Rnav Approach

[Budbud 227]

 

 

I don't see an RNAV approach for 13L at Flightaware.com

 

Hi Mike, 

 

Actually it is called VOR or GPS RWY 13L/13R on the chart.

 

http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1607/00610VG13LR.PDF

[Mike777 163]

 

 

Actually it is called VOR or GPS RWY 13L/13R on the chart.

 

Hi, Romain,

 

I always thought of it as just a VOR approach but you are quite right -- it meets the definition of an RNAV approach -- indeed I've flown it that way many times.  Although I think the altitude for DMYHL in the Navigraph data, 800 ft, is too low, and does not agree with the chart you linked to or previous versions I've looked at.

 

Mike

[Budbud 227]

The good think of the RNAV approach is that it provides me a vertical path guidance while the VOR does not.

In fsx, I find this kind of approach with a turn to the rwy in short final quite difficult to fly regarding the vertical path without glide path indication especially when the altitude at the beginning of the turn is quite low.
In Nice (LFMN) you have the same kind of VPT approach but the beginning of the turn is higher and it gives a better situational awareness.

Plus the path to the runway is clear of any obstruction, while in JFK, you have some buidings in the way.

 

In real life, I find it easier to get good visual reference for altitude and path than in the simulator (at least with GA aircraft, as I'm not a commercial pilot).

[skelsey 765]

 

 

Although I think the altitude for DMYHL in the Navigraph data, 800 ft, is too low, and does not agree with the chart you linked to or previous versions I've looked at.

 

800ft is the MDA and DMYHL is the MAPt for the procedure. The vertical profile has been calculated, according to the LIDO chart, for a CDA to reach MDA at the missed approach point (i.e. 800ft at DMYHL). DMYHL is 3.6NM to 13L and 2.6NM to 13R, so you will be slightly low for 13L and about on profile for 13R.

[scandinavian13 5,192]

Strangely, I have had the impression that the 13L (visual, VOR or RNAV) approach is used quite often when the wind is from the sector E-SSW when looking at the traffic in flightradar24 but statistics would be interesting. I can see even traffic coming from Europe directed to the 13L instead of rwy 22s which doesn't look logical...

 

The charted Parkway Visual (hereafter "Visual") and VOR are used quite frequently for the 13s, if - and for as long as - they can be. The one angle that a lot of people forget about is minimums. The Visual to the 13s obviously has the highest minimums at 2500. The VOR is an approximation of the Visual that carries lower mins, but they're still up at 800. The company RNAV gets those mins down to 300-500ish (from what I remember - since it's a company approach, it is not published).

 

As far as runway selection goes, you have to remember that - for larger and busier airports - this has a lot less to do with the wind than you'd immediately think. Selection of a runway configuration will greatly affect your ability to accept and dispatch traffic. Since I'm not anywhere near an expert with N90 airspace, I'll leave you to the flow tools that were created to help visualize the unique interplay of JFK, LGA, EWR and TEB.

 

Here are the planning numbers of what to expect with each config: http://www.fly.faa.gov/Information/east/zny/jfk/frames.htm

 

And by the way, the RNAV approach is published so all traffic other the Jetblue may use it also but do you know what is the most given approach on the 13L? VOR, RNAV or visual?

 

The RNAV approach is not published. The RNAV approach you're seeing is not the one I'm referring to.

 

The most common is the Visual and VOR. The RNAV is used tactically, but it's not as advantageous as the company RNAV that jetBlue has to 13L, which cuts in closer to where the VOR exists. When the weather drops, they have to coordinate airspace with LGA and EWR to get an approach to the 13s via the ILS is most low weather cases. Of course, if you're already hosing up the airspace and someone can fly an RNAV approach, you might as well hand a few people the RNAV to 13R.

 

I don't see an RNAV approach for 13L at Flightaware.com - just the VOR, the Parkway Visual and the ILS.  Strangely, there is an RNAV approach to 13R, a runway normally used for takeoffs.  It starts much more to the west than the 13L Canarsie and Parkway approaches -- also odd, since this brings it close to the approach path for LGA 4.   My assumption is that the Canarsie VOR and Parkway Visual, among other things, provide for noise abatement since, like 4L/R AND 31L/R they are flown mostly over water.

 

Correct. It's unpublished. jetBlue footed the bill of that procedure's development, so it's exclusive to them until someone else wants to pony up money to make a public version of the approach.

 

The RNAV to 13R is tactically used to offload traffic onto that runway where it can be worked in: no departure to get out, RNAV capable, and usually when airspace is already backed up because they're on the ILS. As you've noticed, it's not in a great spot with regard to LGA and the city, so it's not the best assignment unless there's some tactical advantage to assigning it in that circumstance.

[scandinavian13 5,192]

Additional Information About All of This:

 

Something a lot of the sim crowd doesn't realize - related to the "ILS TO EVERYTHING" fallacy - is that your selection of runways and approaches has a huge impact on the rate at which you are able to handle aircraft.

