Hmm, thanks again Craig. (This is our recreation, by the way, so absolutely no need to apologise for taking your time!) Helpful to have your clear and professional explanation of all the phenomena and your varied experiences on this 04L approach into LFMN. No, I wasn't attempting an autoland - single CH all the way down. What was strange is that both the indicated glidepath on the VSD and the visual path suggested by HGS flight vector, were ending up short of the runway, in the water! Just inexplicable it seems, especially as everything you describe seems normal. I use the excellent nDAC chart service. It seems to show that the ILS for 04R is perfectly aligned with the runway (usually TO runway but still has ILS or NDB landing options). However, assuming that the thick black line representing the glideslope is correctly drawn in azimuth, the more usual landing runway O4L appears to have an ILS which is off to the right of runway centreline. Maybe this would account for no Cat III and your seeing yourself off 1 degree to the left. When I get the time (soon hopefully), I will try doing everything you have described, to see if my results are the same as yours ... Again thanks. Best wishes, David

Hallo,

NDB(NDM)approach Venisse-Tessera-04R-D 115.3 Tes.

I am using IAN, but on final FMA display FAC green as roll mode, but not G/P as pitch mode- FMA display shows  VNAV Path green and G/P remains white and not active- can you tell me, why?

thanks

Willi

I'm not sure a NDB GPS-overlay approach provides vertical guidance... VNAV is all you get.

I'm not sure a NDB GPS-overlay approach provides vertical guidance... VNAV is all you get.

thank you so much, may be, the NDB approach from the CDU database does not have a glide path attached to it- I will try to choose another NDB approach profil.If I remember rightly, the G/P has been reached to late and to close to the threshold.

 

 

The RW NG pilots who monitor these threads, unfortunately, have been notably silent concerning IAN procedures and the topic has been brought up in several threads.

 

That's most likely because most RW operators don't use it.  Why would a company pay more to implement IAN when you can fly non-ILS approaches just fine in LNAV/VNAV?