RNP specification required for U.S. FAR Part 97 RNAV (GPS) approach?
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crun:
That's a bit different than the FAA public RNP AR IAPS:
RNAV (RNP) X RWY 8,
followed with the bold note" AUTHORIZATION REQUIRED."
Here's a title example: RNP RNAV "X" Rwy 8.
RNAV (RNP) X RWY 8,
followed with the bold note" AUTHORIZATION REQUIRED."
Back to the OP (sorry RNP-AR willy-wavers! 
), here in Australia we have been doing GPS-NPAs for years with standalone TSO-129 boxes. Not connected to any FMS/IRU, only warning system in the box is RAIM.
Our CASA has recently moved to ICAO designations and so our old GPS NPAs are now called (and are the equivalent of) RNP APCH LNAV. So my answer to the OP's question would be Yes (if the USA's "GPS" approaches are/were done with a TSO 129 box) as only the name of the approach type has changed. While it ("RNP") sounds impressive, it means nothing different as far as the actual original GPS approach is concerned. Obviously, there are various other types of RNP APCH approaches (sorry for the stutter), the highest level being RNP-AR.
Willy-wavers may now recommence WW!
), here in Australia we have been doing GPS-NPAs for years with standalone TSO-129 boxes. Not connected to any FMS/IRU, only warning system in the box is RAIM.Our CASA has recently moved to ICAO designations and so our old GPS NPAs are now called (and are the equivalent of) RNP APCH LNAV. So my answer to the OP's question would be Yes (if the USA's "GPS" approaches are/were done with a TSO 129 box) as only the name of the approach type has changed. While it ("RNP") sounds impressive, it means nothing different as far as the actual original GPS approach is concerned. Obviously, there are various other types of RNP APCH approaches (sorry for the stutter), the highest level being RNP-AR.
Willy-wavers may now recommence WW!
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
for AA aren't they RNAV (GPS) X,Y,Z RWY 08 ?
Authorization required is in a box at the top, but these were internal plates, have not seen what the Jepp plates look like, and the terminology between Countries keeps changing.
Bloggs, do you have an example, all I see in AUS is stuff like RNAV-Z (GNSS) RWY 28 or GNSS arrival (at least they got rid of the M, N, Q stuff!)
Authorization required is in a box at the top, but these were internal plates, have not seen what the Jepp plates look like, and the terminology between Countries keeps changing.
Bloggs, do you have an example, all I see in AUS is stuff like RNAV-Z (GNSS) RWY 28 or GNSS arrival (at least they got rid of the M, N, Q stuff!)
Last edited by underfire; 17th May 2014 at 15:42.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bloggs:
Still lots of TSO 129 boxes in use in the U.S. For approaches they are good for the LNAV line of minimums only and RAIM is required. If the airplane has IFR certified Baro VNAV then its good for the LNAV/VNAV line of minimums where they are charted.
Still lots of TSO 129 boxes in use in the U.S. For approaches they are good for the LNAV line of minimums only and RAIM is required. If the airplane has IFR certified Baro VNAV then its good for the LNAV/VNAV line of minimums where they are charted.
Originally Posted by Underfire
Bloggs, do you have an example, all I see in AUS is stuff like RNAV-Z (GNSS) RWY 28
Originally Posted by Aterpster
Still lots of TSO 129 boxes in use in the U.S. For approaches they are good for the LNAV line of minimums only and RAIM is required.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bloggs:
A 129 box can fly this approach but not to LPV minimums:
http://aeronav.faa.gov//d-tpp/1405/05310RY24.PDF
And, not to LNAV/VNAV minimums unless the bird has IFR certified Baro VNAV.
A 129 box can fly this approach but not to LPV minimums:
http://aeronav.faa.gov//d-tpp/1405/05310RY24.PDF
And, not to LNAV/VNAV minimums unless the bird has IFR certified Baro VNAV.
CASA explanation
RNP APCH is the general ICAO designator for PBN approach procedures that are not Authorization Required operations.
As GNSS fulfils the basic requirement of RNP for on-board performance and monitoring, both RNAV (GNSS) and SBAS LPV procedures are types of RNP APCH operations.
RNP APCH procedures will be identified as:
• RNP APCH – LNAV
• RNP APCH – LNAV/VNAV (where a vertical guidance system is used)
• RNP APCH – LPV (Localiser Performance with Vertical Guidance)
• RNP APCH – LP (SBAS approach where vertical guidance is not available)
As GNSS fulfils the basic requirement of RNP for on-board performance and monitoring, both RNAV (GNSS) and SBAS LPV procedures are types of RNP APCH operations.
RNP APCH procedures will be identified as:
• RNP APCH – LNAV
• RNP APCH – LNAV/VNAV (where a vertical guidance system is used)
• RNP APCH – LPV (Localiser Performance with Vertical Guidance)
• RNP APCH – LP (SBAS approach where vertical guidance is not available)
The main characteristics of RNP APCH LNAV operations are:
• IAL chart tiled RNAV (GNSS)
• Approach path constructed as series of straight segments
• Descent to an MDA which is published as an LNAV minima
• Can be flown using basic GNSS (TSOC129a) equipment or RNP 0.3 capable aircraft
• Obstacle clearance lateral tolerances not based on RNP value
• Vertical flight guidance (e.g. Baro-VNAV) may be added
• IAL chart tiled RNAV (GNSS)
• Approach path constructed as series of straight segments
• Descent to an MDA which is published as an LNAV minima
• Can be flown using basic GNSS (TSOC129a) equipment or RNP 0.3 capable aircraft
• Obstacle clearance lateral tolerances not based on RNP value
• Vertical flight guidance (e.g. Baro-VNAV) may be added
Although RNAV (GNSS) approach procedures are designated in the PBN concept as RNP APCH – LNAV procedures there has been no change to the method of procedure design which is in accordance with PANS-OPS RNAV(GNSS) design criteria.
