As I’ve just received my – expensive :-( – Jeppesen subscription for Europe I started to browse around a bit and that prompts me to ask a question about RNP approaches.
LOWI RNAV (RNP) Z Rwy 08
10-1P3 explains that one needs equipment capable of RNP 0.3 NM with dual GNSS and able to understand the “RF” path terminator.
It goes on to say that only multiengine pilots shall apply for a permission to fly the RNP approach.
My understanding is that an Avidyne R9 satisfies the technical requirements. As an SR22 is not multiengine, me flying on FAA papers should be allowed to fly this approach. Is that right?
As the aircraft has not yet been delivered, 3 weeks to go, I can’t check that. So I’m using what I read on COPA when people discussed RNP approaches a while ago. That is why I wrote “my understanding”.
Thanks for posting the link to the document. However, it is dated 2011 and there might be something more recent.
Very few people have the LOWI RNP 0.3 approach authorization. You will not be among them 
I dug up the COPA discussion on this, it’s an interesting topic, and in 2012 they said that for part 91 operations the pilot needs to receive a Letter of Authorization from the FAA in order to fly this type of approach legally. That is also what the linked document above says.
One there showed pictures, taken in September 2012, of his R9 flying an approach with RF legs. He got training with an instructor.
The same person also reports that Jeppesen have been working with the FAA to create hybrid approaches that are RNAV (GNSS) but use RF legs so that authorization is not required. He shows a terminal chart as an example (KCRQ RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 24).
@achimha I’m just curious to learn what is possible or is coming LOWI is certainly a destination where I want to go when the weather is nice anyway.
Do we have other RNP approaches in Europe by now? LOWI was just one that I discovered by accident.
The terminology is very confusing. There are two PBN approach nav specs:
RNP APCH is the standard one. Charts are usually titled RNAV (GNSS).
RNP AR APCH is the more demanding one. Charts are usually titled RNAV (RNP). ‘AR’ stands for ‘authorisation required’. They do require operational approval and will continue to require it for the foreseeable future. Salzburg (LOWS) also has one to runway 33, which looks equally exciting.
RF legs are an interesting issue. The FAA require an autopilot or flight director for RF legs, and there is very little kit on which it is authorised. I can’t imagine the EU being more liberal than the FAA on this, but would be delighted to be proven wrong. RF legs are increasingly being planned in to departures, and this could become an issue for GA in the longer term.
Does that mean we – the pilot – can, capable equipment provided, without authorization by anyone fly any RNAV (GNSS) – or RNAV (GPS) in the US – even if the approach makes use of RF legs?
The FAA require an autopilot or flight director for RF legs, and there is very little kit on which it is authorised.
The guy from the COPA forum showed pictures of the R9 screens and the RNAV (GPS) approach plate of an approach with RF legs. There was some discussion about the legality of flying it on a clearance or simulated in VMC. However, there was no conclusion. As that was from 2012, maybe there is newer information?
Am I lucky with R9 that my kit is allowed to use RF legs?
Do we have other RNP approaches in Europe by now?
Stockholm/Arlanda (ESSA) has one. It’s for noise abatement purposes rather than terrain.
