Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Instrument Approach Using Vnav  
User currently offlinenovice From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2012, 90 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 3319 times:

From a Boeing 737-800 checklist I've been looking over under the title 'Instrument approach using VNAV' it states;

"The recommended roll modes for the final approach are:

For a VOR or NDB approach use LNAV

For a LOC, approach use VOR/LOC"

What is the difference between a VOR and a Localiser approach? as it states for a VOR approach use LNAV and for a LOC use VOR/LOC

15 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17044 posts, RR: 67
Reply 1, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 3303 times:

Quoting novice (Thread starter):
What is the difference between a VOR and a Localiser approach? as it states for a VOR approach use LNAV and for a LOC use VOR/LOC

A VOR approach uses a VOR (or more than one) for reference. A localiser approach uses the localiser component of an ILS, in other words lateral guidance but not vertical (glidepath) guidance. In a VOR approach the VOR is frequently off airport, while a localiser approach implies the localiser will lead you to the runway.

For example at Kissimmee:
- The VOR/DME-A approach uses the ORL VOR, which is at Orlando Executive 16.4 NM away. As you can see in the airport diagram, this approach will plonk you down quite offset from the runways, so there are only circling minima available. This is also evidenced by the lack of a runway number in the approach name. http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1303/05793VDA.PDF
- The "ILS or LOC RWY 15" approach is simply the ILS approach without vertical guidance, and leads you directly to runway 15. In the minima section you can see how the minimums is lower with the full ILS, and is a Decision Altitude, while with LOC only it is higher and is a Minimum Descent Altitude. http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1303/05793IL15.PDF

[Edited 2013-04-02 00:07:21]


"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlinePihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 4463 posts, RR: 76
Reply 2, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 3291 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Starlionblue:
It's a bit more complicated than that : An approach based on navaids has a defined path, for obstacle protection purposes and one has to follow that defined trajectory.
Therefore, offset and all, one is stuck to the published let-down chart.

BUT: LNAV is much more accurate than a VOR - or even more so an NDB - and , everything normal, you're still within the protected envelope of the approach.

BUT # 2 : You have to display the VOR needle and continuously crosscheck that your trajectory is within the VOR accuracy ( generally, we accept 5° ).

This system has been on the 'Bus since its EIS, worked for a long time by Airbus and their clients and have been now standard OPS for , IIRC, the past twenty years.

A last remark : the procedure demands a thorough preparation on the FMS, validation of all the remarkable aspects of the approach - in particular the fix, the descent plan, the stabilisation altitude... - and it's done in TRACK /FPA. On the other hand, execution is a lot easier than with *classic* methods.

This procedure is killing the *dive and drive* method so loved by old timers .   

Cheers



Contrail designer
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17044 posts, RR: 67
Reply 3, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 3288 times:

Thanks for expanding Pihero. I had never thought of the "defined path" in this way for VOR/NDB approaches versus an ILS/LOC. But wouldn't you need to follow such a defined path on a GPS/RNAV approach as well?

[Edited 2013-04-02 01:02:02]


"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlinePihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 4463 posts, RR: 76
Reply 4, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 3232 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 3):
. But wouldn't you need to follow such a defined path on a GPS/RNAV approach as well?

Yes, but this time the descent plane - i.e. the glide path - is part of the data base.
As you can't crosscheck the navigation with ground-based navaids - after all, it's the purpose of the GNSS - you have to validate *high accuracy* and two GPS in Nav mode..
The preparation is even more thorough : check the threshold cordinates, insert bearing / Distance to said threshold...
The PFD display looks like an ILS when you're established.



Contrail designer
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17044 posts, RR: 67
Reply 5, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 3226 times:

Thanks for info. Very interesting. Ever learning here.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 4):
The PFD display looks like an ILS when you're established.

IIRC on the G1000 there is a subtle difference. The gllideslope bug is magenta for GPS approach and green for ILS. Same same for the pilot of course.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineIAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4790 posts, RR: 22
Reply 6, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 3209 times:

A most interesting read, thanks for your expertise guys.


Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
User currently offlineKELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 6392 posts, RR: 3
Reply 7, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 3171 times:

Quoting Pihero (Reply 2):
This procedure is killing the *dive and drive* method so loved by old timers .

Even if you're using the navaids, don't modern FMS'es compute a smooth vertical descent profile to avoid the "chop and drop" methodology that us private pilots are taught?  

One of my favorite approaches for this: http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1303/00330LD21.PDF  



Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
User currently offlinePihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 4463 posts, RR: 76
Reply 8, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 3140 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 7):
Even if you're using the navaids, don't modern FMS'es compute a smooth vertical descent profile to avoid the "chop and drop" methodology that us private pilots are taught?

