JFK 22R/L Approach Question

paulygoogs · Sat Jan 14, 2023 4:24 pm

I am wondering why if you are coming from the west or north you have to do the long loop to get to JFK RW 22L/ R.

Yesterday I flew (passenger) from San Diego to KJFK. We approached JFK at 15,000 ft from the northwest, continued down the Jersey shore for 20 miles. headed east over the Atlantic, turned north over the Nassau County/Suffolk County border (south shore of Long Island. Flew 15 miles north to the north shore of Long Island, turned left and proceeded to ROSLY (which is in Roslyn Long Island) where we finally intercepted the 22L approach. That loop to 38 minutes!!

I know we have traffic from KTEB,KLGA KEWR and Westchester, but can't ATC create a slot/corridor for north and east arrivals to intercept Rosly drect from the north at 2000 ft and save each plane a 1/2 hour ride. I know ATC uses the water off NJ/LI to gather the planes in a file and send them on a loop, but maybe use 22R for north/ and west arrivals and 22R for south and east arrivals??

Any clue what this is??

DualQual · Sat Jan 14, 2023 7:46 pm

It’s NYC airspace. You said it yourself. There’s traffic to LGA, EWR, and HPN. Additionally you have arrival and departure routings to work around from each of those airports in addition to VFR and IFR routes through that area running up and down the coast. You do the loop from the west even for the 13s and the 4s. That’s just where the space is to be able to get you down and vectored.

bluecrew · Sat Jan 14, 2023 7:50 pm

Oh man! I'm so glad I found this one.

The FAA made a little Flash program a few years ago so you could simulate all the flows in and out of NYC. You can throw up the runway configs in use and it will show you all the flows in and out of the TRACON.

It's a little out of date but still very accurate.

https://tfmlearning.faa.gov/media/NY_Ai ... ce_Pkg.zip

The only stuff it's missing is some of the satellite field traffic, but it gives you a really good familiarization with the airspace.

paulygoogs · Sun Jan 15, 2023 5:01 pm

I still say, I can plan a better route into KJFK 22's more direct. You have so much space over Long Island Sound and Conn. to line the planes up away from KLGA, KEWR and KISP. Think about the extra 1/2 hour x 1000 planes x 365 days. The fuel saving along will be astronomical. Somew how, you can hit Roslyn directly from the north at 2000 and shoot you right into22L/R. Rather than flying a decending 1/2 hour loop over the Ocean. For 4L/R and 31's you have to swing around anyways so I get it.

DualQual · Sun Jan 15, 2023 5:31 pm

paulygoogs wrote:
I still say, I can plan a better route into KJFK 22's more direct. You have so much space over Long Island Sound and Conn. to line the planes up away from KLGA, KEWR and KISP. Think about the extra 1/2 hour x 1000 planes x 365 days. The fuel saving along will be astronomical. Somew how, you can hit Roslyn directly from the north at 2000 and shoot you right into22L/R. Rather than flying a decending 1/2 hour loop over the Ocean. For 4L/R and 31's you have to swing around anyways so I get it.

Again, you don’t have the space you purport to think you have. Look at a map. LGA isn’t far away and has the same directional runways as JFK. How is your flow into JFK for 22 not going to conflict with LGA which is probably also using 22. Or if LGA is departing 13? If it could be done it would be. You also need to consider what you do with traffic from the west when you need to delay them a bit to sequence in with arrivals from the north, east, and south that are also heading for 22. Where can you put that traffic that isn’t going to create a problem for LGA, EWR, TEB, and HPN traffic?

bluecrew · Sun Jan 15, 2023 7:00 pm

paulygoogs wrote:
I still say, I can plan a better route into KJFK 22's more direct. You have so much space over Long Island Sound and Conn. to line the planes up away from KLGA, KEWR and KISP. Think about the extra 1/2 hour x 1000 planes x 365 days. The fuel saving along will be astronomical. Somew how, you can hit Roslyn directly from the north at 2000 and shoot you right into22L/R. Rather than flying a decending 1/2 hour loop over the Ocean. For 4L/R and 31's you have to swing around anyways so I get it.

Did you look at the FAA application?

