Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
captain420

What type of approaches can the C172 G1000 and TBM 930 use?

Recommended Posts

I have a few questions regarding which type of IFR/ILS approach each plane can use for landing. Specifically in the C172 G1000 and TBM 930 G3000. I want to land into KSFO. I know the G3000 supports ILS LOC and RNAV approaches and I think the G1000 does as well.

But according to the runways at KSFO, if I will be doing an ILS landing, which one do I choose? Can I do the ILS 28R CAT II/III approach with the G1000/G3000? I just want to know what type of ILS approaches are valid when flying in either of those planes.

Screen-Shot-2020-10-23-at-8-42-10-PM.png

Edited by captain420

ASUS ROG Maximus Hero XII ▪︎ Intel i9-10900K ▪︎ NVIDIA RTX 3090 FE ▪︎ 64GB Corsair Vengeance RGB Pro ▪︎ Windows 10 Pro (20H2) ▪︎ Samsung 970 EVO Pro 1TB NVME SSD (OS Drive) ▪︎ Samsung 860 EVO 2TB SATA SSD ▪︎ Seagate 4TB SATA HDD ▪︎ Corsair RMx 850W PSU

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sigh, as I mentioned before, I do not do a lot of GA flying, let alone IFR in a GA plane. So flying in these particular planes are mostly new to me. You shouldn't prejudge somebody by seeing the amount of posts they have. It's not always a good thing to assume, especially when you have no background knowledge of how or what I fly or what my previous experiences were. This is suppose to be a community where we help one another, regardless of their experience. Comments like that offer no benefit whatsoever. So stop expecting a specific level of flying knowledge based on a user's number of posts. Everyone is different and not all of us are "professional" armchair pilots. You can let go of that elitist attitude of yours.

Edited by captain420
  • Like 7

ASUS ROG Maximus Hero XII ▪︎ Intel i9-10900K ▪︎ NVIDIA RTX 3090 FE ▪︎ 64GB Corsair Vengeance RGB Pro ▪︎ Windows 10 Pro (20H2) ▪︎ Samsung 970 EVO Pro 1TB NVME SSD (OS Drive) ▪︎ Samsung 860 EVO 2TB SATA SSD ▪︎ Seagate 4TB SATA HDD ▪︎ Corsair RMx 850W PSU

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Adrian123 said:

Wow. 4K+ post and you need to know the difference in approaches? I apogise, just seems odd.

He didn't ask what the differences are between the approaches.  He asked what the aircraft are capable of.  Huge difference.  

It's actually a very valid question.  Do you know what the PBN are for those aircraft?  Do you know what was modelled and what could be used as a 'sim'ism'?  Further more if those aircraft are flying for an operator, do you know what they'd be OPSPECd for? You could also ask if the the crews have the FAA SA required for certain approaches even if the aircraft are capable of it.

See the rabbit hole there? My operator for example has aircraft capable of RNP AR approaches but we can't fly them because we don't have the SA required to fly them.  We don't train for it because we don't use it enough and only have a couple of aircraft that can fly them.  To have the SA you need to have it in your training program and in your GOM, etc..

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyways, to answer the poster...sorry didn't do it before; the sim in 'general' doesn't really care.  Most payware add-on aircraft for that matter don't care either, as long as the NAVDATA is there, most aircraft will fly the approach laterally and vertically, if available, all the way down to the runway.  You don't need to get that deep in the weeds per say.  I'm sure you can already tell by reading the charts where certain equipment would be required and environmental conditions also IRL.

