Tomaeto, Tomahto
RNAV stands for aRea NAVigation and encompasses a variety of aircraft equipment described in U.S Terminal and En Route Area Navigation (RNAV) Operations. Appropriately certified GPS units are considered RNAV as are many Flight Management Systems. Older VOR/DME RNAV units are also consider RNAV units, but in a much more limited way. In simplest terms, an IFR-certified GPS unit is most often the straw that stirs the RNAV drink for most GA aircraft.
For RNAV-equipped aircraft, it's easy for a pilot to navigate directly to a VOR, NDB, intersection, or approach waypoint. That's why RNAV approaches are often designed with a Terminal Arrival Area or TAA (not to be confused with a Technically-Advanced Aircraft). The TAA is a T-, Y- or L-shaped arrangement of Initial Approach waypoints designed to simplify the interaction between ATC and the pilot. A good, detailed description can be found in the Aeronautical Information Manual section 5-4-5(d).
What's in a Name?
Any approach title items contained in parenthesis are omitted when referring to the approach, so both the pilot and ATC would refer to the approach shown below as the "RNAV Runway 12 approach" - GPS is left out because it appears in parenthesis. A stand-alone GPS approach, like the Rio Vista GPS RWY 25 approach would be called a GPS approach. Confusing? Yeah, but supposedly all GPS approaches are eventually going to be renamed to RNAV approaches, it will just take some time.
If you desire an RNAV approach, think like a controller and include your approach request when you check in. Controllers usually appreciate this as it is unambiguous and it saves time.
Some RNAV approaches contain the letter Z or Y and the reason is simple: FMS databases can't handle two approaches to the same runway using the same navigational system, so the letters Z or Y are added to prevent ambiguity. Some kludge, eh? The deal is this: RNAV Z approaches usually provide lower approach minima (typically LPV) than RNAV Y (typically LNAV and LNAV/VNAV) approaches, but sometimes the opposite is true. More on approach minima later.
Santa Barbara approach, Barnburner 123, 7000, request Santa Maria RNAV 12, direct WINCH, with information Foxtrot.Some RNAV approaches contain "RNP" in parenthesis, which stands for Required Navigational Performance. These SAAAR (Special Aircraft & Aircrew Authorization Required) approaches are not available to us mere mortals.
Some RNAV approaches contain the letter Z or Y and the reason is simple: FMS databases can't handle two approaches to the same runway using the same navigational system, so the letters Z or Y are added to prevent ambiguity. Some kludge, eh? The deal is this: RNAV Z approaches usually provide lower approach minima (typically LPV) than RNAV Y (typically LNAV and LNAV/VNAV) approaches, but sometimes the opposite is true. More on approach minima later.
So what approaches can you fly with an old VOR/DME RNAV unit like the venerable King KNS80? The only RNAV approaches you can fly with these units are the ones named
"VOR/DME RNAV ..." There are 60 to 70 of these approaches in the US, like the UKI VOR/DME RNAV or GPS-B approach. Someone could write a master's thesis on the details behind the naming of that approach!
Cleared Direct ...
A controller will typically clear you to the nearest IAF and then provide an approach clearance. The pilot loads the RNAV approach with the IAF transition specified by the controller, activates the approach, and then follows the guidance to each of the waypoints in the sequence that make up the approach. Consider the Santa Maria RNAV (GPS) RWY 12 approach.

There are three IAFs: OVMAF, WINCH, and LILWU. ATC will usually clear you to the IAF nearest to your position. If you are approaching from the Southeast, "direct WINCH" would be a safe bet and you'd need to fly the HILO (hold in-lieu of a procedure turn) to reverse course. The transitions from OVMAF and LILWU all say "No PT" and you should not fly the HILO without ATC's permission (see 14 CFR 91.175(j) Limitation on Procedure Turns).
