EGNOS approaches in Europe

[Cecco]

Currently, there are still only around half a dozen airports with EGNOS approach in Europe. Are more airports planning to have an EGNOS approach or is that put on hold UFN?

[beerdrinker]

Ceco,

More than half a dozen. The French have 4 or 5 times that number including a fair number of LPV approaches.

Even the British have more than a dozen GPS approaches including one LPV approach at Alderney and one rumoured to be put on line at Southampton soon.

[Cecco]

I disagree with you! According to the EGNOS homepage essp-sas.eu, only
six airports have currently an EGNOS-based approach procedure (LPV) in Europe: LFBP, LFLC, LFPB, LSZR, LSGC and EGJA.

GPS approaches (APV Baro) have nothing to do with the EGNOS-based approach, which requires a SBAS-receiver installed in the aircraft.

[Sir George Cayley]

I think using the term EGNOS might be confusing. As I understand it SBAS APV is supported by EGNOS and IAPs designed to use this augmentation are coded LPV on the plate.

So beerdrinker was right to name Alderney and mention SOU as next in line, but the fact that the UK have other RNAV (GNSS) IAPs to non precision MDH(A) doesn't detract from the truth of his answer.

I'm sure you are aware of ACCEPTA. The UK is working closely with the managers of this project to realise several new approaches to an LPV minima.

[Cecco]

What I mean are the LPV approaches with minima down to 250 ft AGL, requiring a SBAS receiver. I agree that EGJA (Alderney) has such approaches.

(APV baro)=Vertical Guidance by means of baro VNAV. Taking e.g EDMA, RNAV (GPS) RWY 07, our avionics equipment is such that we are eligible for the LNAV/VNAV minimum of 1930 ft WITHOUT a SBAS receiver. The term "EGNOS" is not mentioned on the approach plate.

(LPV)=Localiser performance with vertical guidance. On the RNAV (GNSS) RWY 10 approach in LSZR, however, it´s a different story. Here you have the LPV minimum and also find "EGNOS" on the approach plate. You MUST have the SBAS receiver in order to be eligible for the LPV minimum.

I read an article somewhere that the introduction of new EGNOS approaches
is slowed down by bureaucrats for whatever reasons.

[Denti]

I guess the drive for LPV isn't all that big in europe as most if not all airlines are unable to use it. However, they can use RNP AR or GLS approaches. That means there is not all that much money behind people promoting those kind of approaches.

That said, we do have a chart for the RNAV (GNSS) 10 in Altenrhein in our documentation which does not show LPV minima, the lowest usable for us would be 2060ft for a class C aircraft. However that wouldn't be used normally as the ILS allows us to use a lower minimum of 1810ft. So, do we need an LPV approach? Not really, as there is a conventional precision approach.

LPV is an excellent tool for smaller airports that are not able to afford the infrastructure of a conventional approach and not the much cheaper infrastructure for a GLS approach which would offer true precision approach minima and in the future low vis capability. However there are still costs for it and someone needs to cough it up. So if there is no real demand currently airports will rather not spend the money. There might be a business case for some airports if slots becoming difficult to obtain on a nearby major airports to attract more GA traffic, and EDMA would certainly fit into that category. If there is demand for approaches like already i guess airports and legislators are either already working on it or have already published approaches. The current picture however is a picture of where and how big the demand is.

[FlightPathOBN]

Just as with WAAS in the US and MSAS, SBAS is an oddity, requiring instrumentation, certification and availability, that just isnt really worth the cost..

[aterpster]

FlightPathOBN:

Just as with WAAS in the US and MSAS, SBAS is an oddity, requiring instrumentation, certification and availability, that just isnt really worth the cost.

Rebuttal:

There are now more LPV than ILS approaches in the U.S. LPV has gained broad acceptance in the general aviation community. Unlike most CAT 1 ILS's LPV is rock solid to touchdown.

What is the oddity is RNP AR, with its bar set so high that it is worthless to all but some air carriers, for which the incremental costs are far less than for the aviation community in general.

BTW, where is the reference on those 2.8 degree paths you asserted a couple of days ago?

[FlightPathOBN]

ahh...the board troll speaks....

[aterpster]

FlightPathOBN:

ahh...the board troll speaks....

If that is how you choose to characterize yourself, so be it. You certainly are good on meaningless generalities but very, very short on specifics.

[FlightPathOBN]

Look at the LPV procedures in the US, not difficult to design 500 procedures on the interior of Alaska...exactly how many aircraft are equipped to use them?

When was the last time a commercial carrier in the US was given clearance to use an LPV procedure?

Meanwhile, RNP procedures are available to virtually every airport in the world, with GBAS following.

In ref to 2.8GPA...there are 2 airports in the world with approved multi-variant RNP procedures, and I designed both of them, with a 2.8 GPA....along with the 3 highest airports in the world, and procedures in US, China, Europe, NZ and Australia...

The Airbus and Boeing RNP standard is 2.8...I really dont care if you believe it or not...