It will allow you to pull up the LGA and JFK video maps. Once you do that and select 2 flows, you will see why it's not that simple. Departure airspace needs to be protected, the arrivals and vectors are all very pre-defined tracks at certain altitudes designed to keep the airspace deconflicted.

In this particular case, I guess you'd want JFK arrivals not to pass over LGA? They can't just descend down Long Island Sound, they don't own all of that airspace, and you would be descending through your departures over GREKI/MERIT. Earlier descent, same path as now, would run into all the LGA and JFK departures westbound.

If you look at the tool, you'll see what I mean. Either way, none of this stuff is going to change, the FAA is supposed to metroplex NYC some time this year according to rumors. Ideally, all the complicated N90 procedures are going to turn into RNAV ODP STARs.

GalaxyFlyer · Sun Jan 15, 2023 7:01 pm

Not to mention all the traffic over CT airports—KHVN, KBDR, KBDL and the KHPN traffic. It looks like a lot of airspace, but really is very crowded.

leader1 · Sun Jan 15, 2023 8:19 pm

All JFK-bound flights coming in from the north or west have to fly over the NYC metro area at 15,000+ feet to avoid LGA and EWR airspace. Doesn’t matter what the arrival runway is. Also, they don’t often go as far south as central NJ. That only depends on the arrival traffic volume and how far south they need to go to be vectored to join the final approach flow. Often, flights will make a turn just south of the Rockaways.

I have a map of the NYC area airspace boundaries. I don’t know how to upload it on here, but it shows just how tight they are. LGA and JFK are very close to each other and affect each other’s flight patterns. In this example, LGA has to change their takeoff patterns when JFK is using both 22s for landings because they intersect LGA’s airspace. And they try to avoid using that departure procedure because of noise complaints.

bluecrew wrote:
Did you look at the FAA application?

Can’t get it to work on my iPad. It just downloaded a zip file.

paulygoogs wrote:
I still say, I can plan a better route into KJFK 22's more direct. You have so much space over Long Island Sound and Conn. to line the planes up away from KLGA, KEWR and KISP. Think about the extra 1/2 hour x 1000 planes x 365 days. The fuel saving along will be astronomical. Somew how, you can hit Roslyn directly from the north at 2000 and shoot you right into22L/R. Rather than flying a decending 1/2 hour loop over the Ocean. For 4L/R and 31's you have to swing around anyways so I get it.

This has been suggested before. It was rejected because it would have impacted LGA’s airspace, which would change because of changes in JFK arrival altitudes if they’re coming over the LI Sound. I think they’re currently limited to less than 3,000 feet (someone correct me if I’m wrong). It also would have increased controller workload. There’s already a staff shortage in controllers at JFK/N90. And you’d have to add an additional JFK arrival fix. From what I recall, the airport uses three now.

bluecrew · Sun Jan 15, 2023 8:33 pm

leader1 wrote:
bluecrew wrote:
Did you look at the FAA application?

Can’t get it to work on my iPad. It just downloaded a zip file.

Yeah, it needs a PC, and it's a bit dated but works just fine on my Win10 machine.

It allows you to select flows in and out of each airport, and disallows selection of conflicting flows.

Solid line arrivals, dotted departures. JFK 13L/13R flow depicted in red, LGA 22/31 flow depicted in yellow. Leaving aside any of the airspace changes or configs JFK forces LGA into if they go into 22L/R ILS, as you can see, there's really not a lot of space up over the sound, and there's a good chunk of traffic in the way as well.

VOR 22's vs. LGA 22/31 config - you can really see here how the offset course makes a difference so they don't have to take the Belmont airspace, and LGA's flow is largely unimpeded. Also, note the departure flow, and the LGA ILS 22 final - if it were down the sound and straight in to JFK, there's a lot of stuff in the way.

IAHFLYR · Sun Jan 15, 2023 9:34 pm

paulygoogs wrote:
I still say, I can plan a better route into KJFK 22's more direct. You have so much space over Long Island Sound and Conn. to line the planes up away from KLGA, KEWR and KISP. Think about the extra 1/2 hour x 1000 planes x 365 days. The fuel saving along will be astronomical. Somew how, you can hit Roslyn directly from the north at 2000 and shoot you right into22L/R. Rather than flying a decending 1/2 hour loop over the Ocean. For 4L/R and 31's you have to swing around anyways so I get it.

