Showing posts with label RNAV. Show all posts
Showing posts with label RNAV. Show all posts

Monday, October 11, 2010

How Many Engineers Does it Take?

OAK 09/200 OAK NAV VORTAC OTS TIL 1010312359

The Oakland VORTAC has been out of service for, well ... I think it was NOTAMed back in April or May of 2010. Pretty amazing when you consider this is one of the major navigation aids on the West Coast: It defines six Victor airways, six Jet airways, and numerous airports have instrument approaches, departure procedures, and arrivals that rely on it. So what is the FAA doing to the Oakland VORTAC and why is it taking so long? This isn't the entire story, just some of the pieces.

The Oakland VORTAC was missing in action for an extended period about six years ago when a range of radials had become unusable and an effort was undertaken to figure out why. Around that time the Ron Cowan Parkway had just been completed, named after the developer of the nearby Harbor Bay business and residential developments.

Sometimes called the road to nowhere, the project to build the Cowan Parkway figured in an FBI probe that started after allegations of impropriety between Mr. Cowan and then state senator Don Perata. It seems that some folk thought the road was primarily designed to increase the value of Mr. Cowan's real estate holdings at Harbor Bay at taxpayer expense, but that's a deep topic. So moving on I'll point out that the Cowan Parkway divides the Oakland Airport in half, provides alternate access to the FedEx ramp and the South Field terminal as well as an alternate route for residents of Bay Farm Island. Cyclists also benefit from bike lanes that flank the road.

Building the parkway was a big project, in part because a tunnel had to be constructed under Taxiway Bravo, the only connection for taxiing aircraft between Oakland's South Field and the North Field. In addition, airport perimeter barriers had to be adapted and new chain link fencing and razor wire installed. After investigating, it was determined that the new fences were close enough to the VORTAC that they were distorting the signals. Sections of the fencing were replaced with redwood (which you can see in the photo above), the FAA's flight check aircraft conducted various tests, there were still some radials in the Northwest quadrant deemed unusable, but the VORTAC was returned to service and life got back to normal, mostly.


Recently an initiative was undertaken to dopplerize the Oakland VORTAC to increase its accuracy and eliminate or reduce the number of unusable radials. This is the project that started in earnest last spring and after a month or so, a bunch of little mushroom-shaped antennae were seen ringing the main bowling pin antenna.

In July the flight check aircraft was testing the results. I remember one of the days because the FAA's flight check King Air made quite a stir, flying the OAK VOR RWY 9R approach when all other traffic was landing runways 29, 27 Left and 27 Right. A student I was flying with had to break off a practice approach, but I didn't mind because I assumed this meant progress was being made. Yet as the end of July approached, the NOTAM was changed to show the VORTAC returning to service at the end of September. Then I got wind of some of what was going on.

It seems that the new configuration failed the high-altitude flight check and a new effort was underway to determine why. At one point a theory was that surplus concrete debris that the airport facilities folks use to repair the numerous dikes and levees around the airport was causing the problem. The concrete chunks were piled up near the VORTAC, some of the chunks contained rebar, and the thought was this was distorting the VORTAC's signals. This isn't the first time rebar has affected aviation at Oakland: A few years ago it was discovered that both compass roses had been constructed with concrete that contained rebar, which could explain why so many compasses that were swung at Oakland seemed screwed up. The compass roses remain closed.

USD 05/081 NUQ AIRSPACE SOUTHLAND ONE DEPARTURE... NA EXCEPT FOR AIRCRAFT EQUIPPED WITH SUITABLE RNAV SYSTEM WITH GPS. OAK VORTAC OTS.

USD 05/083 LVK AIRSPACE LIVERMORE ONE DEPARTURE... PROCEDURE NA EXCEPT FOR AIRCRAFT EQUIPPED WITH SUITABLE RNAV SYSTEM WITH GPS. OAK VORTAC OTS.

USD 05/085 SFO AIRSPACE PORTE THREE DEPARTURE TAKE-OFF RUNWAYS 10L/R AND 19L/R: PROCEDURE NA EXCEPT FOR AIRCRAFT EQUIPPED WITH SUITABLE RNAV SYSTEM WITH GPS. OAK VOR OTS. 

USD 05/097 SFO AIRSPACE SHORELINE ONE DEPARTURE...
PROCEDURE NA EXCEPT FOR AIRCRAFT EQUIPPED WITH SUITABLE RNAV SYSTEM WITH GPS. OAK VORTAC OTS. 

USD 05/082 OAK AIRSPACE SKYLINE THREE DEPARTURE...
RWYS 9L, 9R, 11 NA EXCEPT FOR AIRCRAFT EQUIPPED WITH SUITABLE RNAV SYSTEM WITH GPS. OAK VORTAC OTS.

USD 05/084 OAK AIRSPACE MARINA FOUR DEPARTURE...
NA EXCEPT FOR AIRCRAFT EQUIPPED WITH SUITABLE RNAV
SYSTEM WITH GPS. OAK VORTAC OTS. 

USD 05/149 OAK AIRSPACE SALAD ONE DEPARTURE NA EXCEPT FOR AIRCRAFT EQUIPPED WITH SUITABLE RNAV SYSTEM WITH GPS. OAK VORTAC OTS.

USD 05/087 CCR AIRSPACE BUCHANAN NINE DEPARTURE PITTS TRANSITIONS: NA EXCEPT FOR AIRCRAFT EQUIPPED WITH SUITABLE RNAV SYSTEM WITH GPS. OAK VORTAC OTS.

USD 05/086 APC AIRSPACE LIZRD THREE DEPARTURE OAKLAND TRANSITIONS: NA EXCEPT FOR AIRCRAFT EQUIPPED WITH SUITABLE RNAV SYSTEM WITH GPS. OAK VORTAC OTS.

Another repercussion has been that a local freight carrier cannot use the SALAD ONE departure because many (or all?) of their aircraft are not RNAV equipped. So instead of departing runway 27L or 27R, turning East over the San Leandro Bay, and intercepting the 060˚ radial, they have to fly heading 310 until high enough to be vectored to the East. The 310 heading takes them right over residential areas of Alameda late at night and in the early morning hours.

Pilots who wish to fly the HWD LOC/DME RWY 28L approach are required to be flying aircraft equipped with a suitable RNAV system because the missed approach holding fix is (wait for it) ... the Oakland VORTAC. I got bitten by this one a couple of weeks ago when the weather into Hayward didn't clear as forecast. My student had to fly the ILS into Oakland, then we sat and waited for VFR weather so we could reposition back to nearby Hayward. Live and learn.

VORTAC with new Counterpoise
I don't know if the theory about rebar in scrap concrete interfering with the VORTAC was itself scrapped, but the latest development was an assessment that the counterpoise (the roof of the VORTAC building) was too small. An effort was undertaken to enlarge the roof, increasing its diameter by some 16 feet to a total diameter of 84 feet. It looks like this part of the project is mostly completed and the latest NOTAM claims the OAK VORTAC should be back in service by the end of October, 2010.

In 2002, the man for whom the road was named defaulted on over $43 million in loans from Lehman Brothers and the investment bank and its property management company seized much of what Cowan owned at Harbor Bay Business Park. The road itself is not heavily travelled, though it did end up reportedly costing taxpayers over $100 million. The road appears indirectly responsible for trouble faced by pilots and a noise-sensitive community. The weather is bound to get worse as winter approaches and fixing the Oakland VORTAC could go down to the wire. We'll just have to wait and see if the FAA can pull a rabbit out of their hat or if the Cowan Parkway will continue to be the gift that keeps giving.