Technically from what I understand even in P3D we don't have RNP capable aircraft, but we fly those approaches all the time because the NAVDATA supports it.  I think PMDG might be the first out of the gate (hopefully) to change this as far as payware aircraft are concerned based on their latest public statements.  But for MSFS it could be up to a year away still.  As far as CATII and III ILS approaches, If I'm flying online and there's WX concerns, I just use whatever approach gets me down legally, so to speak. 🙂 

Edited by Jeff Nielsen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

or in even more layman's terms (cause that's all I know LOL), if you are looking to capture a glide slope you can choose any RNAV, ILS or LOC approach

Albeit RNAV is a little finicky to capture some times 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Stona said:

or in even more layman's terms (cause that's all I know LOL), if you are looking to capture a glide slope you can choose any RNAV, ILS or LOC approach

Albeit RNAV is a little finicky to capture some times 

 

 

Yeah, pretty much, as long as there's GP info, for RNAV, you can/should be able to fly pink needles all the way down.  MSFS is still a work in progress, and I'm not really sure how detailed the default NAVDATA is, but Navigraph for sure will have that data when it gets over to MSFS.

The avionics in the sim are 'generally' modelled for all default aircraft across the board without any filters as far as I'm aware.  So you could theoretically load up a CATIII ILS approach or RNP AR and as long as the NAVDATA is there, it will display the info.  Right now a lot of approaches only have some of the data, some approaches are just plane missing, etc..  You just have have to play with it a little. 

The G1000/3000 avionics aren't going to prohibit you from flying any approach as long as it's in the data base, so it's really up to you as the simmer to 'simulate' that feature I guess...lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The default nav data for KFSO was messed up in the last patch. When I tried flying there from LAX with the default data the flight plan was wiped in the A320 when it spawned on the LAX runway!! However, I then subscribed to Navigraph and injected its data into MSFS using the beta app and all was then well.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Jeff Nielsen said:

He didn't ask what the differences are between the approaches.  He asked what the aircraft are capable of.  Huge difference.  

It's actually a very valid question.  Do you know what the PBN are for those aircraft?  Do you know what was modelled and what could be used as a 'sim'ism'?  Further more if those aircraft are flying for an operator, do you know what they'd be OPSPECd for? You could also ask if the the crews have the FAA SA required for certain approaches even if the aircraft are capable of it.

See the rabbit hole there? My operator for example has aircraft capable of RNP AR approaches but we can't fly them because we don't have the SA required to fly them.  We don't train for it because we don't use it enough and only have a couple of aircraft that can fly them.  To have the SA you need to have it in your training program and in your GOM, etc..

Yeah I've noticed a few airports where Skyvector says there's an RNAV approach but it's not their in the database

When that happens I look for an LOC 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So technically I can fly the TBM 930 and use ILS LOC or ILS CAT II/III and it all will land the plane down the same way? I'm so used to flying 777's and A320's that I usually choose runways with ILS CAT II/III in order to use the autoland features. And I'm trying to get that out of my head for GA planes landing via ILS. Once the G3000 captures the LOC and GS, then the AP will take over and basically take me all the way down to the runway I presume.

  • Like 1

ASUS ROG Maximus Hero XII ▪︎ Intel i9-10900K ▪︎ NVIDIA RTX 3090 FE ▪︎ 64GB Corsair Vengeance RGB Pro ▪︎ Windows 10 Pro (20H2) ▪︎ Samsung 970 EVO Pro 1TB NVME SSD (OS Drive) ▪︎ Samsung 860 EVO 2TB SATA SSD ▪︎ Seagate 4TB SATA HDD ▪︎ Corsair RMx 850W PSU

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Among the many approaches a Cessna 172 or TBM can make in MSFS are: cavalier, slapdash, sloppy, dangerous... 🤣

  • Like 3

Alan Bradbury

Check out my youtube flight sim videos: Here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, captain420 said:

and it all will land the plane down the same way?

No autoland in the TBM, let alone in the C172 - but tbh I haven't tried yet. Give it a shot and you'll see. Nobody will care in the sim. As @Jeff Nielsen has pointed out, it's more about how "real" you want to keep your simulation and how far you are willing to get to terms with all the technical and legal details of the different approaches. In real life your company's SOP will tell you what you can or can't do, or being a privat pilot with a capable aircraft you would need an extensive knowledge of your POH and equipment and at least a good idea of the whole legal stuff. And when it comes to the legal aspects of RNAV/RNP/GPS approaches in Europe - a law degree will certainly help.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The answer to your question is "all of the above". Both the G1000 and G3000 (and the WAAS-enabled 430s and 530s for that matter) can use all ILS and RNAV approaches. They can even do the LDA approaches, which you presumably will never use or be interested in. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Stona said:

or in even more layman's terms (cause that's all I know LOL), if you are looking to capture a glide slope you can choose any RNAV, ILS or LOC approach