I think you should apply for work with https://www.vianair.com/vianairconsulting/, https://www.vianair.com/vianairconsulting/ or the FAA and show them all how to fix the situation as you see it. And then don't forget to deal with all the Environmental issues involved with your suggestions plus NIMBY things.

There are other pieces of airspace that have similar issues due to airports, environmental issues etc., that don't often provide the most efficient routings on the surface. As someone who worked Houston TRACON for many many years I will say the close proximity of IAH and HOU create arrival/departure route issues and the situation is nothing close to what N90 deals with. Example, HOU landing Runway 22 all arrivals except from the southeast end up on a south downwind, yes even those from the northeast arrival as there is no north downwind due to conflicts with IAH when IAH is landing 26L/R/27, there would be issues within the final controllers airspace for both IAH and HOU, never mind all the eastbound departures from IAH would have no way to get out other than head westbound then southbound and finally back east. Just one example of conflicting airspace and I won't even get into noise issues.

As others have noted, it's not an easy solution, though RNAV ODP's STARS will give a bit of relief when implemented.

ArcticFlyer · Tue Jan 17, 2023 3:08 am

paulygoogs wrote:
I still say, I can plan a better route into KJFK 22's more direct. You have so much space over Long Island Sound and Conn. to line the planes up away from KLGA, KEWR and KISP. Think about the extra 1/2 hour x 1000 planes x 365 days. The fuel saving along will be astronomical. Somew how, you can hit Roslyn directly from the north at 2000 and shoot you right into22L/R. Rather than flying a decending 1/2 hour loop over the Ocean. For 4L/R and 31's you have to swing around anyways so I get it.

The problem with NYC is that everything affects everything else. I fly into EWR regularly and am forced to descend to 7,000 over 35 miles west of the airport (WAY earlier than normally necessary) in order to get beneath traffic to/from LGA and probably JFK, and am then usually taken on a long vector ride. This results in a lot of extra fuel consumption as well, but there's only so much sky to work with and during the busy hours the sky over NYC is, quite simply, full given current separation requirements and ATC limitations. If NY were to adopt RNAV SIDs/STARs like DC has that might help, but with the system we have today any change to improve efficiency to/from one airport will detrimentally affect the others.

BowlingShoeDC9 · Tue Jan 17, 2023 2:50 pm

ArcticFlyer wrote:
paulygoogs wrote:
I still say, I can plan a better route into KJFK 22's more direct. You have so much space over Long Island Sound and Conn. to line the planes up away from KLGA, KEWR and KISP. Think about the extra 1/2 hour x 1000 planes x 365 days. The fuel saving along will be astronomical. Somew how, you can hit Roslyn directly from the north at 2000 and shoot you right into22L/R. Rather than flying a decending 1/2 hour loop over the Ocean. For 4L/R and 31's you have to swing around anyways so I get it.

The problem with NYC is that everything affects everything else. I fly into EWR regularly and am forced to descend to 7,000 over 35 miles west of the airport (WAY earlier than normally necessary) in order to get beneath traffic to/from LGA and probably JFK, and am then usually taken on a long vector ride. This results in a lot of extra fuel consumption as well, but there's only so much sky to work with and during the busy hours the sky over NYC is, quite simply, full given current separation requirements and ATC limitations. If NY were to adopt RNAV SIDs/STARs like DC has that might help, but with the system we have today any change to improve efficiency to/from one airport will detrimentally affect the others.

This is probably a stupid question to people with flying experience, but whats the difference between an RNAV and non-RNAV STAR in terms of how its flown? Do pilots still use LNAV (or whatever the equivalent term is for their aircraft) when flying it? If so why does that make a difference in congestion?

