Approach procedure not available in FMS

[New on NG]

Hello everyone.

Could you clarify me about this issue?
KMDW Rnav (RNP) Y rwy 22L not available in the current FMS database even though it was available for selection on the displays. Following aircraft reported the same problem. The Rnav (RNP) Y Rwy 22L was the approach in use at that time.

Aircraft: G550
Database: Blue Disc 11 2014

Thanks in advance.

[aterpster]

A question more aptly directed at your database vendor.

[flydive1]

Probably related to this.

http://www51.honeywell.com/aero/portal/Common/Documents/myaerospacecatalog-documents/SafetyCertification-documents/D201011000003R.pdf

[underfire]

wow, I remember having some issues with the DTA with the HW box..never heard of it going out of control...

Did have some issues at first up in Kelowna, BC, flying down the valley, tight turn that doubled back, circling a ridge..box kept wanting to short cut to the parallel closer waypoint (straight thru the ridge)

Needed to add some tricks to the coding, not typical, but it worked..

[Zeffy]

New on NG

The RNAV (RNP) Y RWY 22L approach is an "AR" (Authorization Required) procedure.

http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa92/zeffy_bucket/MDWRNP22L_zpse5d23f38.png (http://s202.photobucket.com/user/zeffy_bucket/media/MDWRNP22L_zpse5d23f38.png.html)

The approach doesn't belong in an operator's database unless the operator has obtained the necessary approvals.

The approval processes are described in AC 90-101A (http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC%2090-101A.pdf).
Also see Performance Based Flight Systems Branch ? Additional Information for Required Navigation Performance (RNP) Authorization Required (AR) (http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/avs/offices/afs/afs400/afs470/rnp/)



The RNAV (GPS) Z 22L approach is a non-AR procedure and flyable by the G550, but only to the LNAV minimums. Note the offset final approach course.

http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa92/zeffy_bucket/RNAVZ22L_zps7c6b0af5.png (http://s202.photobucket.com/user/zeffy_bucket/media/RNAVZ22L_zps7c6b0af5.png.html)

[underfire]

Procedure names should just stay the same. When a new on comes along it shouldnt reorg all the others.
That naming drives me crazy, and all of the waypoints assigned to that procedure have to be updated...

Make about as much sense as changing the runway due to magvar...

[Zeffy]

...That naming drives me crazy, and all of the waypoints assigned to that procedure have to be updated...

Very sorry, but --

The procedure title is a keystone in the database business.

For the pilot, retrieving the procedure by name is mandatory and addresses all of the "updating" issues -- pilots are never permitted to manually construct an RNAV procedure by loading a series of waypoints.

In the USA, public RNAV approaches are labeled RNAV (GPS) RWY NN.

All FAA approaches with "RNP" in the titles are "AR".

[New on NG]

Thank you all!!

It helped me a lot.

[underfire]

Zeff, that is not what I meant.

It is the RNAV (RNP) Z, Y, W, X, etc that I was referencing.

In the US, the procedure with the lowest minima is 'Z', then the letters go up according to the minima of the procedure.

So if a new procedure comes along with a lower minima, everything is renamed. That is what I am complaining about.

In addition, all navaids and waypoints are tagged in the AVN database with all of the procedures they are used on. So when a procedure gets renamed, all of the waypoint tags must be updated.

[Capn Bloggs]

In the US, the procedure with the lowest minima is 'Z', then the letters go up according to the minima of the procedure.
The Yanks should do what we do here: Z the highest minima. :ok:

[aterpster]

ok465:

This one's interesting. You need an authorization to get to 3973 or 4079 on the RNP 'Zulu', but you can fly the LNAV/VNAV on the GPS 'Yankee' to 3952

Nobody said it would be easy.

It is tough. The pilot has to be able to read and analyze. :)

But, since few outside the airline world will ever be able to qualify for RNP AR, it becomes somewhat closer to easy.

Seriously, RNP AR is a great option for the aviation elite where difficult terrain would otherwise prevent a straight-in IAP. But, the airlines have driven the gross overuse of RNP AR where the only benefits are supposed fuel savings.

[aterpster]

Here are two RNP AR IAPs at the same airport. One has significant safety advantages because of terrain (Runway 20), the other (Runway 02) is useless, because that runway has both ILS and LPV:

http://i201.photobucket.com/albums/aa214/aterpster/KGPIRNPRWY20_zps92e5c351.jpg

http://i201.photobucket.com/albums/aa214/aterpster/KGPIRNPRWY02_zps725defbf.jpg

[underfire]

Seriously, RNP AR is a great option for the aviation elite where difficult terrain would otherwise prevent a straight-in IAP. But, the airlines have driven the gross overuse of RNP AR where the only benefits are supposed fuel savings.

Very true. I was never a fan of the selling point of using 'idle descent' as a fuel savings issue. As we have all seen, there is little use for idle descent below 5000 feet when there is a queue that is tightened up.
ATC is going to tell you to maintain 180 to 3000, and 60 to 2/4 nm...hardly idle descent...

While the best fuel saving for idle descent is from enroute to FL10, there are very few RNP procedures that cover that... the ones in Canada were the closest, RNP from the STAR...

Hence to say, I looked more for access, than fuel savings... the missed approach and EO missed make a huge difference, especially when it starts to warm up/cool down. Departure RNP works very, very well, but is very, very custom, and the benefits make it difficult except for the extremes...

In AUS, there are many airports that start to limit access and/or divert due to the ceilings, and it is easy to tell who has the RNP at these locations. This si a very, very good use of RNP AR. A location like Queenstown...great use.
Of course, the procedures in China that are hundreds of nm long....