When do you press APPR pb RNAV (GNSS) APCH (AIRBUS)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Palma de Mallorca Spain
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you arm the apch after NERAS and managed your descent.You should have ALT CSTR until MN404 and after this one the FMGS should manage the descent to 3000 ft.At MN410 FINAL APP should engage.
I can't find any reason the acft maintained 4000 ft.
I can see a warning that's a non standard procedure!
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mi68guel and Check Airman
The blue arrow does not become visible before arming approach or even after arming approach if APPNAV only becomes armed (APPNAV in blue). Only when the APPNAV mode becomes active the blue arrow will appear so the SOP rightly does not say the arrow must be blue when arming approach because it can't be. Conditions for engagement of FINALAPP are not for arming the approach but for FINALAPP to become active mode to begin final descent. If the arrow is not blue it will not descent unless that condition which is not fulfilled gets fulfilled before reaching the final descent point. Sequencing of DECEL is one of the conditions. The aircraft must be in approach phase even if you manually activate approach it's OK.
The blue arrow does not become visible before arming approach or even after arming approach if APPNAV only becomes armed (APPNAV in blue). Only when the APPNAV mode becomes active the blue arrow will appear so the SOP rightly does not say the arrow must be blue when arming approach because it can't be. Conditions for engagement of FINALAPP are not for arming the approach but for FINALAPP to become active mode to begin final descent. If the arrow is not blue it will not descent unless that condition which is not fulfilled gets fulfilled before reaching the final descent point. Sequencing of DECEL is one of the conditions. The aircraft must be in approach phase even if you manually activate approach it's OK.
Last edited by vilas; 4th Jun 2016 at 18:29.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mi68guel
The answer by airbus to your company's strange question is equally strange. First your company's question: This is the question from my company to Airbus (customer email):
"Is it legal and permissible under Airbus recommendations, to have active final approach mode prior to the FAF without proper FMS coding i.e. a defined FPA"
The answer should be it is not possible. Because FINAL APP can only be armed before FAF and only becomes active after FAF or VIP. Perhaps your company meant is it OK to arm the approach. Now the second part of the question, your company wants to know if it's OK to do managed approach without proper FMS coding and again the answer should have been "Hell NO" because before embarking on managed approach it is mandatory to check proper lateral and vertical profile in the MCDU with approach chart and FPA is one of them. FCTM explains all the points that need to be checked. When armed FINALAPP mode will not become active unless you are on track and at FAF altitude before FAF or VIP as it is called.
The answer by airbus to your company's strange question is equally strange. First your company's question: This is the question from my company to Airbus (customer email):
"Is it legal and permissible under Airbus recommendations, to have active final approach mode prior to the FAF without proper FMS coding i.e. a defined FPA"
The answer should be it is not possible. Because FINAL APP can only be armed before FAF and only becomes active after FAF or VIP. Perhaps your company meant is it OK to arm the approach. Now the second part of the question, your company wants to know if it's OK to do managed approach without proper FMS coding and again the answer should have been "Hell NO" because before embarking on managed approach it is mandatory to check proper lateral and vertical profile in the MCDU with approach chart and FPA is one of them. FCTM explains all the points that need to be checked. When armed FINALAPP mode will not become active unless you are on track and at FAF altitude before FAF or VIP as it is called.
Last edited by vilas; 4th Jun 2016 at 18:47.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: US
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There has been an OEB called 'incorrect vertical profile during non precision approaches', OEB 30 (A330) and OEB 42 (A320) in a effect for a number of years now.
This OEB explains that, due to a possible FMS coding problem, your operator has to have compiled a list with affected approaches, OR, you have to check the coding of the FMS against the plate yourself. Depending on the result you are either permitted to fly this non precision approach in Fully managed mode or laterally managed, vertically selected. So I agree with what vilas is saying.
I THINK the reason your company doesn't want you to ARM APP until you're established on the platform altitude is to guarantee that all the conditions for arming the FINAL APPROACH mode are met (this will automatically cause the blue arrow on your FAF to display). In other words to make sure that you're not going to be too high over the FAF.
