Search the Community

Uploaded on Sep 4, 2015 Hong Kong Intl. Airport (VHHH) RNP Y 07L Approach. http://ivao.hk/charts/VHHH_IAP_RNPY_07L.pdf Aircraft: Aerosoft Dragonair A320 Scenery: Dragoneye Hong Kong Flytampa Kai Tak Taxi2Gate VHHH

I have been struggling to find information in the FCOM, FCTM and in the forums that fully address the capabilities and limitation of the RNAV approach functions in the 777. I have no problem flying CAT III ILS Autoland approaches but I want to know if the autpilot will also fly an RNAV GPS approach and to what minimums, is it possible to fly an Autoland RNAV apporach, is this even possible or make sense? Also I would like to make sure I understand the requirements, in terms of cockpit setup, to complete say an RNAV GPS apporach to LPV mins. For example the RNAV (GPS) Y RWY1C to LPV mins into KIAD. Thanks for any help or references.

Name: Quick Tips: Autoland Capability Category: FS Instructional Videos Date Added: 07 October 2014 - 02:33 PM Submitter: scandinavian13 Short Description: None Provided Can I Autoland on That? A discussion on what types of approaches you can use for autolands, common misconceptions of ILS, and a side note to try your own hand at approaches. View Video

The Xplane CDI does not appear to take its input from the GTN when doing an RNAV approach. I'm not even sure CDI is getting its deflection from the GTN trainer when ILS is selected but it does deflect - I'm assuming its from the navigation radio on Xplane since it selects the same navigation frequency the Trainer is using. I noticed a small discrepancy between the Xplane CDI and the GTN CDI On an RNAV approach the graphical CDI on the GTN itself moves correctly but it is not driving the CDI gauge on the aircraft (steam gauge), but it would be nice if the xplane gauge moved. Also is cross fill suppose to work? I loaded two GTN 750's and they didn't crossfill my flight plan between them. Other then that, pretty sweet. I really enjoy flying IFR approaches with this simulator. Looking forward to the G500/600 when you have it.

Hello gentlemen, I think this question is bugging me for quite some time and now I will ask it here as I am sure some people will be able to give me a good answer. When I am looking at a lot of airports these days I find something like this list when it comes to selecting an approach: Note this is taken from SFO for runway 28R: a) ILS OR LOC RWY 28R b ILS RWY 28R (SA CAT I) c) ILS RWY 28R (CAT II - III) d) RNAV (RNP) Y RWY 28R e) RNAV (GPS) X RWY 28R f) RNAV (GPS) Z RWY 28R g) LDA/DME RWY 28R h) LDA PRM RWY 28R i) RNAV (GPS) PRM X RWY 28R j) QUIET BRIDGE VISUAL RWY 28L/R k) TIPP TOE VISUAL RWY 28L/R From what I understand, in the real world for normal commercial operations (a) Radar required, is the most common approach used in the real world, when the weather is fine (b,© Radar required and other requirements, is used when visibility forces us to use them (d) Authorization required, RF, GPS, Radar required. Why do you need an authorization for this? Why wouldn't all airlines use this procedure on a day with fine weather instead of (a) (e) Radar required, DA is 1140 ft, ok (a) has a lot lower minimums, but with nice weather why wouldn't I use this one instead of (a)? (f) Radar required, DA is 287 ft for LPV, and 641 ft for LNAV/VNAV, 760 ft for LNAV. Could somebody explain what LPV is? (g) Radar and DME required, this is a special localizer-based instrument approach, why does an airport with ILS do need this at all? (h) Radar, DME and dual VHF comm required, again a special localizer-based app, I guess this is all about seperation and movements per hour (i) Radar and dual VHF comm required, why do I need this when I have (g) and (h), just in case LDA is unavailable? (j),(k) ok, this would be a choice when weather is fine and I should take care of my seperation myself My question is: In normal operations, nice weather conditions, is it like airlines use (e), (f), (d) or (i) instead of ILS-based approaches? One small question regarding the naming, what is the difference between a RNAV RNP (d) and RNAV GPS (e) approach? Thanks for your help. Best regards, Martin Schiewe

