Old Akro, sorry mate, but you're rapidly losing the plot.
ML RWY 34 has both GNSS & RNP approaches. They have the same MDA (330 ft) as the VOR approach.
Not they aren't. VOR 430 AGL, RNAV-Z 450 AGL, RNAV-P 381 AGL.
As I understand it, the RNP requires CASA approval which is primarily about flight crew training and equipment certification. The RNP requires RF which is some sort of flight management system distance measuring function - I guessing DME based. I think this is an example of an RNP approach that could be flown with DME & VOR and doesn't require GPS
Wrong. RF is short for Radius to Fix, meaning the FMS is capable of flying a constant radius turn to arrive over a fix/waypoint on a particular track (ie not simply a join-the-dots box). This is needed for "curved" RNP AR approaches. It's got nothing to do with DME and is all done in the box itself.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this is still a non-precision approach (which would require an additional height reference - typically a WAAS beacon).
No! I said before and I'll say it again, RNP AR does not require WAAS. As for being a precision approach, you could say it is (exact definition irrelevant) because vertical guidance is provided and, I suspect, MUST be followed by either the autopilot or manually via the FD.
I don't think the Australian implementation of RNP achieves this.
Nothing Australian about it; RNP ARs are the same world over as far as I am aware and they
do provide vertical guidance (just as any half-decent FMS will provide vertical guidance for the VOR or RNAV-Z/GPS NPA).
I found a US FAA reference that says an ILS costs USD$3m to install and a US AOPA reference that suggests they cost USD$18,000 pa to maintain. If that is all it is - then why the fuss?
With that, I agree.
