Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
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.
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.
bluecrew wrote:Did you look at the FAA application?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
paulygoogs wrote:can't ATC create a slot/corridor for north and east arrivals to intercept Rosly drect from the north at 2000 ft ... ?
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.
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.