If you would be too high over the FAF, I can see how thing can get a bit hairy quite quickly. On the other hand, if you arm APP early, you can check earlier if you have met all the conditions, but checking if the blue arrow is indeed displayed over your FAF.
This OEB explains that, due to a possible FMS coding problem, your operator has to have compiled a list with affected approaches, OR, you have to check the coding of the FMS against the plate yourself. Depending on the result you are either permitted to fly this non precision approach in Fully managed mode or laterally managed, vertically selected. So I agree with what vilas is saying.
I THINK the reason your company doesn't want you to ARM APP until you're established on the platform altitude is to guarantee that all the conditions for arming the FINAL APPROACH mode are met (this will automatically cause the blue arrow on your FAF to display). In other words to make sure that you're not going to be too high over the FAF.
If you would be too high over the FAF, I can see how thing can get a bit hairy quite quickly. On the other hand, if you arm APP early, you can check earlier if you have met all the conditions, but checking if the blue arrow is indeed displayed over your FAF.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the other hand, if you arm APP early, you can check earlier if you have met all the conditions, but checking if the blue arrow is indeed displayed over your FAF.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Palma de Mallorca Spain
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mi68guel
The answer by airbus to your company's strange question is equally strange. First your company's question: This is the question from my company to Airbus (customer email):
"Is it legal and permissible under Airbus recommendations, to have active final approach mode prior to the FAF without proper FMS coding i.e. a defined FPA"
The answer should be it is not possible. Because FINAL APP can only be armed before FAF and only becomes active after FAF or VIP. Perhaps your company meant is it OK to arm the approach. Now the second part of the question, your company wants to know if it's OK to do managed approach without proper FMS coding and again the answer should have been "Hell NO" because before embarking on managed approach it is mandatory to check proper lateral and vertical profile in the MCDU with approach chart and FPA is one of them. FCTM explains all the points that need to be checked. When armed FINALAPP mode will not become active unless you are on track and at FAF altitude before FAF or VIP as it is called.
The answer by airbus to your company's strange question is equally strange. First your company's question: This is the question from my company to Airbus (customer email):
"Is it legal and permissible under Airbus recommendations, to have active final approach mode prior to the FAF without proper FMS coding i.e. a defined FPA"
The answer should be it is not possible. Because FINAL APP can only be armed before FAF and only becomes active after FAF or VIP. Perhaps your company meant is it OK to arm the approach. Now the second part of the question, your company wants to know if it's OK to do managed approach without proper FMS coding and again the answer should have been "Hell NO" because before embarking on managed approach it is mandatory to check proper lateral and vertical profile in the MCDU with approach chart and FPA is one of them. FCTM explains all the points that need to be checked. When armed FINALAPP mode will not become active unless you are on track and at FAF altitude before FAF or VIP as it is called.
The problem is in the question. They asked something that's not possible..."to have active final approach mode prior to the FAF". This is not clear, because we can't understand if they mean "armed"( FINAL blue) or "engaged" (FINAL APP green). If they mean armed it's the normal situation, but if "active"means engaged, then we'll have to writte down this defect on the techlog and probably to fill an ASR.
So If we want a proper answer from AIRBUS, the question should have been more precise and using FCOM terms (armed and engaged) and that's the reason I consider they didn't fully understand the question but they tried to help and replied generic things.
I also don't understand from the question where it says "active final apch mode prior to the FAF without proper FMS coding, i.e. a defined FPA". What matters is to check max 0.1 degree of difference between MCDU and the chartered final vertical path.
Before the FAF when you arm the apch, only lateral mode is engaged: vertical mode is still under FMS that should comply with ALT CSTR's if descend is managed .So there's nothing illegal on it, the only difference is that we are arming FINAL (in blue) to have it ready before the FAF .At FAF in FINAL APP mode the lateral separation is still under NAV control (RNP 0.3 for us) and vertical guidance is different, the primary means of obstacle clearance is then provided by the VNAV system rather than the altimeter, and adherence to the vertical flight path within reasonable tolerance is required. .So this FINAL APCH mode needs an augmented GNSS system (ABAS in A320 and A330) with Baro-VNAV that uses barometric altitude information from the aircraft's pitot-static system and air data computer to compute vertical guidance for the pilot (for RNAV (GNSS) with LNAV/VNAV minima).