Thursday, September 9, 2010

GPS Transition, Part III: Conservation of Complexity


Some folk seem to think that if GPS navigation is simple, then something must be done to make it more ... difficult.  Let's call this the Conservation of Complexity Principal: An area of aviation reaches a level of complexity causing pilots, instructors, examiners, inspectors, and even engineers and designers to feel compelled to maintain or even increase that level of complexity. Simplicity should be a primary goal in systems design and it is unfortunate when we mistake increased complexity for progress. Newer glass panel aircraft have a ton of features, some crucial, some cool, and some seldom-used “gee whiz” features. RNAV procedures and equipment are also cool, they provide much flexibility and increased accuracy, but they are mired in a confusing swamp of details. Here are some thoughts on embracing the essentials while eschewing the geeky.

Can You Top This?

Needless complexity comes into the picture when equipment and procedure designers, probably under time pressure, jump to a quick solution. Some hardware manufacturers, hoping to establish market differentiation, end up designing too many features into their products. Some pilots, instructors and examiners embrace this geeky stuff without any clear evidence that knowing lots of minutiae in any way enhances learning, proficiency, or safety. Requiring pilots to understand and recite facts about the GPS satellite constellation or to describe the Line-Replacable Units that make up the G1000 and how they communicate with one another has few clear advantages, other than making it easy to test a candidate’s knowledge of the nitty-gritty.

It may be interesting to know the model designations of each G1000 component and the network media used to connect them, but what does that have to do with effectively managing the technology in newer aircraft while flying single-pilot? At it's worst, teaching detailed systems knowledge may encourage pilots to try to figure out why something has failed while in flight, resulting in a distraction that can adversely affect the safety of flight. If a GPS or one of its components fails during flight, the pilot needs to recognize the failure and understand the extent to which their ability to navigate has been affected. Then they can get the aircraft safely on the ground and have an avionics tech diagnose and fix the problem. Acquiring and maintaining complex, systems-level knowledge of the G1000 is not needed unless you plan on repairing the hardware yourself.

Papier-mâché Unicorn

RNAV procedures and policies have grown up over time with the added challenge that they be made to exist with existing VOR/NDB procedures and policies. Add a little here, a little there and after a decade you stand back to look at what’s been created. Voila! It’s a unicorn! In defense of the FAA, a tremendous number of new RNAV procedures have been created and the majority of them for other than Part 139 airports (i.e. GA airports). Nevertheless, mistakes were made.

Charting complexities add tiny bits of workload in a single-pilot environment. Approaches have titles like RNAV (GPS) RWY 22, but then there are obscure rules that say any item contained in parenthesis is to be omitted. There are variations and inconsistencies in terminal arrival areas, the depiction of minimum safe altitudes, required equipment, important details buried in notes, and even special climb performance on the missed approach. Trying to keep all of this straight while flying single-pilot may seem like death by a thousand cuts and can contribute to creeping task saturation. Here’s an approach for an airport in my area that was published and then quickly NOTAM’d as not authorized. Hmm ...



Need to Know

GPS units like the G1000 offer a plethora features, leading many pilots to mistakenly believe they need to understand all of the bells and whistles. Many pilots see this morass of details and just turn away. So here’s some heresy for you: You don't need to understand every single feature. It is possible to get along just fine without knowing how to get your GPS to add an along-track-offset or display a parallel track. Once you understand the basic concepts of waypoint navigation, GPS flight plans, automatic waypoint sequencing, turn anticipation, and how to load procedures, you can hone your skills using the concise list of tasks that every pilot should be able to accomplish with their GPS under instrument flight rules, found in the AIM (1-1-19(p)).


  1. Perform a RAIM prediction function
  2. Insert a DP into the flight plan
  3. Program the destination airport
  4. Fly an overlay approaches (especially procedure turns and arcs)
  5. Change to another approach after selecting an approach
  6. Fly "direct" missed approaches
  7. Fly "routed" missed approaches
  8. Enter, fly, and exit holding patterns
  9. Program and fly a "route" from a holding pattern
  10. Program and fly an approach with radar vectors to the intermediate segment
  11. Handle a RAIM failure both before and after the FAWP
  12. Program a radial and distance from a VOR (often used in departure instructions)

Devil in the Details

At the heart of every GPS receiver is a computer running software and as the late John Ciardi said, "Computers are high-speed morons." GPS database designers encode airports using a four-character ICAO identifier and VORs with a three-character identifier. In some cases, the VOR is located on an airport with the same name and identifier, often not far from the surveyed center of the airport. The FAA's charting division needs to clean up their act and use four-character ICAO airport identifiers on their chart products. This one simple change would make everyone’s life easier, but as of this writing the Aeronav folks haven't gotten around to it.

If you fly RNAV approaches with an IFR-certified WAAS GPS, you’ll need to be prepared to fly up to one of three different minima on an approach - LPV, LNAV/VNAV, or LNAV. You also need to correlate the course sensitivity a GPS displays during an RNAV approach to the correct minima shown on the approach chart (LPV = LPV and LNAV/V = LNAV/VNAV). If your GPS is not WAAS capable, you’ll only get LNAV minima and your life is simpler.

This brings up a question that many renter pilots have a hard time answering: How do you know if the plane you just rented has a WAAS GPS or a non-WAAS GPS? There’s nothing on the face of the GPS unit that tells you this, you have to consult the Approved Flight Manual Supplement.



Another way is to bring up the satellite status display and if you see a “D” in one or more of the satellite signal strength histogram bars, the unit is a WAAS GPS. What does the “D” stand for, you ask? “Differential GPS,” another subtle and annoying mental connection you must make. On G1000 models you also see the term SBAS (Satellite-Based Augmentation System) instead of WAAS.



Non-WAAS GPS units detect navigational errors with a process called RAIM (Receiver Autonomous Integrity Monitoring), which is analogous to seeing a flag appear on your VOR course deviation indicator or HSI to indicate the station is unusable. WAAS GPS units use a different error detection process called FDE (Fault Detection and Exclusion), another good reason for knowing exactly what kind of unit resides in the instrument panel of the aircraft you just rented or may be thinking of buying.

Updates to GPS databases are made available every 28 days, database subscriptions are not cheap, and downloading and applying the updates can be time-consuming. These are the costs of doing GPS business and if you fly at night, over remote areas, or in the clouds, you don't want an out-of-date database. Many feel that the costs of database updates has gotten out of control, especially when an aircraft owner must have multiple database subscriptions for the same model of GPS unit installed in the one aircraft. Glass panel aircraft may have numerous other databases, often with differing expiration dates. When the tension between being safe and legal collides with saving time and money, databases don’t get updated and renter pilots need to be prepared. The plane you just rented may have lots of glass in its panel, but if the GPS aeronautical database isn’t updated the plane goes from “/G” to “/U”



Wither ERAM?

