EGNOS approaches in Europe
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: germany
Age: 52
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EGNOS approaches in Europe
Currently, there are still only around half a dozen airports with EGNOS approach in Europe. Are more airports planning to have an EGNOS approach or is that put on hold UFN?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Island of Aphrodite
Age: 75
Posts: 530
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ceco,
More than half a dozen. The French have 4 or 5 times that number including a fair number of LPV approaches.
Even the British have more than a dozen GPS approaches including one LPV approach at Alderney and one rumoured to be put on line at Southampton soon.
More than half a dozen. The French have 4 or 5 times that number including a fair number of LPV approaches.
Even the British have more than a dozen GPS approaches including one LPV approach at Alderney and one rumoured to be put on line at Southampton soon.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: germany
Age: 52
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@beerdrinker
I disagree with you! According to the EGNOS homepage essp-sas.eu, only
six airports have currently an EGNOS-based approach procedure (LPV) in Europe: LFBP, LFLC, LFPB, LSZR, LSGC and EGJA.
GPS approaches (APV Baro) have nothing to do with the EGNOS-based approach, which requires a SBAS-receiver installed in the aircraft.
six airports have currently an EGNOS-based approach procedure (LPV) in Europe: LFBP, LFLC, LFPB, LSZR, LSGC and EGJA.
GPS approaches (APV Baro) have nothing to do with the EGNOS-based approach, which requires a SBAS-receiver installed in the aircraft.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I think using the term EGNOS might be confusing. As I understand it SBAS APV is supported by EGNOS and IAPs designed to use this augmentation are coded LPV on the plate.
So beerdrinker was right to name Alderney and mention SOU as next in line, but the fact that the UK have other RNAV (GNSS) IAPs to non precision MDH(A) doesn't detract from the truth of his answer.
I'm sure you are aware of ACCEPTA. The UK is working closely with the managers of this project to realise several new approaches to an LPV minima.
So beerdrinker was right to name Alderney and mention SOU as next in line, but the fact that the UK have other RNAV (GNSS) IAPs to non precision MDH(A) doesn't detract from the truth of his answer.
I'm sure you are aware of ACCEPTA. The UK is working closely with the managers of this project to realise several new approaches to an LPV minima.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: germany
Age: 52
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What I mean are the LPV approaches with minima down to 250 ft AGL, requiring a SBAS receiver. I agree that EGJA (Alderney) has such approaches.
(APV baro)=Vertical Guidance by means of baro VNAV. Taking e.g EDMA, RNAV (GPS) RWY 07, our avionics equipment is such that we are eligible for the LNAV/VNAV minimum of 1930 ft WITHOUT a SBAS receiver. The term "EGNOS" is not mentioned on the approach plate.
(LPV)=Localiser performance with vertical guidance. On the RNAV (GNSS) RWY 10 approach in LSZR, however, itīs a different story. Here you have the LPV minimum and also find "EGNOS" on the approach plate. You MUST have the SBAS receiver in order to be eligible for the LPV minimum.
I read an article somewhere that the introduction of new EGNOS approaches
is slowed down by bureaucrats for whatever reasons.
(APV baro)=Vertical Guidance by means of baro VNAV. Taking e.g EDMA, RNAV (GPS) RWY 07, our avionics equipment is such that we are eligible for the LNAV/VNAV minimum of 1930 ft WITHOUT a SBAS receiver. The term "EGNOS" is not mentioned on the approach plate.
(LPV)=Localiser performance with vertical guidance. On the RNAV (GNSS) RWY 10 approach in LSZR, however, itīs a different story. Here you have the LPV minimum and also find "EGNOS" on the approach plate. You MUST have the SBAS receiver in order to be eligible for the LPV minimum.
I read an article somewhere that the introduction of new EGNOS approaches
is slowed down by bureaucrats for whatever reasons.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess the drive for LPV isn't all that big in europe as most if not all airlines are unable to use it. However, they can use RNP AR or GLS approaches. That means there is not all that much money behind people promoting those kind of approaches.
That said, we do have a chart for the RNAV (GNSS) 10 in Altenrhein in our documentation which does not show LPV minima, the lowest usable for us would be 2060ft for a class C aircraft. However that wouldn't be used normally as the ILS allows us to use a lower minimum of 1810ft. So, do we need an LPV approach? Not really, as there is a conventional precision approach.
LPV is an excellent tool for smaller airports that are not able to afford the infrastructure of a conventional approach and not the much cheaper infrastructure for a GLS approach which would offer true precision approach minima and in the future low vis capability. However there are still costs for it and someone needs to cough it up. So if there is no real demand currently airports will rather not spend the money. There might be a business case for some airports if slots becoming difficult to obtain on a nearby major airports to attract more GA traffic, and EDMA would certainly fit into that category. If there is demand for approaches like already i guess airports and legislators are either already working on it or have already published approaches. The current picture however is a picture of where and how big the demand is.