Many pilots I've spoken to are confused by TAAs that have a 90 degree turn from the Initial Approach segment to the Intermediate Approach segment. Relax because GPS units provide turn anticipation and the TAA waypoints are fly-by waypoints (you're not required fly right over them). The GPS knows your ground speed, actual track, and the number of degrees of turn required, so just pay attention to your GPS, start the turn when it tells you to turn, and you should end up right on intermediate approach course.
"VOR/DME RNAV ..." There are 60 to 70 of these approaches in the US, like the UKI VOR/DME RNAV or GPS-B approach. Someone could write a master's thesis on the details behind the naming of that approach!
Cleared Direct ...
A controller will typically clear you to the nearest IAF and then provide an approach clearance. The pilot loads the RNAV approach with the IAF transition specified by the controller, activates the approach, and then follows the guidance to each of the waypoints in the sequence that make up the approach. Consider the Santa Maria RNAV (GPS) RWY 12 approach.

There are three IAFs: OVMAF, WINCH, and LILWU. ATC will usually clear you to the IAF nearest to your position. If you are approaching from the Southeast, "direct WINCH" would be a safe bet and you'd need to fly the HILO (hold in-lieu of a procedure turn) to reverse course. The transitions from OVMAF and LILWU all say "No PT" and you should not fly the HILO without ATC's permission (see 14 CFR 91.175(j) Limitation on Procedure Turns).
Many pilots I've spoken to are confused by TAAs that have a 90 degree turn from the Initial Approach segment to the Intermediate Approach segment. Relax because GPS units provide turn anticipation and the TAA waypoints are fly-by waypoints (you're not required fly right over them). The GPS knows your ground speed, actual track, and the number of degrees of turn required, so just pay attention to your GPS, start the turn when it tells you to turn, and you should end up right on intermediate approach course.
*** Edited 4/22/09, based on NTC comments ***
What about the Vectors-To-Final option for loading an approach? Use it with caution because ATC is restricted from clearing you direct to any waypoint inside the Intermediate Fix (IF) or vectoring you any closer than 3 miles from the FAF on an RNAV approach. Not that this hasn't stopped some controllers from doing otherwise. Vectors-To-Final will only display the the FAF and MAP and I'm not sure why Garmin units even provide you this option for RNAV approaches. I guess it could be useful in an emergency, but not in normal operations.
***
Many GPS units also contain VOR receivers so ensure that your HSI or CDI is displaying the GPS course. Otherwise you might get confused when the course doesn't come alive and ATC starts asking you what the heck you are doing.
When to Descend?
The Santa Maria RNAV (GPS) RWY 12 approach depicts the Minimum Safe Altitude in sectors based on the waypoints WINCH and LIWLU, but many RNAV approaches have a conventional MSA depiction. Nice of the FAA to keep it simple, eh? You reference the MSA altitudes like the one depicted on the Santa Maria approach once you're cleared for the approach without any altitude restriction from ATC.

Let's say you're approaching from the Northwest and Santa Barbara approach clears you direct WINCH. You load the approach with WINCH as the transition and activate the approach. Your GPS may then ask you if you want to load the hold and you say ... wait for it ... NO!
Your GPS says the desired track to WINCH is 142 degrees and ATC clears you for the approach. You are at 7000 feet and 9 miles from WINCH, so you can descend to 5500 feet. Once you are within 6 miles of WINCH, you can descend to 3300 feet. Passing WINCH, follow the altitudes listed on the profile view of the approach chart. Simple, once you understand the conventions.
The "How Low?" Lowdown
RNAV approach charts may have as many as four different types of approach minima (ceiling and visibility) and this is probably the thing than confuses most pilots who are new to RNAV approaches. The possible minima are labeled:
- LNAV - lateral navigation only, no descent guidance
- LNAV/VNAV - later navigation with advisory descent guidance
- LPV - Localizer Performance with Vertical guidance
- CIRCLING - used straight-in minima are not published or circling is desired.
