My, this is a tough audience. Allow me to clarify a few points in order of responses:
- Scud: for a non-precision approach (i.e. minimums as low as 250 ft) there is no requirement of sophisticated lighting, hold short lines, etc. For 99% of the runways out there particularly at airports with an existing CAT II or CAT III ILS, LPV can provide approach limits to 250 ft with the only improved airport infracture is insuring the Glideslope Qualification Surface (GQS) - the region between DA and the runway is free of obstacles above a protected surface (I won't burden you with the calculation of this surface but it is roughly a 2 degree slope for a 3 degree Flight Path Angle (FPA). In Halifax's case, all four runway ends have LPV approaches with limits between 250 and 259 ft (DA value rounded up to the next highest 10 ft - TDZE). Neither Runway 05 or 32 have fancy lighting. The problem in this case is that the AC A320's don't have GPS and even if they did, they and virtually every other transport category aircraft (Airbus, Boeing, etc) don't have WAAS making these procedures unable.
- aterpter: agreed about the strict ICAO definition precludes LPV from being called that. Notwithstanding that, however, for all intents and purposes LPV is a precision approach for the operator - limits as low as 200 ft, 6 sec time to alert, "glideslope-like" vertical guidance (better than the ILS in my opinion). For the pilot it looks and feels just like an ILS despite what ICAO might say. As far as the clear zones, see my comment above about GQS and I agree - we run into this issue in Canada too.
- peekay4: the origin of my comments was to state that RNP/GLS is an inferior option from an economic, operational and procedure design perspective compared to RNAV with WAAS/LPV/APV. It's great business for Honeywell who would dearly love to install a GLS box at every airport and charge a grazillion dollars for avionics upgrades. You are absolutely correct that many FMS's in B737-300/400/500 and Airbus 319/320/330/330/340 do not have GPS hence cannot even do a simple RNAV approach. My point remains that a better option for the reasons above is to have these aircraft equipped with GPS/WAAS rather than GLS, assuming they are going to be upgraded. ADS-B in the US in 2020 is going to drive it for any aircraft that will be flying in that airspace. Having said all of that, it is shameful that a major international airport like Halifax with its location in a valley, with the maritime weather they get and the winds they get do not have a proper ILS to all four runway ends; 250 ft minimums if the proper approach lighting is a far cry better than having to do a LOC/DME approach