Last, but not least, is the FAA’s continuing struggle to provide IFR clearances that take advantage of the capability of the most basic GPS receiver. One of the problems has to do with FAA flight plan formats because there is only so much information about an aircraft’s type of RNAV equipment that can be encoded in a single letter, like “/G.” ICAO flight plans provide much needed detail on just what level of RNAV capability an aircraft does or does not have. ICAO flight plans are now required for aircraft that desire RNAV departures. Even if you don’t file an ICAO flight plan, you can request and get an amended clearance to proceed direct to a waypoint or VOR once you’re airborne, but that means reprogramming a GPS flight plan in flight. Not just occasionally, but every time.

At the crux of this problem is the FAA’s computerized system for generating clearances that hasn’t changed in years. The new ERAM (En Route Automation Modernization) system was supposed to change all that, but it doesn’t seem to be working out very well at the moment. I’ve tried filing all sort of routings out of KOAK using ICAO flight plans with various routing strategies, but I always get the same routings. Having a technically advanced aircraft with all sorts of accurate, flexible navigational capabilities doesn’t count for much if the ATC computers are not prepared to play ball.

The best bet still seems to be using your local knowledge of what ATC usually assigns or use one of the many briefing services (FltPlan.com, ForeFlight, FlightAware.com) that can tell you what routing has recently assigned to your destination. Use that routing on your flight plan and once airborne, start asking and negotiating a more direct routing with the controller. Kasparov may have been beaten by a chess-playing computer, but it seems ATC professionals are still more flexible and creative in the aviation chess game.

Hits Just Keep Coming

Now that you understand the basics of GPS navigation, the features that were supposed to make your piloting tasks easier, you should be better equipped to learn the complexities of your particular model of GPS so you can bend it to your will. Stick with the basics, practice those tasks listed in the AIM, and you should have fewer moments of GPS confusion. You might even find that if you hold you nose, bite your tongue, and cross your fingers you’ll find that GPS navigation is not really all that bad. Eventually one hopes that the FAA and the equipment manufacturers will see the error of their ways, fix the screwed up user interfaces and develop strategies to smooth out the significant RNAV wrinkles (or at least keep more wrinkles from appearing). Until they do, take heart in what Dos Passos observed: There are things that could be more, but are content to be less.

Monday, August 30, 2010

GPS Transition, Part II - Waypoints 'n Stuff



Once you understand how dead reckoning and VOR concepts relate to the world of GPS, you’re ready to move on to waypoint sequencing and turn anticipation. Understanding these two concepts is fundamental to the effective use GPS flight plans, the handling of ATC routing changes, and to reducing the likelihood that you’ll find yourself asking “Why’s it doing that?”


Waypoint Navigation




One goal of RNAV was to simplify navigation from the pilot's point of view and GPS generally offers significant improvements in navigational accuracy and flexibility. Okay, the equipment manufacturers have made things difficult with questionable user interface designs. The FAA and its contractors have created complicated procedures that expose levels of detail that could (and should) be opaque to pilots, but we'll go down that rabbit hole later. For now consider that there are really just two conceptual steps to waypoint navigation: Enter a waypoint into the GPS receiver, then navigate to the waypoint using the desired track and current track provided by the GPS. Don't forget to set your course pointer or OBS to the DTK supplied by the GPS or you'll see a message like the one shown above.


In its most primitive form, waypoint navigation means pressing the GPS receiver's Direct-to button, but you can also enter a sequence of waypoints (aka GPS Flight Plan) and this is where waypoint sequencing and turn anticipation come into play. The mechanics of creating, storing and activating GPS flight plans vary by brand and model of GPS, but for now we’re just talking about concepts.


Shake a Leg


Navigating the desired track (think magnetic course) between two waypoints in your flight plan is referred to as leg flying, which is different from just proceeding to a waypoint from your current position using the direct-to button. Proficiency training with a specific GPS unit should include demonstrating that you understand the difference by proceeding direct to a waypoint as well as activating a flight plan leg, then interceping and flying that leg.




The active leg is usually shown as a magenta line on the moving map whereas previous and subsequent legs to be flown are shown as white lines.




Best Laid Plans


For VFR flying, you can use any waypoints you want in your GPS flight plan; VORs, airway intersections, airports, visual reporting points, or anything else contained in the GPS database. You’ll still want to ensure you're steering clear of restricted airspace, active MOAs, and terrain or weather that might make you wish you were doing something else.


For IFR, your GPS flight plan should ideally match your IFR clearance. This is where the perfect, sequential, tidy world of GPS meets the rough and tumble, real-world of ATC vectors and amended clearances. Start by entering your departure airport and your destination airport. It would be nice if you could enter an alternate airport, but amazingly, most GPS units (save the discontinued G480/CNX80) still don’t support this concept!


IFR clearances may specify a SID (Standard Instrument Departure) or they may specify a heading to fly until ATC vectors you to join the en route structure. Most IFR-certified GPS allow you to load a SID based on your departure airport (the first airport in your flight plan). If the SID has more than one transition to the en route structure, the GPS will prompt you to specify the transition that ATC assigned. Loading a SID often requires you specify the departure runway and this can be especially critical for RNAV SIDs. Loading a SID will insert all the necessary waypoints into your flight plan.




Some SIDs are pilot-nav, the theory being that you fly the procedure with minimal input and guidance from ATC. Other SIDs are vectored, with the assumption that ATC will guide you to the en route structure. Many older GPS units don’t provide a way to load a vectored SID, so just enter the waypoint (usually a VOR) that defines the transition to which ATC is going to guide you. Either way, it's not uncommon for ATC to assign you headings to fly in order to separate air traffic, eventually telling you something like “when able, resume the Wild Goose Chase departure ...” This is where activating the appropriate leg from your GPS flight plan is a need-to-know skill.


Anytime you are being vectored, the heading you are flying may not correspond to the magenta line that the GPS is depicting. This often causes concern for an RNAV tenderfoot, but remember that the compass and heading indicator are also IFR instruments and you won’t always be following the GPS’s magic, magenta line.


Defining Victor or Jet Airways for the en route portion of a GPS flight plan is fairly straightforward: Just enter the name of each VOR and any changeover points in between. Some newer GPS units provide a way to load an airway and will fill in the necessary waypoints for you, but the process can be convoluted. The idea is you start with a waypoint on the airway that ATC has assigned, then select the airway you want to load from a list of possibilities, and then specify where you want to get off the airway. This will add the necessary waypoints to your GPS flight plan.


Loading a STAR (Standard Terminal ARrival) or IAP (Instrument Approach Procedure) for your destination will require you to specify the transition (where you want to enter the procedure). Loading these procedures will add waypoints to your flight plan. And like a SID, you may get vectored around by ATC and you’ll need to know how to proceed direct to a waypoint or how to activate and join a leg of the procedure.


So a GPS flight plan is just a collection of waypoints that you either entered yourself or that were added when you loaded a departure, arrival, or approach procedure. If all goes as planned, you’ll fly to each of those waypoints in a nice, orderly sequence. Scratch that. Things never go as planned, so you need to know how to find your way through the flight plan and navigate direct to a waypoint or how to activate a leg.


Fly-Over vs. Fly-By


Now that you know (at least a bit) about GPS flight plans, let’s revisit waypoint sequencing. GPS keeps track of where you are and as you reach the current waypoint, it usually sequences to the next waypoint, calculating the new desired track, distance, time en route and other stuff in the process. Yet there are times when a GPS won’t automatically sequence to the next waypoint and it’s important to understand the when and why this will occur.




