I love VNAV approach as far down to given minimums as possible. I'm not sure if it's realistic but it puts VNAV to an interesting test as well as it gives you information on height restrictions. I follow given ILS approach with given height restrictions found in the chart. I try not to hit the APP button I only use LOC and VNAV. There is a chart for EPKK which is called "ILS or LOC RWY 25." Since I don't feel comfortable landing visual yet I think it's a nice step forward. Pure ILS is interesting but it's exciting to improve your skills in moderate steps, I think.

question #2, if flying a RNAV app. do you also program the ILS frequency or do you just rely on VNAV for descent to the runway?Thanks in advance, Jim

Not normally. If you’re doing a RNAV approach, the ILS is probably out. If there is an ILS and RNAV approach for the same runway, then its all about the Minimums. Which approach is going to give the pilot the best or lowest minimums? An ILS will generally have better minimums than a RNAV using LNAV/VNAV minimums. An RNAV with LPV (Localizer Performance with Vertical Guidance) minimums is a GPS based precision approach. This approach provides localizer accuracy with glide slope information to a DA. It uses additional GPS ground stations near the airport to provide a more accurate GPS signal and provides minimums the same as or very close to a conventional ILS approach. The LPV appraoch is based on WAAS (Wide Area Augmentation System) which allows appraoch minimums lower than MDA. Special aircraft equipenment and certification is required. An airline would have to add it to it's OpSecs in order to conduct this type of approach.I included two approaches from KPBG, an ILS or LOC/DME 35 and a RNAV (GPS) RWY 35. If you compare the two approaches, you'll find they both have the same minimums of 1/2 VIS and the DA's are only a 50' difference. This is using the LPV minimums for the RNAV 35 approach.The FAA is heading us in the direction of a navigation system based on GPS for departure, enroute and precision and nonprecision approaches. All ground based VOR stations will eventfully go away in the next 30 years. We're already seeing NDB's taken out of service.Jim, go the FAA website and download a free copy of Instrument Procedures Handbook PDF (FAA-H-8261-1A).It's a very good source of information for IFR flying and also very detailed info on the different types of approaches available.Take care,John Floyd

WOW!!! Thanks for passing along this great info for me to study! :(

"For those who nitpick, spare me on this one, I'm paraphrasing broadly:Visual essentially means you can do whatever you'd like to get down on the runway (provided it's reasonable). That said, you're more than welcome to fly down on APP mode on the LOC/GS. There are no visual minimums, by the way. There are autopilot minimums, but no vis minimums."A useful bit of knowledge is that a pilot that want's a "visual" approach may ask for a contact approach. Visuals are only given by ATC, the contact approach is the same thing but that is what it is called when requested by the pilot. I've used it frequently going into a familiar airport where I want to run the scud and I know where those TV antennas are located. In this case, ATC would never offer the visual because of the obstructions but by requesting the visual I am accepting the responsibility to safely get to the airport and land. (receive the visual is how I remember the difference).The IFR Pilot Handbook by the ATC is an excellent source of information.

"A useful bit of knowledge is that a pilot that want's a "visual" approach may ask for a contact approach.

Not too many airlines if not any allow contact approaches to be flown in a 121 operation. Take care,John Floyd

Good point, John, I've only flown Part 91 for the past 40 yrs and have little knowledge of commercial ops.

On the same topic... Is permitted to fly a visual approach with the autopilot on and ILS captured until the visual minimums?

Sure but I don't know a real pilot alive who'd rather do that than handfly.

Unfortunately Ryan in many parts of the world it is almost mandatory within company SOP to make full use of the automatics. Hence the big debate about degrading hand flying skills, but that's another story.

From the controllers side of things, when dealing with a larger airport with many arrivals, using the ILS or visual is preferred. Having an aircraft intercept the localizer 20 miles out and fly that into the runway is easier to do than to set them up for a GPS approach when you have many other aircraft inbound to the same airport. Vectoring is a controllers best friend.When it comes to your smaller uncontrolled airports, setting an aircraft up on the GPS is the easiest way to do it, IMO. Takes the workload off of the controller and places it on the pilot. You clear them to the IAF and let the pilot do the rest of the work.

Hence the big debate about degrading hand flying skills, but that's another story.

You can hand fly planes above 1000'?!? :shok:Mind is blown!Yeah, you're definitely right about that. My one friend works for [major carrier A] and they are AP from 1000' to 1000', whereas a former teacher's wife hand flies up to 10, and then flies the full arrival->approach, where possible.

What would be the situation for RNAV to be used over ILS when both options are available?

Many GA (forget your 737) pilots prefer RNAV approaches for their CDI stability and generally better designed layout of the approach. RNAV often may have slightly higher minimums (but often is as good as ILS) but if weather gives you sufficient buffer - they would prefer RNAV. RNAV also gives you a seemles transition from your enroute phase to your approach in modern GA avionics. I heard it from many pilots flying their SR22s.

Some of them also pick up off of the end of (or somewhere along the line of) a STAR, so some approach controllers will solicit (ask if pilots will accept) the RNAV approach in order to do less work, or properly balance the load.If you look at some of the RNAVs into IAD, you'll see some of them pick up from some of the fixes of the SHNON and ROYIL arrivals (for RNAVs into the 19s anyway).Your approach type as a pilot comes down to:-Minimums (if the mins are too low for one, that cuts your available pool)-Equipment (does my plane have the equip for this)-Skill (can I fly this approach given my skill level)-Comfort (have I flown this approach recently, or do I feel comfortable with its precision, or proximity to terrain)-Situation (some approaches have IAFs right on your route, which could offer an advantage)Aviation decision making is all about using your brain to address problems logically, not in a formulaic way. Weather, life and people are never formulaic.

Most large airports have runways served by an ILS and an RNAV approach. Typicaly if the airport is VMC, it's 50/50 if you get an ILS or visual. The LOC only apprach seems to be the next option if the GS is OTS. RNAV seems to be the last option. The only time I ever seem to be assigned an RNAV is when no other approach exists- typically at smaller fields.Re contact approaches, don't know about other companies, but we are expressely prohibited from doing them.Somebody asked about visual approches- we ALWAYS back up a visual approach with the appropriate instrument approach. The AP is usually disconnected well above mins, but we can use it right down to 200ft if so desired.Paul

The only time I ever seem to be assigned an RNAV is when no other approach exists- typically at smaller fields.

You don't have to wait to be 'assigned' one, you can ask for approach of your choice, at smaller airports you often have that freedom.

True, but the ATIS will usually indicate which approach is being used. I actually requested an RNAV into a smaller airport one day. It seemed to have caused much confusion in the control room. It seems they couldn't figure why anybody would want the RNAV when the ILS was in use (on a VFR day at that)!Paul