[bookworm]

What I mean are the LPV approaches with minima down to 250 ft AGL, requiring a SBAS receiver. I agree that EGJA (Alderney) has such approaches.

Well the issue of terminology may well lead you to the answer to your question.

Most LNAV approaches in Europe can be flown to LNAV minima with an advisory glideslope using an SBAS (EGNOS) receiver. The advisory glideslope offers a significant part of the safety benefit.

Further, EASA proposes (http://www.easa.europa.eu/certification/docs/certification-memorandum/EASA%20Proposed%20CM-AS-002%20Issue%2001_Clarifications%20to%20AMC%2020-27_PUBL.pdf) to allow flight to LNAV/VNAV minima with a glideslope using an SBAS (EGNOS) receiver as well as using BaroVNAV. My understanding is that that has been allowed in the US for a long time, but there's an issue for EASA in whether the approaches were designed with angular guidance taken into account.

If you look at the Brest (https://www.sia.aviation-civile.gouv.fr/aip/enligne/PDF_AIPparSSection/IAC/AD/2/1212_AD-2.LFRB.pdf) GNSS approaches to 07R, you'll see why relatively few airports have gone to the trouble of LPV. The LPV DH is 300 ft, the LNAV and LNAV/VNAV (M)DH 370 ft.

Alderney (http://www.nats-uk.ead-it.com/public/index.php%3Foption=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=13&Itemid=62.html) is an even better example: LPV DH is 300 ft, LNAV (M)DH is 340 ft. No LNAV/VNAV minima are published. 300 -> 340 ft takes you from a minimum RVR of 900 m to a minimum of 1100 m. So the operational value of LPV over LNAV is limited, and the difference in safety value is minimal now we have "LNAV+V" advisory glideslopes.

So the answer to your OP is that there are hundreds or thousands of "EGNOS approaches" flown every day in Europe, but little incentive to go to the trouble of coding a FAS datablock and making it LPV.

[aterpster]

FlightPathOBN:

The Airbus and Boeing RNP standard is 2.8...I really dont care if you believe it or not...

I do care what you believe, because your posts on this forum are so often wildly technically incorrect.

You still haven't pointed me and others interested where this Boeing/AB 2.8 vertical path standard is set forth authoritatively.

As you may, or perhaps may not know, where a procedure exists without state source vertical guidance but has straight-in minimums, Jeppesen codes insofar as possible, a 3 degree VPATH. They are a Boeing company. I presume LIDO does the same.

FAA policy for U.S. state-source vertical guidance is 3.0 degrees, whether it be ILS, LNAV/VNAV, or LPV. It can be up to 3.1 for CAT D if necessary for obstacle clearance (slightly more for CAT C) but never 2.8 degrees.

I presume you do all of your design work outside of the U.S. Are you an FAA-approved third-party terminal procedures designer?

[bookworm]

I presume you do all of your design work outside of the U.S. Are you an FAA-approved third-party terminal procedures designer?

How can you doubt his credentials? ;) Didn't you know FlightPathOBN also has a US 5LNC named after him?

44 19 06.47N 092 04 50.9W

[FlightPathOBN]

So the part about RNP slipped right past you?
If you are a Bus driver in China or AUS, I can almost bet that the RNP procedure is coded at 2.8GPA.

SInce RNP is designed for uncompensated baro, you can take your effective GPA to 2.71 (US) and 2.5 in many other places. So with that in mind, a 3 degree GPA would be far too temperature limited for many locations or altitudes.

Are you an FAA-approved third-party terminal procedures designer? You already know that, Naverus was the very first 3rd party approved to design public RNP in the US.
http://flightaware.com/resources/airport/SCC/IAP/RNAV+(RNP)+Z+RWY+05/png/1
http://flightaware.com/resources/airport/SCC/IAP/RNAV+(RNP)+Z+RWY+23/png/1

[Zeffy]

Hmmm...

What's the GP angle here?

http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa92/zeffy_bucket/PASCRNP23.png



And here?

http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa92/zeffy_bucket/PASCRNP5.png



Temp limit:
http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa92/zeffy_bucket/PASCtemplimit.png

[aterpster]

FlightPathOBN:
You already know that, Naverus was the very first 3rd party approved to design public RNP in the US.

I am well aware of that. I was a member of the PARC at that time. Steve Fulton was also there when John McGraw was getting the PARC on board the private vendor approval process.

Since you work there give Steve my regards. He is about as sharp as they come. Do you report directly to him?

I'm impressed.

I believe they (GE/Naverus) are using the recently authorized more permissive FAA temperature for the VEB.

[aterpster]

bookworm:

How can you doubt his credentials? http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wink2.gif Didn't you know FlightPathOBN also has a US 5LNC named after him?

44 19 06.47N 092 04 50.9W

Thanks for the tip. Here is the FAA source form for 44 19 06.47N 092 04 50.9W:

http://tinyurl.com/b6hpvh2

[FlightPathOBN]

The point of including the plates, was not the 3 degree GPA, but public RNP AR designed by a 3rd party....and of course, these are procedures that I had designed. I will also explain, that in designing procedures in AUS, NZ, Canada, China, and South America, with Boeing, Airbus, Embraer aircraft, I am well versed in the performance specs and the standards, and individual requirements for tailored RNP approaches.