If your GPS is non-WAAS (TSO C129), then life is pretty simple: You only get LNAV minima and you fly the approach like any other non-precision approach, descending as indicated on the profile view of the approach chart. A good practice is to perform a RAIM check on a TSO C129 unit prior to departure and again prior to reaching the IAF.
If you have a WAAS GPS unit (TSO C145 or 146) you can skip the RAIM check, but you should check for WAAS outage NOTAMs for your destination as part of your preflight briefing. With a WAAS unit, the approach chart minima you will use will depend on the course sensitivity the GPS unit displays when your are flying the approach, a few miles outside the FAF. This course sensitivity depends on the WAAS signal integrity and may vary from day to day and hour to hour.
When you activate the approach, your WAAS unit will probably display TERM sensitivity - a full-scale deflection of the course needle (left or right) represents a 1 mile displacement (left or right) from the desired track.

Somewhere before the FAF, usually at the last intermediate fix before the FAF, the sensitivity will change to either LNAV, LNAV+V, L/VNAV, or LPV. (Some approaches list GLS minima as N/A, but this is just a placeholder, it will be replaced eventually with LPV.)
LNAV+V, L/VNAV, or LPV course sensitivities all offer basically a 0.3 mile full-scale deviation and they also provide vertical guidance, but there are crucial differences between the type of vertical guidance provided.
Anytime vertical guidance is provided, be aware that the glidepath may be provided all the way to the surface. Therefore the pilot must ensure they (or the autopilot) do not descend below the MDA or DA appropriate for the course sensitivity displayed by their GPS unless the appropriate visual references described in 14 CFR 91.175 are present.
Anytime vertical guidance is provided, be aware that the glidepath may be provided all the way to the surface. Therefore the pilot must ensure they (or the autopilot) do not descend below the MDA or DA appropriate for the course sensitivity displayed by their GPS unless the appropriate visual references described in 14 CFR 91.175 are present.
Advisory Guidance
LNAV+V provides only advisory guidance and this is considered a non-precision approach: You need to ensure you do not descend below any step-down altitude listed on the approach chart's profile view. You may see LNAV+V on some RNAV approach charts that only have LNAV minima, but you may also see it on an RNAV approach where the required signal integrity for LPV is unavailable. RNAV approaches with only circling minima and with an approach course that is more than 30 degrees out of alignment with any runway will not display advisory guidance. The advisory vertical guidance should be a constant glide angle required to get you to MDA a bit before the missed approach point. If you are an adherent to the "dive and drive" style of non-precision approach flying (I am not, by the way), then you can ignore the advisory guidance all together and fly a less-than-stabilized approach.
L/VNAV
This sensitivity is Garmin's way of telling you that this is an Approach with Vertical Guidance (APV): If you follow the glidepath and the lateral guidance to the Decision Altitude, you won't hit anything. I suspect Garmin chose L/VNAV because 1) they didn't have enough characters available to display LNAV/VNAV and 2) they wanted it to be distinguishable from LNAV/+V. Find that confusing? You're not alone!
L/VNAV vertical guidance is provided all the way to the surface. Therefore the pilot must ensure they (or the autopilot) do not descend below the DA unless the appropriate visual references described in 14 CFR 91.175 are present.
LPV
This sensitivity is also to a Decision Altitude and is considered an Approach with Vertical Guidance (APV). The LPV approach provides lateral and vertical guidance similar to an ILS, but usually to a DA no lower than 250 HAT and no less than 1/2 mile visibility.
LPV sensitivity will be annunciated at the last fix before the final approach fix. On the Oakland RNAV (GPS) RWY 27L, this is also where the glidepath will begin being displayed on most GPS units. Interestingly, glidepath intercept is depicted on this chart's profile view at the FAF. For an ILS, the makes sense because of the physical construction and limitations of the ILS. RNAV glidepaths don't have these limitations, so I don't see any risk in following the LPV glidepath as soon as it appears. Just verify your altitudes at each waypoint.
Glidepath to Where?
