So here's a question for you all. In the US, which is more common these days? RNAV has really taken off here over the past few years. I was away from FS for a few years, and have noticed many RNAV approaches there are as I'm updating my charts. So, IRL, which is more common to be assigned? For example, say it's a nice clear day wx wise and you're inbound MDW. For sequencing (at least during my RL flights listening to ATC) it was common to assign the ILS even in CLR conditions. Fast forward a few years, would it be more common to just do the RNAV instead? Many approaches aren't even ILS anymore, so there's not really a choice for those. Just wondering how things are going now. Thanks folks.

Depends on what and where you are flying: Major airports use the ILS primarily, smaller airports without ILS's are getting RNAV's, but you have to have panel mounted IFR certified GPS's to legally use them. On a 'clear' day in your example, expect a 'visual' :-)

You will also see RNAV or GPS approaches in general aviation into smaller airports or at pilots request. The larger airports (those with Towers and bigger) will typically default to ILS just because it's more likely that a plane will be ILS capable then it will be GPS capable.

... For example, say it's a nice clear day wx wise and you're inbound MDW. ...

Without knowing the local procedures at KMDW I would say that they would most likely clear you for the visual approach

Hi, I'm a controller at a small class D and we advertise ILS approaches if the weather warrants it. Our airport (KDLH) has all the different types of approaches out there (well almost). ILS is still preferred over RNAV/GPS especially because of the weather minimums. WAAS can get you down to 200 ft nowadays (I think) but with a CAT II ILS you can fly lower.... The only time we advertise a RNAV/GPS approach is if the ILS is broken. Pilots do fly RNAV approaches often though, mainly for practice etc... And of course RNAV has opened up a whole new world for small GA, esp at airports that weren't served by an approach, which now have an RNAV approach.

Without knowing the local procedures at KMDW I would say that they would most likely clear you for the visual approach

Sometimes we'll use ILS for sequencing - it's easier to positively control traffic and space them on an ILS... whereas with a visual the pilot can climb/descend, take whatever route they wish to the runway.

Edited February 28, 201214 yr by ryanbatcund