RNAV initial offset onto ILS
Thread Starter
RNAV initial offset onto ILS
Can anybody point me to an ILS approach that has an offset initial RNAV segment? I am not looking for an RNAV STAR onto ILS, I'm specifically looking for instances where the RNAV segment is part of the approach. Does such a thing exist?
Thanks in advance
Thanks in advance
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: engineer at large
Posts: 1,409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK,
I dont think that qualifies as RNAV to ILS, it is simply a Point in Space Navigation, with a vector to the ILS capture.
There have been a few trails looking at this. The issue tends to be the terminator for the procedure in the coding. We have been looking at RNP transitions to an ILS final for sometime, but the transition to capture tends to be more abrupt than acceptable.
According to Airbus, they were successful in a trial, once, but have not seen or heard of any use.
I dont think that qualifies as RNAV to ILS, it is simply a Point in Space Navigation, with a vector to the ILS capture.
There have been a few trails looking at this. The issue tends to be the terminator for the procedure in the coding. We have been looking at RNP transitions to an ILS final for sometime, but the transition to capture tends to be more abrupt than acceptable.
According to Airbus, they were successful in a trial, once, but have not seen or heard of any use.
Last edited by FlightPathOBN; 21st May 2013 at 17:59.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: engineer at large
Posts: 1,409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was wondering about this one...it was the original test procedure started by AVN/AFS back in 2004, didnt realize it went live...would really like to see the coding...especially the IAF, if it is coded as the IAF or PiN..
Interesting to see the result after 9 years...
Looks like they end the procedure at 8700, with 2.7 miles to intercept at 8000
Thanks for finding that...
Interesting to see the result after 9 years...
Looks like they end the procedure at 8700, with 2.7 miles to intercept at 8000
Thanks for finding that...
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: 59°45'36N 10°27'59E
Posts: 1,032
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: engineer at large
Posts: 1,409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
M609,
Sorry, but I am gonna have to cry BS on that procedure, even with a flyby waypoint at VABSO...
Curious charting...the MAPt is fixed at DME 1, and CAT IIIB approved??
Sorry, but I am gonna have to cry BS on that procedure, even with a flyby waypoint at VABSO...
Curious charting...the MAPt is fixed at DME 1, and CAT IIIB approved??
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: 59°45'36N 10°27'59E
Posts: 1,032
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well FPObn, it's used every day without problems.
And do study the chart more closely before you comment next time.
Oslo have used RNAV from IAF since april 2011 to all runways, with a tweak to the linked style since april this year.
We vector less and less aircraft for final, IAF is "fed" from a PRNAV point merge system on each side.
ENGM aip page
And do study the chart more closely before you comment next time.
Oslo have used RNAV from IAF since april 2011 to all runways, with a tweak to the linked style since april this year.
We vector less and less aircraft for final, IAF is "fed" from a PRNAV point merge system on each side.
ENGM aip page
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: engineer at large
Posts: 1,409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MAPt-A pilot must execute a missed approach if a required visual reference is not in sight upon reaching the MAP.
Last edited by FlightPathOBN; 22nd May 2013 at 15:47.
Thread Starter
Thanks for the response guys, that what I was looking for.
We are investigating inplementing an RNAV to ILS solution for an aerodrome here in Australia. We can't find anything that indicates it can't be done, but there isn't alot of guidance out there on how to do it.
Like FPOBN, I would be interested to see how it is coded and any issues in the mode change from RNAV to ILS. For example is the mode change prior to LOC intercept or do you bring them on the final approach track under RNAV and then do the mode change.
From the plates shown above I am going to assume the Norway plates are PANS-OPS and the Jackson Hole plate is TERPS? I notice the TERPS plate doesn't give much of a level segment to intercept the GP. PANS-OPS requires 2nm, what does TERPS require?
I had been told this type of procedure is also utilised at some locations in Asia, anybody know where?
Again thanks for the responses, very helpful
We are investigating inplementing an RNAV to ILS solution for an aerodrome here in Australia. We can't find anything that indicates it can't be done, but there isn't alot of guidance out there on how to do it.
Like FPOBN, I would be interested to see how it is coded and any issues in the mode change from RNAV to ILS. For example is the mode change prior to LOC intercept or do you bring them on the final approach track under RNAV and then do the mode change.
