PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - Surely LNAV+V must be safer?
View Single Post
Old 6th Apr 2018, 04:10
  #16 (permalink)  
ftrplt
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 431
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Baro V-Nav approaches are designed and coded differently to 'basic' RNAV approaches. When a Baro V-Nav approach is loaded into a certified avionics system - yes, you can fly solely off the vertical glidepath with no requirement to monitor intermediate steps (in fact there aren't any intermediate steps beyond glidepath capture), you wont fly into a mountain (as long as the temp is within the certified bounds and accurate QNH is available).

'Basic' R-Nav are not coded with a vertical glidepath to 50ft (usually) over the threshold, they are designed with intermediate altitude steps vs distance. Therefore, no avionics manufacturer can build a vertical glidepath capability that can be solely relied upon as the data is not designed into the approach, and therefore not coded into any database, hence the advisory nomenclature.

The FAA say no different to CASA in relation to use of advisory VNAV.
ftrplt is offline