Interesting RNAV Approaches?

sarangan

sarangan

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Jun 7, 2008
Messages
1,903
Display Name
Display name:
Andrew, CFI-I
Back in the day there were several VOR and NDB approaches with oddities that were interesting to try in a sim just for the challenge. I am wondering are there any interesting RNAV approaches that can make life more interesting in a sim.
 
The OP won't be able to try that one in the "sim."
 
Don't know what's your idea of an "interesting" approach but I find RNAV(GPS) Rwy 10 at KUDD interesting just because of scenery and you can certainly try it in your sim.
 
Either RNAV RNP Z’s at CRW Look like they’d be fun to fly. Maybe I’ll request it next time.....

fd1b1f309f49d608cf70b5b6f797358b.jpg


c0be7b1af98190fd8ac47d9d4641eb2f.jpg
 
sarangan said:
Back in the day there were several VOR and NDB approaches with oddities that were interesting to try in a sim just for the challenge. I am wondering are there any interesting RNAV approaches that can make life more interesting in a sim.
Click to expand...

It's not exactly Aspen, but I rather enjoyed planning, briefing, and flying the RNAV (GPS) Z RWY 19 into Jackson Hole. I arrived at DNW on the airway at the MEA of 14,000 feet and, knowing that the descent gradient was about double what I normally plan on, I began reducing power much earlier in the approach than I normally do, but still ended up throwing all the drag out prior to the FAF and coming in a bit hot anyway. Had I not prepared for it, I probably would have gone sailing over the airport at about 4000 AGL. :rofl:

From DNW, the approach is 24.3 miles. Normally, losing that much altitude takes me around 45 miles.
 
eman1200 said:
Either RNAV RNP Z’s at CRW Look like they’d be fun to fly. Maybe I’ll request it next time.....

fd1b1f309f49d608cf70b5b6f797358b.jpg


c0be7b1af98190fd8ac47d9d4641eb2f.jpg
Click to expand...
Those say "authorization required." Do you have RNP authorization?
 
eman1200 said:
Nope. Do you need authorization to fly it in the sim, just for fun, as the OP asked?
Click to expand...
It wouldn't be in the simulator's database, either, unless it simulates an RNP AR operation.
 
olasek said:
Don't know what's your idea of an "interesting" approach but I find RNAV(GPS) Rwy 10 at KUDD interesting just because of scenery and you can certainly try it in your sim.
Click to expand...
That's a wacky one especially if arriving from over MORON.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
It's not exactly Aspen, but I rather enjoyed planning, briefing, and flying the RNAV (GPS) Z RWY 19 into Jackson Hole. I arrived at DNW on the airway at the MEA of 14,000 feet and, knowing that the descent gradient was about double what I normally plan on, I began reducing power much earlier in the approach than I normally do, but still ended up throwing all the drag out prior to the FAF and coming in a bit hot anyway. Had I not prepared for it, I probably would have gone sailing over the airport at about 4000 AGL. :rofl:

From DNW, the approach is 24.3 miles. Normally, losing that much altitude takes me around 45 miles.
Click to expand...
That approach meets criteria. I suppose they could have done a better job by adding feeder fixes on V298 and V330.
 
eman1200 said:
Nope. Do you need authorization to fly it in the sim, just for fun, as the OP asked?
Click to expand...

When you talked about requesting it, I mistakenly assumed that you were talking about doing it in an airplane.
 
Palmpilot said:
When you talked about requesting it, I mistakenly assumed that you were talking about doing it in an airplane.
Click to expand...

Yeah. I was joking. Forgot the smiley face that lets the internet know it was a joke.
 
aterpster said:
It wouldn't be in the simulator's database, either, unless it simulates an RNP AR operation.
Click to expand...
Interesting. I think I'll check the database in my club's AATD the next time I use it.
 
Palmpilot said:
Interesting. I think I'll check the database in my club's AATD the next time I use it.
Click to expand...
As a starter does your club's AATD have the KCRQ RNAV X Runway 24? If it has that, then does it have the RNAV Z Runway 24?
 
Palmpilot said:
Interesting. I think I'll check the database in my club's AATD the next time I use it.
Click to expand...
I bet it will not be in your club’s AATD, only selected airlines can fly given RNP approaches.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
 
olasek said:
I bet it will not be in your club’s AATD, only selected airlines can fly given RNP approaches.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
Click to expand...

I think it uses whatever database a G1000 uses, but the last update was installed when the SFO class B redesign went into effect, which was last August 16th. That means that it won't have the Rwy 23 approach, because that one has an original-issue date in January of 2019. I don't see an original-issue date on the Rwy 5 approach, but if it's not in the database, then I will check for the RNP approach at Monterey, because that one has been in existence since 2015 at the latest.