From the plates shown above I am going to assume the Norway plates are PANS-OPS and the Jackson Hole plate is TERPS? I notice the TERPS plate doesn't give much of a level segment to intercept the GP. PANS-OPS requires 2nm, what does TERPS require?
I had been told this type of procedure is also utilised at some locations in Asia, anybody know where?
Again thanks for the responses, very helpful
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: engineer at large
Posts: 1,409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
alpha,
If you are in AUS, then you know that this has been thought of.
It really does come down to a coding issue, and then switching modes.
The RNP procedures have a 250 min HAT, while the ILS is 200, so we were trying to get the lower DA and go precision. You have to think about setting up the RNP or the RNAV in the box, then disco over to the ILS approach.
The box doesnt like to terminate that way, especially when it understands and sets up when encountering the IF coded waypoint and then starts looking for a coded FAF.
If you are in AUS, then you know that this has been thought of.
It really does come down to a coding issue, and then switching modes.
The RNP procedures have a 250 min HAT, while the ILS is 200, so we were trying to get the lower DA and go precision. You have to think about setting up the RNP or the RNAV in the box, then disco over to the ILS approach.
The box doesnt like to terminate that way, especially when it understands and sets up when encountering the IF coded waypoint and then starts looking for a coded FAF.
Last edited by FlightPathOBN; 21st May 2013 at 22:37.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 889
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MAPt-A pilot must execute a missed approach if a required visual reference is not in sight upon reaching the MAP.
Interesting thread, please keep it going guys.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 487
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
alphacentauri
The mode change methods may vary from one type of equipment to the next.
Many avionics have an automatic "nav-to-nav" transfer capability, but that functionality is not strictly specified by AC 90-108, paragraph 10.
In the case of the JAC ILS, the WOMRU waypoint is on the centerline of the LOC and the course change at WOMRU is less than 20-degrees, so there should be no problem with intercepting the LOC, even without automatic nav-to-nav transfer -- or even without a Flight Director <gasp!>. 
Obviously, the Final Segment is flown by reference to the LOC and GS.
Please remain mindful that this procedure can be flown by any IFR-rated pilot. The airplane doesn't have to be built by Boeing or Airbus... it doesn't even have to be a transport category aircraft. A light single engine airplane equipped with an IFR GPS and an ILS receiver would be eligible.
Hope this clarifies a bit -- it's not necessary to "over-think" and make the procedure more complex than it actually is.
any issues in the mode change from RNAV to ILS. For example is the mode change prior to LOC intercept or do you bring them on the final approach track under RNAV and then do the mode change.
Many avionics have an automatic "nav-to-nav" transfer capability, but that functionality is not strictly specified by AC 90-108, paragraph 10.
10. SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS TO FLY RNAV SEGMENTS PUBLISHED ON ILS PROCEDURES. In order to fly RNAV transitions to an ILS final approach or RNAV missed approach segments of an ILS procedure, pilots must comply with the operating requirements of this AC. RNAV systems used for this type of operation must allow for a means to become established on the ILS final approach course with minimal overshoot or undershoot.
Obviously, the Final Segment is flown by reference to the LOC and GS.Please remain mindful that this procedure can be flown by any IFR-rated pilot. The airplane doesn't have to be built by Boeing or Airbus... it doesn't even have to be a transport category aircraft. A light single engine airplane equipped with an IFR GPS and an ILS receiver would be eligible.
Hope this clarifies a bit -- it's not necessary to "over-think" and make the procedure more complex than it actually is.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: engineer at large
Posts: 1,409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The MAPt is for LOC approaches...
and the LOC minima is 970....
this is exactly why we dont fix a MAPt.
Yes, the JAC transition both horizontal/vertical at 2.7nm can be hand flown...
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 889
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Following alphacentauri's post, the timing of the mode change is actually a minor issue for aircraft I fly. All the approaches listed above look quite easy to fly (much like YSCB Rwy 35 off the Bungo 9 STAR for that matter), but we cannot identify LOC or DME beacons until after the RNAV display has been removed from the HSI.
So the mode change on an RNAV - ILS approach involves about 30 seconds of manual flying, or HDG-VS modes, as we turn onto the approach. A stick-and-rudder non-event, certainly, but the pilots must think ahead to manage navaids as we turn onto the ILS, given that other things will also be happening at that time. With more modern aircraft, it would go from "takes thought, but no big deal" to "do nothing".
You obviously don't work for my employer...
OBN, you're embarrassing yourself with this talk about MAPts and LOC approaches. Slide your seat back a couple of notches and relax!
