It probably wasn't confusion as much as it was coordination. Smaller fields are also normally controlled by positions that have another primary purpose. As an example, Leesburg (JYO), where I fly out of, is controlled by a position primarily tasked with IAD's departures.If you ask for a non-standard arrival (RNAV still isn't the norm in most places), it may take a second to make sure the path for the arrival is clear and the other controllers around him/her know what's going on.

You all are way over my head at this point as my question was really only pertaining to FSX/737 ngx. I hope to be able to have the same questions one day and be able to swap stories as far as RW flying with you all but my wife/kids, etc. are keeping me grounded for the time being if you know what Im sayin!Thanks again for all your imput.

I prefer ILS approach because the lower DH. I have only used RNAV App once (when ILS is usable) in FSX. In that flight I had a Nav failure and ILS doesn't work.

ATC-wise there is something else you are missing. Any non-ILS approach will have less separation than an ILS one, especially in Low Visibility Operations but in normal conditions as well. Let me put it this way, on an ILS on an runway we need to have 6 miles between two planes on the same ILS beam. However the minimum separation between two planes landing the same runway is that the runway must be empty by the time the 2nd one crosses the threshold. That's more like 3 miles for a medium jet same speed. So we're basically wasting 3 miles. All because of the ILS' beam radio unreliability, as said above. You can make up for it by getting a departure in there, or in case weather is no factor (most of the times) you can get in there the 2nd aircraft on a non-precision approach. Any one like NDB, VOR or RNAV will do and will allow you to give better separation. Or in the case of FAA-land, a visual approach. We are not allowed to offer visual approaches over here, only pilot must request them. Choosing between non-precision approaches pilot-wise, I'd say both NDB and VOR, even though programmed in FMS and flyable in VNAV/LNAV for aid, you must still monitor the raw data. The RNAV approach frees you of that hassle so a clear winner. But for me the choice between ILS and RNAV/RNP can be pretty blurred. If we don't take into account the minimums since most of these approaches are flown in well above minimums weather then the way to fly these approaches in a Boeing is identical. Boeing seems to have worked very hard to allow this and it turned out really well. However we can't forget the weather since since Instrumental Approach is designed to be able to bring you down to the airport, and usually the landing runway, while you are unable to see the runway so this is their primary function.Right now all over Europe because of commonality the ILS are still the primary means of approaching a runway but I expect a quick shift toward using RNAV approaches in priority to ILS in normal weather as the majority of planes get this capability because of the reasons I have stated in the first paragraph. The lower separation is more important then lower minimums given the traffic that we get.

It probably wasn't confusion as much as it was coordination. Smaller fields are also normally controlled by positions that have another primary purpose. As an example, Leesburg (JYO), where I fly out of, is controlled by a position primarily tasked with IAD's departures.

Nope. It was confusion. VMC day, and ILS approaches were being assigned. The Captain was due to go in for training, so he wanted to shoot the full RNAV approach just for practice. They couldn't figure why we wanted to do it. Had we been in a 172, no questions would have been asked.Paul