Help with RNAV and G1000

[Virtual-Chris 682]

8 minutes ago, Bert Pieke said:

The "safe" strategy for now, is to fly ILS approaches.. The ILS glideslope is driven off the NAV1 radio and not the GPS.

I would much prefer to fly RNAV approaches, but at present, they are broken in several ways, and the wrong time to realize that is when you are trying to land the airplane 🙂

You need to tell that to the in-game ATC 😄. They are the ones assigning RNAV approaches. LOL.  But many smaller airports don't have ILS (especially on all runways that might be in use given the weather)... RNAV may be your only choice,

 

Edited October 16, 2020 by Virtual-Chris

[Bert Pieke 7,590]

32 minutes ago, Virtual-Chris said:

You need to tell that to the in-game ATC 😄. They are the ones assigning RNAV approaches. LOL.  But many smaller airports don't have ILS (especially on all runways that might be in use given the weather)... RNAV may be your only choice,

 

I understand... in P3D, I fly RNAV approaches all the time..

In MSFS, I end up hand flying my approaches 99% of the time..  Good practice! 🙂

As for ATC... I find that ignoring their radio handoffs means that you cannot hear them talk to you.

I have the "1" key programmed to a button on my yoke, and after takeoff, I use that button two times in response to their transmissions, to shut up ATC for the rest of the flight.

Edited October 16, 2020 by Bert Pieke

[fppilot 4,391]

1 hour ago, Bert Pieke said:

The "safe" strategy for now, is to fly ILS approaches.. The ILS glideslope is driven off the NAV1 radio and not the GPS.

I would much prefer to fly RNAV approaches, but at present, they are broken in several ways, and the wrong time to realize that is when you are trying to land the airplane 🙂

+1.

When flying in IFR conditions and using an approach to a runway that has a RNAAV (GPS) approach, I stay coupled until the FAF, then disengage the AP and descend at a normal approach rate, like Bert, hand flying.  Not the same as following an ILS GS, but works.  In all honesty, I do not fly MFS into marginal IFR approaches.  If my flight plan forecasts that, I revert to FSX SE for the flight.  My flight circuit is purposeful, and real time with real weather.

Edited October 16, 2020 by fppilot

[ryanbatc 13,019]

1 hour ago, Bert Pieke said:

The "safe" strategy for now, is to fly ILS approaches.. The ILS glideslope is driven off the NAV1 radio and not the GPS.

I would much prefer to fly RNAV approaches, but at present, they are broken in several ways, and the wrong time to realize that is when you are trying to land the airplane 🙂

Bert is 100% accurate.  This is why we desperately need a RXP GTN or GNS unit.  (Or Asobo should make their avioincs actually function)

Oh and the numbers on the bottom are minimums.  768 it whatever is feet in MSL you can descend to.  1 is one mile visibility required.  Depending on what kind of operator is flying, some acft wouldn't even be able to attend the approach if the weather requirements weren't at minimums.  

Edited October 16, 2020 by ryanbatcund

[fppilot 4,391]

21 minutes ago, ryanbatcund said:

Bert is 100% accurate.  This is why we desperately need a RXP GTN or GNS unit. 

Ahhhemmm...  It is why we need both RXP GNS and GTN.

[LarryD 132]

2 hours ago, fppilot said:

When flying in IFR conditions and using an approach to a runway that has a RNAAV (GPS) approach, I stay coupled until the FAF, then disengage the AP and descend at a normal approach rate.

A little unsure as to the reason you are disengageing the AP at the FAF.  As long as the RNAV fixes are programmed in, the AP is going to keep you going straight to the runway threshold.  I know the vertical guidance is not working correctly in the G1000 yet for RNAV approaches, but that is easily handled by stepping down altitudes via the approach plate all the way down to MDA.  

Although not as easy as simply hitting the APR button and monitoring as on an ILS, RNAV approaches are certainly doable and very safe, and actually keeps you a little more involved due to the altitude step down.  Don't see any reason to avoid them.

[desbean 357]

5 hours ago, marsman2020 said:

The real G1000 supports them and the one in the game is hit or miss. I flew an LPV approach last weekend, the AP followed the glidepath properly but the indicator 'pip' on the altitude display stayed pegged at the top for some reason.

On my last ILS approach. G1000, followed the glide path perfectly, but my GS "indicator" stayed pegged at the bottom.

[fppilot 4,391]

2 hours ago, LarryD said:

A little unsure as to the reason you are disengageing the AP at the FAF.  As long as the RNAV fixes are programmed in, the AP is going to keep you going straight to the runway threshold.  I know the vertical guidance is not working correctly in the G1000 yet for RNAV approaches, but that is easily handled by stepping down altitudes via the approach plate all the way down to MDA.  

