I'm just back from a recurrent training and the instructors at the training facility told us that the FAA just changed and I guess that means not too long ago and without giving us more specifics, that the LPV approach is now considered a "precision approach".
Yes, and no. As of November (last month) the ICAO reclassification scheme went into effect and will eventually be fully incorporated by member states.
The new scheme introduces two types of
approach methods (2D and 3D), two types of
approach minima (Type 1 and Type 2), in addition to redefining three types of
approach procedures (NPA, APV, and PA).
1. Approach methods:
2D: without vertical guidance, flown to an MDA(H)
3D: with vertical guidance, flown to a DA(H)
2. Approach minima:
Type A: minimums 250 ft (75m) or greater
Type B: minimums below 250ft (75m), and further divided into CAT I, II and III
3. Approach procedures:
Non-Precision (NPA): an instrument procedure (IAP) designed for
2D Type A
Approach with Vertical Guidance (APV): an IAP designed for
3D Type A
Precision Approach (PA): an IAP designed for
3D Type B
You can see even in the "new world" there is still a differentiation between APV and PA
approach procedures, although they are both considered 3D procedures.
The beauty of all the above is I haven't had to specify any kind of equipment (ground & airborne) are required to fly an approach. The new classification better aligns with the Performance Based Navigation (PBN) concept.
With the new classification, in the future we can better "mix and match" what equipment can be used with which approach procedures (so back to the original question asked in this thread).
So how will existing LPV approaches fit into the new classification?
Depends on the particular approach procedure. Many LPV approaches do meet the criteria for a Precision Approach procedure (e.g., at KAPA Rwy 35R), but other LPV approaches only meet the APV criteria (e.g., at KRIL Rwy 26).