Autoflight limitation.NPA
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Vladivostok
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Autoflight limitation.NPA
Hello everyone ! Sorry if this thread was rised before.
So A320fam AFM/FCOM limitation - AFS - FMS section states that Conventional navaid approaches may be performed in nav/app nav/final app modes with AP/ FD is used and GPS PRIMARY is available with ground based navaid or airborn equipment inoperative or not installed ,provided an operational approval is obtained..
I have one question about this.
Where/ how can I check this approval is obtained?( I work in RU , our regulations are mostly the same as ICAO except differences in State rules & proc-s. and my company use EASA Air ops methods for AOM)
Could someone make it clear?) Thanx!
So A320fam AFM/FCOM limitation - AFS - FMS section states that Conventional navaid approaches may be performed in nav/app nav/final app modes with AP/ FD is used and GPS PRIMARY is available with ground based navaid or airborn equipment inoperative or not installed ,provided an operational approval is obtained..
I have one question about this.
Where/ how can I check this approval is obtained?( I work in RU , our regulations are mostly the same as ICAO except differences in State rules & proc-s. and my company use EASA Air ops methods for AOM)
Could someone make it clear?) Thanx!
Only half a speed-brake
It's a vague and void statement. Mere declaration of the planes capability, but no template exists for such approval.
The airline need to build it with their CAA, the sentence itself is a form of no-technical-objection from the OEM.
Some might say that it is illegal, against all airmanship, and dangerous.
Others know how to fly the 2NDB to Ulyanovsk at 5:30 a.m. in late November.
The airline need to build it with their CAA, the sentence itself is a form of no-technical-objection from the OEM.
Some might say that it is illegal, against all airmanship, and dangerous.
Others know how to fly the 2NDB to Ulyanovsk at 5:30 a.m. in late November.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,404
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The clearance needs to be from the authority and not from ATC. Technically nothing dangerous because managed approach doesn't track the VOR flies the coded track and GS. Perhaps at certain airfields there may be safety issues which need to be catered for before such approval.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Vladivostok
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The clearance needs to be from the authority and not from ATC"
I know
Speaking about managed appch guidance you're correct, but for degraded navigation you need your refence navaid to be operative to check your lat/vert position, if this navaid or your airborne equipment is inoperative, how could you check it?
I know
Speaking about managed appch guidance you're correct, but for degraded navigation you need your refence navaid to be operative to check your lat/vert position, if this navaid or your airborne equipment is inoperative, how could you check it?
Only half a speed-brake
Use the *ACTIVATE ALTN prompt from MCDU page.
Translation filter alert: Clearance / authorisation.
Any such authorization need to come from the CAA. (vilas: concept)
It's not likely the ATC would give you clearance for a NAVAID based approach that is U/S (sergei: manouevre).
You are both in agreement.
Translation filter alert: Clearance / authorisation.
Any such authorization need to come from the CAA. (vilas: concept)
It's not likely the ATC would give you clearance for a NAVAID based approach that is U/S (sergei: manouevre).
You are both in agreement.
made me laughing
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,404
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RNP Approaches don't have a backup nav aid what about that? Some ground work will be needed for the VOR approach regarding terrain etc before it can be cleared as good enough without reference nav aid. But not at random.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Vladivostok
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Speaking about RNP Appch , if you have problems with navigation i.e. GPS PRIMARY lost on both MCDUs , NAV FM POS DISAGREE etc. you cannot continue unless Visual contact is established. Whereas with conventional navaid appch permits you continue with TRK-FPA down to minima , and the only one source that may help you to check your path is the navaid approach based on.
An Airbus does not normally fly a VOR approach procedure. It flies a FMS guided overlay approach. The aircraft wouldn't know or care that the VOR is working or not. This is obviously provided you have GPS Primary. The legality to fly a NDB or VOR without the station working lies with the regulator. (see FAA C300 approval). I'm not sure if OpsSpec C300 have been cancelled or superseded.
OpSpec C300 gives authorization to conduct 14 CFR part 97 non-directional
radio beacon (NDB), NDB/distance measuring equipment (DME), very high frequency (VHF)
omni-directional range (VOR), and VOR/DME instrument approaches using Area Navigation
(RNAV) as a substitute means of navigation.
OpSpec C300 gives authorization to conduct 14 CFR part 97 non-directional
radio beacon (NDB), NDB/distance measuring equipment (DME), very high frequency (VHF)
omni-directional range (VOR), and VOR/DME instrument approaches using Area Navigation
(RNAV) as a substitute means of navigation.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,404
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sergei.a320
We are going round in circles. The issue was the approach nav aid not being available for the approach. So as I said it can be done with GPS accuracy subject to approval, now GPS not available so obviously GPS approach rules will apply and approach cannot be continued.
We are going round in circles. The issue was the approach nav aid not being available for the approach. So as I said it can be done with GPS accuracy subject to approval, now GPS not available so obviously GPS approach rules will apply and approach cannot be continued.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Back in the day we were approved to fly overlay approaches with the underlying navaid inop with just classic 737s on DME/DME updating alone (no GPS installed, the TAWS had its own GPS not connected to the FMC), as long as ANP was below 0.3 NM. Never had to do it, but it was a point in our books. That provision carried over to the NGs (and yes, the A320 as well: ACCURACY HIGH sufficient), but still, never had to do it in the real world. That said, more recent opened airports do not have a conventional NPA as backup anymore, just RNP approaches.
Due to the nature of the post, I was assuming there would be no ground based stations available. I don't think you can fly a NPA on IRU FMS update alone. Hence the requirement for GPS Primary. I could be wrong.