AirKevin · Tue Jan 17, 2023 4:07 pm

BowlingShoeDC9 wrote:
ArcticFlyer wrote:
paulygoogs wrote:
I still say, I can plan a better route into KJFK 22's more direct. You have so much space over Long Island Sound and Conn. to line the planes up away from KLGA, KEWR and KISP. Think about the extra 1/2 hour x 1000 planes x 365 days. The fuel saving along will be astronomical. Somew how, you can hit Roslyn directly from the north at 2000 and shoot you right into22L/R. Rather than flying a decending 1/2 hour loop over the Ocean. For 4L/R and 31's you have to swing around anyways so I get it.

The problem with NYC is that everything affects everything else. I fly into EWR regularly and am forced to descend to 7,000 over 35 miles west of the airport (WAY earlier than normally necessary) in order to get beneath traffic to/from LGA and probably JFK, and am then usually taken on a long vector ride. This results in a lot of extra fuel consumption as well, but there's only so much sky to work with and during the busy hours the sky over NYC is, quite simply, full given current separation requirements and ATC limitations. If NY were to adopt RNAV SIDs/STARs like DC has that might help, but with the system we have today any change to improve efficiency to/from one airport will detrimentally affect the others.

This is probably a stupid question to people with flying experience, but whats the difference between an RNAV and non-RNAV STAR in terms of how its flown? Do pilots still use LNAV (or whatever the equivalent term is for their aircraft) when flying it? If so why does that make a difference in congestion?

In the case of JFK arrivals, the end of the STAR is radar vectors to final. From what I have seen, an RNAV STAR would get you all the way to the final approach fix.

bluecrew · Tue Jan 17, 2023 4:15 pm

AirKevin wrote:
BowlingShoeDC9 wrote:
ArcticFlyer wrote:
The problem with NYC is that everything affects everything else. I fly into EWR regularly and am forced to descend to 7,000 over 35 miles west of the airport (WAY earlier than normally necessary) in order to get beneath traffic to/from LGA and probably JFK, and am then usually taken on a long vector ride. This results in a lot of extra fuel consumption as well, but there's only so much sky to work with and during the busy hours the sky over NYC is, quite simply, full given current separation requirements and ATC limitations. If NY were to adopt RNAV SIDs/STARs like DC has that might help, but with the system we have today any change to improve efficiency to/from one airport will detrimentally affect the others.

This is probably a stupid question to people with flying experience, but whats the difference between an RNAV and non-RNAV STAR in terms of how its flown? Do pilots still use LNAV (or whatever the equivalent term is for their aircraft) when flying it? If so why does that make a difference in congestion?

In the case of JFK arrivals, the end of the STAR is radar vectors to final. From what I have seen, an RNAV STAR would get you all the way to the final approach fix.

Unlikely except maybe at LGA. It already does that though for the ILS 4.

Generally speaking the key difference between a conventional STAR and an RNAV ODP STAR is that the ODP is designed specifically around airspace constraints and to provide a smooth, constant descent. An RNAV STAR just requires RNAV to fly it - an ODP STAR prescribes, generally, a lot more specific lateral and vertical guidance to try to streamline and standardize the flow into an airport. The general idea as formulated in the early 2010s was to reduce noise by keeping aircraft higher for longer, and by making it one continuous descent from cruise to approach, reduce gas usage. ICAO calls it a Continuous Descent Operation.

I would find it very unlikely it would be an arrival all the way to the IAF for JFK, more likely that, for 22L for example, it would swing you over the bay, back north, and dump you in the finals box at 2000' heading northeast, for the finals controller to work you into the sequence. Possibly the current PARCH arrivals would be routed to the IAF for 31L/R or 22L/R.

They've pulled off the metroplexing in DFW, MIA, DTW, BOS, MIA/FLL, PDX, MSP... many others. N90 is no doubt the biggest project in the NAS for this, there's so much to deconflict.

GalaxyFlyer · Tue Jan 17, 2023 4:15 pm

RNAV is Random Navigation (RNAV) meaning the tracks do not have to fly over or be based on ground NAVAIDS, VOR or VOR/DME. RNAV is inherently more customizable and, if GPS-based, more accurate. The track tolerances are linear, rather than splays as VOR tracks are.

