Phraseology for RNP approach
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: everywhere
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Phraseology for RNP approach
Looking for RNP GNSS and GNSS+Baro-VNAV Phraseology and coudn't find any materials. Is it necessary to mention in clearance exact type of approach or enough to say RNP? I would be appreciate to get any links or prompts.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are no published differences in phraseology for 'basic' GNSS approaches and Baro/VNAV approaches in the UK that I'm aware of.
'Request R-NAV approach' and 'Cleared R-NAV approach' is pretty much it. You can add runway designators or via waypoints to that too.
I guess it may become necessary when airfields have more than one RNAV approach to a runway to define them in some way via another designator or phrase. How many airfields have Baro/VNAV approaches now? I'm a bit out of the loop but I thought Alderney was due to be the first a couple of years ago?
'Request R-NAV approach' and 'Cleared R-NAV approach' is pretty much it. You can add runway designators or via waypoints to that too.
I guess it may become necessary when airfields have more than one RNAV approach to a runway to define them in some way via another designator or phrase. How many airfields have Baro/VNAV approaches now? I'm a bit out of the loop but I thought Alderney was due to be the first a couple of years ago?
Alderney has an LPV approach -- the glideslope is based on GNSS with SBAS, not Baro. There are lots more (including Aldergrove and LHR) with LNAV/VNAV lines (with the intention that these are BaroVNAV).
The only references to RNP phraseology I can find are along the lines of "to be promulgated".
I image that the existing phraseology "R-Nav approach Runway XX" will persist, despite the specification technically being RNP APCH.
The only references to RNP phraseology I can find are along the lines of "to be promulgated".
I image that the existing phraseology "R-Nav approach Runway XX" will persist, despite the specification technically being RNP APCH.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Up North UK
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the UK and ECAC area the generic term used is "RNAV Approach" for any form of GNSS approach (they are all nowadays actually RNP approaches) but the generic term is used ... It's up to you what particular version of the procedure you're looking at and what SOP you use, with what equipment (so long as it and you are approved/authorised), and what minima you operate to. Same as for an ILS - you're just "cleared ILS", then it's up to you how it's flown and whether you fly it as Cat I, II or III procedure.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Europe
Age: 59
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The phraseology is linked to the title of the chart - which is currently RNAV. Request RNAV approach Runway XX, There could be three minima lines on the chart, LNAV, LNAV/VNAV or LPV but ATC don't need to know which one is being flown because the procedure is identical apart from the DA/H. The pilot needs to know which minima line he can use.
I think that for Baro/VNAV procedures in France there is an addition read back of the QNH - because if it was wrong it could be rather important.
There is a move to change RNAV approach chart titles to be RNP but this will take a while. All these approach types rely on the use of GPS which includes onboard performance monitoring alerting so the RNAV approaches are really RNP approaches according to the definitions in the ICAO PBN manual.
I think that for Baro/VNAV procedures in France there is an addition read back of the QNH - because if it was wrong it could be rather important.
There is a move to change RNAV approach chart titles to be RNP but this will take a while. All these approach types rely on the use of GPS which includes onboard performance monitoring alerting so the RNAV approaches are really RNP approaches according to the definitions in the ICAO PBN manual.