Instrument approach charts continue to include RNAV (GNSS) in the title, and descent is made to a minimum descent altitude which is shown as an LNAV minimum, or LNAV/VNAV where vertical guidance is available.
RNAV (GNSS) procedure design criteria is not currently based on an RNP requirement but on the performance capability of a basic TSO C129a GPS receiver. However it is considered that an aircraft with RNP 0.3 capability has at least equivalent performance and a number of States have authorised RNAV (GNSS) operations based on RNP 0.3 capability.
Instrument approach charts continue to include RNAV (GNSS) in the title, and descent is made to a minimum descent altitude which is shown as an LNAV minimum, or LNAV/VNAV where vertical guidance is available.
RNAV (GNSS) procedure design criteria is not currently based on an RNP requirement but on the performance capability of a basic TSO C129a GPS receiver. However it is considered that an aircraft with RNP 0.3 capability has at least equivalent performance and a number of States have authorised RNAV (GNSS) operations based on RNP 0.3 capability.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bloggs, you said RNP APCH LNAV, I was looking for plates called this...
but it appears C100 answered this with
RNAV (GNSS) is designated as RNP APCH LNAV seems very odd...
but it appears C100 answered this with
Although RNAV (GNSS) approach procedures are designated in the PBN concept as RNP APCH – LNAV procedures there has been no change to the method of procedure design which is in accordance with PANS-OPS RNAV(GNSS) design criteria.
RNAV (GNSS) is designated as RNP APCH LNAV seems very odd...
http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/...YEGN01-138.pdf
Proabaly little or no operational requirement for aircraft going to YEGN to have VNAV capability - the underlying LNAV design would not change anyway. Baro-VNAV is an "add-on" that uses a different assessment method for the vertical element.
Originally Posted by underfire
What seems odd to me (on the AUS plates) is the VNAV requirement or lack thereof...
There have been a number of issues regarding the PANS OPS VNAV criteria, and their perceived deficiencies, and some States have stopped developing them - I believe Australia may be one of them.
There are significant changes to the procedure design criteria due to become effective this November, which will probably mean all existing baro VNAV procedures will require review.
There are significant changes to the procedure design criteria due to become effective this November, which will probably mean all existing baro VNAV procedures will require review.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reynolds,
Interesting. There were some serious issues with the calcs, one calculation was completely wrong, but you could figure out what they meant to say.
The obstacle clearance surfaces did not match between the standards, and the procedure design calculations.
Typically, this was just fixed with exemptions, and since the procedure design criteria was based on FAA criteria (they just had to make the calcs look different) you would get virtually the same answer when you 'corrected' the formulas.
I do know that the turn calcs based on a curve distance over the geoid were wrong, and did not translate easily to the aircraft FMC resultants, requiring multiple iterations to get the criteria results to jive with the ac. This would only come into play with AR procedures.
The obstacle clearance areas were probably the biggest issue, as they were completely different than the FAA method. The criteria for the obstacle clearance areas was about as clear as mud, and I am not sure if anyone ever really complied without exemption. This may be why States are using the horizontal guidance only.
Do you have any links to the new criteria?
Interesting. There were some serious issues with the calcs, one calculation was completely wrong, but you could figure out what they meant to say.
The obstacle clearance surfaces did not match between the standards, and the procedure design calculations.
Typically, this was just fixed with exemptions, and since the procedure design criteria was based on FAA criteria (they just had to make the calcs look different) you would get virtually the same answer when you 'corrected' the formulas.
I do know that the turn calcs based on a curve distance over the geoid were wrong, and did not translate easily to the aircraft FMC resultants, requiring multiple iterations to get the criteria results to jive with the ac. This would only come into play with AR procedures.
The obstacle clearance areas were probably the biggest issue, as they were completely different than the FAA method. The criteria for the obstacle clearance areas was about as clear as mud, and I am not sure if anyone ever really complied without exemption. This may be why States are using the horizontal guidance only.
Do you have any links to the new criteria?
I think we are at cross purposes here - I believe you are talking about the RNP(AR) criteria, which are not part of PANS OPS. A VNAV element is integral to RNP(AR), and, yes, the design criteria are deficient. They are under review, but it will take some time for them to change
The previous thread discussion was referring to the baro-VNAV criteria in PANS OPS, which is always associated with a 2D LNAV procedure. It is these criteria that have been substantially amended - due for publication Nov 2014.
I understand there may be delays in the amendments (Nov 2013 amendment not released yet).
Don't have a link I'm afraid ....
The previous thread discussion was referring to the baro-VNAV criteria in PANS OPS, which is always associated with a 2D LNAV procedure. It is these criteria that have been substantially amended - due for publication Nov 2014.
I understand there may be delays in the amendments (Nov 2013 amendment not released yet).
Don't have a link I'm afraid ....