The majority of the waypoints in your GPS flight plan are called fly-by waypoints, usually depicted on charts as a four-pointed star. As the name implies, you don’t have to fly directly over these waypoints. Since the GPS knows your groundspeed, current track, and the number of degrees of change between the current DTK and the upcoming DTK, it can provide turn anticipation for fly-by waypoints. If you pay attention, follow the GPS’s advance warning and turn when it says to turn, you’ll end up on the new DTK. Old school pilots who were taught to fly past a VOR, verify station passage, then turn to the new course may find they have trouble letting go of their old habits. Just keep reminding yourself that turn anticipation is a good thing.




Another type of waypoint is called fly-over. As the name implies, you must fly right over a fly-over waypoint. Try as I might, I couldn't find a definition of just how close you must pass to a fly-over waypoint but my personal experience is that it's pretty damn close. One example of a fly-over waypoint is the missed approach waypoint on an IAP: Fly over the MAP and you’ll have to push a button to re-enable waypoint sequencing to the missed approach segment (on most GPS units). Same holds true for most missed approach holding waypoints. Which button you push to re-enable waypoint sequencing depends on the brand and model of GPS.


Some RNAV SIDs and STARs have fly-over waypoints, depicted as a four-pointed star enclosed in a circle, but waypoint sequencing is not suspended for these waypoints on a SID or STAR; The procedure designers just want you to navigate to these waypoints very precisely.













You can manually suspend waypoint sequencing for any waypoint at any time by pressing a button. Depending on the brand of GPS receiver you're using, the name of the button or softkey may be OBS or it may be SUSP, but press that button or softkey and the GPS won't sequence from the current waypoint until you intervene with another button push: Pretty handy when ATC tells you to fly an ad hoc holding pattern using the current waypoint as the holding fix.


Many pilots ask why some GPS receivers call this feature OBS and I the reason is that pressing that button lets you treat the current waypoint as though it were an old-fashioned VOR: You can turn your course selector or OBS knob and set whatever DTK to the waypoint you want. When you press OBS or SUSP, you’ll see a magenta line on your moving map leading to the waypoint on your selected DTK and a white course line extending outward on the opposite side of the waypoint.


Missed Opportunities


GPS receivers allow pilots to load all sorts of instrument approaches, thereby adding the necessary waypoints that make up the approach to the GPS flight plan. Monitoring a moving map to maintain situational awareness during an approach is cool, but the waypoint sequencing get's messed up when you are being vectored to intercept the approach. When being vectored, the first task is to activated the correct leg of the approach so that the GPS will sequence through the waypoints in your flight plan in the correct order as you fly the approach. For a detailed discussion of this issue with Garmin units, go here.


Lastly, consider the location of the missed approach fly-over waypoint (MAP) for an ILS or an RNAV approach with vertical guidance (LPV or LNAV/VNAV). For approaches with vertical guidance, the MAP waypoint is defined by centered localizer/LNAV and glide slope/VNAV needles at the Decision Height (DH). Consider also that the FAA puts ILS and localizer-only approaches on a single approach chart as it does for RNAV LPV and LNAV/VNAV approaches. GPS designers had figure out how to handle this and they came up with this kludge: They consider the MAP waypoint to be at the runway threshold. The MAP waypoint is given a name like RW34 for “runway 34.”







In the example above, you reach the DH, see nothing but clag, and start the missed approach. The GPS will not have yet suspended waypoint sequencing since you haven’t arrived at the runway threshold, so you’ll need to fly over the runway threshold before you can activate the missed approach. Oddly, the Garmin G1000 provides an Activate Missed Approach feature, but every time I’ve tried to access that feature it had a grayed-out appearance and couldn't be selected.


Stay Ahead, Keep Ahead


Now you know a bit more about the crucial foundations of RNAV: The importance of automatic waypoint sequencing, the role of a GPS flight plan, how your GPS flight plan may not conform to the real world, and the important difference between direct-to and leg navigation. You've probably noticed that we're delving into increasingly complex RNAV concepts, so stay tuned for my next installment: Creeping RNAV complexity and what you can do to combat it.

Wednesday, March 17, 2010

Something Can Be Done

The promise of Area Navigation (RNAV and GPS) was that it would be a simpler and more accurate way to navigate than older styles of navigation and to a great extent, that promise has been realized. GPS accuracy, especially when augmented with WAAS, is very good indeed. As for simplicity ... not so much. Waypoint navigation was a revolutionary concept when it was introduced, but it has been integrated with existing navigational paradigms and infrastructure in an evolutionary manner, not unlike the way an artist might sculpt clay or mold papier-mâché. This evolutionary approach has created some unfortunate and unforeseen complexity, but it doesn't need to be that way. Mom always said "Don't complain unless you can offer a solution or a suggestion," so here are my top five recommendations for simplifying the world of RNAV.

Wayward Waypoints


Many airports out there have a VOR located at airport and in those cases the VOR and the airport have the same name. Just as often the VOR may be some miles away from the airport, but both still have the same name. At the heart of every GPS receiver is a computer running software and software doesn't tend to handle ambiguity very well. That's why the GPS database encodes airports using a four-character ICAO identifier and VORs with a three-character identifier. The FAA's charting division could do us a big favor by using four-character ICAO airport identifiers on their chart products, but they don't. If they did, it would be crystal clear to student pilots and budding instrument pilots that KSAC refers to the surveyed center of the Sacramento Executive airport while SAC refers to the Sacramento VOR. 







Not in Kansas Anymore

The first step in GPS navigation is to enter the name of a VOR or NDB station on the ground, the name of an intersection of two VOR radials, an airport ID (which represents the surveyed center of the airport), a charted VFR reporting point, a Computer Navigation Fix defined by FAA chart designers, or even a user waypoint that you've created. The AIM refers to this type of navigation as to-to, not to be confused with Toto, the little black terrier in the Wizard of Oz. GPS receivers only navigate to one waypoint at a time, also known as the current waypoint.

GPS makes it simple to navigate to a waypoint and most receivers provide a moving map display, which is a score for simplicity and safety. The bad news is that unless you're lucky enough to have a keyboard as part of your GPS receiver, entering a waypoint requires a precise and often convoluted sequence of knob-turning and button-pushing. A bad user interface makes it all too easy to misspell the name of the waypoint: Get just one letter wrong and instead of navigating to a VOR that is 20 miles away, you may be headed to Tierra del Fuego by mistake!

The engineers that designed GPS receiver user interfaces didn't set out to create difficult-to-use products, but the fact is they did. Whether it was the desire to save a few bucks by having fewer knobs and buttons or simply a race to get a product to market, it's clear that mistakes were made. Now the users of these products have to live with the mistakes and to quote Warren Zevon, "… it ain't that pretty at all." Bad UI design is the Achilles heel of GPS and many of us pilots have become so acclimated to these convoluted interfaces that we have lost sight of just how whacked this situation is.

Near the top of my "need to fix" list is Garmin's Small-Knob/Big-Knob interface. You press the small knob to enter "cursor mode" so you can edit or enter the name of a waypoint in a flight plan. You turn the small knob to start the process of entering letters and then the small knob changes function. Whoa there! A knob whose function changes depending on an interface context that is mostly invisible to the user? This needs to be fixed and one simple way would be a separate button dedicated to starting and ending the waypoint editing mode.

