Originally Posted by Silvertate
And GNSS plus a WAAS-LAAS is a GLS (err, usually).
Rubbish. A
GLS does not include or use WAAS. It has it's own single ground station on (or close to) airport. Similar in principle to a LAAS, but not the same.
Originally Posted by Sleeper
It is a fullblown 3d , as you call it, rnp ar approach with a 2.8 degree glidepath.
Originally Posted by Silvertate
Interesting, because the approach plate displayed earlier in this thread does not say that (no mention of -AR on the plate). It is May '14, so not sure if it has been updated or not. More problems with naming conventions?
Rubbish again. Do you know how to read Jeppesen plate notes? Do some RNP-AR training and then you will realise what the note "Authorisation Required" means and what it allows you to do and how the approach works.
GNSS is a non-precision 3-D landing system.
GNSS plus WAAS-LAAS is a precision 3-D landing system.
When you understand how the various systems are now being used, you'll realise that the terms "Non-Precision" and "precision" are becoming meaningless. 2d and 3d are all that is necessary to describe an approach type and procedures. After that, it is the minima that counts, nothing else whether it is an ILS to 200ft or a GLS to 200ft or an LPV to similar, the (3D) approach is flown in exactly the same manner.
Satellite positions/orbits/rotations are irrelevant; RAIM predictions take that into account, including planned outages. I assume you have been doing RAIM predictions before launching for Turkey and the RNAV (GNSS) you do at Dalaman?
I will agree with ATC Watcher and Deefer Dog that to the untrained eye, the naming convention for RNP approaches is confusing. An RNAV (GNSS) is actually now an RNP APCH LNAV and an RNAV (RNP) is actually an RNP AR APCH. I don't know what the solution is, though. Here, most GNSS' are RNAV-Z and RNP-ARs are RNAV- (insert other letters eg M, U, P).
The only reason I've been quiet is because you haven't been posting furphies recently...