So the mode change on an RNAV - ILS approach involves about 30 seconds of manual flying, or HDG-VS modes, as we turn onto the approach. A stick-and-rudder non-event, certainly, but the pilots must think ahead to manage navaids as we turn onto the ILS, given that other things will also be happening at that time. With more modern aircraft, it would go from "takes thought, but no big deal" to "do nothing".
it's not necessary to "over-think" and make the procedure more complex than it actually is
OBN, you're embarrassing yourself with this talk about MAPts and LOC approaches. Slide your seat back a couple of notches and relax!
Last edited by Oktas8; 22nd May 2013 at 04:02.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Europe
Posts: 716
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@FlightPathOBN: As you can see, the chart is for ILS or LOC.
The ILS has a DA/DH. The LOC has a MAPt and an MDA. There is nothing counterintuitive about this.
Most operators are required to fly CDFA these days, so a strip with DME-Distance and altitudes is produced for reference. This would result in going around at the MAPt from 990', which is correct for a 3 degree glide to the runway.
If you are not required to fly CDFA, you may very well use non-CDFA ("Dive and Drive"), and descend to 970' once inside D4.0.
The fact that MAPts do not always coincide with MDAs for CDFA-type approaches is well known. Mostly it's by a significantly bigger amount than in this example.
Some might find that to be quite offensive.
The ILS has a DA/DH. The LOC has a MAPt and an MDA. There is nothing counterintuitive about this.
Most operators are required to fly CDFA these days, so a strip with DME-Distance and altitudes is produced for reference. This would result in going around at the MAPt from 990', which is correct for a 3 degree glide to the runway.
If you are not required to fly CDFA, you may very well use non-CDFA ("Dive and Drive"), and descend to 970' once inside D4.0.
The fact that MAPts do not always coincide with MDAs for CDFA-type approaches is well known. Mostly it's by a significantly bigger amount than in this example.
Ahhh....these 3rd World Country charts....
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: engineer at large
Posts: 1,409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ok ...(I removed the comment)
as noted, the timeframe for the system (the 30 or so seconds) made it difficult from a human factors perspective, and others (especially the RNAV purists) to set the waypoints, etc
In the US, there is the 8260.54A which specifies criteria for obstacle clearance evaluation of area navigation (RNAV) approach procedures; e.g., Localizer Performance with Vertical Guidance (LPV), Lateral Navigation (LNAV), Lateral Navigation/Vertical Navigation (LNAV/VNAV), and Localizer Performance (LP).
These criteria support adding an instrument landing system (ILS) line of minimums to an RNAV (GPS) approach procedure using LPV construction criteria at runways served by instrument landing system.
This may be of some help in the criteria and calculations behind this. ( I am not sure where .54 is with its use in the US)
In appears that the military has been using the RNAV to ILS for some time...
+RWY+23R/png/1)
as noted, the timeframe for the system (the 30 or so seconds) made it difficult from a human factors perspective, and others (especially the RNAV purists) to set the waypoints, etc
In the US, there is the 8260.54A which specifies criteria for obstacle clearance evaluation of area navigation (RNAV) approach procedures; e.g., Localizer Performance with Vertical Guidance (LPV), Lateral Navigation (LNAV), Lateral Navigation/Vertical Navigation (LNAV/VNAV), and Localizer Performance (LP).
These criteria support adding an instrument landing system (ILS) line of minimums to an RNAV (GPS) approach procedure using LPV construction criteria at runways served by instrument landing system.
This may be of some help in the criteria and calculations behind this. ( I am not sure where .54 is with its use in the US)
In appears that the military has been using the RNAV to ILS for some time...
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Not far from the edge of the Milky Way Galaxy in the Orion Arm.
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The box doesnt like to terminate that way, especially when it understands and sets up when encountering the IF coded waypoint and then starts looking for a coded FAF
but does not the pressing of the ILS pb (after tuning and id`ing ILS and setting up hdg for the runway) disable the RNAV?
(eons later) - so has everyone finished with this thread then . . .?
It seems a tad inconclusive to me - or have I missed a fundemental point . . ?
To jump the next response . . . could you not hard tune an ILS on the RMP and . . .
Could you not force tune the ILS on the RAD page, then hit the ILS pb . . . hopefully flashing . . .and recycle app pb?
Last edited by Natstrackalpha; 11th Jul 2013 at 23:07.
