There’s a difference between an RNP approach and an RNP AR approach (AR = “authorisation required”). As far as I understand, the curved stuff will be RNP AR.
RNP AR requires operator and pilot approved training.
We looked into this with the Bermudan CAA on the 737 I fly, but the CAA there hadn’t even looked into this. Its a massive undertaking, and is only a solution for bigger operators operating into the same airports on a daily basis.
SAS can cut like 5 minutes of their approach time into Tromsø when landing south. The RNP AR approach takes you through different valleys on the way to the localizer.
Thats a lot of fuel saved when you have something like 5 flights a day.
For GA it will never make sense.
For GA it will never make sense.
I agree that the current RNP AR regulations make no sense for GA.
However, a curved GPS guided approach would make a lot of sense for GA for example into Innsbruck, or Tivat, and would IMO be safer than the current IGS or LOC DME approaches.
Even a relatively untrained pilot would achieve a flight technical error by far good enough for this. Garmin conducted a study where they deliberately created a roller coaster approach with many curved path segments and let normal pilots fly it with different aircraft that included aircraft with fairly old equipment (single GNS430W), the resulting FTE was 0.2NM (2 sigma).
Again, current regulation does not mirror reality, and denies us safety benefits from modern technology.
