RNAV GPS-A

[NealRomeoGolf]

I've seen plenty of VOR-A approaches but never thought about an GPS-A approach. Being a flatlander, I don't think you'll find any in the Midwest. But poking around the mountain west, I found one. How many of these are there? On this particular one, the airport has to be VFR to even get in. Gets you down out of the clouds though.

 

[midlifeflyer]

There are 142 of them.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Not all in high country either. Here's one in Indiana.
https://www.faa.gov/aero_docs/dtpp/2106/05939RA.PDF#nameddest=(3I3)

 

[Deelee]

Timely post - I shot the RNAV-C at JGG this morning. Never flown one before.

https://skyvector.com/files/tpp/2106/pdf/06425RC.PDF

Was expecting to just get visual, but weather didn't agree.... so got put on this approach. Was kinda cool to fly... broke out around 1200' but was pretty hard to actually see the airport since it was offset from the approach course (and tucked into a forest).

 

[midlifeflyer]

Timely post - I shot the RNAV-C at JGG this morning. Never flown one before.

https://skyvector.com/files/tpp/2106/pdf/06425RC.PDF

Was expecting to just get visual, but weather didn't agree.... so got put on this approach. Was kinda cool to fly... broke out around 1200' but was pretty hard to actually see the airport since it was offset from the approach course (and tucked into a forest).

Ah! That 142 I mentioned did not include B and C variants. Only the As.

 

[NealRomeoGolf]

Not all in high country either. Here's one in Indiana.
https://www.faa.gov/aero_docs/dtpp/2106/05939RA.PDF#nameddest=(3I3)

Interesting...

 

[luvflyin]

Interesting...

Theres a D in Missoula KMSO.

 

[Jim K]

Interesting...

Pick me up on the way and I'll ride safety pilot.

I just saw my first one today as well. Not particularly useful unless you're coming in from that direction.

 

[RussR]

Not particularly useful unless you're coming in from that direction.

Could you expand a little on what you mean by "not particularly useful"?

 

[Jim K]

Could you expand a little on what you mean by "not particularly useful"?

This airport has rnav approaches to both runways with lower circling minimums as well as lnav & lpv. One of them also has a lower iaf . I can't see any reason why you'd choose the rnav-b over the rnav 22.

 

[luvflyin]

This airport has rnav approaches to both runways with lower circling minimums as well as lnav & lpv. One of them also has a lower iaf . I can't see any reason why you'd choose the rnav-b over the rnav 22.
View attachment 98150

If you were coming in from the Southeast, like say on V85, it would save you a lot of flying time. Provided of course the the weather was good enough.

 

[midlifeflyer]

If you were coming in from the Southeast, like say on V85, it would save you a lot of flying time. Provided of course the the weather was good enough.

That's what he said.

 

[luvflyin]

That's what he said.

What he said was “...I can't see any reason why you'd choose the rnav-b over the rnav 22...” Any. There is a good reason one may want to choose it.

 

[midlifeflyer]

What he said was “...I can't see any reason why you'd choose the rnav-b over the rnav 22...” Any. There is a good reason one may want to choose it.

What he said was

I just saw my first one today as well. Not particularly useful unless you're coming in from that direction.
View attachment 98146

It's all about conversations in context.

 

[luvflyin]

What he said was

It's all about conversations in context.

Yeah. His post #8 and his post #10 are a little contradictory. I had replied to #10

 

[midlifeflyer]

Yeah. His post #8 and his post #10 are a little contradictory. I had replied to #10

We read them differently. I read them as part of the same conversation rather than as contradictory.

 

[Deelee]

Regarding the RNAV-C to Williamsburg/Jamestown - There are only two approaches - A VOR-B and this RNAV-C. In terms of usefulness, if it weren't for the RNAV-C, I wouldn't have been able to descend through the thick-ish layer, land and enjoy a great lunch with a friend and fellow PoA enthusiast.

ATC first asked if I wanted the visual. I said.... um... ok let's try. He descended me to 3000', but was still in solid IMC. He said, "Airport is 10 miles, 12 o'clock..." Said.. "ok... um still in solid IMC." So he descends me to 2000'.. five miles later ATC says, "Airport five miles ahead 12 o'clock." me - "Sorry, still in solid IMC no ground contact."

He asks, "Ok, want to try the RNAV-C?" me - "Lesssssdoit."

It was a pretty fun approach. Solid IMC at the IF, the FAF and then down to 1300' where I broke out.

 

[RDUPilot]

Regarding the RNAV-C to Williamsburg/Jamestown - There are only two approaches - A VOR-B and this RNAV-C. In terms of usefulness, if it weren't for the RNAV-C, I wouldn't have been able to descend through the thick-ish layer, land and enjoy a great lunch with a friend and fellow PoA enthusiast.

