 into Midway up there in Chicago and say I want to use=20= the=20 WAAS to RW9.   The response would be expect the I= LS.=20  Also you don't need WAAS to shoot a GPS approach.  You only nee= d=20 WAAS for low GPS approach, so that would eliminate the (how did you put it= )=20 "risky circle-to-land procedure".  Side note, circle-to lands are not= =20 risky, they are difficult.  A properly flown circle is no big de= al=20 of you know how to do it properly and you have the weather for it.  I= f=20 your weak you can die doing a circle but that goes for any IFR approach.=20  Most of the new avionics are now providing virtual approac= h=20 modes that allow you to do ILS like approach on all approaches,=20= this=20 might be a better choice then WAAS.


Now going back to the first point WAAS vx TCAS:=20  TCAS works all the time.  It tells you when you have a traffic=20 conflict.  It is saving you from something you can't plan for=20 or expect.  When it works it is the difference between life or=20 death.  Non of this can be said about WAAS.  My position is that= =20 most pilots would get more value out of TCAS over WAAS.  The problem=20= is=20 most people thing the other guy will have the mid-air, not me.  Ad mo= st=20 importantly it costs to much, TCAS is very expensive.  I have TIS and= the=20 Monroy 600 in my Lancair Legacy.  I wish I had TCAS and am thinking a= bout=20 upgrading my airplane.  I do use TCAS at work and could not do my job= =20 without it.  As for you statement about TCAS being a=20 distraction that is just not true.  If you are trained on how to use=20= it=20 you will understand my statement, your statement sir is jus= t=20 fodder.  That Monroy 600 never shuts up!  It gets the mute switc= h=20 all the time or I just shut off.

Since 2005 I have had WAAS in my Lancair and sin= ce=20 2003 in my Airbus.  I fly the Airbus all over the world, and the Lanc= air=20 has been to almost every State in the US and Mexico.  I have used the= =20 WAAS (actually a little different on the Bus but almost the same we u= se=20 RNP) on the Airbus once in the last six years, and I have never used it in= the=20 Lancair.  Most of the time the weather is good enough, the approach i= n=20 use is not a WAAS, or WAAS approach was not available.  So dolla= r=20 for dollar based on what you get out of the unit the TCAS is far superior.= =20  TCAS=3Dactive traffic  WAAS=3DBetter Approach capability.  = ;TCAS=3D=20 $10,000  WAAS (over and above non WAAS)=3D $2,000  WAAS worth wh= en=20 working and easier day.  TCAS worth when=20 working=3DPRICELESS.

I think both units are great to have and in the=20= future=20 both will be required to fly IFR or they will replace it with AD= S-B=20 which does both.  Overall this is an apples=20 to oranges comparison.

Mike Larkin

Lancair Legacy (I built it from day=20 one)
Kit fox IV
TS-11 Iskra
A-320
Larkin Aviation Consulting




Angier,
 
This could be the start of an interesting=20 discussion.
 
If one primarily flies VFR, TCAS is perhaps more= =20 valuable than WAAS (in an FAA approved IFR approach and sole-source=20 navigation box).
 
If one flies more than occasionally under IFR, t= he=20 WAAS equipment ranks at the top of the list. "Why?" You might ask. =20 Well.......
 
1. Sole source navigation devices are usable in=20 non-radar environments - such as during terrain challenged aviating above=20 piles of granite.  This also pertains to IFR flights in VFR=20 conditions.
2. There are more GPS approaches with vertical=20 guidance than ILS approaches here in the US and with minimums almost=20= as=20 good as ILS.  This virtually eliminates the need to perform risk= y=20 circle-to-land procedures.  It also opens up more airports (GPS only)= to=20 choose from in nasty weather flying (more and better located=20 alternates).  There are more GPS approaches added continuously at no=20= cost=20 to the Stimulus Plan nor added jobs. 
3. TCAS is less valuable because of ATC traffic=20 separation when flying under IFR rules (or even flight following,=20 conditions permitting).
 
You would have to pry my WAAS device (in my case= , a=20 430W) from my cold dead hands before I would give it up.  GPSS naviga= tion=20 (laterally coupled to auto pilot) and approach vertical guidance is a= =20 beautiful thing to behold.  In general, GPS approaches consist=20 of three 5-mile-long legs (most often in a T configuration). IAF to A= F =3D=20 get to correct altitude and approach speed.  AF to FAF =3D=20 Stabilize approach, check everything twice, hand hovering on gear=20 switch.  FAF to RWY (or missed) =3D descend on VNAV glide slope, shut= off=20 AP at DA, make perfect landing.  OR, one button-push for guidance thr= u=20 missed approach procedure.  The GPS approaches are so similar that ev= en=20 minimal practice raises one's confidence in a successful outcome during th= eir=20 use, personal limitations, lack of ice build up and all other things=20 considered.
 
However, my cheap Monroy traffic alerter (TCAS l= ike,=20 approximate distance and altitude difference, no azimuth) usually wak= es=20 me up once or twice on long VFR trips (no flight plan or following) w= ith=20 a screaming TRAFFIC NEARBY!  and it has saved me from one=20 sure midair, if not more (details released upon any=20 request).
 
You are right to consider disabling TC= AS in=20 an airport environment as it can be most distracting (unless is has=20 non-critical traffic suppression).
 
Scott Kr= ueger AKA=20 Grayhawk
Lancair N92EX IO320 SB 89/96
Aurora, IL=20 (KARR)
=3D
=20=
A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps!=
-------------------------------1235488262--