Conclusion: if we armed the approach before FAF at intermediate APCH the lateral and vertical profile is gonna be the same as if we wait until reaching the FAF altitude.In the first case, if something goes wrong, we are following official documentation (FCOM, FCTM, Instructor's media..) but in the second case we are relying on an email that has no legal validity (I'm not a lawyer, but I would be ashamed to defend myself against investigators using an email as SOP reference)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Palma de Mallorca Spain
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There has been an OEB called 'incorrect vertical profile during non precision approaches', OEB 30 (A330) and OEB 42 (A320) in a effect for a number of years now.
This OEB explains that, due to a possible FMS coding problem, your operator has to have compiled a list with affected approaches, OR, you have to check the coding of the FMS against the plate yourself. Depending on the result you are either permitted to fly this non precision approach in Fully managed mode or laterally managed, vertically selected. So I agree with what vilas is saying.
I THINK the reason your company doesn't want you to ARM APP until you're established on the platform altitude is to guarantee that all the conditions for arming the FINAL APPROACH mode are met (this will automatically cause the blue arrow on your FAF to display). In other words to make sure that you're not going to be too high over the FAF.
If you would be too high over the FAF, I can see how thing can get a bit hairy quite quickly. On the other hand, if you arm APP early, you can check earlier if you have met all the conditions, but checking if the blue arrow is indeed displayed over your FAF.
This OEB explains that, due to a possible FMS coding problem, your operator has to have compiled a list with affected approaches, OR, you have to check the coding of the FMS against the plate yourself. Depending on the result you are either permitted to fly this non precision approach in Fully managed mode or laterally managed, vertically selected. So I agree with what vilas is saying.
I THINK the reason your company doesn't want you to ARM APP until you're established on the platform altitude is to guarantee that all the conditions for arming the FINAL APPROACH mode are met (this will automatically cause the blue arrow on your FAF to display). In other words to make sure that you're not going to be too high over the FAF.
If you would be too high over the FAF, I can see how thing can get a bit hairy quite quickly. On the other hand, if you arm APP early, you can check earlier if you have met all the conditions, but checking if the blue arrow is indeed displayed over your FAF.
s to guarantee that all the conditions for arming the FINAL APPROACH mode are met
You ARM the Apch and then if all the conditions are met it engages at FAF
You don't need "guarantee" for arming.Checks are: APP NAV... check armed or engaged and FINAL...check armed, and check FINAL APP engages at FAF. Depending the type of apch you fly, if FINAL APP doesn't engage at FAF , you can revert to NAV/FPA ( in case of RNAV (GNSS) with LNAV/VNAV minima, you should fly FINAL APP and reverting to NAV /FPA with only LNAV minima needs MDA instead of DA.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are many issues, such as the criteria, differences between manufacturers, and the coding. It is interesting to see that there is quite a bit discussion on how the coding and FMC actually perform.
There are the differences between armed and engaged, and the flow matrix/sequencing for engagement. The code and criteria have not kept up with the more complicated or the advanced procedures.
As examples, while some systems let you arm on the ground, others do not, and some engage on wheels up and some at 500 feet.
Technically, with an approach, there is the initial segment, one intermediate segment, and a final approach segment. With RNP, there are frequently more than 3 segments to an approach procedure.
In the beginning, some systems would disco if you had more than one intermediate segment, or had a turn after the FAF. The first RNP procedures into the airports in China were done with Airbus, as the Boeing Smiths box would not accept a RWY over 10,000 feet.
Currently working on the RNP transitions to GBAS final, one can see just how difficult the flow management is with all of the if/then and arm/engage scenarios.
As a procedure designer, this is a very interesting thread to review, in fact, many of the threads have been used to show what the operators are actually experiencing and/or how they got there.
The certification process of aircraft avionics has kept the FMS stuck in the mid 80's, with 'new' versions simply being addendum to the coding with add ons, rather than re-writes. As you can imagine, this leaves many paths, and many potential scenarios that are very difficult to desktop/sim or even flight verify other than by thousands of different operators, hence the value of these types of conversations.