Having a separate button for edit mode would also fix the problem that countless new Garmin users run into: Pressing the small knob to exit cursor mode and accept whatever changes they have made. Having watched hundreds of pilots make this mistake thousands of times it's clear that a common intuitive belief is that if you press one button or key to enter a mode, pressing the same button or key should exit that mode. In the Garmin world, this simply exits the editing mode and, here's the amazing part, destroys whatever changes you made without asking you to confirm that's what you want to do. This is B-A-D.

Missing Pieces on the Missed Approach

When flying an instrument approach, most GPS receiver are designed to suspend the automatic sequencing of waypoints when you reach the missed approach point. Think about this for a moment: You're close to the ground with reduced obstruction clearance at a high-workload moment. You're either going to see the runway and land or you won't see anything and you'll fly the missed approach. Is this really the time to make a pilot divert their attention from controlling the aircraft to push the OBS button or SUSP soft-key? I don't think so and apparently neither did the designers of the GNS 480 (nee CNX 80), which will automatically sequence to the missed approach segment. If you see the runway environment and decide to land, you just ignore the GPS. If you don't see the runway environment or loose sight of the runway while circling, use the GPS to start navigating on the missed approach. Too bad the GNS 480 is out of production and the GPS units that are in production don't exhibit this behavior. A defense I've often heard is that the TSO specifies that pilot action is required to initiate the missed approach and if this is true, the TSO should be changed.

When flying a non-RNAV approach, many GPS receivers automatically switch the navigation source from GPS to the VOR or localizer receiver. That's great, but if you need to fly the missed approach and you want to use the GPS to do so you must divert your attention and manually select GPS as the navigation source. I mean really! If it's okay to automatically switch navigation source out of GPS, why not back into GPS mode?

Four Card Minima

There's a new game for RNAV approaches that all pilots must play and it's called "Guess the approach minima." It goes something like this. When you brief an RNAV approach, you may see up to four sets of minima listed: LNAV, LNAV/VNAV, LPV and circling. The issue is you may not know which minima your WAAS GPS receiver can offer (based on current signal integrity) until a few miles before the final approach fix. This has to do with the design of WAAS GPS receivers' final signal integrity check and I honestly can't think of a good way around this shortcoming: You just have to brief multiple approach minima and choose the correct minima based on the approach sensitivity your WAAS GPS receiver displays.

Where improvement could be made would be to ensure that the approach sensitivity displayed on the GPS receiver exactly corresponds to the approach minima shown on the chart. If your receiver arms with  LPV or LP sensitivity, you're okay because your WAAS GPS receiver should display LPV or LP. If the receiver arms with LNAV sensitivity, you may see LNAV or LNAV+V. If it arms with LNAV/VNAV you'll probably see LNAV/V. Notice the subtle, similar appearance of LNAV+V and L/VNAV? This is too subtle and is B-A-D. And the minima shown on the charts should exactly match the minima displayed on the GPS receiver, period, end of discussion.

Procedure Turn or No?

The introduction of the Terminal Arrival Area (or TAA) was meant to simplify pilot/controller interaction when executing an RNAV approach. And it would be simpler, were in not for the fact that not all RNAV approach charts follow the same conventions with regard to the depiction of a hold-in-lieu-of procedure turn (or HILO). In particular, some RNAV approaches have a standard Minimum Safe Altitude circle while others display minimum safe altitudes in sectors on the plan view of the chart. The subtle problem is that MSA sectors will usually tell the pilot that the procedure turn is not authorized when you're headed straight-in to an Initial Approach Fix where a HILO is depicted, while approaches with the MSA circle do not.



If you were approaching from the Southeast and were told "when able, proceed direct HERMIT, cleared RNAV 34 approach" you need to read the fine print on the MSA sector shown on the plan view to know when you could descend and to know that the HILO is not authorized.


If you were told "when able proceed direct CADAB, cleared RNAV 29 approach," you need to know that the hold-in-lieu-of procedure turn is required unless the the controller remembers to say "… cleared straight-in RNAV 29 approach."

The FAA charting division needs to come up with a consistent way of depicting MSA and clearly denoting when a procedure turn is required and when it isn't. Until then, pilots should ask the controller when they see a HILO and they aren't sure whether or not they are expected to fly the procedure turn.

More Fond Wishes

So that's my wish list of the top five features and enhancements I'd like to see for the world of RNAV. You may have your own list of desired features, too. For now, we can only hope that the people in a position to fix these issues are listening.

Saturday, November 21, 2009

Surprise, Surprise

The concept of automation surprise has been around for years in the large aircraft world and now it's part of the GA aircraft that you are flying or might soon be flying. Automation surprise occurs when a system, such as a GPS receiver and/or autopilot, does something the pilot neither expected nor intended. The result is that the aircraft deviates from an assigned heading, route, altitude, or approach path and the pilot may lose situation awareness, too. Actually, it's the pilot-in-command who is considered to have deviated, not the plane or it's systems and blaming the machine is an argument that's probably not going to hold water. With all the technically-advanced GA aircraft out there, automation surprise is now something that GA pilots must understand and be ready to handle.

While I don't pretend to be a human factors expert, I've both witnessed and been on the receiving end of automation surprise on several occasions. Most of the surprises I've seen in GA aircraft resulted from the pilot making mode errors - not fully understanding the consequences of their knob twisting and button pushing. Yet I have also seen deviations result from equipment failures and even from shortcomings in the design of an instrument procedure. There can be a seemingly endless number of ways for things to go wrong in a complex, automated environment and while we may want to never make any errors, mistakes are going to happen. I'll provide just a few examples of how things can get out of hand when technology is busy making the pilot's job easier and what you can do when the magic turns evil.

Operator Error
Here's a mistake I've witnessed many pilots make with the two-axis KAP-140. ATC instructs "... climb and maintain 7000." You decide it's time for George to do some flying. So you press and hold AP for 1.5 seconds, then press HDG, then select 7000 feet, then press ALT, and are subsequently confused as to why the KAP-140 won't allow you to use the UP button to select a vertical climb rate.



The key is understanding that the KAP-140 goes into VS (vertical speed) mode by default when your press the AP button. The mistake was pressing ALT, which engages altitude hold mode irrespective of the altitude you just dialed in - an odd design, to say the least! Pressing ALT a second time restores VS mode and allows you to enter a vertical climb rate. The problem is that the second time you press ALT to enter vertical speed mode, the altitude you selected is not armed. That means you'll climb, but the KAP-140 will not capture the selected altitude and if you're not paying attention, you'll bust your clearance. Blast!

Having your own SOP (Standard Operating Procedure) for autopilot use, combined with actually looking at the modes being displayed, can help circumvent this problem. A better knobology sequence would be: Dial in 7000 feet, pitch up for the desired climb rate, press and hold AP for 1.5 seconds, then press HDG, then press ARM. This results in the following KAP-140 display: HDG [AP] VS 7000 ALT Armed. The KAP-140 will climb at 500 feet per minute, fly the bugged heading, and level off at 7000 feet.

Unexpected Mode Changes
In an effort to make the pilot's job easier, Garmin's G1000 will automatically switch the navigation source from GPS to a localizer on an ILS, LOC or LDA approach. Interestingly, the G1000 won't automatically switch back to GPS for the missed approach procedure - you must manually switch the navigation source back to GPS. While this may sound like a good feature, it actually creates unintended consequences in aircraft equipped with a Bendix/King KAP-140 autopilot. Here's the setup.



