Tale of Two Approaches

Most approaches of the same type, particularly RNAV (GPS) approaches, seem essentially the same. The fixes and the minimums are different, but just about everything else is similar enough to other approaches to give a proficient pilot a been there, done that feeling. This thinking can lead us to simply check that the weather is good enough before departure, rather than actually studying the entire procedure before launching.

Editorial Staff

Tuesday, February 02, 2016 at 12:00 AM ET

Verified

Key Takeaways:

Pilots must thoroughly study approach procedures, as illustrated by Inyokern (KIYK) where seemingly similar RNAV (GPS) approaches (Y and Z) hide critical differences related to restricted airspace and varying minimums.
The "Fly visual to airport" annotation allows lower visibility minimums but places significant responsibility on the pilot for obstacle avoidance after the Missed Approach Point (MAP), and a late missed approach may not ensure obstacle clearance.
Unique external factors, such as the absence of on-airport weather reporting and extensive circling restrictions, further highlight the need for comprehensive pre-flight planning for challenging airports.

See a mistake? Contact us.

Most approaches of the same type, particularly RNAV (GPS) approaches, seem essentially the same. The fixes and the minimums are different, but just about everything else is similar enough to other approaches to give a proficient pilot a “been there, done that” feeling. This thinking can lead us to simply check that the weather is good enough before departure, rather than actually studying the entire procedure before launching.

Examining expected approaches and armchair flying them can often identify some unique challenges. The alternative is discovering the unique challenges while trying to fly the procedure. A great example of some unique procedural challenges can be found on the RNAV (GPS) Y and RNAV (GPS) Z approaches to Runway 02 at Inyokern, California (KIYK).