So, on that note, as the PASC plates are FAA public procedures, (RW23 has no ILS)the GPA is 3 degrees for uncompensated, correct, as you pointed out, so what is your effective GPA at -24? or at 32 ?
So the same procedure, assumes the aircraft is on a GPA anywhere from 2.6 to 3.2?

So, the operative word is 'uncompensated', and therein lies the trick....

(at PASC,-24 NA gives you access about 25% of the year. 2 operators have the identical procedure approved, with a 3.5 GPA, which is good from -50 to -25)

[FlightPathOBN]

Since you work there give Steve my regards. He is about as sharp as they come. Do you report directly to him?

I did, and neither one of us is there any longer.
Fulton is back on the flight line at Alaska, along with Hal...

I, of course, am here at operations based navigation (http://operationsbasednavigation.com/)...

[beerdrinker]

Cecco,

The web site you yourself quoted answers your question (if you really meant "how many LPV approaches are there")

http://www.essp-sas.eu/downloads/xccwrso/listegnos_basedproceduresforweb18_10_2012.pdf

There are 18 Airports in France with a total of 21 LPV approaches (Toulouse Blagnac has 4 LPV approaches, 2 airports in Switzerland, and one airport in UK.

The others listed are in Germany and are APV Baro approaches.

[Jethro]

Hello all,

Please forgive me for bringing this old thread back to the fore, but I need to gather some information about EGNOS approaches in Europe and any related changes in the runway lighting infrastructure..

1st question is:
Are there any European airports now using EGNOS (SBAS or LPV) approaches that did not have an ILS approach capability beforehand?

2nd question is:
What is the typical LPV approach minima (decision height) at these airports?

3rd question is:
Has there been any enhancement to the original runway or approach lighting system to capture the benefits of the EGNOS lower minima capability?

Thank you for your assistance..

[737Jock]

Still not using this stuff in europe apart from LNAV/VNAV DA on GNSS/GPS approaches.

[GlenQuagmire]

I think Exeter EGTE has an LPV approach.

http://www.ead.eurocontrol.int/eadbasic/pamslight-9002597E29354FD503191D008D931416/7FE5QZZF3FXUS/EN/Charts/AD/AIRAC/EG_AD_2_EGTE_8-10_en_2014-08-21.pdf

[neilki]

Rest assured, Part 121 carriers in the US do use the RNAV approaches. Technically there isn't an 'LPV Approach' per se, but an GPS Based RNAV Approach (called the RNAV Y or X typically) flown to LPV minima. Last i read there were ~1600 plus RNAV with documented LPV minima. They are rock solid, and frankly, it's gratifying to see our tax dollars at work promoting air safety.

[bookworm]

Alderney (http://www.nats-uk.ead-it.com/public/index.php%3Foption=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=13&Itemid=62.html) has an LPV approach DH 300 ft to supplement previous NDB approaches, no ILS.

I won't get into whether it counts as "European" or not. :)

[Jethro]

Thanks all very much for the valuable feedback and links. From what I could quickly tell, the visibility and lighting requirements for LPV are not mentioned in your local examples and this is the point..

With all emphasis on LPVs lowering ceiling and little mentioned on improving (or maintaining) vis criteria, the lighting piece needs to be explored or at least confirmed through ICAO regulation, that the same (precision approach) lighting standard applies to LPV as they do to ILS.

In this, it's my humble view that you shouldn't apply the current precision approach lighting standard, simply because LPVs are better (more stable, more accurate) than ILS - but this is an argument for another day.

As we move towards LPV-200 (genuine Cat 1 ILS equivalent), the lighting requirement is really important and needs sorting out.

Thanks again very much for the quick and informative replies...

[FlightDetent]

The approach type (+ airborne equipment and crew qualificatinos, ...) determine the lowest Decision height and the lighting facilities determine the visibility. What seems to be the problem? EASA IR (EU-OPS, JAR-OPS...).

cheers,
FD

[737Jock]

Better then ILS cat 1? In what way?

[Denti]

There seems to be a bigger push into GBAS these days. Frankfurt published GBAS approaches to all its landing runways last fall down to CAT I minima after a several year long normal operation in EDDW worked out quite fine. MUC will follow next apparently, Malaga is finally operational as well after years and years of trials.

Currently there is no advantage with GBAS as it just offers CAT I minima and therefore a normal CAT IIIb ILS has to be there anyway, in the future it could of course make those ILS installations obsolete, not to mention that it is easy to offer different glideslope angles and approaches to all runways with just one installation.

And although my outfit was the first certified GBAS airline in europe we will lose that capability soon with the phase out of our 737s. Boeing gives away the GBAS capability for free, retrofit on the A320 costs around 250k per airframe which makes it a non-issue, as it isn't needed at the moment anyway.