Cheers
There are the differences between armed and engaged, and the flow matrix/sequencing for engagement. The code and criteria have not kept up with the more complicated or the advanced procedures.
As examples, while some systems let you arm on the ground, others do not, and some engage on wheels up and some at 500 feet.
Technically, with an approach, there is the initial segment, one intermediate segment, and a final approach segment. With RNP, there are frequently more than 3 segments to an approach procedure.
In the beginning, some systems would disco if you had more than one intermediate segment, or had a turn after the FAF. The first RNP procedures into the airports in China were done with Airbus, as the Boeing Smiths box would not accept a RWY over 10,000 feet.
Currently working on the RNP transitions to GBAS final, one can see just how difficult the flow management is with all of the if/then and arm/engage scenarios.
As a procedure designer, this is a very interesting thread to review, in fact, many of the threads have been used to show what the operators are actually experiencing and/or how they got there.
The certification process of aircraft avionics has kept the FMS stuck in the mid 80's, with 'new' versions simply being addendum to the coding with add ons, rather than re-writes. As you can imagine, this leaves many paths, and many potential scenarios that are very difficult to desktop/sim or even flight verify other than by thousands of different operators, hence the value of these types of conversations.
Cheers
Last edited by underfire; 5th Jun 2016 at 23:15. Reason: oh jeeez, am I 51 now?!?!?!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Palma de Mallorca Spain
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regulations RNAV(GNSS)
AMC 2027
Airworthiness Approval and Operational Criteria for RNP
APPROACH (RNP APCH) Operations Including APV BAROV-NAV
Operations
- The Performance-based Navigation (PBN) Manual (Doc 9613)
- ICAO Appendix 6
Part I – 9th edition July 2010 - International Commercial Air Transport – chapter 7.2.2
Part II – 7th edition July 2008 - International General Aviation - chapter 2.5.2.2
- Commission Regulation (EC) N°859/2008 of 20th August 2008 (EU OPS)
Sections 1.225, 1.230, 1.243, 1.290, 1.295, 1.297, 1.340, 1.400, 1.405, 1.430, 1.950, 1.965.
- Arrêté du 23 septembre 1999 concerning technical conditions for helicopter operation by a public air
transport company (OPS 3).
Article 4.
Appendix: sections 3.225, 3.230, 3.290, 3.295, 3.297, 3.340, 3.400, 3.405, 3.430, 3.950, 3.965.
- Arrêté du 24 juillet 1991 concerning the conditions for the use of general aviation civil aircraft (aerial work
and private use).
Article 1, second paragraph.
Appendix: chapter IV, sections 4.1.2 and 4.1.3.1 - chapter V, section 5.5.
- Arrêté du 20 mars 1998 concerning the use of aircraft operational minima in general aviation (aerial work
and private use).
Article 1.
Appendix: sections MIN 2.225, 2.295, 2.297, 2.400, 2.405, 2.430
Airworthiness Approval and Operational Criteria for RNP
APPROACH (RNP APCH) Operations Including APV BAROV-NAV
Operations
- The Performance-based Navigation (PBN) Manual (Doc 9613)
- ICAO Appendix 6
Part I – 9th edition July 2010 - International Commercial Air Transport – chapter 7.2.2
Part II – 7th edition July 2008 - International General Aviation - chapter 2.5.2.2
- Commission Regulation (EC) N°859/2008 of 20th August 2008 (EU OPS)
Sections 1.225, 1.230, 1.243, 1.290, 1.295, 1.297, 1.340, 1.400, 1.405, 1.430, 1.950, 1.965.
- Arrêté du 23 septembre 1999 concerning technical conditions for helicopter operation by a public air
transport company (OPS 3).
Article 4.
Appendix: sections 3.225, 3.230, 3.290, 3.295, 3.297, 3.340, 3.400, 3.405, 3.430, 3.950, 3.965.
- Arrêté du 24 juillet 1991 concerning the conditions for the use of general aviation civil aircraft (aerial work
and private use).
Article 1, second paragraph.
Appendix: chapter IV, sections 4.1.2 and 4.1.3.1 - chapter V, section 5.5.
- Arrêté du 20 mars 1998 concerning the use of aircraft operational minima in general aviation (aerial work
and private use).
