IFR Approach Type Matrix

[VWGhiaBob]

I’m a 2.5 year IFR pilot and get rusty from time to time on all the different approach types...which are precision, which aren’t, which require WAAS, which don’t. So many types: Localizer, VOR, RNAV: LNAV / VNAV LPV, LNAV, GLS, RNP, Baro VNAV.

Has anyone ever seen a simple chart listing all approach types with columns for Precision (Y/N), GPS (Y/N), DME (Y/N), and so on?

If not, I am going to make one. Yes, I think I know all of them, but every once in awhile I forget which is which especially when I haven’t flown a particular type in a while.

(Just to head it off at the pass before someone else posts it: “Wow, I can’t believe you don’t know this and you passed IFR. You shouldn’t be flying”. Yes I know. I got a 93 on the written and passed the oral / practical on the first try, including a note from the DPE to my instructor that he wishes all applicants were as prepared.)

 

[asicer]

Do you really think you are going to fly GLS, RNP or baro VNAV? Should probably concentrate on the ones that you might actually fly.

 

[MauleSkinner]

ILS is precision. Everything else is Not.

Your AFM/Supplement will tell you which GPS-based approaches require WAAS and which do not, and which you can fly. Anything not listed you can’t fly.

If you have to ask, you can’t do any approaches that say “authorization required”.

 

[Ravioli]

Is this for ease of picking an approach while planning?

 

[Clip4]

ILS is precision. Everything else is Not.

Your AFM/Supplement will tell you which GPS-based approaches require WAAS and which do not, and which you can fly. Anything not listed you can’t fly.

If you have to ask, you can’t do any approaches that say “authorization required”.

While you are correct, I’d take an LPV over most Cat. I ILS at most uncontrolled airports. LPV is no match for an ILS approach at a controlled field with Cat. III antenna.

 

[MauleSkinner]

While you are correct, I’d take an LPV over most Cat. I ILS at most uncontrolled airports. LPV is no match for an ILS approach at a controlled field with Cat. III antenna.

I chose to stick close to the OP’s question.

 

[luvflyin]

I’m a 2.5 year IFR pilot and get rusty from time to time on all the different approach types...which are precision, which aren’t, which require WAAS, which don’t. So many types: Localizer, VOR, RNAV: LNAV / VNAV LPV, LNAV, GLS, RNP, Baro VNAV.

Has anyone ever seen a simple chart listing all approach types with columns for Precision (Y/N), GPS (Y/N), DME (Y/N), and so on?

If not, I am going to make one. Yes, I think I know all of them, but every once in awhile I forget which is which especially when I haven’t flown a particular type in a while.

(Just to head it off at the pass before someone else posts it: “Wow, I can’t believe you don’t know this and you passed IFR. You shouldn’t be flying”. Yes I know. I got a 93 on the written and passed the oral / practical on the first try, including a note from the DPE to my instructor that he wishes all applicants were as prepared.)

I’m a 2.5 year IFR pilot and get rusty from time to time on all the different approach types...which are precision, which aren’t, which require WAAS, which don’t. So many types: Localizer, VOR, RNAV: LNAV / VNAV LPV, LNAV, GLS, RNP, Baro VNAV.

Has anyone ever seen a simple chart listing all approach types with columns for Precision (Y/N), GPS (Y/N), DME (Y/N), and so on?

If not, I am going to make one. Yes, I think I know all of them, but every once in awhile I forget which is which especially when I haven’t flown a particular type in a while.

(Just to head it off at the pass before someone else posts it: “Wow, I can’t believe you don’t know this and you passed IFR. You shouldn’t be flying”. Yes I know. I got a 93 on the written and passed the oral / practical on the first try, including a note from the DPE to my instructor that he wishes all applicants were as prepared.)

That’s going to be hard to do. Few years ago maybe but not now. The ‘type ‘ Approach pretty much doesn’t tell the story anymore. The move to the ‘equipment required’ box is changing things. There are VOR approaches that require RNAV.

 

[benyflyguy]

That’s going to be hard to do. Few years ago maybe but not now. The ‘type ‘ Approach pretty much doesn’t tell the story anymore. The move to the ‘equipment required’ box is changing things. There are VOR approaches that require RNAV.