You're flying the Concord LDA RWY 19R approach, approaching from the South, you've requested pilot navigation, Travis Approach has approved, and you're cleared to "cross KANAN at or above 4000' cleared LDA 19 right approach." You've selected and activated the approach on the G1000 with KANAN as the IAF. Your KAP-140 autopilot is engaged in NAV and ALT modes and it is flawlessly tracking a direct course to KANAN.

Crossing KANAN, the GPS sequences to fly the procedure turn and the KAP-140 continues to do a great job. You select 2500 feet, press ALT to enter VS mode, press DN a few times to command a 400'/min descent, and remove some power to keep the airspeed under control. The GPS and the KAP-140 turn the airplane to the outbound procedure turn, then after a minute, they turn the airplane inbound to intercept the approach course.

Reaching 2500 feet, you restore some power and the G1000 then automatically switches the navigation source to the localizer. If you're not observant, you will miss this mode change. The HSI needle changes color from magenta (for GPS) to green (for the localizer) and the switch in navigation source causes the KAP-140 to silently enter ROL mode. That's right, there's no aural alarm to alert you that this mode change has happened, just ROL flashing on the KAP-140 display - which is out of your primary field of view. If you don't realize the KAP-140 is in ROL mode, the airplane will fly right through the localizer. Ooops!

One SOP you could use to prevent this is to always change the KAP-140 to HDG, manually change the navigation source to the localizer, and follow the GPS prompts to manually command the procedure turn using the heading bug. Once you've turned inbound to intercept the localizer, press NAV and the KAP-140 will capture the localizer course.

Missing the Missed Approach
The Garmin G1000, as well as the 430/530 GPS receivers, can help you fly the missed approach using GPS navigation as long as everything goes as planned. For an ILS approach, the GPS must handle two possible cases: The full ILS and a localizer-only approach. The GPS considers the MAP to be at the runway threshold, even though the MAP on an ILS is technically at decision height, on glide slope, and on the localizer course.

For these GPS receivers to suspend waypoint sequencing, you need to fly over the MAP at the runway threshold. Only then can you press the OBS key (or softkey) to re-enable waypoint sequencing, switch the navigation source back to GPS, and fly the missed approach using the GPS. If you don't fly over the MAP, waypoint sequencing won't be suspended and you'll need to do some more work to activate the missed approach. If you don't understand this GPS behavior, you could find yourself very confused at a high workload moment. Do'h!

Procedure Problems
Though rare, automation surprise may occur due to the way an instrument procedure was designed. This is exactly what happened to a pilot I was flying with recently on an approach I had flown many, many times before. The thing is, it had been quite a while since I flew this approach and the procedure had changed. Here's what happened.

The pilot requested the Sacramento Executive ILS RWY 2 practice approach with the published missed approach. Approach responded "... cross COUPS at or above 3000, cleared ILS 2 practice approach." The pilot selected the approach and activated it with COUPS as the initial approach fix. The autopilot was engaged in NAV mode and flew us to COUPS. What happened next was both dramatic and unexpected.




Reaching COUPS, the GPS commanded a 41 degree heading change to the left from a 015 track to a 334 track to navigate to the newly added Computer Navigation Fix (CNF) UBIYI: A 41 degree heading change for a leg that is only 0.2 miles long! The groundspeed was only 110 knots, but there was no time for GPS turn anticipation to smooth this out. As soon as the GPS commanded a turn to the left, it commanded a turn back to the right as the airplane blew through the approach course. It happened so fast that we both wondered what was wrong. Was this a GPS error or an autopilot error?

No sooner had we begun to doubt the automation, the plane was headed back to intercept the localizer. You have to look really closely at the chart to see that the GPS and the KAP-140 were just trying to fly the approach as it is coded. I emailed the FAA to suggest they take another look at the unintended consequences of the change that was made. Good idea!

Ounce of Prevention
The primary ways a pilot can prevent automation surprise are both simple and straightforward:
  • Know your own limits with regard to currency/proficiency
  • Know thy aircraft's equipment
  • Monitor what the automated systems are doing
  • Stay ahead of (or at least be in synch with) ATC's game plan
  • Maintain situational awareness
  • Develop and use SOPs (standard operating procedures)
  • And be prepared to catch and correct errors.

I'd like to be able to tell you that the average pilot can fly a G1000-equipped aircraft once a month and maintain instrument proficiency. Sadly, this is usually not the case. Unless you are practicing regularly with a G1000 PC Trainer or other simulator, you'll get rusty - fast! Part of this erosion of skill is due to the vast number of features the G1000 offers, but much of the problem lies in the user interface's annoying design that requires you to recognize subtle changes in operational modes. I don't want to mince words here: The G1000 and other GA GPS receivers are not easy to use. They require regular use and practice for pilots to maintain proficiency.

PC-based simulators can be an effective and inexpensive way to maintain your instrument chops, but you need to have a plan. Sitting down and just screwing around is not going to serve you well. As they say in the music world: "If you play when you practice, you'll practice when you play."

A suggestion I've made before is to treat your autopilot and GPS like you would a low-time private pilot. It's okay to trust the systems, but monitor them to ensure they are doing what you intended. This is particularly important during transitions to climbs, descents, level-offs, turns to a heading, and intercepting and tracking a navigational course. So periodically interrupt whatever you were doing to ensure George is still flying the plane the way you intended. Did it capture the altitude you programmed? Has it intercepted the navigational course you intended? Is the autopilot still operating in the mode(s) you intended? If not, promptly drop what you are doing, intervene, fly the plane, and then try to determine why or George will trim you into a stall, flying you into the ground, or take you off course.

Remember that you are the last line of defense when automation goes bad. Never, ever forget that fact.

Sunday, October 4, 2009

Crystal Ball



Persusing the Internet can lead to some interesting virtual destinations, like the NACO's Instrument Flight Procedures Coordination search facility. This is where IFR geeks can peer into the future and see what changes or entirely new instrument procedures the FAA has in store. You can search by state or by airport name or airport ID (just don't enter an ICAO ID). This is where I first learned of the now-published RNAV (GPS) RWY 14 approach into Yuba County Airport, one of the new approaches in the FAA's LPV-200 initiative, offering a 200 foot decision altitude comparable to an ILS.

I wrote a while back about hearing a pilot get a contact approach clearance he shouldn't have asked for and shouldn't have been given into Little River, situated on a fairly remote portion of the Northern California coast. Well if things go as planned, come December of this year pilots operating into and out of Little River will have a brand spanking new RNAV approach and SID.





You can also get some insight into the significant amount of effort that goes into creating an approach procedure.



Come October of this year, it appears the venerable Tracy VOR or GPS A approach will be no more. Many a time I've watched instrument candidates struggle with this fast-paced, challenging approach, especially with the missed approach holding pattern that is very close to the airport.



This approach will be replaced by the existing RNAV (GPS) RWY 26 approach and a new VOR/DME RWY 26 approach.



Other changes for Northern California include the cancellation of the Ukiah VOR/DME RNAV or GPS B approach, one of the few remaining VOR/DME RNAV approaches left.



If you're wondering what's in store for your neck of the woods, wait for a dark, cold, rainy night and then curl up with the Instrument Flight Procedures Coordination search page and start browsing.

