I’m going the pick the one that gets me the lowest. The plane I fly the LPV is more reliable when using auto tune so I tend to pick those when the mins are the same
That is a very nice video thank you. One question: I want to fly in a country that doesn’t have SBAS constellation (like Australia or South America) If I have a light aircraft equipped with GTN 750 that is SBAS GPS (no Baro-VNAV I think) Can I fly a RNAV/VNAV approach ? If yes how is the vertical profile is followed ?
LPV is still considered a NPA though. If you want to know more, there’s a great boldmethod live video about PBN which is a commonly misunderstood concept in my opinion. Nice short!
LPV is a non-precision approach but is actually classified as an APV approach which is an approach with vertical guidance in the United States. Some countries do consider it a precision approach.
Could you find a reason for the RNAV RWY 18 at KHZR to have lower LNAV/VNAV than LPV? LPV: 347 LNAV/VNAV : 317 This one has me stumped! I wonder if the LPV's vertical path increases in sensitivity and if that may be a factor! Might might for a cool video!
@@justinfabricius1597 it has to do with TERPS and “obstacle clearance surface” or OCS. At the charted minimum for the approach there has to be a certain obstacle clearance height at that location of a certain radius when that height is reached and a buffer of clear area under that radius. There may be an obstacle closer to the runway where the LPV MAP is inside the safe area of the OCS vs where the LNAV/VNAV minimum is located using a particular descent angle. That is the jist of it. I have had the same question myself. If you need to get lower the LNAV/VNAV is the way to go and you’ll still have a GP to follow. Chances are 30’ won’t make a difference with a ceiling that low.
@@flyingdutchman2065 Yes and no. Here is an FAA document that answers that question - www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ato/RNAV_QFacts_final_06122012.pdf
LPV approaches can provide a reduced workload in the event of a missed approach by not having to change nav sources. GPS based approaches are not subject to interference from aircraft taxiing in front of antennas, and last of all, GPS based approaches are far cheaper to install than a ground based ILS system.
Not if Baro-VNAV equipped. Here is the source for that answer: LNAV/VNAV approaches provide both horizontal and approved vertical approach guidance. Vertical Navigation (VNAV) utilizes an internally generated glideslope based on WAAS or baro-VNAV systems. Minimums are published as a DA. If baro-VNAV is used instead of WAAS, the pilot may have approach restrictions as a result of temperature limitations and must check predictive RAIM (Receiver Autonomous Integrity Monitoring). See AIM 1-1-19, 5-1-16, and AC 90-105. www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ato/RNAV_QFacts_final_06122012.pdf
@@connorjensen2784 I just happened to be sitting at the computer when you left the comment. Best of luck on your CFII ride tomorrow. CFII is one of the easier checkrides (IMO).
@@thecorporatepilotdad Got it, you were talking about specifically these two approaches, I thought you were talking about what the typical mins are for each type of approach. My bad.
@@Deanjacob7 That is great. The instrument ticket is easier in my opinion. There are new regs to learn, different procedures, but for the most part, you're doing what you already know how to do. MSFS is a great tool in doing instrument training but be careful to NOT develop procedural bad habits in the sim that can be carried over to the airplane.
Check out over 100 aviation videos and tutorials - See the rest of the channel here: ua-cam.com/channels/OTbYtdmGZfqxq0D0lsrYeQ.htmlvideos
Short but informative. Amazing!
I’m going the pick the one that gets me the lowest. The plane I fly the LPV is more reliable when using auto tune so I tend to pick those when the mins are the same
That is a very nice video thank you.
One question:
I want to fly in a country that doesn’t have SBAS constellation (like Australia or South America)
If I have a light aircraft equipped with GTN 750 that is SBAS GPS (no Baro-VNAV I think)
Can I fly a RNAV/VNAV approach ? If yes how is the vertical profile is followed ?
LPV is still considered a NPA though. If you want to know more, there’s a great boldmethod live video about PBN which is a commonly misunderstood concept in my opinion. Nice short!