ATC first asked if I wanted the visual. I said.... um... ok let's try. He descended me to 3000', but was still in solid IMC. He said, "Airport is 10 miles, 12 o'clock..." Said.. "ok... um still in solid IMC." So he descends me to 2000'.. five miles later ATC says, "Airport five miles ahead 12 o'clock." me - "Sorry, still in solid IMC no ground contact."

He asks, "Ok, want to try the RNAV-C?" me - "Lesssssdoit."

It was a pretty fun approach. Solid IMC at the IF, the FAF and then down to 1300' where I broke out.

I wonder who the other PoA enthusiast you are talking about... hmmmm

 

[Deelee]

I wonder who the other PoA enthusiast you are talking about... hmmmm

lessseeeee....

I also hear he had to shoot the same approach. But got vectored there first because he flies a Bo whilst I do not.

 

[RDUPilot]

lessseeeee....

I also hear he had to shoot the same approach. But got vectored there first because he flies a Bo whilst I do not.

Hahah.. like you said... Good Approach!!

 

[dtuuri]

Timely post - I shot the RNAV-C at JGG this morning. Never flown one before.

https://skyvector.com/files/tpp/2106/pdf/06425RC.PDF

Was expecting to just get visual, but weather didn't agree.... so got put on this approach. Was kinda cool to fly... broke out around 1200' but was pretty hard to actually see the airport since it was offset from the approach course (and tucked into a forest).

Hard to see means late to the party, so to speak, and too late to make left traffic for RWY 31. If you simply cross the field and make right traffic you'll have the runway in sight off the right wing during your circle to land. Ah, "But no!" screams the Chief Counsel and media writers who say, "You must make left traffic to conform to the traffic pattern, whether VFR or IFR!" Baloney, says me. You want me to turn my back on the runway and try to find the airport all over again? Forget it.

 

[iamtheari]

I hadn't seen them outside the mountains before this thread. Why aren't the approaches to KJGG and 3I3 straight-in?

 

[EdFred]

I hadn't seen them outside the mountains before this thread. Why aren't the approaches to KJGG and 3I3 straight-in?

I'm guessing something penetrates the safe zone.

 

[flyingron]

I hadn't seen them outside the mountains before this thread. Why aren't the approaches to KJGG and 3I3 straight-in?

There's some kind of mining operation with big mounds off the end of 31 at JGG. I suspect that the intermittant obstruction has something to do with it. Sky King has some pretty big trees at the end.

 

[sarangan]

I'm guessing something penetrates the safe zone.

JGG has a couple of towers 400' and 500' on the final approach path, so the approach is misaligned with the runway by 15 deg.
3I3 is an interesting case. Even though the approach is aligned with the runway (88-deg for Rwy 9), it is a high minimum due to some towers, so it is classified as a circling approach. I wonder why it wasn't named as a straight-in approach with a high minimum.

 

[EdFred]

JGG has a couple of towers 400' and 500' on the final approach path, so the approach is misaligned with the runway by 15 deg.
3I3 is an interesting case. Even though the approach is aligned with the runway (88-deg for Rwy 9), it is a high minimum due to some towers, so it is classified as a circling approach. I wonder why it wasn't named as a straight-in approach with a high minimum.

@RussR should have an answer as to why you get S- vs C. I'm guessing it has something to do with final descent rate/approach path.

 

[flyingron]

JGG has a couple of towers 400' and 500' on the final approach path, so the approach is misaligned with the runway by 15 deg.
3I3 is an interesting case. Even though the approach is aligned with the runway (88-deg for Rwy 9), it is a high minimum due to some towers, so it is classified as a circling approach. I wonder why it wasn't named as a straight-in approach with a high minimum.

Once you clear the obstacle you have less than 400ft/nm I suspect from the MDA to the runway.

 

[RussR]

@RussR should have an answer as to why you get S- vs C. I'm guessing it has something to do with final descent rate/approach path.

That is the usual reason for this situation, but actually not the case here. The descent from the FAF to the runway is a normal 3.00 deg angle.

Another reason for circling only is due to lack of appropriate runway markings (i.e. paint). AC 150/5300-13A, Table 3-4, specifies that for straight-in minimums, the runway must have at least "Non-precision" markings, whereas if a runway has "Visual (Basic)" markings, only Circling is authorized.

Google Earth for 3I3 does seem to show Visual (Basic) markings - no threshold or 1000' markers is the big giveaway.

 

[luvflyin]

We read them differently. I read them as part of the same conversation rather than as contradictory.

Yeah. If had read the posts through in one sitting I would have seen that continuation.

 

[NealRomeoGolf]

I just realized that an airport I sometimes land at in Chicago has an RNAV GPS-B approach. It is where @bbchien is located at 1C5.