I've had the NGX for just over two years now but I've been reading posts previous posts about RF segments being added in the future. Although I don't have any other PMDG aircraft I'm pretty sure it is relevant the 777 and 747 as well. The last one I found was this one in almost two years ago: I just was wondering if this is still happening and if so can you give any sort of time frame? (I know PMDG don't like giving time frames with how fiddly code can be) I fly Qantas 737-800 (virtually) and RNAV approaches are used at nearly every airport. Even if ARINC-424 isn't finished, is there any possibility to at least hide fixes because doing approaches like this (http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/aip/current/dap/BBNGN13-140.pdf) Result in most of the ND being covered (unless you use a very small range) in arc fixes making the real fixes hard to see especially when combined with the missed approach track. (http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/aip/current/dap/BBNGN14-140.pdf) Thanks

A while back some guys did some work on creating the data to allow us to do the RNP approaches into NZQN - quite a task as the NGX at the moment isnt fully capable of flying many RNP procudres, but also as these particular plates are not completly publicly published as they are only allowed to be flown by certain operators. I have this data, but its now completley out of date as NZQN have radically changed all of there procedures, including SIDS and STARS, and introduced new GNSS approaches into NZQN. Although they still appear in the AIP at present - these NOTAMS B5780/12 NOTAMN Q) NZZC/QPIAW/I/NBO/A/000/999/4501S16844E005 A) NZQN B) 1302061100 C) PERM E) REF AIP NZQN AD 2-45.1 QUEENSTOWN RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 05: PUBLISHED IFR APCH PROCEDURE COMPLETELY WITHDRAWN REF AIP NZQN AD 2-45.2 QUEENSTOWN RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 23: PUBLISHED IFR APCH PROCEDURE COMPLETELY WITHDRAWN Show that the RNP Z approaches are now withdrawn, however there is still a RNP Y. The NAVDATA from Aersoft contains the newer sids and stars (well most of them - again missing some of the RNP procedures) but these are not too difficult to create as the points have track adn distance marked on the charts - but may need some tweaking still due to the RNP nature of these points. I have added these myself to the navdata now. When it comes to the new GNSS and the VOR approaches and the RNP Y approach Im looking at trying to add these also as there probably enough data on the charts this time to create them and then do some tweaking to help build in the RNP paths better. However a little help please on understanding the charts with refrence to the visual circuits that are contained on these charts. Lets say take the VOR/DME B approach the latter part of the approach tracks inbound to the QN vor with a MAPT at 2DME QN with the MAPT to have you fly off from the QN on a radial to AFTON. However there is included on the chart a Visual circuit published. Flying this approach are you expected to follow the inbound radial to the QN and aslong as you are visual then fly the orbiting right visual circuit pattern to land on 23(or even in fact 05 by flying the other way) or as you track down the inbound radial you turn direct for the runway when visual? or even a combination here that you can fly the VOR B regardless of landing runway, but fly straight in if on 23, but do the visual circuit if landing 05 or should the visual circuit be flown in both cases? This circuit(or version) of exits on the GNSS appraoches also, and so again is this the case of flying manually the visual circuit or is it the intention that the last RNP point is from where you would then turn direct to the runway? Link to the VOR B http://www.aip.net.nz/pdf/NZQN_43.1_43.2.pdf Link to the AIP for QNZN http://www.aip.net.nz/NavWalk.aspx?section=CHARTS&tree=Queenstown

Name: SYSK - Understanding Approaches Category: FS Instructional Videos Date Added: 07 October 2014 - 02:36 PM Submitter: scandinavian13 Short Description: None Provided Stuff You Should Know: Approaches have more similarities than differences. This video explains why you should look at an approach as an approach, and not a specific type of approach. View Video