Flying Mag Clueless about LPV and NACO

Greg Esres wrote:
Sam Spade wrote:

Last first: LPV IAPs are indeed precision IAPs.

The AIM refers to them as APV approaches, approaches with vertical
guidance. For alternate purposes, they're to be considered non-
precision.

First, the term APV is applied to any FAA approach with vertical
guidance that does not meet the precision approach requirements of ICAO
Annex 10. The FAA does not agree with Annex 10 because the FAA
considers LPV IAPs to be precision IAPs and, in fact, use ILS obstacle
clearance containment areas for obstacle protection.

An LDA with a G/S is also an APV because it clearly does not meet any
definition of a precision IAP.

As to the alternate requirements, your statement is incomplete. You
cannot plan to use the precision line of minimums on a WAAS IAP for
alternate planning purposes. But, if WAAS LPV is available when
arriving at the alternate you may use the LPV *precision* line of minima.

Sam Spade wrote:

FAA considers LPV IAPs to be precision IAP

The FAA that writes the AIM says differently:

===================
1-1-20.
....

A new type of APV approach procedure, in addition to LNAV/VNAV, is
being implemented to take advantage of the lateral precision provided
by WAAS. This angular lateral precision, combined with an electronic
glidepath allows the use of TERPS approach criteria very similar to
that used for present precision approaches, with adjustments for the
larger vertical containment limit. The resulting approach procedure
minima, titled LPV (localizer performance
with vertical guidance)...
================

But, if WAAS LPV is available when arriving at the alternate you may
use the LPV *precision* line of minima.

Yes, that's obvious, but it still underlines that the FAA doesn't not
consider the LPV approach to be a precision approach as far as the
user is concerned.

Greg Esres wrote:
Sam Spade wrote:

FAA considers LPV IAPs to be precision IAP

The FAA that writes the AIM says differently:

===================
1-1-20.
...

A new type of APV approach procedure, in addition to LNAV/VNAV, is
being implemented to take advantage of the lateral precision provided
by WAAS. This angular lateral precision, combined with an electronic
glidepath allows the use of TERPS approach criteria very similar to
that used for present precision approaches, with adjustments for the
larger vertical containment limit. The resulting approach procedure
minima, titled LPV (localizer performance
with vertical guidance)...
================

But, if WAAS LPV is available when arriving at the alternate you may
use the LPV *precision* line of minima.

Yes, that's obvious, but it still underlines that the FAA doesn't not
consider the LPV approach to be a precision approach as far as the
user is concerned.

The FAA is covering its butt with ICAO. Technically, there are now
three types of IAPs.

1. Precision

2. APV

3. Non-precision

1 and 2 are flown identically when the APV is an RNAV IAP with LPV or
VNAV minimums. They both have DAs.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.....

When you fly an LPV (or teach it) do you teach precision or
non-precision procedures and flap settings, etc, for the final approach
segment?

Sam Spade wrote:

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.....
When you fly an LPV (or teach it) do you teach precision or
non-precision procedures and flap settings, etc, for the final
approach
segment

Nope, you're quite right, no operational difference between the two.

BTW, can you tell me of the significance of the vertical alarm limit
(VAL) on these approaches? I find many references to it, but not
exactly sure what it means.