Article 1.
Appendix: sections MIN 2.225, 2.295, 2.297, 2.400, 2.405, 2.430
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Palma de Mallorca Spain
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
should be the subject of Occurrence Reports (see EUOPS
1.420):
Technical defects and the exceeding of technical limitations, including:
a) Significant navigation errors attributed to incorrect data or a data base coding error.
b) Unexpected deviations in lateral/vertical flight path not caused by pilot input or
erroneous operation of equipment.
c) Significant misleading information without a failure warning.
d) Total loss or multiple navigation equipment failure.
e) Loss of integrity (e.g. RAIM) function whereas integrity was predicted to be available
during the preflight
planning.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Tropics
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a certain VOR approach in our route network whereby if we arm the APP prior to reaching the FAF platform altitude of 2600ft, it does strange things. We were descending to 2600 and the "brick" constantly shows that we are above the profile (full deflection down) when we are certain that we are not and we will be able to be at 2600ft well before the FAF. And then prior to the FAF the brick comes up and the aircraft intercepts the vertical profile, leaving us hanging at about 3000ft below intercepting the final descent slope. So we are encouraged to arm the APP only at the FAF platform altitude.
I still don't quite understand what exactly the FCTOM means by "stabilised laterally and vertically before the point of descent starts". Because in this case we will definitely be level at 2600 at the FAF, let alone be within 150 feet and yet this happens.
I still don't quite understand what exactly the FCTOM means by "stabilised laterally and vertically before the point of descent starts". Because in this case we will definitely be level at 2600 at the FAF, let alone be within 150 feet and yet this happens.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mi68guel,
What are you trying to explain by your post #29?
What are you trying to explain by your post #29?
Regulations RNAV(GNSS)
AMC 2027
Airworthiness Approval and Operational Criteria for RNP
APPROACH (RNP APCH) Operations Including APV BAROV-NAV
Operations
- The Performance-based Navigation (PBN) Manual (Doc 9613)
- ICAO Appendix 6
Part I – 9th edition July 2010 - International Commercial Air Transport – chapter 7.2.2
Part II – 7th edition July 2008 - International General Aviation - chapter 2.5.2.2
- Commission Regulation (EC) N°859/2008 of 20th August 2008 (EU OPS)
Sections 1.225, 1.230, 1.243, 1.290, 1.295, 1.297, 1.340, 1.400, 1.405, 1.430, 1.950, 1.965.
- Arrêté du 23 septembre 1999 concerning technical conditions for helicopter operation by a public air
transport company (OPS 3).
Article 4.
Appendix: sections 3.225, 3.230, 3.290, 3.295, 3.297, 3.340, 3.400, 3.405, 3.430, 3.950, 3.965.
- Arrêté du 24 juillet 1991 concerning the conditions for the use of general aviation civil aircraft (aerial work
and private use).
Article 1, second paragraph.
Appendix: chapter IV, sections 4.1.2 and 4.1.3.1 - chapter V, section 5.5.
- Arrêté du 20 mars 1998 concerning the use of aircraft operational minima in general aviation (aerial work
and private use).
Article 1.
Appendix: sections MIN 2.225, 2.295, 2.297, 2.400, 2.405, 2.430
AMC 2027
Airworthiness Approval and Operational Criteria for RNP
APPROACH (RNP APCH) Operations Including APV BAROV-NAV
Operations
- The Performance-based Navigation (PBN) Manual (Doc 9613)
- ICAO Appendix 6
Part I – 9th edition July 2010 - International Commercial Air Transport – chapter 7.2.2
Part II – 7th edition July 2008 - International General Aviation - chapter 2.5.2.2
- Commission Regulation (EC) N°859/2008 of 20th August 2008 (EU OPS)
Sections 1.225, 1.230, 1.243, 1.290, 1.295, 1.297, 1.340, 1.400, 1.405, 1.430, 1.950, 1.965.
- Arrêté du 23 septembre 1999 concerning technical conditions for helicopter operation by a public air
transport company (OPS 3).
Article 4.
Appendix: sections 3.225, 3.230, 3.290, 3.295, 3.297, 3.340, 3.400, 3.405, 3.430, 3.950, 3.965.