Tuesday, September 29, 2009

iPhone EFB Redux

A few days ago, a pilot friend sent me this link, a write-up about a new PDF reader for the iPhone called GoodReader and PDFPlates. So I snagged GoodReader at the iTunes app store, where it is on special for a limited time for a mere $0.99US. I've used PDFPlates before, and found it reasonably useful. And it works on the iPhone, too, due in no small measure to the usefulness of GoodReader, which is true to its name.

I got to thinking how I disliked looking up airports by page number when I test drove the Kindle DX. Finding an airport, then finding the page number, going to that page, and then scrolling to find the approach you want has got to be akin to one of Dante's circles of hell. After using GoodReader's bookmark feature with approach and A/FD files from Nacomatic or PDFPlates, all I can say is vive la différence! Unlike the Kindle DX, GoodReader on the iPhone supports bookmarks. I also found Nacomatic's newly improved bookmark structure (since I last tried it) to be pretty useful. And GoodReader lets you create your own, personal bookmarks to frequently used procedures.

After purchasing GoodReader, you'll need to go here and download GoodReaderUSB. I'm using MacOS, so if you're a Windoze user you'll need to figure out that version of the equation. Install GoodReaderUSB, connect your iPhone to your Mac using the USB cable, and you just drag-and-drop the files you want to transfer to your iPhone. There are other ways to transfer, but this is by far the most preferable and it's dirt simple.



Once you've loaded the terminal procedure or A/FD PDFs that you want to view, you're ready to launch GoodReader and get down to business. Here's a sequence of iPhone screen snaps that illustrate looking up the A/FD entry for San Martin/South Country Airport using Nacomatic. This earlier mentioned link illustrates the use of PDFPlates using the page lookup method, which is odd since PDFPlates has bookmarks. In my opinion, bookmarks are a whole lot easier to use.

After you open the A/FD file, tap on the magnifying glass icon at the bottom of the screen to access bookmarks. By the way, in these examples I selected GoodReader's landscape view.









Here's a sequence of screen snaps illustrating the look up for the RNAV-A approach at Lampson/Lakeport:











The downside of all this is that the iPhone's screen is pretty damn small for cockpit use, though you can look at half of an approach chart in landscape view. And zooming in makes it just kinda, sorta readable.

The upside is that for an investment in an iPhone, you can have current A/FDs and terminal procedures in your phone for very little money. Methinks you should be able to do all this on an iPod Touch, too.

BTW, the special low price on GoodReader expires October 1st.

Saturday, April 18, 2009

Understanding RNAV approaches

While perusing the searches people use to find my blog, I often notice that many are looking for information on RNAV approaches. My earlier posts on this topic were done using examples from a PC simulator when LPV approaches were first becoming available. Now that the number of LPV approaches outnumber the ILS approaches available and I've flown hundreds of different RNAV approaches, it's clearly time to revisit this complex and popular topic. So here's practical information on RNAV approach design, naming conventions, the different approach minima that you might encounter, the types of vertical guidance that may be offered, how ATC will get you established on the approach, and some pre-flight planning considerations.

Tomaeto, Tomahto

RNAV stands for aRea NAVigation and encompasses a variety of aircraft equipment described in U.S Terminal and En Route Area Navigation (RNAV) Operations. Appropriately certified GPS units are considered RNAV as are many Flight Management Systems. Older VOR/DME RNAV units are also consider RNAV units, but in a much more limited way. In simplest terms, an IFR-certified GPS unit is most often the straw that stirs the RNAV drink for most GA aircraft.

For RNAV-equipped aircraft, it's easy for a pilot to navigate directly to a VOR, NDB, intersection, or approach waypoint. That's why RNAV approaches are often designed with a Terminal Arrival Area or TAA (not to be confused with a Technically-Advanced Aircraft). The TAA is a T-, Y- or L-shaped arrangement of Initial Approach waypoints designed to simplify the interaction between ATC and the pilot. A good, detailed description can be found in the Aeronautical Information Manual section 5-4-5(d).


What's in a Name?

Any approach title items contained in parenthesis are omitted when referring to the approach, so both the pilot and ATC would refer to the approach shown below as the "RNAV Runway 12 approach" - GPS is left out because it appears in parenthesis. A stand-alone GPS approach, like the Rio Vista GPS RWY 25 approach would be called a GPS approach. Confusing? Yeah, but supposedly all GPS approaches are eventually going to be renamed to RNAV approaches, it will just take some time.

If you desire an RNAV approach, think like a controller and include your approach request when you check in. Controllers usually appreciate this as it is unambiguous and it saves time.
Santa Barbara approach, Barnburner 123, 7000, request Santa Maria RNAV 12, direct WINCH, with information Foxtrot.
Some RNAV approaches contain "RNP" in parenthesis, which stands for Required Navigational Performance. These SAAAR (Special Aircraft & Aircrew Authorization Required) approaches are not available to us mere mortals.

Some RNAV approaches contain the letter Z or Y and the reason is simple: FMS databases can't handle two approaches to the same runway using the same navigational system, so the letters Z or Y are added to prevent ambiguity. Some kludge, eh? The deal is this: RNAV Z approaches usually provide lower approach minima (typically LPV) than RNAV Y (typically LNAV and LNAV/VNAV) approaches, but sometimes the opposite is true. More on approach minima later.

So what approaches can you fly with an old VOR/DME RNAV unit like the venerable King KNS80? The only RNAV approaches you can fly with these units are the ones named
"VOR/DME RNAV ..." There are 60 to 70 of these approaches in the US, like the UKI VOR/DME RNAV or GPS-B approach. Someone could write a master's thesis on the details behind the naming of that approach!

Cleared Direct ...

A controller will typically clear you to the nearest IAF and then provide an approach clearance. The pilot loads the RNAV approach with the IAF transition specified by the controller, activates the approach, and then follows the guidance to each of the waypoints in the sequence that make up the approach. Consider the Santa Maria RNAV (GPS) RWY 12 approach.



There are three IAFs: OVMAF, WINCH, and LILWU. ATC will usually clear you to the IAF nearest to your position. If you are approaching from the Southeast, "direct WINCH" would be a safe bet and you'd need to fly the HILO (hold in-lieu of a procedure turn) to reverse course. The transitions from OVMAF and LILWU all say "No PT" and you should not fly the HILO without ATC's permission (see 14 CFR 91.175(j) Limitation on Procedure Turns).

Many pilots I've spoken to are confused by TAAs that have a 90 degree turn from the Initial Approach segment to the Intermediate Approach segment. Relax because GPS units provide turn anticipation and the TAA waypoints are fly-by waypoints (you're not required fly right over them). The GPS knows your ground speed, actual track, and the number of degrees of turn required, so just pay attention to your GPS, start the turn when it tells you to turn, and you should end up right on intermediate approach course.

*** Edited 4/22/09, based on NTC comments ***
What about the Vectors-To-Final option for loading an approach? Use it with caution because ATC is restricted from clearing you direct to any waypoint inside the Intermediate Fix (IF) or vectoring you any closer than 3 miles from the FAF on an RNAV approach. Not that this hasn't stopped some controllers from doing otherwise. Vectors-To-Final will only display the the FAF and MAP and I'm not sure why Garmin units even provide you this option for RNAV approaches. I guess it could be useful in an emergency, but not in normal operations.
***

Many GPS units also contain VOR receivers so ensure that your HSI or CDI is displaying the GPS course. Otherwise you might get confused when the course doesn't come alive and ATC starts asking you what the heck you are doing.