Albeit RNAV is a little finicky to capture some times 

 

 

Localizer approaches don't have glide slopes by definition. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, mtr75 said:

 

The answer to your question is "all of the above". Both the G1000 and G3000 (and the WAAS-enabled 430s and 530s for that matter) can use all ILS and RNAV approaches. They can even do the LDA approaches, which you presumably will never use or be interested in. 

 

The G-xxxx systems in MSFS will load RNP approaches, since they are in the database, but it makes a mess out of the waypoint names since it does not understand the RF leg segment coding. Also, RNP requires full VNAV capability, which no MSFS airplane currently has.

There are many r/w airplanes that cannot do RNP. No r/w CRJ airliner can fly an RNP approach for instance, (or ever will be able to - at least not with the default Proline4 avionics). For r/w aircraft without RNP capability, RNAV(RNP) approaches don’t even appear as selectable options in the FMS approach page.

think (but am not certain) that the latest version of the FSL Airbus in P3D is capable of RNP. None of the PMDG fleet can do RNP (yet), but I know it is planned.

One simulator add-on that can definitely do RNP is the Zibo 737 mod in X-Plane. I have used it to fly the RNP Z 13R procedure at KPSP, and it tracks the curved lateral path and constant descent vertical path perfectly.

At the moment in MSFS, my advice would be to avoid any RNAV approach marked “RNAV(RNP) on the r/w chart, since it is almost certain that no aircraft in the sim will be able to fly such a procedure correctly.

  • Like 1

Jim Barrett

Licensed Airframe & Powerplant Mechanic, Avionics, Electrical & Air Data Systems Specialist. Qualified on: Falcon 900, CRJ-200, Dornier 328-100, Hawker 850XP and 1000, Lear 35, 45, 55 and 60, Gulfstream IV and 550, Embraer 135, Beech Premiere and 400A, MD-80.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, JRBarrett said:

The G-xxxx systems in MSFS will load RNP approaches, since they are in the database, but it makes a mess out of the waypoint names since it does not understand the RF leg segment coding. Also, RNP requires full VNAV capability, which no MSFS airplane currently has.

There are many r/w airplanes that cannot do RNP. No r/w CRJ airliner can fly an RNP approach for instance, (or ever will be able to - at least not with the default Proline4 avionics). For r/w aircraft without RNP capability, RNAV(RNP) approaches don’t even appear as selectable options in the FMS approach page.

think (but am not certain) that the latest version of the FSL Airbus in P3D is capable of RNP. None of the PMDG fleet can do RNP (yet), but I know it is planned.

One simulator add-on that can definitely do RNP is the Zibo 737 mod in X-Plane. I have used it to fly the RNP Z 13R procedure at KPSP, and it tracks the curved lateral path and constant descent vertical path perfectly.

At the moment in MSFS, my advice would be to avoid any RNAV approach marked “RNAV(RNP) on the r/w chart, since it is almost certain that no aircraft in the sim will be able to fly such a procedure correctly.

Yeah, this is getting pretty into the weeds of approach types, but what the G1000/3000 should be able to do and what it can do in MSFS are most certainly decidedly different things. My understanding of the RNP AR approach is that it's similar to a CATII/III, which the GX000 systems can't do. They should be able to do the rest of the RNP approach types. 

https://aopano.files.wordpress.com/2019/05/garmin_icao_flight_plan_information.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online


  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
  • Donation Goals

    AVSIM's 2020 Fundraising Goal

    Donate to our annual general fundraising goal. This donation keeps our doors open and providing you service 24 x 7 x 365. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. We reset this goal every new year for the following year's goal.


    34%
    $8,560.00 of $25,000.00 Donate Now
×
×
  • Create New...