LPV not considered a precision approach?

Mattio

Mattio

Well-Known Member
I was reading on another forum that the FAA doesn't consider an LPV approach a precision approach. They attributed it to the fact that the definition of a precision approach is:

[FONT=Trebuchet MS,Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]"a standard instrument approach procedure in which an electronic glideslope/glidepath is provided; e.g., ILS, MLS, and PAR. [/FONT]
[FONT=Trebuchet MS,Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]A non-precision approach is all other types of approaches."[/FONT]

and, with an LPV (or LNAV/VNAV) the glide slope isn't "provided" but is, instead, generated by the GPS.


Can any of you verify that LPV is indeed not considered a precision approach before I start spouting this off to students?


Thanks

-Matt
 
That's entirely wrong. An LPV is absolutely a precision approach.

I believe one of the latest updates to the instrument PTS requires that if an LPV is used as the precision approach for your checkride, it must have a decision height of not more than 300' AGL.
 
AviatorGator said:
That's entirely wrong. An LPV is absolutely a precision approach.

I believe one of the latest updates to the instrument PTS requires that if an LPV is used as the precision approach for your checkride, it must have a decision height of not more than 300' AGL.
Click to expand...

Nope, the FAA still considers all forms of GPS approaches as nonprecision, as stated in the PTS. It says the following:

Note: An LPV approach is technically a noprecision approach, however, due to the precision of its glidepath and localizer-like navigation characteristics, an LPV can be used to demonstrate precision approach proficiency. However, an LPV approach cannot be used to demonstrate nonprecision approach capability on the checkride.
 
Mattio said:
Can any of you verify that LPV is indeed not considered a precision approach before I start spouting this off to students?
Click to expand...

The reasoning is not correct, but the conclusion is. From the AIM:
2. 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), may have decision altitudes as low as 200 feet height above touchdown with visibility minimums as low as 1/2 mile, when the terrain and airport infrastructure support the lowest minima. LPV minima are published on the RNAV (GPS) approach charts (see paragraph, 5-4-5, Instrument Approach Procedure Charts).​
 
They just don't want to call it a precision approach so they don't have to repaint all the runways that now have em. ;)
 
Mattio said:
I was reading on another forum that the FAA doesn't consider an LPV approach a precision approach. They attributed it to the fact that the definition of a precision approach is:

[FONT=Trebuchet MS,Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]"a standard instrument approach procedure in which an electronic glideslope/glidepath is provided; e.g., ILS, MLS, and PAR. [/FONT]
[FONT=Trebuchet MS,Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]A non-precision approach is all other types of approaches."[/FONT]

and, with an LPV (or LNAV/VNAV) the glide slope isn't "provided" but is, instead, generated by the GPS.


Can any of you verify that LPV is indeed not considered a precision approach before I start spouting this off to students?


Thanks

-Matt
Click to expand...

I got into this discussion with a POI once, and an LPV is in fact not a precision approach according to the FAA, or at least it wasn't in mid 2007.

EDIT: I should add that the discussion I entered into was in regard to modifying our ops specs eventually to include LPV approaches, and we needed to know whether an LPV was a precision approach or not in order to figure out alternate mins. So that discussion had nothing to do with checkrides.
 
It's worth noting that while the Instrument PTS (released January 2010) allows LPV to demonstrate a precision approach, the CFII PTS (released in 2002) still requires a "traditional" precision approach.
 
adk said:
It's worth noting that while the Instrument PTS (released January 2010) allows LPV to demonstrate a precision approach, the CFII PTS (released in 2002) still requires a "traditional" precision approach.
Click to expand...

The -II PTS seems to trail the Instrument PTS in its updates. I expect it will be changed to be compatible with the Instrument PTS.
 
400A said:
Can you clarify what and why you are asking that?
Click to expand...


Never seen a LPV approach plate so what I am asking is how is the Final Approach Fix depicted on the approach plate.

From the PCG


FINAL APPROACH FIX- The fix from which the
final approach (IFR) to an airport is executed and
which identifies the beginning of the final approach
segment. It is designated on Government charts by​
the Maltese Cross symbol for nonprecision approaches and the lightning bolt symbol for precision approaches;......
Click to expand...

​
 
boondr said:
Never seen a LPV approach plate so what I am asking is how is the Final Approach Fix depicted on the approach plate.
Click to expand...

They show a lightning bolt. The FAA used to define a precision approach as anything with a glideslope, so what you see in the glossary is probably just a legacy from that era.
 
Gotcha, wasn't sure what you were asking.

Here is a good example of a Precision, GPS/RNAV approach, granted it is SAAR.

RNO 16L
 
msmspilot said:
tgrayson answered your question, but just so you can see it:
http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/1006/05327R9.PDF
Click to expand...


Well than I retract my statement I have seen a "LPV" approach, just never heard it referred to as such.

This is definitely informative though as i was under the impression that the lightning bolt was the determining factor for a precision approach. Then again concerns you guys/gals more than me as you're the ones flying it I am just clearing you for it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top