P-RNAV approval
 

As more and more airports have P-RNAV arrivals,how common is it for biz aircraft to have P-RNAV approval?
I guess the new ones will have, but what about the slightly older ones.
Thanks

We have and have had it for quit some time..

Both on our 2012 and 2001 aircraft... Its really not hard to get if the aircraft is capable and the crews are trained!

That's not my experience. It's a cinch to operate (with properly equipped aircraft and trained crews) but the (FAA in our case) legislation and appproval process is so onerous that we've elected to do without this approval.

Such approval is never a blanket approval; it is airfield and even approach specific. For an airline, such as Qatar, for example, operating a daily service to Kathmandu, it makes a lot of sense to obtain such an approval as the P-RNAV approach is so much easier and practical than the old VOR-DME approach. But for a global corporate operator who may (or may not) go to Kathmandu once or twice a year is it really worth it?

If your base-of-operations was at such an airfield then, sure it would make sense.

A BBJ operator which has frequent (a few times a year) ops into Seychelles decided to get approval for P-RNAV approval there (for the RNAV approach onto 13) - their aircraft required avionic upgrades, crews needed training and a consultant was hired to write the manual and steer the approval process (with the Bermuda authority). Total cost was over US $ 500,000. For a BBJ the straight in RNAV GNSS approach is not authorized, the P-RNAV gives you a DA of 410' with a visibiity required of 1,200 meters. If you don't have a P-RNAV approval and the wind is pumping from the south then the best option is the circle-to-land off the ILS 31 which has an MDA of 1,270' and requires a visibility of 4,800 meters. With the nearest practical diversion somewhere like Mombasa it makes sense (if you have it) to get such approval but is it really necessary or practical to jump through all these hoops (and conduct the specific annual crew training required) if you have no certainty of operating there?

Interesting topic - nice to have, but needs a judgment call.

As an aside (I'm stating the obvious) don't shoot a P-RNAV approach if you don't have the necessary approval as you stand a strong chance of being violated (by the local as well as your registry authority) and that'll be very unpleasant.

One day our kids will be flying these (and more complex) approaches as the norm but as it stands now you do require specific authority for each individual published approach.

there is a nice, free online course on ICAO:

Performance Based Navigation - Web-based Training

That gives a bit more insight of what we are talking about here.

At least ICAO thinks that for all PBN navigation BUT approaches there is no sim trianig required, there is a distinction between anything enroute/arrivals/departures and approaches. Maybe the FAA has a different view, but that is what the guideline should be...

EHAM has P-RNAV arrivals only, so unless you have approval, you are not authorised to operate into there.
Are there any other major places in Europe, where the same applies?
thanks

ENGM, Oslo.

Airspace Approvals - Isle of Man Government DED

Nothing too difficult for the Isle of Man operators, prove aircraft kit is capable and crew are trained, job done.

PRNAV Arrivals
 

4Holer

I think the original question was asking for PRNAV arrivals. An operator can get a blanket approval (if aircraft is capable and crews are trained)(we are) for PRNAV arrivals as well as departures as this equates to a RNP 1 approval.

You are correct in stating that approaches are approved individually as this requires RNP 0.3 and operators be trained and approved on specific approaches.

Feel free to correct me as I'm just a line guy and leave the paperwork and approvals to mgmt.

G450cpt

Spot on g450cpt - I misread the original post.

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5480/1...083e7705_b.jpg

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3770/1...8ed588a8_b.jpg

The 1st type of approach (RNAV GPS) we are "authorised" to conduct without special airport authorisations, the 2nd approach RNAV (RNP) which used to have the abbreviation SAAAR, we are not authorised to do.

I believe that the two approaches that 4HolerPoler is talking about are RNAV (RNP) approaches. (Kathmandu and Seychelles)

Mutt

Mutt,

Do you in the USA also need approval for the RNP 0,3 minnimums, which is standard RNP on any RNAV (GPS) approach as well?

This is a nice difference since we in europe need approval to fly RNAV approaches and you automatically will get RNP 0,3 in your ops specs as this is the standard minimum for RNAV approaches.

I reckon you are using the LNAV/VNAV minima on the Y approach since the LPV minima requires an approval.

Letter of authorisations states the levels permitted right down to 0.3, based on aircraft certification and crew training, but we don't operate anywhere that requires special authorisation.

Wondering, correct, LNAV/VNAV and not LPV.

We do however have two schools of thought regarding how to conduct the approach, aircraft flight manual states set runway elevation plus 50 feet at the start of the approach, but our airline colleagues, set the missed approach altitude, so I'm curious, what do others use?

Mutt

Not in the US. LPVs are common & available to anyone with a WAAS GPS installed i.a.w. the TSO.

Mutt,

In Rockwell-Collins installations, you know the types, once the approach is loaded and armed; intercepting the VNAV path will transition the flight guidance to APPR and VGP. Once VGP is captured, the altitude selector can be set to the missed approach altitude. It is taught, "it's just like an ILS".

Funny, that the LPV mins are lower than the RNAV AR procedure minima. All our planes now have LPV installed and, with LOA, is available.

The LNAV mins would require setting the alt selector to mins+ 50' and use of LNAV/VNAV. The system would fly, or display to the pilots, the LNAV and VNAV paths.

GF

One would expect LPV approaches to have lower mins compared to pure RNP approaches since they employ WAAS.

Mutt, same here (Collins Avionics). Once the approach is active and we leave the intercept altitude on a VGP, we set the missed approach altitude. That´s just one less thing to worry about in case we go missed. With LNAV/VNAV we set mins +50 as well.

Wondering,

I understand, my point was what value is there for a corporate operator to go thru the hassle of RNAV AR approval unless specific mountainous airports are commonly used. At KPHL, it is silly to have AR approaches.

GF

@GF,

got it. :ok:

I'm a bit confused why you add 50ft to LNAV/VNAV or LNAV minima.

I thought you had to add 50ft to an MDA to set it as an DA and fly an DA style approach.

Since most LNAV/VNAV and in Europe also LNAV have published DA you don't have to add the 50ft anymore. (I thought anyway) since the publisher of the plates eg. Jeppesen allready added the 50ft to calculate the DA minima on an approach.

That's why the LNAV/VNAV DA minima on the plate above has hight er minima as the LNAV MDA minima. Would be silly if the LNAV/VNAV approach had higher minima as an LNAV only approach.

The LNAV/VNAV (called BARO VNAV on our LIDO plates) is higher because it is temperature compensated down to -15°C. The LNAV only minimum isn't. You have to take care of any temperature compensation yourself. BTW, according to our LIDO charts both minima are DAs according to EU-OPS.

Looking for an advice
 

We are trying to receive an approval for P-RNAV and RNP ops (for Single Eng Turbine private operation in Europe) and we are having a difficult time with the local CAA. Their argument is that this approval can only be given to someone with AOC. I am almost 100% sure that this is not correct. Does anyone here have a similar experience? Any advice would be greatly appreciated. The CAA does not have a problem with the aircraft, but with the actual flight operation.