- Arrêté du 24 juillet 1991 concerning the conditions for the use of general aviation civil aircraft (aerial work
and private use).
Article 1, second paragraph.
Appendix: chapter IV, sections 4.1.2 and 4.1.3.1 - chapter V, section 5.5.
- Arrêté du 20 mars 1998 concerning the use of aircraft operational minima in general aviation (aerial work
and private use).
Article 1.
Appendix: sections MIN 2.225, 2.295, 2.297, 2.400, 2.405, 2.430
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Palma de Mallorca Spain
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
underfire:
If anybody needs more information about certification,regulations , approval and operational criteria regarding RNAV, APV baro-VNAV,RNP, etc these are some references where I got my information from, as the information from Airbus FCOM is not 100% clear (for me it's clear enough but the interpretation of the SOP's regarding this matters is different amongst my company's instructors and training managers).
If anybody needs more information about certification,regulations , approval and operational criteria regarding RNAV, APV baro-VNAV,RNP, etc these are some references where I got my information from, as the information from Airbus FCOM is not 100% clear (for me it's clear enough but the interpretation of the SOP's regarding this matters is different amongst my company's instructors and training managers).
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Palma de Mallorca Spain
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a certain VOR approach in our route network whereby if we arm the APP prior to reaching the FAF platform altitude of 2600ft, it does strange things. We were descending to 2600 and the "brick" constantly shows that we are above the profile (full deflection down) when we are certain that we are not and we will be able to be at 2600ft well before the FAF. And then prior to the FAF the brick comes up and the aircraft intercepts the vertical profile, leaving us hanging at about 3000ft below intercepting the final descent slope. So we are encouraged to arm the APP only at the FAF platform altitude.
I still don't quite understand what exactly the FCTOM means by "stabilised laterally and vertically before the point of descent starts". Because in this case we will definitely be level at 2600 at the FAF, let alone be within 150 feet and yet this happens.
I still don't quite understand what exactly the FCTOM means by "stabilised laterally and vertically before the point of descent starts". Because in this case we will definitely be level at 2600 at the FAF, let alone be within 150 feet and yet this happens.
Occasional procedures suited to the architecture of the navigation system, the failures and alarms linked to the
RNAV/GNSS equipment and to the display system, must be developed by the operator on the basis of the
information supplied by the aircraft manufacturer (AFM, FCOM, etc.).
In the event of a redundant or complex installation (e.g. multi-sensor), partial or multiple failure situations must be
envisaged and the associated procedures developed.
http://www.developpement-durable.gou...NSS__ENGv3.pdf
Last edited by mi68guel; 6th Jun 2016 at 08:57. Reason: Link
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Palma de Mallorca Spain
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
stabilised laterally and vertically before the point of descent starts
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
thanks for clarifying mi68...
The regulatory background is helpful.
One would think that 424 coding and the criteria would be the standard, but it is more of a guideline for intent, with exemptions being the rule.
Cheers
The regulatory background is helpful.
One would think that 424 coding and the criteria would be the standard, but it is more of a guideline for intent, with exemptions being the rule.
Cheers
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Palma de Mallorca Spain
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
APPR pb pushed at intermediate apch for managed VOR apch. In RNAV (GNSS) with LNAV/VNAV minima the pb is pushed at initial apch. It looks like the SOP's are different.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Right there...
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mi68guel,
This is really interesting. I noticed that the revision for your PDP ( Procedure Data Package ) is REV12. I bought mine in 2014 for the A320 and it is REV09. On my revision, for an NPA, the Flying Ref is TRACK/FPA and on yours is HDG/VS.
This is really interesting. I noticed that the revision for your PDP ( Procedure Data Package ) is REV12. I bought mine in 2014 for the A320 and it is REV09. On my revision, for an NPA, the Flying Ref is TRACK/FPA and on yours is HDG/VS.
Last edited by Togue; 7th Jun 2016 at 14:00.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: los angeles
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
whatever happened to just fly the fekking thing, this is no flying, this is buttonbush management pure, i am sooooo glad to have experienced DC8 trough B744, i am out, enjoy your stupid buttons.