When to Descend?

The Santa Maria RNAV (GPS) RWY 12 approach depicts the Minimum Safe Altitude in sectors based on the waypoints WINCH and LIWLU, but many RNAV approaches have a conventional MSA depiction. Nice of the FAA to keep it simple, eh? You reference the MSA altitudes like the one depicted on the Santa Maria approach once you're cleared for the approach without any altitude restriction from ATC.



Let's say you're approaching from the Northwest and Santa Barbara approach clears you direct WINCH. You load the approach with WINCH as the transition and activate the approach. Your GPS may then ask you if you want to load the hold and you say ... wait for it ... NO!




Your GPS says the desired track to WINCH is 142 degrees and ATC clears you for the approach. You are at 7000 feet and 9 miles from WINCH, so you can descend to 5500 feet. Once you are within 6 miles of WINCH, you can descend to 3300 feet. Passing WINCH, follow the altitudes listed on the profile view of the approach chart. Simple, once you understand the conventions.

The "How Low?" Lowdown

RNAV approach charts may have as many as four different types of approach minima (ceiling and visibility) and this is probably the thing than confuses most pilots who are new to RNAV approaches. The possible minima are labeled:
  • LNAV - lateral navigation only, no descent guidance
  • LNAV/VNAV - lateral navigation with advisory descent guidance
  • LPV - Localizer Performance with Vertical guidance
  • CIRCLING - when straight-in minima are not published or circling is desired.
If your GPS is non-WAAS (TSO C129), then life is pretty simple: You only get LNAV minima and you fly the approach like any other non-precision approach, descending as indicated on the profile view of the approach chart. A good practice is to perform a RAIM check on a TSO C129 unit prior to departure and again prior to reaching the IAF.

If you have a WAAS GPS unit (TSO C145 or 146) you can skip the RAIM check, but you should check for WAAS outage NOTAMs for your destination as part of your preflight briefing. With a WAAS unit, the approach chart minima you will use will depend on the course sensitivity the GPS unit displays when your are flying the approach, a few miles outside the FAF. This course sensitivity depends on the WAAS signal integrity and may vary from day to day and hour to hour.


When you activate the approach, your WAAS unit will probably display TERM sensitivity - a full-scale deflection of the course needle (left or right) represents a 1 mile displacement (left or right) from the desired track.



Somewhere before the FAF, usually at the last intermediate fix before the FAF, the sensitivity will change to either LNAV, LNAV+V, L/VNAV, or LPV. (Some approaches list GLS minima as N/A, but this is just a placeholder, it will be replaced eventually with LPV.)

LNAV+V, L/VNAV, or LPV course sensitivities all offer basically a 0.3 mile full-scale deviation and they also provide vertical guidance, but there are crucial differences between the type of vertical guidance provided.

Anytime vertical guidance is provided, be aware that the glidepath may be provided all the way to the surface. Therefore the pilot must ensure they (or the autopilot) do not descend below the MDA or DA appropriate for the course sensitivity displayed by their GPS unless the appropriate visual references described in 14 CFR 91.175 are present.

Advisory Guidance

LNAV+V provides only advisory guidance and this is considered a non-precision approach: You need to ensure you do not descend below any step-down altitude listed on the approach chart's profile view. You may see LNAV+V on some RNAV approach charts that only have LNAV minima, but you may also see it on an RNAV approach where the required signal integrity for LPV is unavailable. RNAV approaches with only circling minima and with an approach course that is more than 30 degrees out of alignment with any runway will not display advisory guidance. The advisory vertical guidance should be a constant glide angle required to get you to MDA a bit before the missed approach point. If you are an adherent to the "dive and drive" style of non-precision approach flying (I am not, by the way), then you can ignore the advisory guidance all together and fly a less-than-stabilized approach.

L/VNAV

This sensitivity is Garmin's way of telling you that this is an Approach with Vertical Guidance (APV): If you follow the glidepath and the lateral guidance to the Decision Altitude, you won't hit anything. I suspect Garmin chose L/VNAV because 1) they didn't have enough characters available to display LNAV/VNAV and 2) they wanted it to be distinguishable from LNAV/+V. Find that confusing? You're not alone!

L/VNAV vertical guidance is provided all the way to the surface. Therefore the pilot must ensure they (or the autopilot) do not descend below the DA unless the appropriate visual references described in 14 CFR 91.175 are present.

LPV

This sensitivity is also to a Decision Altitude and is considered an Approach with Vertical Guidance (APV). The LPV approach provides lateral and vertical guidance similar to an ILS, but usually to a DA no lower than 250 HAT and no less than 1/2 mile visibility.


LPV sensitivity will be annunciated at the last fix before the final approach fix. On the Oakland RNAV (GPS) RWY 27L, this is also where the glidepath will begin being displayed on most GPS units. Interestingly, glidepath intercept is depicted on this chart's profile view at the FAF. For an ILS, the makes sense because of the physical construction and limitations of the ILS. RNAV glidepaths don't have these limitations, so I don't see any risk in following the LPV glidepath as soon as it appears. Just verify your altitudes at each waypoint.


Glidepath to Where?

Pilots have asked me if the glidepath provided for L/VNAV or LPV approaches, like an ILS glideslope, would take them to the touchdown zone. I'm not certain, but my understanding is that the glidepath (or glideslope) for CAT I approaches takes the aircraft to a Threshold Crossing Height (TCH). Look at any RNAV approach chart that provides LNAV/VNAV or LPV minima and you should find that a glideslope angle and TCH are listed, just as you'd find for an ILS.

In order to Serve you Better

If you see an error message saying that the GPS is unusable while flying an RNAV approach and still outside the FAF, you need to execute the missed approach. If this happens inside the FAF, the regulations say you can continue the approach. The only way I'd continue is if I already had the required visual references or some sort of emergency.

When planning to fly an RNAV Z approach, you'd best have the RNAV Y version of the approach handy, too. If the required WAAS signal integrity is not available, your GPS may inform you that the approach has been downgraded and that you should use the LNAV minima - those minima won't be shown on your RNAV Y approach chart, but on the RNAV Z approach chart. Nice curveball, huh?


Absence Makes the Pilot Go Missed

You loaded and activated the approach correctly, you identified the correct minima to use, you got to the MDA or DA and you don't see the required visual references. It's time for the missed approach and all IFR-certified GPS units (except older GNS480) will suspend waypoint sequencing at the MAP. You'll need to press a button (and perhaps set a new desired track on your CDI) to start navigating on the missed approach segment. For most Garmin units, you press the OBS button or softkey. For many King units, you press the Direct button.

Too Complex?

Many a pilot has complained to me that RNAV approaches are just too complex. I agree. I think the approach designers and the RNAV avionics designers have created their own treehouse with some pretty complex rules, dependencies, and exceptions. The pilot guides for these products try to describe these operational subtleties, but this is some complex @#%& for single-pilot IFR.

If you've made it this far, congratulations: It's a rare instrument pilot who can stomach this much minutiae. If there's something I forgot to cover, email me or post a comment. And lastly, this post took a fair amount of time to craft. If you found it useful, please click on the donate button on the upper right corner of this page. The amount you donate is up to you, but every little bit helps.
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...