If the approach is in the database, yes.
Otherwise, you'd have to fly the approach using FPA , the profile gradient manually inserted. (TRK / FPA is the setting used instead of HDG / VS). Your chart for instance gives the passing altitudes at different waypoints : NURRE at 5300', YIPUE 4400', COVDU at 3500'...etc...that gives you an average 300 ft / Nm of descent, therefore a 3° glide path / a 5% ILS-like gradient. There's no * dive and drive* step.
So, in order to fly that path, you just select FPA -3° at .3 Nm from the descent point - taking the inertia of the aircraft into consideration.
WARNING : it doesn't prevent you or you PM to announce every each one of these waypoints and the passing altitude to check that you're on the right accurate trajectory.



Contrail designer
User currently offlinePihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 4463 posts, RR: 76
Reply 9, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 3136 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 5):
IIRC on the G1000 there is a subtle difference. The gllideslope bug is magenta for GPS approach and green for ILS.

Yes I believe it is now the norm : the VDEV pointer - as for *vertical deviation* is magenta.
The same bug is used when one follows a VNAV profile - like a *managed* descent.



Contrail designer
User currently offlineBarney Captain From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 966 posts, RR: 13
Reply 10, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2829 times:

Maybe I missed it in the replies, but I believe the OP was asking why the various ROLL modes were specified for the different approaches. The quick answer is accuracy. LNAV is the more accurate roll mode when on an NDB or VOR approach and VOR/LOC is the preferred roll mode when on a LOC approach.


...from the Banana Republic....
User currently offlinenovice From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2012, 90 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 2751 times:

Thanks for the reply's guys  

User currently offlineSPREE34 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 2248 posts, RR: 9
Reply 12, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 2697 times:

The scale and accuracy of the VOR and LOC signals also play into this.

The Localizer beam is fixed, and varies from 3 to 6 degres in width. It provides more accurate path guidance than a VOR course, which broadcast in 360 degrees of azimuth, with a second signal transmitted to compute the specific azimuth (radial) from the station. The equipment in the aircraft must be configured to indicate correctly depending on the NAVAID being used.



I don't understand everything I don't know about this.
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17044 posts, RR: 67
Reply 13, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 2666 times:

Is LOC really more accurate than VOR? Given a VOR receiver must be accurate to within a few degrees I'd think you can hit the thing pretty accurately. Granted, once you are very close to your target you enter the cone of confusion with a VOR, while a localizer will get you right to the runway.

Quoting SPREE34 (Reply 12):
The Localizer beam is fixed, and varies from 3 to 6 degres in width.

3-6 degrees at the end of the runway. It spreads with distance.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21643 posts, RR: 55
Reply 14, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 2617 times:

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 13):
Is LOC really more accurate than VOR?

The sensitivity of the course needle in LOC mode is far greater than it is in VOR mode, which means you can fly the approach more accurately.

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 13):
3-6 degrees at the end of the runway. It spreads with distance.

No it doesn't. The beam is always a certain number of degrees wide, no matter how far you are from the runway. The width that corresponds to in feet, however, will vary, and will increase the farther you get from the runway. So while one dot off may indicate an error of 100 feet at the threshold (for instance), the same deflection 5 miles out might put you 1500 feet off course. It's the same principle as with a VOR - the farther away you are, the more off course you will be for a certain deflection.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17044 posts, RR: 67
Reply 15, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 2555 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 14):
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 13):
Is LOC really more accurate than VOR?

The sensitivity of the course needle in LOC mode is far greater than it is in VOR mode, which means you can fly the approach more accurately.

Sorry I was unclear. Yes the course needle is. However isn't that an artifact of the instrument? That is, would it not be possible to navigate just as accurate to a VOR as to a localizer if we had an instrument with that sensitivity? Just wondering idly.

Quoting Mir (Reply 14):
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 13):
3-6 degrees at the end of the runway. It spreads with distance.

No it doesn't. The beam is always a certain number of degrees wide, no matter how far you are from the runway. The width that corresponds to in feet, however, will vary, and will increase the farther you get from the runway.

You are correct of course. I had a brainfart. I'm forgetting how angles work. Is this what old age feels like AAAAH!



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Instrument Approach Using Vnav
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Climb Procedures If Not Using Vnav? posted Wed Mar 25 2009 19:02:12 by Rolypolyman
Instrument Approach Waypoints posted Sun Mar 9 2003 16:58:52 by Woodreau
Kai Tak Approach Lights posted Tue Mar 26 2013 21:35:10 by vikkyvik
SDU 02R Approach posted Mon Feb 18 2013 14:07:10 by modesto2
727 Approach And Keeping The Engines Spooled Up posted Sat Feb 9 2013 07:02:16 by smartt1982
EK 211/212 Using 77L posted Fri Jan 11 2013 01:35:40 by flyenthu
"Air Canada Too Low On Approach" In NYC posted Thu Dec 13 2012 22:20:58 by YYZatcboy
Question About Approach Speeds. posted Fri Nov 16 2012 13:05:51 by CDreier
Headwinds On Approach And Landing posted Sun Oct 28 2012 12:59:22 by LU9092
The Intermediate Approach posted Tue Oct 23 2012 11:44:00 by Novice

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format