At this point, I think I may just try some ILS landings in a helicopter, you just never know.

I've never done an RNAV approach before, but isn't an ILS landing more automated?

I know it depends on the airport, runway and what your plane is equipped with, but given that you had the choice to land via RNAV vs ILS. Which would you choose? Why would one choose one method over the other? Isn't an ILS approach the preferred method?

ILS is preferred but some airports only have RNAV or sometimes the ILS is only on the other side facing a direction or approach you don't want to go out of the way for. Sometimes I prefer an RNAV because the ILS is on the remote side of the runway with not as much scenery on the approach.

On 5/2/2021 at 10:25 PM, captain420 said:

..given that you had the choice to land via RNAV vs ILS. Which would you choose? Why would one choose one method over the other?

As mentioned, not all runways have ILS, and RNAV approaches are becoming more and more common.  However, because of the poor state of RNAV simulation in MSFS, whenever an ILS approach is available, I choose it over the RNAV option. 🙂

2 hours ago, Bert Pieke said:

As mentioned, not all runways have ILS, and RNAV approaches are becoming more and more common.  However, because of the poor state of RNAV simulation in MSFS, whenever an ILS approach is available, I choose it over the RNAV option. 🙂

+1ⁿ

On 5/3/2021 at 1:25 AM, captain420 said:

I've never done an RNAV approach before, but isn't an ILS landing more automated?

I know it depends on the airport, runway and what your plane is equipped with, but given that you had the choice to land via RNAV vs ILS. Which would you choose? Why would one choose one method over the other? Isn't an ILS approach the preferred method?

A WAAS LPV approach can often give minimums as just as low as a CAT I ILS, and is flown the same way, except the “glideslope” is referred to as a “glidepath”, and the guidance cue on the PFD will be magenta instead of green as when flying an ILS glideslope. 
 

WAAS/LPV (unlike standard ILS) requires no ground-based equipment, so an LPV approach can be established at airports where a full ILS would not be practical for technical or economic reasons. My local airport has four runways. Two runways have ILS, but all four runways have an LPV approach, and the LPV on the two runways that also have ILS exactly duplicates the ILS glideslope and has the same minimums.

Edited May 5, 20215 yr by JRBarrett

On 5/2/2021 at 4:06 PM, mikeklimek said:

Thanks guys, these answers have already been helpful, much appreciated.  I experienced this most recently at KTYS: https://skyvector.com/files/tpp/2104/pdf/00218R5R.PDF

I thought it would work as the chart says 'WAAS' at the top left, but taking a closer look, I notice now there's a asterisk footnote that it's "LNAV only" seemingly from the FAF of VOYUR to the runway (doh!).  Guess that would explain that one.  Curious though, why would it say 'WAAS' but simultaneously be 'LNAV only'?  As indicated earlier, doesn't 'WAAS' mean vertical guidance is provided?

I'm going to find a chart specifically with LPV or LNAV+V and keep practicing.

Edit: Actually now I'm thinking I may be misinterpreting the asterisk, at least just after the FAF.

Hi, new to the forum. I've been trying to teach myself RNAV GPS glide approach also. I just tried KTYS in a 172 and it followed the pattern I've found the last few days of testing.  It grabs the glide fine but it does it at the final fix XIZMO not the faf VOYUR, which makes it less useful.  I had to drop from 2700 to 1840 myself.  I expected it to work from the FAF if not before.  Unless I just don't understand how these things work (entirely possible!), it feels like a simple case of the glide path not starting soon enough. It always goes for the last fix, which is often not the FAF.

Not sure if this has already been mentioned, but some planes in the real world such as the CRJ700 usually are equipped to not offer vertical descent in RNAV. Thus, NAV mode (rather than APR) is used for lateral only with the pilot using VS mode for vertical. 

33 minutes ago, MarkSC said:

Not sure if this has already been mentioned, but some planes in the real world such as the CRJ700 usually are equipped to not offer vertical descent in RNAV. Thus, NAV mode (rather than APR) is used for lateral only with the pilot using VS mode for vertical. 

There is a Rockwell Collins STC that can give a CRJ full WAAS/LPV capability, but is is a very expensive upgrade, and AFAIK very few airline CRJ operators have opted to install it. Indeed, most “standard” CRJs require the pilot to fly the vertical profile of an RNAV approach using vertical speed mode.

I'm sure real world is far more complex. I wouldn't personally try to comment on the particular limits of actual life approaches as I have no idea.  I'm just talking about the sim apparently doing GPS glide path but at the final fix point regardless of if it's the FAF or not.  If it's going do glide for all RNAV GPS, it seems it just needs to do it sooner. 

4 hours ago, manageablebits said:

I'm sure real world is far more complex. I wouldn't personally try to comment on the particular limits of actual life approaches as I have no idea.  I'm just talking about the sim apparently doing GPS glide path but at the final fix point regardless of if it's the FAF or not.  If it's going do glide for all RNAV GPS, it seems it just needs to do it sooner. 

Agreed.  Discussed here:

https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/599895-rnav-v-approaches-wt-are-you-watching/

Edited May 5, 20215 yr by Bert Pieke

On 5/3/2021 at 12:25 AM, captain420 said:

I've never done an RNAV approach before, but isn't an ILS landing more automated?

I know it depends on the airport, runway and what your plane is equipped with, but given that you had the choice to land via RNAV vs ILS. Which would you choose? Why would one choose one method over the other? Isn't an ILS approach the preferred method?

I'm going a little off topic.  But if you're meaning a full auto land then yes that's only available with a CAT III ILS.  The full auto land thing isn't very common for day to day operations.  

Also you can fly an ILS and RNAV approaches without an autopilot.  The little plane I fly doesn't even have one.

6 hours ago, ryanbatcund said:

Also you can fly an ILS and RNAV approaches without an autopilot.  The little plane I fly doesn't even have one.

I thought the purpose of those type of approaches is automation? Why would you fly them without AP?

18 minutes ago, captain420 said:

I thought the purpose of those type of approaches is automation? Why would you fly them without AP?

The purpose of the approaches is to guide you safely to the runway, regardless of whether you are handflying or on autopilot.. It is really good piloting practice to fly them by hand!

1 hour ago, captain420 said:

I thought the purpose of those type of approaches is automation? Why would you fly them without AP?

Many aircraft do not have autopilot.  Only airliners and corporate jets/turboprops...  Sometimes smaller GA will as well.

As Bert said the point of an ILS is to allow aircraft to reach the runway safely in poor weather.

Edited May 6, 20215 yr by ryanbatcund