Radar vectored RNAV approaches

Would ATC be happy to let you?

I don’t know where the approach was nor whether your LPV needs overflying of the IAF … so not causing a delay to following air traffic in comparison to a radar vectored ILS, there is always the possibility to ask the controller for a " LPV approach for pilot’s training / practice " which they should offer to you. If you ask early enough in the approach they most probably make you no. 2 behind other traffic should your procedure require more time or track miles.

It’s interesting to wonder how an LPV approach, with its traditional T-shape, would fit into Europe’s world of radar vectored ILS approaches being the norm (where ILS is available).

ATC here use vectoring highly tactically, to space aircraft out on the way in, but procedural (called “standard” outside the UK) approaches deny them that possibility unless they vector you to one of the IAFs.

So I guess that when LPV approaches become really commonly used in place of ILS (which will probably take 10 years or so to really start to happen) most of them will also end up being vectored and almost nobody will be flying to any of the IAFs.

I had the procedural LPV setup when offered a vectored ILS and thought it would have been easier to stick with the LPV.

I always take the radar vectors because this usually means a shortcut. We are not LPV capable, but still I would prefer – minima permitting – vectors to a GPS approach over a procedural ILS. But vectors to a GPS approach are not common, mostly (here in Germany at least) you will get a direct to one of the waypoints along the procedure.

I have had vectors to LNAV, LNAV/VNAV and LPV in Germany. Sometimes (actually mostly) they give direct to a waypoint. I would have just asked for vectors to the RNAV.

In the US, vectors to final is standard for an ILS in most places where radar is available. For RNAV procedures, direct to a fix is most common. Now a days, most of the ILS and LPV are direct overlays of each other with respect to the FAF and GS intercept altitude to the same runway, so intermixing with other traffic it really doesn’t make much difference what approach type the various aircraft are on. Controllers don’t always understand the difference between a vector to final and direct to a fix to join the approach and frequently will bait with an offer of vectors to final that ends up switched to a direct to a fix clearance,

At airports with less traffic, direct to a fix to join the approach is easier for the controller as navigation is on the pilot. It is also easier on the pilot as long as they are prepared for it. In the past, the airway had transition feeder routes to join the approach, but as VOR’s and victor airways go away, we are transitioning to a TAA (Terminal Arrival Area) concept where flights on an RNAV course (such as direct airport to airport) have the T with two base leg entries and a direct sector, each with their own IAF to join the approach. In fact, now approaches with an ILS have started to use this RNAV method to join the ILS. At my airport, KUZA there are two versions of the ILS, one that uses airway feeder routes and the other which uses the RNAV TAA structure and requires a GPS to join it.

I much prefer flying the LPV over the ILS as they are fully integrated into the GPS and there are fewer steps involved. No need to tune the ILS frequency, identify it, prepare for how each fix needs to be identified, switching from the GPS to the VLOC as the HSI source, flying the wiggling signal to the runway, if you miss, switching back to GPS as the source, then obtaining the missed approach guidance.

I have not had a need in many many years to fly an ILS in IMC other than for practice. I always get the LPV and request direct to the most convenient fix to join.