EGTE:
Where is the +V minima?
As NCYankee wrote, +V minima don‘t exist. LNAV minima apply.
Old EGTE plate: https://www.aurora.nats.co.uk/htmlAIP/Publications/2019-06-20-AIRAC/graphics/3902.pdf
Cat A aircraft OCH: LPV – 314, LNAV/VNAV – 468, LNAV – 528.
I think they mean BaroVNAV, otherwise I don’t see how the SBAS VNAV OCH could be so much high than LPV – they are supposed to be calculated the same way, just LPV allows to go below 250ft DH.
NCYankee wrote:
The LNAV using CDFA could be flown with +V, but the minimums are generally higher.
Maybe they are in the US, but not in Europe. The +V is regarded only as an aid to maintaining the nominal glidepath just like distance/altitude cross-checks. (But better.)
I think they mean BaroVNAV
Baro-VNAV is a different thing.
Peter wrote:
Baro-VNAV is a different thing.
LNAV/VNAV approaches are always designed as Baro-VNAV.
I guess it is theoretically possible to design an SBAS LNAV/VNAV, but with LPV, what’s the point? (Well, it could be a point with it in the UK of course.)
For the current UK situation, +V does the whole job which LPV did, and the difference in minima is the difference between poor wx and really poor wx.
It would surprise me if there was a UK airport where the +V trajectory was unsuitable down to 250ft DH. Missed approach climb rate excepted but one can deal with that separately e.g. a TB20 can climb at about 10%.
In the US, there is absolutely no assurances that the +V will miss obstacles once below the MDA. There is one procedure where it will very accurately take you through a hill side if you follow it below the MDA.
Yes indeed, and you have posted it before, but I don’t think the UK has any such, and it is the UK which lost LPV. Not that it ever had much LPV before that, at £30k per runway end to be financed from extra traffic 
So, are you getting a WAAS navigator now?