GalaxyFlyer · Tue Jan 17, 2023 4:22 pm

STAR with a transition to the IAF or FAF is more common in Europe, often it’s flown that way. Also, why places like LFPG or UUWW have a dozen STARs with each having 4 or 5 transitions to each of 4 or more runways. Nothing like trying to decipher what Moscow wants after an overnight leg adding in QFE operations.

To clarify, LFPG (CDG) has 23 STARs (RNAV) and 53 RNAV SIDS! Most of which end at the IAF. UUWW has 12 STARs and 19 SIDS. Bless their hearts, they’ve converted to QNH.

Starlionblue · Tue Jan 17, 2023 4:33 pm

BowlingShoeDC9 wrote:
ArcticFlyer wrote:
paulygoogs wrote:
I still say, I can plan a better route into KJFK 22's more direct. You have so much space over Long Island Sound and Conn. to line the planes up away from KLGA, KEWR and KISP. Think about the extra 1/2 hour x 1000 planes x 365 days. The fuel saving along will be astronomical. Somew how, you can hit Roslyn directly from the north at 2000 and shoot you right into22L/R. Rather than flying a decending 1/2 hour loop over the Ocean. For 4L/R and 31's you have to swing around anyways so I get it.

The problem with NYC is that everything affects everything else. I fly into EWR regularly and am forced to descend to 7,000 over 35 miles west of the airport (WAY earlier than normally necessary) in order to get beneath traffic to/from LGA and probably JFK, and am then usually taken on a long vector ride. This results in a lot of extra fuel consumption as well, but there's only so much sky to work with and during the busy hours the sky over NYC is, quite simply, full given current separation requirements and ATC limitations. If NY were to adopt RNAV SIDs/STARs like DC has that might help, but with the system we have today any change to improve efficiency to/from one airport will detrimentally affect the others.

This is probably a stupid question to people with flying experience, but whats the difference between an RNAV and non-RNAV STAR in terms of how its flown? Do pilots still use LNAV (or whatever the equivalent term is for their aircraft) when flying it? If so why does that make a difference in congestion?

RNAV STARs, as mentioned, are not navaid dependent, so you need to ensure accurate tracking under those conditions. In practice, if everything is working, it's all one and the same to the pilots.

LNAV (NAV in Airbus-speak) is used either way, as long as the track is programmed in the FM.

As GalaxyFlyer mentions, RNAV procedures are more customisable, since they don't depend on ground-based navaids. So they can be designed to be more efficient in terms of tracks and so on.

bluecrew · Tue Jan 17, 2023 4:53 pm

Yeah, we don't really do that in the US. We do stuff like this:

RNAV runway dependent, drops into the final box - ex: CUUDA2 to FLL:
https://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/2213/00744CUUDA.PDF
https://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/2213/00744CUUDA_C.PDF
Arrival gives you a profile descent into approach airspace, descends you further. Center gives the runway transition.

Entire STAR is runway-dependent, you either file it or ATC assigns it enroute, you still get a descend via, but sometimes it is not runway dependent.
Two examples of this, at DFW there are north and south STARs. At Atlanta there are east and west STARs, but the STARs all have runway transition assignments.
ATL: HOBTT2 vs GNDLF2
DFW: SEEVR4 vs BRDJE3

Unlike ICAO, the procedure names all stay the same. Generally speaking, the STAR that puts you right at the initial approach fix is rare, it usually puts you on a vector towards the localizer, or on a downwind. Occasionally, like ATL, it will be runway dependent right on to the ILS, and then they can shoot their arrival gaps with the aircraft on the downwind.

These are *much* easier to see and understand in the Jepp charts, or with Foreflight. NYC won't buck the trend.

ArcticFlyer · Tue Jan 17, 2023 5:06 pm

Starlionblue wrote:
As GalaxyFlyer mentions, RNAV procedures are more customisable, since they don't depend on ground-based navaids. So they can be designed to be more efficient in terms of tracks and so on.

That's exactly the point. In NYC with 3 major airports (and several minor ones) in close proximity RNAV SIDs and STARs would help to better separate the flows to/from each airport even if the STARs end in vectors to final. A big advantage to RNAV STARs is the ability to use vertical constraints as well which helps aircraft to fly a more efficient descent path and, at least in theory, could allow different arrivals to cross over/under one another.