Pilots have asked me if the glidepath provided for L/VNAV or LPV approaches, like an ILS glideslope, would take them to the touchdown zone. I'm not certain, but my understanding is that the glidepath (or glideslope) for CAT I approaches takes the aircraft to a Threshold Crossing Height (TCH). Look at any RNAV approach chart that provides LNAV/VNAV or LPV minima and you should find that a glideslope angle and TCH are listed, just as you'd find for an ILS.


In order to Serve you Better
If you see an error message saying that the GPS is unusable while flying an RNAV approach and still outside the FAF, you need to execute the missed approach. If this happens inside the FAF, the regulations say you can continue the approach. The only way I'd continue is if I already had the required visual references or some sort of emergency.
When planning to fly an RNAV Z approach, you'd best have the RNAV Y version of the approach handy, too. If the required WAAS signal integrity is not available, your GPS may inform you that the approach has been downgraded and that you should use the LNAV minima - those minima won't be shown on your RNAV Y approach chart, but on the RNAV Z approach chart. Nice curveball, huh?
You loaded and activated the approach correctly, you identified the correct minima to use, you got to the MDA or DA and you don't see the required visual references. It's time for the missed approach and all IFR-certified GPS units (except older GNS480) will suspend waypoint sequencing at the MAP. You'll need to press a button (and perhaps set a new desired track on your CDI) to start navigating on the missed approach segment. For most Garmin units, you press the OBS button or softkey. For many King units, you press the Direct button.
Too Complex?
Many a pilot has complained to me that RNAV approaches are just too complex. I agree. I think the approach designers and the RNAV avionics designers have created their own treehouse with some pretty complex rules, dependencies, and exceptions. The pilot guides for these products try to describe these operational subtleties, but this is some complex @#%& for single-pilot IFR.
If you've made it this far, congratulations: It's a rare instrument pilot who can stomach this much minutiae. If there's something I forgot to cover, email me or post a comment. And lastly, this post took a fair amount of time to craft. If you found it useful, please click on the donate button on the upper right corner of this page. The amount you donate is up to you, but every little bit helps.
If you've made it this far, congratulations: It's a rare instrument pilot who can stomach this much minutiae. If there's something I forgot to cover, email me or post a comment. And lastly, this post took a fair amount of time to craft. If you found it useful, please click on the donate button on the upper right corner of this page. The amount you donate is up to you, but every little bit helps.








16 comments:
Pardon my lack of currency (low time & little used IFR ticket), but I'm unclear as to why one would not fly a lap around the hold at winch when approaching from the NW. Seems I recall my instructor telling me that they expect you to go around the hold at least once (even though in this case, I see why there is no need for a course reversal...it is logical to me that you wouldn't do it based on your position - no need to reverse course). Would ATC tell you to not do the PT in the clearance? I am also confused why the 530 will still display the hold even though you told it you wouldn't be using it.
Thanks for this well written post.
This is a common area of confusion. Look at the MSA altitudes on the plan view and you'll see that between 031 degrees and 211 degrees BEARING to WINCH, there is a notation "No PT." That means no procedure turn. If you need to lose altitude or have another reason to do the hold, you can ask ATC for permission.
14 CFR 91.175(j) says:
"In the case of a radar vector to a final approach course or fix, a timed approach from a holding fix, or an approach for which the procedure specifies 'No PT,' no pilot may make a procedure turn unless cleared to do so by ATC."
I don't think they're minutiae; instrument flying is a detail-oriented activity. And I'm convinced that the complexity we see is necessary complexity, especially near high terrain. The complexity gives us the flexibility to descend earlier if away from the terrain, whereas in the old days one obstacle in the approach area kept everybody higher.
Regarding complexity, I agree that there's a lot that goes into designing instrument approaches and avionics. However, I firmly believe that much of this complexity can and should be encapsulated and hidden from flight crews. I won't go into my laundry list of things the FAA and manufacturers like Garmin could do to simply these instrument flying tasks, but there's a lot that could be made opaque without sacrificing safety. Some improvements have been made, but more progress is possible and necessary.
... ATC is restricted from vectoring you or clearing you direct to any waypoint inside the Intermediate Fix (IF) on an RNAV approach.Can you give me a reference for that restriction, and say when it was instituted?
Here flying the RNAV (GPS) RWY 28R approach into Montgomery (KMYF), if coming from the northwest it seems SoCal will always vector you to about NESTY, which is inside MIBBY, the IF.
Maybe that's what they're used to doing for the ILS 28R, and the RNAV 28R is basically an overlay on that. But starting the approach farther out puts you closer to the big iron flow into Lindbergh (KSAN); the couple of times I've asked for the full RNAV approach to KMYF they reply "unable" or "expect delays".
--Paul
I was going to ask the same thing as Dr. Paul. I frequently fly the RNAV/GPS 19R approach into SNA, and they vector me to BONKE. I load the approach with vectors-to-final. I was not aware that this was an improper procedure.
I also don't understand the part about RAIM predictions needing to be performed manually when flying a GPS approach using an IFR-approved, non-WAAS receiver. According to AIM 1-1-19, any IFR-approved GPS will "perform a RAIM prediction by 2 NM prior to the FAWP to ensure that RAIM is available at the FAWP as a condition for entering the approach mode."
Dr. Paul,
Check out Order 7110.65S, section 8, 4-8-1. In a nutshell, ATC can vector you toward or clear you to any Intermediate Fix (basically any fix after an IAF but before the FAF) for an RNAV approach. Section 8, 5-9-1(a) gives two conditions under which ATC may vector a pilot inside an IF, but the note says:
"EXCEPTION. Conditions 1 and 2 above do not apply to RNAV aircraft being vectored for a GPS or RNAV approach."
Looking at the MYF RNAV (GPS) RWY 28R I see that MIBBY is labelled an IF. My reading is that NESTY is also an IF because it is located on the intermediate approach course segment (after the IAF, but before the FAF), it just isn't specifically labelled as an IAF. So being vectored to MIBBY meets the spirit of the relevant parts of Order 7110.65S section 8 regarding RNAV approaches.
I'm not saying that all controllers are adhering to these constraints with RNAV approaches, I'm just pointing out that the constraints are there. Heck, many controllers are still referring to RNAV approaches in my area as GPS approaches. I can appreciate that for operational reasons, it may be difficult or impossible for controllers in specific areas to conform to these requirements. It's almost as if the people who design the approaches aren't consulting with the controllers who work the airspace, but I don't know if that's the case or not.
And Ron, we had this discussion about vectoring inside the IF on RNAV approaches before.
I do agree with you regarding RAIM predictions, though ...
In a nutshell, ATC can vector you toward or clear you to any Intermediate Fix (basically any fix after an IAF but before the FAF) for an RNAV approach.OK, with that reading of what an IF is, it's hard to fault SoCal for vectoring toward NESTY to join the RNAV 28R to KMYF.
But the more I think about it, the more I think the controllers are just not distinguishing between the RNAV approach there and the ILS; after all they use the same fixes, the only difference between the two is the navaids required to identify them. The clearance I get is (almost always) not "direct NESTY, cleared for the approach" but the more ILS-like "fly heading 260, maintain two thousand six hundred till established on the final approach course, cleared for the approach".
If they're going to clear me that way, loading vectors-to-final works great. But I guess you're saying that I should expect they probably won't clear me that way much longer.
--Paul
Dr. Paul,
I think you're onto something. It would appear that some controllers just might not know 7110.65S as well as they should. With all the experienced controllers who have retired, the new hires, and the trainees this really shouldn't be surprising, I guess.
A year or so ago I was flying with another pilot who was doing a practice RNAV (GPS) RWY 27L into Oakland. He asked the controller for "direct JUPAP, practice RNAV 27 left, own nav" and direct JUPAP (an IF) was approved. Then there was a controller change and the new guy wasted no time in throwing his weight around.
