Established inbound on an RNAV approach
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Air
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Established inbound on an RNAV approach
Apologies if this has been discussed elsewhere but I cannot find what the requirements are to be established inbound on an RNAV approach. ICAO states
“Established” is considered to be half scale deflection for ILS or VOR, within 5 deg of an NDB track.
I cannot, however, find out what is considered "established inbound" on an RNAV approach. Any help much appreciated.
Cheers
“Established” is considered to be half scale deflection for ILS or VOR, within 5 deg of an NDB track.
I cannot, however, find out what is considered "established inbound" on an RNAV approach. Any help much appreciated.
Cheers
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Air
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Mig, do you have a reference at all?
This seems strange as TSO-C129 does not specify a CDI scale for approach mode.
Cheers
This seems strange as TSO-C129 does not specify a CDI scale for approach mode.
Cheers
Last edited by Tipo83; 19th Nov 2010 at 19:05.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Air
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yep, as does my HSI, however I don't believe this scale is mandated, so it would seem strange that a descent requirement would be based off of it.
I would have thought being established inbound would some how be related to your ANP. i.e. established inbound = full scale deflection - 1/2 your ANP.
I would have thought being established inbound would some how be related to your ANP. i.e. established inbound = full scale deflection - 1/2 your ANP.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I think software holds the answer. In as much as the IAP is coded so that a fly by of the IAF triggers the the change of scale.
That's why radar vectors to the FAF should be avoided.
Interested in your move from LNAV in the question to VNAV in a following reply. Are you interested in NPA, Baro VNAV or APV?
Sir George Cayley
That's why radar vectors to the FAF should be avoided.
Interested in your move from LNAV in the question to VNAV in a following reply. Are you interested in NPA, Baro VNAV or APV?
Sir George Cayley
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's why radar vectors to the FAF should be avoided.
IE: done automatically.
Even my old KLN89B will provide autoscaling, once inside the final approach fix, provided a bit more input is provided prior.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Air
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks all, I finally found a reference:
II-C-5-12 of the 9613 states:
"(the difference between the RNAV system computed path and the aircraft position relative to the path) should be limited to ±½ the navigation accuracy associated with the procedure (i.e. 0.5 NM for the initial and intermediate segments, 0.15 NM for the final approach segment, and 0.5 NM for the missed approach segment)."
II-C-5-12 of the 9613 states:
"(the difference between the RNAV system computed path and the aircraft position relative to the path) should be limited to ±½ the navigation accuracy associated with the procedure (i.e. 0.5 NM for the initial and intermediate segments, 0.15 NM for the final approach segment, and 0.5 NM for the missed approach segment)."