 

In visual conditions, aircraft are assigned the visual because this allows the controller to defer separation to the flight crews. This relives the 3NM minimum radar separation requirement, which allows more aircraft to occupy the same parcel of airspace, which results in a relatively high airport arrival rate (AAR). Do note, however, that the controllers are still monitoring closure rates and any aircraft that may be on an errant path to ensure that - even though 3NM is not being maintained - aircraft are not at risk of blundering into each other. This is also still subject to FAR 91.111a separation ("no person may operate an aircraft so close to another aircraft as to create a collision hazard").

 

If the weather is still good enough for the visual, but with the aid of some other technology to get down under the clouds, the AAR dips slightly (the LOW VMC column of the AAR chart). Again, this requires some leading separation, but once under the clouds the preceding aircraft can be called in sight, which relieves the larger separation requirement, allowing for a still relatively high AAR.

 

When the weather drops to where instrument approaches are used, the AAR further decreases as radar separation is required essentially down to the runway. In the LOW IMC column, you're seeing an "approach down to minimums" example. The AAR doesn't drop too much between the two in most cases because of the separation requirements not being too different. The AAR might drop slightly due to the difficulty of the approach, or difficult airspace coordination.

 

 

 

A traffic manager is concerned a good deal about being able to move traffic efficiently. This lowers EVERYONE's workload. Along these lines, the runway configuration that moves the most traffic is the one that will be preferred. This includes the approach type to those runways. Visual is always going to move the most traffic, so it will be preferred at all times it's available. Only when the weather dips down will the facility start using instrument approaches. If there are airspace conflicts, higher min approaches with larger visual segments will be preferentially selected until weather drops lower.

 

Using JFK as an example:

The wind is blowing straight down the 13s at 20 knots.

Clear Day: Parkway Visual

Overcast at 2499 (below the Visual): VOR/GPS 13L/R

Overcast at 799 (below the VOR/GPS): ILS 13L with tactical offshoots to RNAV 13R

 

At any point the weather allows for an approach higher in the list, it will be chosen.

[Budbud 227]

Kyle,

 

Thanks! Such an explanation, I expected no less from you!

 

I understand perfectly the hierarchy of the approaches (do we say that in English?) and their use.
One last question if I may:

I know that the Ivao network may not reflect the real use of approach type, but even in VMC, I almost always get an ILS approach for a runway if there is one.

In real life, in international airports in VMC, where VPT/visual are not published, are pilot directed to the final for a visual approach or are they just given ILS?

I'm familiar with VFR circuit procedure (controlled/uncontrolled airport) for GAs flying VFR all the way, but I'm a bit confused about how to transition between a STAR/transition and a visual final approach/landing.

When looking at the flight pattern on flightradar24, it looks like the traffic are vectored to intercept the localizer rather far from the airports when ILS approaches.

[scandinavian13 5,192]

 

 

Thanks! Such an explanation, I expected no less from you!
 
I understand perfectly the hierarchy of the approaches (do we say that in English?) and their use.

 

You're welcome, and 'hierarchies' is correct, yeah.

 

 

 

I know that the Ivao network may not reflect the real use of approach type, but even in VMC, I almost always get an ILS approach for a runway if there is one.
In real life, in international airports in VMC, where VPT/visual are not published, are pilot directed to the final for a visual approach or are they just given ILS?

 

Online networks usually default to the ILS because most sim pilots usually don't know how to fly a visual. You're welcome (and encouraged) to have the ILS information dialed in as backup guidance. If it's not a charted visual, you just line up visually and land the plane.

 

 

 

I'm familiar with VFR circuit procedure (controlled/uncontrolled airport) for GAs flying VFR all the way, but I'm a bit confused about how to transition between a STAR/transition and a visual final approach/landing.

 

At large internationals airports, you don't fly a traffic pattern. The approach controller will guide you up to just about the base or final leg through vectors and then ask you to call the field in sight. Once it's in sight, advise, and once cleared, line up on the extended centerline and land. It's actually a lot simpler than people make it out to be. It's an unfortunate, but understandable misconception given how procedural and regimented aviation can be at times.

 

Think of it this way:

An instrument approach is a means of providing guidance to a point where you can see the runway. A visual approach sidesteps all of that because you already see the runway and can navigate on your own by looking outside. A charted visual allows you to execute a visual approach much farther out, or via a non-standard (not straight in) path by correlating items on a chart with ground features.

[Budbud 227]

Crystal clear, thanks again!

 

 

 

At large internationals airports, you don't fly a traffic pattern

 

And it is fortunate because much as flying a VFR pattern in a GA at 80kt is easy, joining it like I learned via overhead the airport with a pass along the runway on the dead side before joining the downwind (standard procedure) in a jet at 200kt gives much less time to react!