Although not as easy as simply hitting the APR button and monitoring as on an ILS, RNAV approaches are certainly doable and very safe, and actually keeps you a little more involved due to the altitude step down.  Don't see any reason to avoid them.

Because I was trained and experienced in non-coupled ILS approaches. No AP.  Needles.  Only needles!  Instrument scanning technique. Imprinted process flow.  Still works today.  Integrated GPS is like having a microwave, Instant Pot, or air fryer.... What is your backup?

Edited October 17, 2020 by fppilot

[JRBarrett 3,121]

In a nutshell: All LPV approaches require WAAS, but not all WAAS-enabled approaches offer LPV guidance. The reasons why there may be no “V” available for a given approach vary. It often has something to do with the height or slope of the underlying terrain.  

Even without the vertical component, the LP approach will provide more accurate lateral guidance than a standard RNAV(GPS) non-WAAS approach. 

LPV approaches in MSFS with the G-1000/3000 do seem to “work”, (usually), but there are issues - most notably the fact that the magenta glide path indicator does not respond correctly. Despite that, the aircraft does appear to capture and descend on the LPV glide path, but you have to simply trust that the autopilot “knows what its doing”, because the glide path indicator won’t show the proper indication. 

[fppilot 4,391]

4 minutes ago, JRBarrett said:

In a nutshell: All LPV approaches require WAAS, but not all WAAS-enabled approaches offer LPV guidance. The reasons why there may be no “V” available for a given approach vary. It often has something to do with the height or slope of the underlying terrain.  

Even without the vertical component, the LP approach will provide more accurate lateral guidance than a standard RNAV(GPS) non-WAAS approach. 

LPV approaches in MSFS with the G-1000/3000 do seem to “work”, (usually), but there are issues - most notably the fact that the magenta glide path indicator does not respond correctly. Despite that, the aircraft does appear to capture and descend on the LPV glide path, but you have to simply trust that the autopilot “knows what its doing”, because the glide path indicator won’t show the proper indication. 

We badly need to see collaboration with renown GPS sim developers like Reality XP.  Like as soon as yesterday.

 

[LarryD 132]

1 hour ago, fppilot said:

Because I was trained and experienced in non-coupled ILS approaches. No AP.  Needles.  Only needles!  Instrument scanning technique. Imprinted process flow.  Still works today.  Integrated GPS is like having a microwave, Instant Pot, or air fryer.... What is your backup?

We do have a microwave, Instant Pot, and an air fryer.  My backup would be a peanut butter and jelly sandwich with a banana or apple for dessert.

[OSM 683]

Default GNS530 RNAV Test: EHLE - RNAV 23 (EKNON)

 

Edited October 17, 2020 by OSM

[Virtual-Chris 682]

6 hours ago, JRBarrett said:

In a nutshell: All LPV approaches require WAAS, but not all WAAS-enabled approaches offer LPV guidance. The reasons why there may be no “V” available for a given approach vary. It often has something to do with the height or slope of the underlying terrain.  

Even without the vertical component, the LP approach will provide more accurate lateral guidance than a standard RNAV(GPS) non-WAAS approach. 

LPV approaches in MSFS with the G-1000/3000 do seem to “work”, (usually), but there are issues - most notably the fact that the magenta glide path indicator does not respond correctly. Despite that, the aircraft does appear to capture and descend on the LPV glide path, but you have to simply trust that the autopilot “knows what its doing”, because the glide path indicator won’t show the proper indication. 

I was not able to get the plane to follow the glide path in Port Angeles (see the OP). But maybe I was not doing something correctly. I tried changing the AP from NAV to Approach mode as I would on an ILS approach and I ended up having to hand fly it down at a steeper slope than I would like by the time I realized the plane wasn’t going to descend on its own.

That’s what made me start looking into this.

I also didn’t get any descent assistance on my next attempt at Port Hardy either, but again, I may be overlooking something. There I had to fly over the runway and try again as it was too steep a descent by the time I realized it wasn’t going to descend automatically. 

Edited October 17, 2020 by Virtual-Chris

[OSM 683]

3 hours ago, Virtual-Chris said:

I was not able to get the plane to follow the glide path in Port Angeles ...

Hi Chris!

I will test KCLM RNAV 26 Aapproach with the Live Weather and make a video.

Conditions: M20R with GNS530 1.0.5 mod, start from cold&dark, make a flight plan, Takeoff, add RNAV Approach to flight plan in flight and Land using AP APR mode.

Edited October 17, 2020 by OSM

[JRBarrett 3,121]

One thing to be aware of. If you have access to r/w charts, do not try to load any approach marked RNAV(RNP).

The r/w RNP approaches are present in the core nav data, but none of the MSFS aircraft G-xxxx systems know how to interpret the special RF leg segments that are unique to RNP procedures. You will end up with a bunch of extraneous waypoints in the approach depiction on the MFD that have incorrect names.