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?
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.
“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)
Peter wrote:
There are loads of approaches which have the MAPt nowhere near the runway. This is LOAV RNP A
Sure, but I’m talking about “proper” procedures, for straight-in landing in IMC. Not cloud-break-to-VMC or circling procedures.
Peter wrote:
This is LOAV RNP A
Practically just a cloud breaking procedure 
There are loads of approaches which have the MAPt nowhere near the runway. This is LOAV RNP A
gallois wrote:
Every one of my revalidation flights has had a strict set of parameters starting with the briefing before the flight and going through an ILS and RNAV approach, assymetric flight, limited panel
For me too (except MEP ones), and I like. it gives me the opportunity to learn new things and improve myself.
I know the FE who revalidated the RHS pilot. He is a very experienced pilot with many qualifications.
With him, IFR revalidation is “handshake-takeoff-approach-land-papers”. No weather briefing, no partial pannel etc.
Ibra wrote:
The RNP LNAV RWY35 is designed similar to VOR RWY35, the “only difference” is 0.5nm between threshold (LNAV MAPt) and 1dme (VOR MAPt), and 2deg offset from runway axis in VOR approach, even BEA did confuse the two in their report graphs
An RNP approach where the MAPt is not at the threshold! Unusual — are there obstacle clearance reasons?
“The RNAV approach is an RNP approach. and the VOR/DME approach is a VOR approach“
The RNP LNAV RWY35 is designed similar to VOR RWY35, the “only difference” is 0.5nm between threshold (LNAV MAPt) and 1dme (VOR MAPt), and 2deg offset from runway axis in VOR approach, even BEA did confuse the two in their report graphs 
Although, I personally don’t think they were flying level at 690ft until the MAPt (threshold or 1dme) on VOR or RNP
