Are you sure that LPV is a precision approach? I always thought that this is APV, 3D approach.
My understanding (probably wrong), the SBAS LPV250 and the SBAS L/VNAV down to 250ft are indeed APV 3D but they are not Precision Approaches, the LPV200 is a Precision Approach (Type B Cat I)
ILS200 Type B Cat I and ILS250 Type A are both precision approaches
Some of this relevant when considering planning ceiling minima: you don’t give much importance to ceiling on Precision Approach during planning (you know exactly where the runway sits with a guaranteed 3D guidance to 200ft and if there is hole inside some broken 100ft layer for you to see the runway, you can sneak in), however, you can do this for ILS PA but not on LPV PA as you are required to degrade SBAS during planning (not because LPV200 is not precision approach)
Maybe there is some ICAO, EASA, CAA variations as someone told me while ago PAR on radar in UK can be logged as precision approach on test but I think he meant 3D?…whatever one like to call these approaches, there is a single test: do you need ceiling higher than DH to start your engine and takeoff? NO, it’s precision 
Ibra wrote:
as someone told me while ago PAR on radar in UK can be logged as precision approach on test but I think he meant 3D?
I understood PAR to be a precision approach (and SRA a non-precision).
At least, that seemed to prevail for my IMCr test back in 2012. I don’t know if it’s still the case, but Farnborough EGLF would often trade approaches with you – you could have an ILS (for free) if you agreed to also do a radar approach for controller currency. If I recall correctly he asked if we would do a PAR but my examiner (good old chap, mostly deaf, flew Hunters in the RAF) chipped in and said we needed a non-precision so prefer SRA, which the controller was fine with. It was weekdays only and you couldn’t book – one had to get airborne and ask on the radio – so it was ok out of White Waltham EGLM. I cannot recall what the plan was if they’d said no, but ol’ Bruce seemed to know what we were doing that day.
As with many things, the most important interpretation of the rules seems to be the one that your examiner subscribes to on the day.
PAR can be a precision approach as indeed can be an MLS. But I don’t know about anybody else here, but I have done very few of either of these and when I have they have always been when invited to visit a military airfield.
I believe recently, indeed since my PBN training the term precision approach has been simplified to an approach with a DH below 250ft.
An LPV with a DH of 250 ft might therefore not be considered a precision approach.
There is a table in ICAO annexe 2 I believe it is that gives these minima along with necessary visibility minima.
As a concept PBN is supposed to standardise things and terms across the globe.
I don’t have a SUSPEND button… How have I managed to fly all over Europe and survive?
LPV is a precision approach, but the real Q is whether it is acceptable for the “precision approach” element of a Euro IR skills test. I don’t know the latest on that. IF it was acceptable then a +V should also be accaptable 
You will be lucky to find a PAR approach where you think they still are…
Peter wrote:
but the real Q is whether it is acceptable for the “precision approach” element of a Euro IR skills test. I don’t know the latest on that.
See above….. I reckon what matters is what the examiner thinks on the day!
arj1 wrote:
Are you sure that LPV is a precision approach? I always thought that this is APV, 3D approach.
The term “precision approach” isn’t used anymore (except colloquially). The main categorisation is now type A (MDH/DH 250’ or above) and type B (MDH/DH below 250’) approaches. Type B approaches are further divided into Cat I, II, IIIA, IIIB and IIIC. LPV200 approaches are type B Cat I approaches, other LPV approaches are type A approaches.
Graham wrote:
I reckon what matters is what the examiner thinks on the day!
In Germany is IS clear: a 3D approach and a 2D approach are required. The words “ILS”, “RNP”, “precision” or “non-precision” don’t feature on the form.
boscomantico wrote:
In Germany is IS clear
Which is great, because it makes it harder for the examiner to disagree!
Just wow! What a lot of ado about nothing (the PBN training requirement, I mean, not the discussion). Flying a GPS/RNAV/LPV approach is the easiest thing in the world, WAY easier than an ILS (and let’s not even think about VOR and NDB). Yes, you have to know about RAIM, and you have to know which buttons to press when. That’s true for a lot of things in aviation though.
I have to agree with Peter, this is 100% trying to keep the training companies in business, overlaid with a generous veneer of typical EASA gold plating.
Graham wrote:
What’s stopping you individually loading the waypoints into the world’s most basic GPS and just flying from one to another, at least for LNAV? You don’t even need to load them. For a simple LNAV like e.g. EGBJ RNP Rwy27, you know that you have an IAF at 10nm long final on a 264 course so you just fly over that at 2,500, stepping down to 2,000’ at a 5nm final, 1,250’ at 3nm and 510’ at 1nm, with the minimum being 600’. You don’t need to load the procedure in the box to do this (practically, I make no comment on legally.)
Technically, nothing is stopping you from flying an LNAV approach this way (just remember to set the CDI scaling to 0.3 NM). As you suspected, it is illegal in more ways than one. A completely different question is if it is smart, given that mistakes in entering the data will have dire consequence. (Sure, that applies to an ILS as well, but you only thing you have to enter is the frequency and you double-check it by listening to the ID.)
…the aircraft will fly the same and it’s the control surfaces that dictate its path through space, not which mode the box is in.
That’s really a non-argument. If it was a valid argument you just as well could use it to say that you don’t need any navigation equipment at all.