Check out the TRUPS 4 arrival into DCA for a good example of this. When I was based there we flew it without the assistance of VNAV.

IAHFLYR · Tue Jan 17, 2023 5:44 pm

bluecrew wrote:
Occasionally, like ATL, it will be runway dependent right on to the ILS, and then they can shoot their arrival gaps with the aircraft on the downwind.

IAH has some great examples of this as well to the short side arrivals.

LINK ONE Arrival with RDFSH transition right onto the ILS or RNAV RWY 27 (either RNAV Y or Z) and a GARRR transition onto the ILS or RNAV RWY 26L (either RNAV Y or Z).

Also IAH connects on the long side STARS to RNAV (RNP) Y approaches to RWY 8L, 9, 26R and 27 depending on the arrival assigned. IAH was pretty creative and aggressive with their metroplex construction and also provides dual arrivals on almost if not all cornerspost arrivals.......and then you fit HOU into the mix with their arrivals though none connect to RNP approaches. Have a look, https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/flight_ ... iah&page=1

DRLLR FIVE Arrival with runway transitions of SKLER for 26R and PRAYY for 27.

BowlingShoeDC9 · Wed Jan 18, 2023 10:58 pm

Thank y’all for the explanation of RNAV vs non-Rnav STARS!

23463245613 · Thu Jan 19, 2023 4:30 pm

bluecrew wrote:
AirKevin wrote:
BowlingShoeDC9 wrote:
This is probably a stupid question to people with flying experience, but whats the difference between an RNAV and non-RNAV STAR in terms of how its flown? Do pilots still use LNAV (or whatever the equivalent term is for their aircraft) when flying it? If so why does that make a difference in congestion?

In the case of JFK arrivals, the end of the STAR is radar vectors to final. From what I have seen, an RNAV STAR would get you all the way to the final approach fix.

Unlikely except maybe at LGA. It already does that though for the ILS 4.

Generally speaking the key difference between a conventional STAR and an RNAV ODP STAR is that the ODP is designed specifically around airspace constraints and to provide a smooth, constant descent. An RNAV STAR just requires RNAV to fly it - an ODP STAR prescribes, generally, a lot more specific lateral and vertical guidance to try to streamline and standardize the flow into an airport. The general idea as formulated in the early 2010s was to reduce noise by keeping aircraft higher for longer, and by making it one continuous descent from cruise to approach, reduce gas usage. ICAO calls it a Continuous Descent Operation.

I would find it very unlikely it would be an arrival all the way to the IAF for JFK, more likely that, for 22L for example, it would swing you over the bay, back north, and dump you in the finals box at 2000' heading northeast, for the finals controller to work you into the sequence. Possibly the current PARCH arrivals would be routed to the IAF for 31L/R or 22L/R.

They've pulled off the metroplexing in DFW, MIA, DTW, BOS, MIA/FLL, PDX, MSP... many others. N90 is no doubt the biggest project in the NAS for this, there's so much to deconflict.

As an aside, last I heard there is no plan to metroplex NYC. It was cancelled in I want to say 2013, and reevaluated and again remained dormant in 2020.

MrPepeLepeu · Sat Feb 18, 2023 3:24 pm

bluecrew wrote:
AirKevin wrote:
BowlingShoeDC9 wrote:
This is probably a stupid question to people with flying experience, but whats the difference between an RNAV and non-RNAV STAR in terms of how its flown? Do pilots still use LNAV (or whatever the equivalent term is for their aircraft) when flying it? If so why does that make a difference in congestion?

In the case of JFK arrivals, the end of the STAR is radar vectors to final. From what I have seen, an RNAV STAR would get you all the way to the final approach fix.

Unlikely except maybe at LGA. It already does that though for the ILS 4.

Generally speaking the key difference between a conventional STAR and an RNAV ODP STAR is that the ODP is designed specifically around airspace constraints and to provide a smooth, constant descent. An RNAV STAR just requires RNAV to fly it - an ODP STAR prescribes, generally, a lot more specific lateral and vertical guidance to try to streamline and standardize the flow into an airport. The general idea as formulated in the early 2010s was to reduce noise by keeping aircraft higher for longer, and by making it one continuous descent from cruise to approach, reduce gas usage. ICAO calls it a Continuous Descent Operation.

