"No differences recorded" for pilots who have flown the 3.2° approach in the sim
Sums it up really... Sim is a great academic tool, but poorly reflects reality e.g. shifting winds, ATHR mind of it's own. It's also why the ATC view of "you must tell us if you cannot do 165 to 4" early on is impractical.
It's only once on the approach, EAI? winds? that how feasible 160 to 4 comes, if you want the minimum noise technique. 160 to 4 is easy - just drop the gear when slowed from 180, with F2 and up comes the power.
As those familiar with the A320 series know, the quietest / most fuel saving approach is actually about 1/2 dot low at 180K F1. When ATC ask for 160 to 4, reduce V/S take F2, decelerate and inc the F2 "balloon" you can remain at idle all the way to ~1100R. That is feasible on a VMC ILS/MLS.
On an RNAV it is not feasible really - you need to fly the correct vertical profile, so the 180K to 160K decal is a challenge at 3deg
if you want to be quiet during the 160K portion.
But as others have pointed out, the trial has likely already been written up as a success, and winter RNAV 3.2deg is likely lower than ILS 3deg anyway
