Can someone explain what the differences are between these approach types.....some say RNAV(GPS), and others are simply GPS.Thanks!Rick

Good question. I did a search, and came up with this simple explanation:>>>Area Navigation (RNAV) is a method of air navigation that allows an aircraft to choose any course within a network of navigation beacons, rather than navigating directly to and from the beacons. This can conserve flight distance, reduce congestion, and allow instrument flight plans into airports without beacons.In the United States, RNAV was developed in the 1960s, and the first such routes were published in the 1970s. In January 1983, the Federal Aviation Administration revoked all conterminous United States RNAV routes due to findings that aircraft were using inertial navigation methods rather than the ground-based beacons.RNAV was reanimated after the large-scale introduction of satellite navigation.<<<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNAVand this:>>>>Waypoints and aviationIn aviation, area navigation (RNAV)

Here's a good description:http://aviationmentor.blogspot.com/2006/12...habet-soup.htmlwhat the site emphasizes is picking the right minima from the chart. I believe the goal of FAA is to get rid of all GPS procedures, and fold them into RNAV(GPS) procedures. I think to do that, they need to redesign the approach, which means (more or less) determining the appropriate obstacle clearance is met. This is a lot more complicated than it might seem at first glance because aircraft do not follow exactly the line from point to point so areas must be analyzed, not just a single line.I don't think ICAO uses "GPS" procedures? At any rate they call it GNSS rather than GPS.scott s..