RNP doesn't just apply to approaches after all.

I think that right now all RNAV SIDs and STARs have non-RNAV alternatives.

I think that right now all RNAV SIDs and STARs have non-RNAV alternatives.

 

They do.  Read his post a little more carefully, though: "RNP doesn't just apply to approaches after all."

 

Try getting across the NATs without RNP  :wink:

(Yes, I know there's an exemption - but try using that exemption while trying to maintain competitiveness with the other operators who don't need it...)

They do.  Read his post a little more carefully, though: "RNP doesn't just apply to approaches after all."

 

Try getting across the NATs without RNP  :wink:

(Yes, I know there's an exemption - but try using that exemption while trying to maintain competitiveness with the other operators who don't need it...)

Fiiiine... I stand corrected :rolleyes:

Fiiiine... I stand corrected :rolleyes:

 

haha - aviation is a complex beast...I got kicked into the deep end a few years ago, and, despite being a simmer, a pilot, and just overly passionate about aviation (read as "finds and absorbs aviation information like a sponge"), I had no clue how much I'd pick up over the next year.

 

If anyone is curious about the evaluation of RNAV RNP versus ground-based navigation, and incentivizing RNAV RNP equippage, check out Best Equipped Best Served, have a look here:

http://www.faa.gov/nextgen/implementation/media/NextGen_Implementation_Plan_2013.pdf (Jump to page 15 - I was part of that evaluation group mentioned at the bottom of the first column through the second column).

Just to confirm that thing about visual approaches being the most common... I'm listening to KJFK approach on liveATC right now, and everyone's requesting RNAV visual into 13L, but tower giving them the GPS into 13L. Pilots really do prefer visual approaches. 

 

On a side note, i wonder why they're unable to approve the visual...?

 

 

RNAV visual into 13L

 

Can you confirm that?  There isn't a published approach that's an RNAV Visual.  There's the Parkway Vis to the 13s, but that's it.

 

 

 

but tower giving them the GPS into 13L.

 

The GPS to the 13s is actually partially a visual approach (but still technically not listed as one).  As to why they're using it, see below...

 

 

 

On a side note, i wonder why they're unable to approve the visual...?

 

JFK doesn't have "standard" visual approaches to the 13s because that would require flying directly over NYC, and right through LGA's airspace.  Because of that, they have charted visuals (and the awkward VOR/GPS approaches) to come in at an odd angle to avoid the city and LGA airspace.

 

I'm guessing they're using the GPS over the Parkway to keep people a little more precise (they're essentially overlays of each other, path-wise).

It's been a while, but I have to add a bit to Kyles post:

 

 

 

Again - as always - visual approaches are the most common approach to just about any airport.

 

In the US.

 

 

 

Can you confirm that?  There isn't a published approach that's an RNAV Visual.  There's the Parkway Vis to the 13s, but that's it.

 

Might just be that it is marked differently on company charts (RNAV GPS vs. GPS) and/or pilots just ask for RNAV out of habit.

Can you confirm that? There isn't a published approach that's an RNAV Visual. There's the Parkway Vis to the 13s, but that's it.

Yup. I found it strange too, cause I had a page with all the charts opened and I couldn't find it. But I am sure they were asking for the RNAV visual. Could be a company thing, yeah, to add some precision to Parkway and Belmont visuals.

 

I was thinking of running a flight for my VA last night, but since I was a bit too tired, I decided to just track the real flight into JFK. I'm taking about AAL64, btw. They got the VOR DME into 22L, and others were getting the GPS into 13L. I think it's a bit of an eye opener to go to LiveATC and FlightRadar, and use the two to follow a flight. Then you can see just what they mean by vectors.

Hi everybody,

 

thanks for all the interesting answers so far. Regarding Fabo's response, going visual seems to be number one in the US, but not in Europe? Anyone here to explain why it's different and how it's handled outside of US airspace?

 

Regards,

Martin

Anyone here to explain why it's different and how it's handled outside of US airspace?

 

The EU looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooves CFMU (Central Flow Management Unit).

 

Everything has a sequence from gate to gate, for the most part, so you essentially magenta line it from departure to destination, and the ILS ensures the pilots follow a specific track to the runway.  Technically, a visual approach grants the pilot the use of his or her own judgment as to the best path to the runway, which could involve S-turns, or anything else (not that anyone would actually do that).  Minimizing pilot discretion in the path down to the runway ensures everything goes as closely to plan as possible.

 

Over there it kinda makes sense, though.  We have the benefit of having all of our airports under the FAA as one unit.  Trying to coordinate all of that activity in that confined space, through various agencies is probably a nightmare, so CFMU helps to keep things organized.

 

Still, I like giving them a hard time about it, just as they like to give us a hard time for being cowboys with our policy on anticipated separation.

 

Yeee-hawwwwww!  :American Flag:  :American Flag:  :American Flag:  :American Flag:  :American Flag: