Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions
Reload this Page >

Bankstown RNP RWY 11 approach on Garmin G1000

The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

Bankstown RNP RWY 11 approach on Garmin G1000

Old 17th Mar 2022, 02:35
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,440
Bankstown RNP RWY 11 approach on Garmin G1000

When carrying out the Bankstown RNP RWY 11C approach from the RAKSO IAF with a Garmin G1000 equipped aircraft while coupled to the autopilot, strange things happen. Fly over RAKSO at 3,700 feet and the Garmin unit doesn’t start descending to the 2,500’ SBKWI IF until there is a 3˚ approach angle. This would put the aircraft into the 2,500’ step.

In fact, if you look at the approach plate, it shows the descent should start at RAKSO from 3,700’, then go at a constant angle to WI at 2,500’. Once again, that means that the aircraft will clip the 2,500’ 20 DME Sydney Class C step. In effect, it means that the expensive and safer autopilot coupled system can not be used in this case.

Does anyone have an answer to this as to why the Garmin approach doesn't actually follow what is required in practice?

Last edited by Dick Smith; 17th Mar 2022 at 02:56.
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 17th Mar 2022, 03:53
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 454
Dick,

The approach coding for that procedure does not have any coded vertical guidance prior to SBKWI. Any vertical advisory provided before this point is Garmin system derived, and not from coded data. Therefore the only vertical advisory the system can generate is based on a known final altitude......the only coded 'known' final altitude is the 2500ft at SBKWI and so it generates a path to this point. In this particular instance, because there is a break in the descent, the vertical advisory provided will not ensure you reach 2500ft by 6.5nm to SBKWI.

Its a case of the navigation systems 'smarts' being smarter than the approach. It happens.

Alpha
alphacentauri is offline  
Old 17th Mar 2022, 05:23
  #3 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,440
I am sure that the Collins Pro Line in my CJ3 flew the approach correctly.

So why the problem with Garmin?
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 17th Mar 2022, 06:12
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Aus
Posts: 1,568
Sounds like that particular approach may be coded wrong for that particular units database, it happens.
43Inches is offline  
Old 17th Mar 2022, 06:24
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Airborne mostly
Posts: 35
If it's any consolation Dick, a 'modern' 747-8 would have the same problem with its new 'Integrated Approach Navigation' mode. We won't arm this mode for RNP/RNP-AR descent until all altitude constraints are complied with and we're approaching the FAF.
andmiz is offline  
Old 17th Mar 2022, 09:42
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: OZ
Posts: 1,066
That's why you have a pilot as the "master monitor" of the aircraft. It's why you're there mate.
mustafagander is offline  
Old 17th Mar 2022, 09:44
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: FL, USA
Posts: 2,950
Have not flown G1000 in 9 years and unfamiliar with the approach, I’m just looking at the plate:

https://www.airservicesaustralia.com..._24MAR2022.pdf

I’m not understanding why a 3 degree from Rakso to SBKWI would encroach the 2500’ shelf. That’s 20.3 miles and it should start descending approximately 3.7 miles out.
B2N2 is offline  
Old 17th Mar 2022, 12:55
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 8,220
My FMS would do the same. For obvious reasons, it tries to stay as high as it can. Since there is no limiting step on the chart at 6.5WI, the FMS will stay up until in needs to descend to reach 2500ft at WI. In fact, my FMS would probably go through RAKSO around 5000ft (and WB at around 3000ft, for that matter). Airspace steps are not in my database and the box knows nothing of them.

If this particular airspace config doesn't change, then an "at or below" step at 6.5WI would be in order. Whether that is an allowed design feature for an IAF>IF leg is another issue. And don't be naughty and edit the approach to put in a step.

Or, "request a clearance to leave and re-enter"... (note note 4).

Originally Posted by Dick
In fact, if you look at the approach plate, it shows the descent should start at RAKSO from 3,700’, then go at a constant angle to WI at 2,500’.
I do not agree. A line on the profile chart doesn't mean you (or the box) have to fly exactly along it. It is merely depicting that a descent is necessary at some point between RAKSO and WI. You could actually pass RAKSO then whip it into VS, zip down to 2500ft and then wait for WI.

Originally Posted by B2N2
I’m not understanding why a 3 degree from Rakso to SBKWI would encroach the 2500’ shelf. That’s 20.3 miles and it should start descending approximately 3.7 miles out.
The box would only have to commence descent from 3700ft at 3.7nm from WI (assuming it will try to descend at around 3°), but the step is passed at 6.5WI. You'd be crossing 6.5WI still at 3700ft.

Last edited by Capn Bloggs; 18th Mar 2022 at 01:52. Reason: Grammar
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 17th Mar 2022, 14:32
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: FL, USA
Posts: 2,950
Just another thought, the approach plate has a SYD CTR frequency, they’re the ones clearing you for the approach.
The hard altitude is 2500’ that one should be respected by the G1000.
Should be 4 ways to do this :
  • VNaV 3 degrees
  • VNaV release the altitude, descend early to intercept the path
  • Descend in Vertical Speed
  • Descend in FLCH
B2N2 is offline  
Old 17th Mar 2022, 16:59
  #10 (permalink)  
swh

Eidolon
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Some hole
Posts: 2,110
Originally Posted by Dick Smith View Post
When carrying out the Bankstown RNP RWY 11C approach from the RAKSO IAF with a Garmin G1000 equipped aircraft while coupled to the autopilot, strange things happen. Fly over RAKSO at 3,700 feet and the Garmin unit doesn’t start descending to the 2,500’ SBKWI IF until there is a 3˚ approach angle. This would put the aircraft into the 2,500’ step.

In fact, if you look at the approach plate, it shows the descent should start at RAKSO from 3,700’, then go at a constant angle to WI at 2,500’. Once again, that means that the aircraft will clip the 2,500’ 20 DME Sydney Class C step. In effect, it means that the expensive and safer autopilot coupled system can not be used in this case.

Does anyone have an answer to this as to why the Garmin approach doesn't actually follow what is required in practice?
The chart is a LNAV chart, i.e. 2D, there is no descent angle coded in database. What annunciation did you have on the HSI, LNAV or LNAV+V ?

The initial segment from RAKSO to WI is actually from the Westmead Hospital RNP 052 chart, that charts has crossing WI at 2700 (it’s steeper at 3.07 degree). To fly the BWU approach at near 3 degree all the way, cross RAKSO at 6700 ft (13.3 nmx318 ft/nm +2500), cross 6.5 WI at 4600 (6.5x318+2500), that is the 2500 ft SY step, cross WI at 2500.



swh is offline  
Old 17th Mar 2022, 20:56
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 454
The chart is a LNAV chart, i.e. 2D, there is no descent angle coded in database. What annunciation did you have on the HSI, LNAV or LNAV+V ?
There is actually SWH....see attached extract of procedure coding (my red circle is the vertical path angle for the final segment)..........this only goes back to the FAF. There is no coded vertical path prior to the FAF. (Note this is source coding....not final coding for a specific navigation system)

So back to Dicks issue. Each navigation manufacturer can tweak the procedure coding to optimise performance for that particular navigation system. The final version of coding for each system will differ and its why the Collins Proline and Garmin system each fly the procedure differently.

You will also notice that the 2500ft altitude at SBKWI is an AT altitude, so this altitude will be honoured. How the aircraft gets there is up to each individual manufacturers navigation logic.

Alpha
alphacentauri is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2022, 00:51
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2022
Location: tossbagville
Posts: 324
Alpha, why would each equipment manufacturer elect to code the descent differently?
tossbag is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2022, 01:11
  #13 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,440
Both systems would put the aircraft into the 2500' class C controlled airspace step if the pilot relies on the automation.
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2022, 01:33
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Coal Face
Posts: 934
I am sure that the Collins Pro Line in my CJ3 flew the approach correctly.
What do you mean by that? What are you expecting the GARMIN to do?
Chronic Snoozer is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2022, 01:38
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Coal Face
Posts: 934
Originally Posted by Dick Smith View Post
Both systems would put the aircraft into the 2500' class C controlled airspace step if the pilot relies on the automation.
Which is why the plate Note 4 says approach approval required from SYD ATS.
Chronic Snoozer is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2022, 02:09
  #16 (permalink)  
swh

Eidolon
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Some hole
Posts: 2,110
Originally Posted by alphacentauri View Post
There is actually SWH....see attached extract of procedure coding (my red circle is the vertical path angle for the final segment)..........this only goes back to the FAF. There is no coded vertical path prior to the FAF. (Note this is source coding....not final coding for a specific navigation system)
I dont see 3 degrees in the Jepp database, just crossing altitudes, and no temperature limitations on the chart.
swh is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2022, 02:55
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Australia
Posts: 33
I don't think its ever been automation's responsibility to keep an aircraft OCTA. Obviously, VNAV is capable of flying and meeting the level restrictions and forming/flying an approach path, but I believe it has always been the pilot's responsibility where if they haven't been cleared to enter and leave airspace ( or in this case via the RNP approach), to maintain separation from airspace.

I think in the case of this approach. Some aircraft ( potentially heavier, unfamiliar to the local environment aircraft such as private jets or potentially larger aircraft) it isn't efficient or safe to be descending early on that initial leg or the approach as whilst it does get you below the CTA step, it places you smack bang in the middle of the training area in particular with aircraft headed to the inbound reporting point TWRN. Therfore, it would be expected that in some scenarios, aircraft would be cleared to enter CTA via the RNP approach into BK and thus can fly the aircraft as depicted on the chart and negate CTA steps.

If Garmin put an altitude restriction to get the aircraft OCTA by the step, aircraft that had been cleared to enter CTA would now descend OCTA if following that VNAV profile.
I think at the end of the day, id imagine it wouldn't be feasible for there to be an option to select if the pilot had been cleared to enter CTA or remain OCTA, so therfore build the approach and code it as any other approach, and make the pilot responsible for remaining OCTA as they should .

Practically, you would brief that you must descend from at or above 3700 to 2500 by 6.5nm WI. This essentially makes the RAKSO- WI leg 6.8nm ( as you need to be at 2500ft by 6.5nm WI) rather than the 13.3nm unrestricted leg.

6.8nm x 318ft ( 318ft per nm for a 3 degree descent path) = 2162ft. This means that to fly a 3 degree descent and be established at 2500ft by the step, you can cross RAKSO at 4662ft ( 2500ft+2162ft), rather than the published 3700ft. This enables you to stay higher longer and delay your initial top of descent from cruise by a few miles.

If you indeed crossed RAKSO at 3700ft, you could level off and maintain 3700ft. 3700ft-2500ft= 1200ft to lose. 1200/318ft= 3.77nm. Therfore, your descent should begin at 10.27nm WI to fly a 3 degree descent from 3700ft to 2500ft and not clip the step at 6.5nm WI

Obviously, you could also cross RAKSO at 3700ft and descent straight away to 2500ft. Whilst this is less complicated, you are flying longer at low altitude which is less efficient and also having more conflict with training area traffic.
mmm345 is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2022, 03:18
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 454
Tossbag, different manufacturers modify the coding in order for their specific navigation system to perform in a certain way for certain aircraft. For example its widely known that Boeing and Airbus navigation systems perform vertical path generation differently depending on the aircraft being flown. All whilst utilising the original coded data from Jeppesen. Even Garmin post process the Jeppesen data for different navigation systems.

SWH, that screenshot is from the Jeppesen database, granted its an older cycle so unless it have been taken off, which I am not aware it has been, then it is accurate. How are you viewing the coded data? The procedure doesn't have to be a VNAV procedure to have the vertical path angle in the coding, hence the lack of temperature limitations.

Alpha
alphacentauri is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2022, 03:38
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2022
Location: tossbagville
Posts: 324
Thankyou Alpha.

Boeing & Airbus "in order for their specific navigation system to perform in a certain way for certain aircraft" as in, due to the different aerodynamic properties of individual airframes?
tossbag is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2022, 03:57
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 454
Tossbag, yes pretty much.

From my own experience it seems that Boeing aircraft systems seem to favour a 2.5-3 degree profile, whereas the Airbus logic is not quite as straight forward and in some cases goes towards a more dive and drive profile. This can vary based on weight, wind, and temperature. Its just the different logic used in the navigation systems.

Garmin systems being more GA focused seem to also favour a 3 degree profile. The key thing to remember here is that the system is only as smart as the information it hold. In the Bankstown case for the RAKSO-SBKWI leg there are only 2 known points that being RAKSO or SBKWI (the 6.5nm fix and the airspace boundary are unknown to the system). So starting at 3700ft at RAKSO and wanting to be 2500ft at SBKWI presents some options..
a) I can give you a 3 degree descent from 3700ft @ RAKSO to 2500ft, or
b) I can give you a 3 degree descent to 2500ft @ SBKWI from 3700ft, or
c) I can plot a constant descent from 3700ft @ RAKSO to 2500ft SBKWI which would be 1.5deg (approx)

These are pretty much the only coding options available......each nav system manufacturer may choose a different option....and each of them are valid for a specific system/aircraft. For example option a) may be suited Cessna 400 series piston aircraft allowing for deceleration. Option b) may be more suited to turboprop aircraft and option c) may be suited to jet aircraft. In all cases the start, end and minimum altitudes are honoured.
I hope this helps explain it.
Alpha
alphacentauri is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.