I went to Salzburg LOWS at the weekend. The terrain is such that instrument approaches have to be made to runway 15. There is a traditional visual circle to land on 33 with a prescribed track.
More recently an RNAV Visual approach has been introduced. The AIP says:
4. RNAV VISUAL V RWY 33 procedure (LOWS AD 2.24-6-5-2 and LOWS AD 2.24-6-5-2A)
General remark
This RNAV procedure with visual part is implemented for noise abatement reasons and environment protection. Therefore and whenever meteorological conditions and aircraft performance permits, operators should support and pilots are encouraged to choose this procedure.
The nominal track is based on a 3° glide slope from WS834 (FAF) to touchdown. After WS835 (MAPt) the procedure is continued as a visual segment. The turn inside this visual segment may also be coded as RF leg (see LOWS AD 2.24-6-5-2A). RF capability is not a requirement to fly this procedure, but operators may use this RF coding to obtain an accurate turn during the visual segment.
In case of coded visual segment the published missed approach procedure remains valid and any coded or non-coded discontinuation of the approach after WS835 (published MAPt) is to be considered a balked landing procedure of the operator for which no PANS-OPS obstacle clearance is guaranteed.
I was rather looking forward to flying this, but it’s not in the database of my GTN 650 or GNS430W.
I’d be interested to know of any other published RNAV Visual approaches and whether they are in the Jepp/Garmin database for capable avionics. I’d be particularly interested to know of the situation in the US if NCYankee has any insight on this please.
Jeppesen has it (LOWS 12-2 11 AUG 2017).
It is a little like the Norwegian procedures with prescribed circling tracks. The difference seems to be that here the visual part after MAPt is coded as part of the approach. Other than that it is just a cloud break procedure, isn’t it?
This is a novelty, pioneered in Austria for Europe. Eurocontrol still has some issues with it…
LOAN and LOAV have it as well, there without full IFR alternatives. We had to introduce the notion of “VFR SID/STAR” in autorouter for this. It’s super cool and a model for the rest because it allows IFR approaches/departures where they have not been possible before.
What does that mean? Is this a procedure that can be used VFR? That would be really cool …
The LOAN approach is indeed an RNAV Visual as I understand it, if the L, M, and F waypoints are coded. LOAV appears to be a normal (though not straight-in) RNP APCH with a charted visual segment, i.e. visual manoeuvring on prescribed tracks.
But as you suggest, very innovative.
Larnaca is also sporting such a procedure I was told, but controllers wouldn’t give it to you even on request. But I am on my phone now so can’t look up the details.
Edit: Google did find this: https://www.icao.int/MID/Documents/2016/PBN%20SG2/3.RNAV-Visual%20procedures-Egypt.pdf
Here’s Larnaca LCLK. It was first published in June 2017.
achimha wrote:
LOAN and LOAV have it as well, there without full IFR alternatives. We had to introduce the notion of “VFR SID/STAR” in autorouter for this. It’s super cool and a model for the rest because it allows IFR approaches/departures where they have not been possible before.
I don’t understand the minima on the LOAN plate. The MDA is 1380, but the VFR part has to be flown (initially) at 2500?
Also, the plate doesn’t say where AN802 is in relation to L.
bookworm wrote:
I’d be interested to know of any other published RNAV Visual approaches and whether they are in the Jepp/Garmin database for capable avionics. I’d be particularly interested to know of the situation in the US if NCYankee has any insight on this please.
Just to follow this up, I got some info from Garmin that they’re working on this, but need to evaluate any adverse effects of including RNAV visuals for any of their product line. So it will take a few months.
