So Cal WAAS Approach?
- Thread starter VWGhiaBob
- Start date
luvflyin
Touchdown! Greaser!
RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 24L at LAX
Jmcmanna
Pre-takeoff checklist
How about the RNAV 21 into SMO? When I was an ATC there (2007), the only RNAV approach was a circling approach. Now there are RNAV approaches to both ends of the runway, and I think that is really cool for an airport, especially with a drop-dead date.
aterpster
En-Route
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2011
- Messages
- 3,317
- Display Name
Display name:
aterpster
Keep in mind LP is also a WAAS approach. There are some dicey LP approaches, but probably none is in SCT areas. The LPs at KSEE have high MDAs.
luvflyin
Touchdown! Greaser!
Horizontal navigation is usually not complicated on RNAV Approaches because they can put Waypoints anywhere. Unlike VOR based ones that can have interesting initial and intermediate segments because the are stuck with where the VOR,s are on the ground. TOA 11L has a dogleg at the FAF, not much, but it’s there and the final approach is very short and it’s steep. SDM has a dogleg at the FAF.
CRQ X 24 if your Navigator does RF legs. There aren’t to many of those out there that are not AUTHORIZATION REQUIRED. TOA, POC, SMO, have steep glideslopes.
SEE 17 is offset from the runway.
Rgbeard
En-Route
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2017
- Messages
- 4,345
- Location
- Phoenix, AZ and Ensenada, Mexico
- Display Name
Display name:
rgbeard
GPS Rwy 8 to Brown
Tantalum
Final Approach
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2017
- Messages
- 9,250
- Display Name
Display name:
San_Diego_Pilot
Seconded. They also tend to keep you high and vector you around to intercept the course as opposed to following the whole approach, at least in my experience. Makes for a fun and spritely descent initially
Tantalum
Final Approach
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2017
- Messages
- 9,250
- Display Name
Display name:
San_Diego_Pilot
Not to be pedantic... but it's not JUST like an ILS, on an ILS as you get closer to the runway, just like when you approach a VOR, the sensitive goes way up and you have to be that much more careful to stay on GS and laterally aligned. The RNAV is flown like a GPS magenta line.. people have an easier time with it because it doesn't have that "wobbly" sensitivity to it and doesn't get more sensitive as you approach the runway
AIM 5-4-21 says (sorry for the goofy formatting; apparently cut &paste on this tablet is a little goofy):
nce with vertical guidance. RNAV (GPS)
approaches to LPV lines of minima take advantage of
the improved accuracy of WAAS lateral and vertical
guidance to provide an approach that is very similar
to a Category I Instrument Landing System (ILS).
The approach to LPV line of minima is designed for
angular guidance with increasing sensitivity as the
aircraft gets closer to the runway. The sensitivities are
nearly identical to those of the ILS at similar
distances. This was done intentionally to allow the
skills required to proficiently fly an ILS to readily
transfer to flying RNAV (GPS) approaches to the
LPV line of minima. Just as with an ILS, the LPV has
vertical guidance and is flown to a DA. Aircraft can
fly this minima line with a statement in the Aircraft
Flight Manual that the installed equipment supports
LPV approaches. This includes Class 3 and 4
TSO−C146 GPS/WAAS equipment
Tantalum
Final Approach
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2017
- Messages
- 9,250
- Display Name
Display name:
San_Diego_Pilot
Interesting, they feel much easier. Maybe it's because it's less wobbly? I find the CDI on the steam gauge planes to start floating about as you get closer to the runway and you almost have to just take an average of it in your head to know where the center is.. or maybe the steam gauge planes I have done ILS approaches on are just garbage, which is entirely possible given that they're early 70s rentals in those cases!
Or someone taxied past the ILS boundary line.
I do know that a localizer is vulnerable to reflections (hence the boundary line) but I don't know how much the FAA allows, if any at all.
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2011
- Messages
- 1,635
- Location
- State of Confusion
- Display Name
Display name:
chartbundle
The thing I realized when I did my first practice LPV to 250' was the lighting. ILS has a big friendly bright lighting system. LPV, maybe not.
Er, ok, I guess it was 270 AGL: http://www.chartbundle.com/qc/C83_RNAV.12 But you'll still notice the total lack of anything resembling a nice lighting system there.
Er, ok, I guess it was 270 AGL: http://www.chartbundle.com/qc/C83_RNAV.12 But you'll still notice the total lack of anything resembling a nice lighting system there.
benyflyguy
En-Route
I don’t know about SoCal area but need to find one of those approaches that isn’t a true straight in. Toss a turn in to keep you a bit busier with some good winds too like this one In our area
wilkersk
Pattern Altitude
RNAV 8L KSDM
luvflyin
Touchdown! Greaser!
They got em out thar in La La land. RNAV(GPS) RWY 11L at KTOA. 14 degree dogleg at the FAF, 11 on this Approach. 3.2 mile final, 5.1 on this Approach. 3.43 degree glideslope vs 3.00 on this one
N1120A
Pattern Altitude
To see how beautifully designed an LPV approach can be, fly the RNAV Z into KCMA. If you want to see how one can be a pain, see the next.
The RNAV 21 into KSMO is a PITA if you get a poor controller who keeps you too high and vectors you right onto MOVVE. I actually called SoCal about it once when it was making me go all over the place in IMC.
The RNAV 21 into KSMO is a PITA if you get a poor controller who keeps you too high and vectors you right onto MOVVE. I actually called SoCal about it once when it was making me go all over the place in IMC.
Tantalum
Final Approach
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2017
- Messages
- 9,250
- Display Name
Display name:
San_Diego_Pilot
indeed! I flew that coming back from telluride with my friend last year, what a breeze!
I feel like in my experience they always leave me way too high, I'm still up at 6000 feet when I should be done at like 4 LOL.. it's not till you have the building's on your right where I'm finally on the glideslope!!
luvflyin
Touchdown! Greaser!
What did they say?
N1120A
Pattern Altitude
They apologized and said they would address it
John Collins
En-Route
As a fully registered and current pedant, you need to get your pedant license renewed.
The LPV FSD (Full Scale Deflection) of the CDI is angular at +/- 2 degrees from the FAF to the threshold. At the threshold, the CDI FSD is +/- 350 feet, exactly the same as on an ILS. The non WAAS RNAV GPS units are linear and the FSD is +/- 0.3 NM from the FAF to the MAP.
Tantalum
Final Approach
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2017
- Messages
- 9,250
- Display Name
Display name:
San_Diego_Pilot
They seem easier to fly.. maybe it has to do with old crappy steam gauge ILS where the CDI wobbles left and right, while the RNAV seems far easier and steadier, at least in my experienceAs a fully registered and current pedant, you need to get your pedant license renewed.
Last edited:
John Collins
En-Route
I agree, they are easier to fly. I think much of this has to do with the steady CDI. The LPV has a lateral +/- 2 degree FSD for the CDI, whereas an ILS varies with the runway length. Both are set to be +/- 350 feet at the threshold, but since the localizer antenna distance to the threshold varies with the runway length (runway length + 1000 feet is typical), the FSD CDI angle varies, so for a 10000 foot runway, the angle is +/- 1.8 degrees and for a 5000 foot runway, it is 3.3 degrees. The LPV doesn't use an antenna and the focal point of the CDI is fixed based on being located 10,000 feet from the threshold, regardless of runway length, so it is fixed at 2 degrees.