He barked out some revised instructions to a few airliners, then told us "I don't do own navigation on approaches to Oakland. Fly heading 250, join the approach course, maintain 4000 and report established." The pilot I was flying with read back the new clearance and then we glanced at each other. My comment was "He apparently doesn't understand how RNAV approaches are supposed to be handled."
Try this the next time: "request Montgomery RNAV 28R, direct NESTY, own nav." I'd be interested in hearing how that works.
John,
You're right, I did post on that subject before. And I think I missed your reply since the system doesn't email me when one of my comments gets a response.
Anyway, in consideration of what you wrote before, I think there might be some sort of error in 7110.65. Not only can I see no reason for the restriction, but in all the GPS approaches I've flown, I've been vectored right to the FAF every time, just as though it was an ILS or other non-RNAV approach.
If anything, the accuracy and flexibility of the GPS receivers should allow fewer restrictions, not more. Weird. Maybe you should pass this along to the FAA and see what they say about it.
Ron,
I can't write this off as an error. The intent of the authors of 7110.65S seems pretty clear based on the wording in at least two different parts of Section 8: RNAV approach clearances are supposed to be handled differently than other approaches.
I'm at a loss to explain why controllers in your area handle RNAV the way they do, but I would suspect it's because they don't know what the good book says, or they have a waiver, or who knows?
John, would you please define LNAV+V and L/VNAV?
Thank you for writing so we VFR pilots can understand.
DavidW,
LNAV+V is displayed on the G1000 and G530/403W when advisory guidance is being provided. This glidepath does not necessarily provide obstacle clearance - the pilot must ensure that the aircraft stays at or above all the published step-down altitudes and LNAV minima.
L/VNAV is Garmin's way of telling you that you can use published LNAV/VNAV minima. The L/VNAV glidepath displayed does ensure obstacle clearance.
>>My reading is that NESTY is also an IF because it is located on the intermediate approach course segment<<
NESTY is not an IF. There is only one IF on a procedure (FAAO 8260.3 “TERPS” paragraph 1522) and by definition (P/CG) it’s the “fix that identifies the beginning of the intermediate approach segment of an instrument approach procedure”.
You state correctly that FAAO 7110.65 paragraph 4-8-1a requires that IAPs start at an IAF or an IF for RNAV procedures provided sub-paragraph b4 is met. However paragraph 5-9-1a does allow for the controller to vector aircraft onto an approach, including RNAV approaches, as close as 3 miles from the FAF. The exception you cite regarding RNAV approaches apply to vectors at the approach gate or FAF.
So a vector to intercept at NESTY is legal per 5-9-1a (a clearance to proceed direct NESTY, cleared for approach, is not legal), while a vector to intercept at BONKE is not legal per the 5-9-1a exception.
All this said, it doesn’t surprise me that controllers vector aircraft to GPS approaches like an ILS. The FAA did/does a lousy job instructing them about GPS procedures.
Geek@NTC,
I was just wondering if you might be lurking out there and I appreciate the clarification.
This confirms my policy that activating an RNAV approach with Vectors-to-Final is a poor practice, unless you like doing the extra work to determine how far a stepdown fix between the IF and the FAF is from the FAF.
In my limited experience flying, I've come to believe that RNAV approaches in general are discouraging to use in themselves. After several attempts at using RNAV approaches in actual weather, I've learned that using the traditional landing systems lend to a smoother operation within the airspace system. My opinion comes from dealing with controllers who are ill-equipped to handling RNAV-capable aircraft, especially during busy hours. They seem to intuitively know ILS fixes and other details, but struggle when dealing with RNAV waypoints and whatnot. So far, my hypothesis is correct in that most people still use the ILS/LOC or VOR systems to land, rather than GPS/RNAV ... just listen to the radio!
However, if the destination airport has no other approach, then perhaps RNAV really is the only way in....
Post a Comment