Sent from my HP ENVY 700 PC using Pale Moon browser
 
aterpster said:
That approach meets criteria. I suppose they could have done a better job by adding feeder fixes on V298 and V330.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's more the fact that the Mooney is very slick and doesn't like to go down that fast without accelerating. I normally plan 6 miles per 1000 feet in no-wind conditions, that puts me right about at Vno until I back it off to 14" MAP (which is where the gear horn goes off).

I also normally begin pulling power 20 miles from landing... In this case, I started my power reductions when I started the descent at DNW, and actually used my speed brakes. I normally try not to use those, because what's the point of an efficient airplane if you use the speed brakes every time? I prefer to keep them as an extra tool in my back pocket. They sure were handy this time though.
 
olasek said:
A "generic" G1000 database certainly doesn't have RNP approaches, I have one home for my Garmin G1000 Pc Trainer and it isn't there.
Click to expand...
In order to get a database with RNP AR approaches, you at least have to have a training program in place toward getting your RNP AR approval with the FAA.
 
MauleSkinner said:
In order to get a database with RNP AR approaches, you at least have to have a training program in place toward getting your RNP AR approval with the FAA.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately the RNP approaches do not appear to be in the GNS 430 in the Xplane Simulator.
 
There are a couple of non-authorization-required RNP approaches out there, that the GNS 650/750 can handle (irl). KCRQ RNAV X 24 for example, already mentioned. I think PAKT might be the other. I don't know of any desktop simulation avionics that offer this capability though. Maybe RealityXP.
 
olasek said:
A "generic" G1000 database certainly doesn't have RNP approaches, I have one home for my Garmin G1000 Pc Trainer and it isn't there.
Click to expand...
Nor does it have the non-RNP AR RF leg approaches at RNO and CRQ that the GTN-750 has.
 
flydigital said:
There are a couple of non-authorization-required RNP approaches out there, that the GNS 650/750 can handle (irl). KCRQ RNAV X 24 for example, already mentioned. I think PAKT might be the other. I don't know of any desktop simulation avionics that offer this capability though. Maybe RealityXP.
Click to expand...
KCRQ RNAV X Runway 24, KRNO ILS 16R, and one of the ILS approaches at Ketchetan (sp?) Alaska.
 
Try the RNAV 17 into KVCV. It essentially squares off the DME arc on the VOR approach to avoid the EDW restricted areas and is a bear to fly with precision.
 
N1120A said:
Try the RNAV 17 into KVCV. It essentially squares off the DME arc on the VOR approach to avoid the EDW restricted areas and is a bear to fly with precision.
Click to expand...

Doesn't look all that tough. Yeah, you have that one 90 degree turn but 5200 puts you close to a thousand feet under glidepath at SCCAT. Seems like it would be easy enough to make the turn and just continue the rest of the way straight in with a stabilized descent.
 
BrianNC said:
PDK has an RNP ‘authorization required’ approach and it is strictly business aviation GA.
Click to expand...
Yep. I was involved with that one. It was impossible to develop an approach to 3R with a conventional IAP because of the huge antennas. RNP AR overcame that. Terrain at KSDL (strictly business and general aviation) couldn't have decent IAPs until RNP AR came along.
 
luvflyin said:
Doesn't look all that tough. Yeah, you have that one 90 degree turn but 5200 puts you close to a thousand feet under glidepath at SCCAT. Seems like it would be easy enough to make the turn and just continue the rest of the way straight in with a stabilized descent.
Click to expand...
Not an issue. I scoped it out. The pink circle is 2.64 miles from SCCAT to the closest point on the MOA. The white tinted circle shows the nearest point to the restricted area is 3.84 miles. The primary aera is +/- 2 miles at the point and the secondary is additional 1 miles. The secondary just nicks the MOA, which is permitted by policy. You would have to have a pegged CDI to get into the secondary.
 

Attachments

  • SCCAT.jpg
    SCCAT.jpg
    172.4 KB · Views: 13
aterpster said:
Not an issue. I scoped it out. The pink circle is 2.64 miles from SCCAT to the closest point on the MOA. The white tinted circle shows the nearest point to the restricted area is 3.84 miles. The primary aera is +/- 2 miles at the point and the secondary is additional 1 miles. The secondary just nicks the MOA, which is permitted by policy. You would have to have a pegged CDI to get into the secondary.
Click to expand...

Yeah. They coulda moved NANCC up north a ways to where it would have been about a 248 track to SCCAT, staying far enough away from R2515 and have a 82 degree turn to final instead of 90. But I still don't see the 90 degree turn making that hard to fly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top