“An RNP approach where the MAPt is not at the threshold! Unusual — are there obstacle clearance reasons?”
The RNP MAPt is the 35 threshold (there is a mistake in the report, they pasted VOR approach profile as RNAV RWY35)
I am just thinking if they had VOR approach loaded as backup? or flew it instead of LNAV?
But don’t think 0.5nm would have made a difference (accident was 2.7nm from threshold)
Airborne_Again wrote:
Sure, but I’m talking about “proper” procedures, for straight-in landing in IMC. Not cloud-break-to-VMC or circling procedures.
I remember I was flying one (I can’t remember which airport but I’ll try to find it). Jepp plates had distance to runway threshold while G1000 procedure had distances MAPt, so before I performed approach I had to recalculate distances from plates and write them down to be able to compare it with G1000 values while flying.
On TB20 operation from RHS/LHS, I checked M20J POH and other AFM supplements, nothing on this topic
Looking at the new GFC500 AFM supplement, I come across: PIC has to be LHS to operate the AP
So looks this limitation is something new?