That said, we do have a chart for the RNAV (GNSS) 10 in Altenrhein in our documentation which does not show LPV minima, the lowest usable for us would be 2060ft for a class C aircraft. However that wouldn't be used normally as the ILS allows us to use a lower minimum of 1810ft. So, do we need an LPV approach? Not really, as there is a conventional precision approach.
LPV is an excellent tool for smaller airports that are not able to afford the infrastructure of a conventional approach and not the much cheaper infrastructure for a GLS approach which would offer true precision approach minima and in the future low vis capability. However there are still costs for it and someone needs to cough it up. So if there is no real demand currently airports will rather not spend the money. There might be a business case for some airports if slots becoming difficult to obtain on a nearby major airports to attract more GA traffic, and EDMA would certainly fit into that category. If there is demand for approaches like already i guess airports and legislators are either already working on it or have already published approaches. The current picture however is a picture of where and how big the demand is.
Last edited by Denti; 6th Nov 2012 at 09:58.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FlightPathOBN:
Rebuttal:
There are now more LPV than ILS approaches in the U.S. LPV has gained broad acceptance in the general aviation community. Unlike most CAT 1 ILS's LPV is rock solid to touchdown.
What is the oddity is RNP AR, with its bar set so high that it is worthless to all but some air carriers, for which the incremental costs are far less than for the aviation community in general.
BTW, where is the reference on those 2.8 degree paths you asserted a couple of days ago?
Just as with WAAS in the US and MSAS, SBAS is an oddity, requiring instrumentation, certification and availability, that just isnt really worth the cost.
There are now more LPV than ILS approaches in the U.S. LPV has gained broad acceptance in the general aviation community. Unlike most CAT 1 ILS's LPV is rock solid to touchdown.
What is the oddity is RNP AR, with its bar set so high that it is worthless to all but some air carriers, for which the incremental costs are far less than for the aviation community in general.
BTW, where is the reference on those 2.8 degree paths you asserted a couple of days ago?
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FlightPathOBN:
If that is how you choose to characterize yourself, so be it. You certainly are good on meaningless generalities but very, very short on specifics.
ahh...the board troll speaks....
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: engineer at large
Posts: 1,409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Look at the LPV procedures in the US, not difficult to design 500 procedures on the interior of Alaska...exactly how many aircraft are equipped to use them?
When was the last time a commercial carrier in the US was given clearance to use an LPV procedure?
Meanwhile, RNP procedures are available to virtually every airport in the world, with GBAS following.
In ref to 2.8GPA...there are 2 airports in the world with approved multi-variant RNP procedures, and I designed both of them, with a 2.8 GPA....along with the 3 highest airports in the world, and procedures in US, China, Europe, NZ and Australia...
The Airbus and Boeing RNP standard is 2.8...I really dont care if you believe it or not...
When was the last time a commercial carrier in the US was given clearance to use an LPV procedure?
Meanwhile, RNP procedures are available to virtually every airport in the world, with GBAS following.
In ref to 2.8GPA...there are 2 airports in the world with approved multi-variant RNP procedures, and I designed both of them, with a 2.8 GPA....along with the 3 highest airports in the world, and procedures in US, China, Europe, NZ and Australia...
The Airbus and Boeing RNP standard is 2.8...I really dont care if you believe it or not...
Last edited by FlightPathOBN; 7th Nov 2012 at 01:05.
What I mean are the LPV approaches with minima down to 250 ft AGL, requiring a SBAS receiver. I agree that EGJA (Alderney) has such approaches.
Most LNAV approaches in Europe can be flown to LNAV minima with an advisory glideslope using an SBAS (EGNOS) receiver. The advisory glideslope offers a significant part of the safety benefit.
Further, EASA proposes to allow flight to LNAV/VNAV minima with a glideslope using an SBAS (EGNOS) receiver as well as using BaroVNAV. My understanding is that that has been allowed in the US for a long time, but there's an issue for EASA in whether the approaches were designed with angular guidance taken into account.
If you look at the Brest GNSS approaches to 07R, you'll see why relatively few airports have gone to the trouble of LPV. The LPV DH is 300 ft, the LNAV and LNAV/VNAV (M)DH 370 ft.
Alderney is an even better example: LPV DH is 300 ft, LNAV (M)DH is 340 ft. No LNAV/VNAV minima are published. 300 -> 340 ft takes you from a minimum RVR of 900 m to a minimum of 1100 m. So the operational value of LPV over LNAV is limited, and the difference in safety value is minimal now we have "LNAV+V" advisory glideslopes.
So the answer to your OP is that there are hundreds or thousands of "EGNOS approaches" flown every day in Europe, but little incentive to go to the trouble of coding a FAS datablock and making it LPV.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FlightPathOBN:
I do care what you believe, because your posts on this forum are so often wildly technically incorrect.
You still haven't pointed me and others interested where this Boeing/AB 2.8 vertical path standard is set forth authoritatively.
As you may, or perhaps may not know, where a procedure exists without state source vertical guidance but has straight-in minimums, Jeppesen codes insofar as possible, a 3 degree VPATH. They are a Boeing company. I presume LIDO does the same.