Yep. The decommissioning of VORs all over the country are putting the screws to non gps IFR flying planes. Our local field has a LOC approach and the missed was over the local VOR. Now that it is decommissioned the missed is gps waypoint.

 

[VWGhiaBob]

Is this for ease of picking an approach while planning?

No. My plane comes back with WAAS today. I want to review approach types. For example, one post above is inaccurate I believe...that only ILS is precision. I believe LPV is also.

 

[ja_user]

No. My plane comes back with WAAS today. I want to review approach types. For example, one post above is inaccurate I believe...that only ILS is precision. I believe LPV is also.

Technically ILS is the only "Precision" approach. From a practical perspective, LPV can't be just as good most of the time.

 

[MauleSkinner]

No. My plane comes back with WAAS today. I want to review approach types. For example, one post above is inaccurate I believe...that only ILS is precision. I believe LPV is also.

We’re both incorrect...

TERPS criteria are provided for the following types of instrument approach procedures:

1. Precision Approach (PA). An instrument approach based on a navigation system that provides course and glidepath deviation information meeting the precision standards of ICAO Annex 10. For example, PAR, ILS, and GLS are precision approaches.

1. 1. Approach with Vertical Guidance (APV). An instrument approach based on a navigation system that is not required to meet the precision approach standards of ICAO Annex 10 but provides course and glidepath deviation information. For example, Baro-VNAV, LDA with glidepath, LNAV/VNAV and LPV are APV approaches.

I’d suggest reading the AIM as well as your AFM/Supplement.

The Instrument Procedures Handbook would also probably be valuable.

 

[luvflyin]

No. My plane comes back with WAAS today. I want to review approach types. For example, one post above is inaccurate I believe...that only ILS is precision. I believe LPV is also.

Work on making that Matrix. Or maybe a Flow Chart. You’ll be well reviewed by the time you are done. My guess is a Matrix will have lotsa columns and probably lotsa footnotes. A Flow Chart will probably make that Can I Log It thing that used to be around here pale in complexity. Have fun

 

[chemgeek]

No. My plane comes back with WAAS today. I want to review approach types. For example, one post above is inaccurate I believe...that only ILS is precision. I believe LPV is also.

In the US, LPV is not designated as a precision approach, but rather a separate category of "approach with vertical guidance." This will affect alternates planning. However, you may use an LPV approach with a HAT of 300 feet or less to demonstrate proficiency in flying precision approaches.

Functionally, an LPV approach with low mins does fly much like an ILS.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Technically ILS is the only "Precision" approach. From a practical perspective...

Yep. The only practical application of "an LPV is nonprecision" is when choosing a required IFR alternate - 800/2, not 600/2

 

[ja_user]

And I did limit my answer to approaches GA aircraft may actually find in this country and use

 

[midlifeflyer]

I’m a 2.5 year IFR pilot and get rusty from time to time on all the different approach types...which are precision, which aren’t, which require WAAS, which don’t. So many types: Localizer, VOR, RNAV: LNAV / VNAV LPV, LNAV, GLS, RNP, Baro VNAV.

Has anyone ever seen a simple chart listing all approach types with columns for Precision (Y/N), GPS (Y/N), DME (Y/N), and so on?

If it's GPS, GPS is in the title.

If not, I am going to make one.

What is the purpose of the chart? To answer quizzes or to know in a practical sense what they are and what equipment is required? If practical, there really isn't that much.

Old School (no GPS)
ILS - precision with vertical guidance.
Everything else - nonprecision

New School (RNAV/GPS)
LNAV ("lateral navigation"); no vertical guidance
LNAV/VNAV ('lateral navigation/vertical navigation); an approach with vertical guidance ("APV" in the terminology)
LP ("localizer performance") - lateral navigation with tighter - localizer like with tigher lateral limits (like a LOC compared to a VOR)
LPV ("localizer performance with vertical guidance" - there's that "V" again!) An APV in most cases equivalent to an ILS, except it's called APV instead of precision.

Beyond that, I'm not sure if much is helpful from a practical sense. We are now getting ILS approaches which require GPS. Other than reading an approach chart, where would that fit in your table?