LPV is a non-precision approach but is actually classified as an APV approach which is an approach with vertical guidance in the United States. Some countries do consider it a precision approach.
Short and sweet!😁🛫 and to the point! Of touch down hopefully!
Shortest and sweetest
Thanks
So the LPV is the ILS based on GNSS?
Yes, same indications as the ILS for the most part, but LPV usually has slightly higher minimums.
Could you find a reason for the RNAV RWY 18 at KHZR to have lower LNAV/VNAV than LPV?
LPV: 347
LNAV/VNAV : 317
This one has me stumped! I wonder if the LPV's vertical path increases in sensitivity and if that may be a factor! Might might for a cool video!
@@justinfabricius1597 it has to do with TERPS and “obstacle clearance surface” or OCS. At the charted minimum for the approach there has to be a certain obstacle clearance height at that location of a certain radius when that height is reached and a buffer of clear area under that radius. There may be an obstacle closer to the runway where the LPV MAP is inside the safe area of the OCS vs where the LNAV/VNAV minimum is located using a particular descent angle. That is the jist of it. I have had the same question myself. If you need to get lower the LNAV/VNAV is the way to go and you’ll still have a GP to follow. Chances are 30’ won’t make a difference with a ceiling that low.
Great video!!!
Thanks for the video! What about RNAV? 🤔
RNAV/GPS approaches are the approaches with LNAV, LNAV/VNAV, and LPV mins.
@@thecorporatepilotdad Thanks for clarifying that! Cheers
You need WAAS to fly LNAV VNAV or just RAIM?
@@flyingdutchman2065 Yes and no. Here is an FAA document that answers that question - www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ato/RNAV_QFacts_final_06122012.pdf
Make a isolate video on it
which is more efficient an ils or lpv?
LPV approaches can provide a reduced workload in the event of a missed approach by not having to change nav sources. GPS based approaches are not subject to interference from aircraft taxiing in front of antennas, and last of all, GPS based approaches are far cheaper to install than a ground based ILS system.
thank you@@thecorporatepilotdad
LNAV/VNAV needs WAAS doesn’t it
Not if Baro-VNAV equipped.
Here is the source for that answer: LNAV/VNAV approaches provide both horizontal and approved
vertical approach guidance. Vertical Navigation (VNAV) utilizes
an internally generated glideslope based on WAAS or baro-VNAV
systems. Minimums are published as a DA. If baro-VNAV is used
instead of WAAS, the pilot may have approach restrictions as a
result of temperature limitations and must check predictive RAIM
(Receiver Autonomous Integrity Monitoring).
See AIM 1-1-19, 5-1-16, and AC 90-105.
www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ato/RNAV_QFacts_final_06122012.pdf
@@thecorporatepilotdad wow thanks for responding so quick! I have my CFII check tomorrow so this was very much appreciated
@@connorjensen2784 I just happened to be sitting at the computer when you left the comment. Best of luck on your CFII ride tomorrow. CFII is one of the easier checkrides (IMO).
Erm, some LPVs take you down to 200 AGL
Who said they didn’t? The LPV in the video has higher minimums.
@@thecorporatepilotdad Got it, you were talking about specifically these two approaches, I thought you were talking about what the typical mins are for each type of approach. My bad.
@@alexkochikyan nope, just the approaches in the video. No worries.
What's with the music?
Conventional way is much better
my new lord and savior corporatepilotdad at it again helping me through training 🙏🙏
You may have said it before this comment, but are you currently doing real world flight training?
@@thecorporatepilotdad just got my ppl about to start my instrument training
@@Deanjacob7 That is great. The instrument ticket is easier in my opinion. There are new regs to learn, different procedures, but for the most part, you're doing what you already know how to do. MSFS is a great tool in doing instrument training but be careful to NOT develop procedural bad habits in the sim that can be carried over to the airplane.
@@thecorporatepilotdad I appreciate your help
ils cat 3 autoland nonstop