FAA policy for U.S. state-source vertical guidance is 3.0 degrees, whether it be ILS, LNAV/VNAV, or LPV. It can be up to 3.1 for CAT D if necessary for obstacle clearance (slightly more for CAT C) but never 2.8 degrees.
I presume you do all of your design work outside of the U.S. Are you an FAA-approved third-party terminal procedures designer?
The Airbus and Boeing RNP standard is 2.8...I really dont care if you believe it or not...
You still haven't pointed me and others interested where this Boeing/AB 2.8 vertical path standard is set forth authoritatively.
As you may, or perhaps may not know, where a procedure exists without state source vertical guidance but has straight-in minimums, Jeppesen codes insofar as possible, a 3 degree VPATH. They are a Boeing company. I presume LIDO does the same.
FAA policy for U.S. state-source vertical guidance is 3.0 degrees, whether it be ILS, LNAV/VNAV, or LPV. It can be up to 3.1 for CAT D if necessary for obstacle clearance (slightly more for CAT C) but never 2.8 degrees.
I presume you do all of your design work outside of the U.S. Are you an FAA-approved third-party terminal procedures designer?
I presume you do all of your design work outside of the U.S. Are you an FAA-approved third-party terminal procedures designer?
Didn't you know FlightPathOBN also has a US 5LNC named after him?44 19 06.47N 092 04 50.9W
Last edited by bookworm; 8th Nov 2012 at 16:54.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: engineer at large
Posts: 1,409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So the part about RNP slipped right past you?
If you are a Bus driver in China or AUS, I can almost bet that the RNP procedure is coded at 2.8GPA.
SInce RNP is designed for uncompensated baro, you can take your effective GPA to 2.71 (US) and 2.5 in many other places. So with that in mind, a 3 degree GPA would be far too temperature limited for many locations or altitudes.
You already know that, Naverus was the very first 3rd party approved to design public RNP in the US.
+Z+RWY+05/png/1)
+Z+RWY+23/png/1)
If you are a Bus driver in China or AUS, I can almost bet that the RNP procedure is coded at 2.8GPA.
SInce RNP is designed for uncompensated baro, you can take your effective GPA to 2.71 (US) and 2.5 in many other places. So with that in mind, a 3 degree GPA would be far too temperature limited for many locations or altitudes.
Are you an FAA-approved third-party terminal procedures designer?
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FlightPathOBN:
I am well aware of that. I was a member of the PARC at that time. Steve Fulton was also there when John McGraw was getting the PARC on board the private vendor approval process.
Since you work there give Steve my regards. He is about as sharp as they come. Do you report directly to him?
I'm impressed.
I believe they (GE/Naverus) are using the recently authorized more permissive FAA temperature for the VEB.
You already know that, Naverus was the very first 3rd party approved to design public RNP in the US.
Since you work there give Steve my regards. He is about as sharp as they come. Do you report directly to him?
I'm impressed.
I believe they (GE/Naverus) are using the recently authorized more permissive FAA temperature for the VEB.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bookworm:
Thanks for the tip. Here is the FAA source form for 44 19 06.47N 092 04 50.9W:
How can you doubt his credentials? 
Didn't you know FlightPathOBN also has a US 5LNC named after him?
44 19 06.47N 092 04 50.9W
Didn't you know FlightPathOBN also has a US 5LNC named after him?44 19 06.47N 092 04 50.9W
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: engineer at large
Posts: 1,409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The point of including the plates, was not the 3 degree GPA, but public RNP AR designed by a 3rd party....and of course, these are procedures that I had designed. I will also explain, that in designing procedures in AUS, NZ, Canada, China, and South America, with Boeing, Airbus, Embraer aircraft, I am well versed in the performance specs and the standards, and individual requirements for tailored RNP approaches.
So, on that note, as the PASC plates are FAA public procedures, (RW23 has no ILS)the GPA is 3 degrees for uncompensated, correct, as you pointed out, so what is your effective GPA at -24? or at 32 ?
So the same procedure, assumes the aircraft is on a GPA anywhere from 2.6 to 3.2?
So, the operative word is 'uncompensated', and therein lies the trick....
(at PASC,-24 NA gives you access about 25% of the year. 2 operators have the identical procedure approved, with a 3.5 GPA, which is good from -50 to -25)
So, on that note, as the PASC plates are FAA public procedures, (RW23 has no ILS)the GPA is 3 degrees for uncompensated, correct, as you pointed out, so what is your effective GPA at -24? or at 32 ?
So the same procedure, assumes the aircraft is on a GPA anywhere from 2.6 to 3.2?
So, the operative word is 'uncompensated', and therein lies the trick....
(at PASC,-24 NA gives you access about 25% of the year. 2 operators have the identical procedure approved, with a 3.5 GPA, which is good from -50 to -25)
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: engineer at large
Posts: 1,409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since you work there give Steve my regards. He is about as sharp as they come. Do you report directly to him?
Fulton is back on the flight line at Alaska, along with Hal...
I, of course, am here at operations based navigation...
Last edited by FlightPathOBN; 8th Nov 2012 at 21:46.