I would find it very unlikely it would be an arrival all the way to the IAF for JFK, more likely that, for 22L for example, it would swing you over the bay, back north, and dump you in the finals box at 2000' heading northeast, for the finals controller to work you into the sequence. Possibly the current PARCH arrivals would be routed to the IAF for 31L/R or 22L/R.

They've pulled off the metroplexing in DFW, MIA, DTW, BOS, MIA/FLL, PDX, MSP... many others. N90 is no doubt the biggest project in the NAS for this, there's so much to deconflict.

Is RNAV ODP STAR part of the GBAS they're building at JFK?
I tried googling this but there's very little info other than PDF files.

If volume is high, they will still need to use ILS to keep separation, right?

timz · Wed Mar 01, 2023 9:01 pm

paulygoogs wrote:
can't ATC create a slot/corridor for north and east arrivals to intercept Rosly drect from the north at 2000 ft ... ?

Try it. What route would arrivals from the west follow, at what altitudes? Let's see if you can find a route that doesn't foul up other airports.

N47 · Sat Mar 04, 2023 6:20 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
RNAV is Random Navigation (RNAV) meaning the tracks do not have to fly over or be based on ground NAVAIDS, VOR or VOR/DME. RNAV is inherently more customizable and, if GPS-based, more accurate. The track tolerances are linear, rather than splays as VOR tracks are.

Small nit-pick: technically you can RNAV with ground-based navaids (DME/DME). Currently in the NAS about 93% of class A airspace has DME/DME Rnav (RNAV-2 accuracy) coverage with thr goal being 99% by 2025 and 95% for terminal airpsace (RNAV-1 accuracy) to cover most if not all rnav sids and stars. This being a resiliency to gps outage particularly for aircraft not equiped with irs.

Some great discussion points above. Being a native of ny i am very much looking forward to what comes out post NYC-metroplex.

23463245613 · Sun Mar 05, 2023 3:50 pm

N47 wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
RNAV is Random Navigation (RNAV) meaning the tracks do not have to fly over or be based on ground NAVAIDS, VOR or VOR/DME. RNAV is inherently more customizable and, if GPS-based, more accurate. The track tolerances are linear, rather than splays as VOR tracks are.

Small nit-pick: technically you can RNAV with ground-based navaids (DME/DME). Currently in the NAS about 93% of class A airspace has DME/DME Rnav (RNAV-2 accuracy) coverage with thr goal being 99% by 2025 and 95% for terminal airpsace (RNAV-1 accuracy) to cover most if not all rnav sids and stars. This being a resiliency to gps outage particularly for aircraft not equiped with irs.

Some great discussion points above. Being a native of ny i am very much looking forward to what comes out post NYC-metroplex.

There is no NYC metroplex.
https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/nas/nynjphl_redesign

JFK 22R/L Approach Question

JFK 22R/L Approach Question

Re: JFK 22R/L Approach Question

Re: JFK 22R/L Approach Question

Re: JFK 22R/L Approach Question

Re: JFK 22R/L Approach Question

Re: JFK 22R/L Approach Question

Re: JFK 22R/L Approach Question

Re: JFK 22R/L Approach Question

Re: JFK 22R/L Approach Question

Re: JFK 22R/L Approach Question

Re: JFK 22R/L Approach Question

Re: JFK 22R/L Approach Question

Re: JFK 22R/L Approach Question

Re: JFK 22R/L Approach Question

Re: JFK 22R/L Approach Question

Re: JFK 22R/L Approach Question

Re: JFK 22R/L Approach Question

Re: JFK 22R/L Approach Question

Re: JFK 22R/L Approach Question

Re: JFK 22R/L Approach Question

Re: JFK 22R/L Approach Question

Re: JFK 22R/L Approach Question

Re: JFK 22R/L Approach Question

Re: JFK 22R/L Approach Question

Re: JFK 22R/L Approach Question

Re: JFK 22R/L Approach Question

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net