 

Anyways, I will probably request more Visual to the controllers, now I know it is that easy in IFR!

[skelsey 765]

I know that the Ivao network may not reflect the real use of approach type, but even in VMC, I almost always get an ILS approach for a runway if there is one.

In real life, in international airports in VMC, where VPT/visual are not published, are pilot directed to the final for a visual approach or are they just given ILS?

 

I don't know where you do most of your flying, Romain, but just to add a small caveat to Kyle's excellent post:

 

 

 

In visual conditions, aircraft are assigned the visual

 

...in the USA.

 

In Europe an instrument approach will normally be assigned if there is one available. Heathrow, for instance, have some tricks to get the arrival rate up in VMC -- mainly a thing called Reduced Separation In The Vicinity of the Aerodrome (RSIVA) which means that reduced separation minima can be applied if the Tower controller can see both aircraft and the aircraft can see each other -- but it's still all radar sequenced to the ILS. (For interest, the standard separation at Heathrow is 3NM applied to 4DME, which results in about 2.5NM at touchdown: under certain circumstances 2.5NM to 4DME can be applied which results in 2NM at touchdown -- obviously wake turbulence requirements override those minima where applicable). I'm not sure how assigning visuals would help with the arrival rate in those circumstances, really: you can pack them as close as you like on final approach, but the preceding aircraft still needs time to vacate the runway before you can clear the next one to land and 2NM is about the bare minimum that you can get away with for that. Time Based Separation has also recently been introduced to further increase the landing rate in strong headwinds.

 

In Italy, visual approaches have more or less reduced to zero for transport category aircraft after a Cessna Citation flew in to a mountain whilst on a visual approach to Cagliari -- the ATCOs who assigned it were sent to jail (because the court decided that the pilot calling the field in sight was not enough and the controllers should have taken more steps to make the pilot aware of the terrain). Silly decision but result: = no more visuals in Italy.

[Budbud 227]

I fly quite everywhere in the world on the network but most of my controlled flights are in Europe as it where you mostly find ATCs on IVAO.

I have almost never got ATC in US out of events, but it's true that the last time I got control at Miami, the Approach offers me to fly visual rwy 09. 

In Europe and in Asia, I have never been proposed any visual yet, but I don't ask either. I have got either got cleared to follow STARS and transitions all the way to the IF or vectored to intercept ILS from somewhere on the approach.

Also, the last time I flew a RNAV approach was during an event at OMDB, where they closed the 30L and notam'd an outage of the ILS 30R, hence RNAV 30R.

[art5869 4]

Also LGKR (Aerosoft scenery) has a very nice approach Rnav with complete star. Very nice addon.

[skelsey 765]

 

 

In Europe and in Asia, I have never been proposed any visual yet, but I don't ask either. I have got either got cleared to follow STARS and transitions all the way to the IF or vectored to intercept ILS from somewhere on the approach.

 

Which would be entirely in line with real-world operations in those part of the world ;-). As I say, outside the USA it's very unusual for a commercial jet on an IFR flight plan to be assigned a visual approach if there is a suitable instrument approach available, partially because the law in most parts of the world doesn't support the same shift of responsibility for separation/wake/terrain etc from controller to pilot that occurs in the US. So the benefits of just leaving everyone to their own devices and clearing people to land when they're number 7 don't exist in the same way, and therefore it's more efficient to keep everybody on an instrument approach and use radar separation and sequencing.

 

Of course, if an ILS doesn't exist (particularly around some of the Greek islands, for example) or traffic levels are very light then you might be offered a visual to expedite your arrival rather than follow a full VOR procedure etc (unless suitable straight-in (or straighter-in) RNAV procedures have been created instead, as in the case mentioned above with CFU).

[richjb2 195]

Excellent post, Kyle! Bruce D. Would be proud!

 

Another reason RNAV approaches are being used instead if the ILS is the concept of Established on RNP (EoR) on parallel operations. At KDEN, they are using EoR with one aircraft on the ILS to one parallel runway and another aircraft established on the RNAV (RNP) AR to the other parallel runway. Using this method they are able to reduce the vertical separation required between the aircraft as they merge on to their respective finals, which reduces the distance the aircraft need to fly out on downwind and the back in to the final approach. This increases runway through put. EoR is being evaluated in visual conditions, with eventual application to IMC. There is also work underway to design RNAV (GPS) approaches with TF legs that will permit the same EoR operations. This will help those aircraft not approved for RNP AR or those that cannot fly RF legs.

 

Rich Boll

Wichita KS

[scandinavian13 5,192]

 

 

At KDEN, they are using EoR with one aircraft on the ILS to one parallel runway and another aircraft established on the RNAV (RNP) AR to the other parallel runway.

 

That's interesting. I hadn't seen this coming down the pipe, but I've been farther away from the ops side in my current role. My last contract, I was up at the tip of the tech spear, which was a bit more interesting.