Kos LGKO: I'm guessing forget the RNP approach unless you have some airplane that depicts the equipment; not any that I own. I spent the better part of a day trying to figure out that one, having never heard of any of this before, let alone EGNOS. (I learned a lot, though.) I suppose you could fudge it, but otherwise that would leave the VOR DME 32 approach, which is more familiar, but still puzzling. Why come in on the 317 radial when the runway is 323? A non-precision approach in a A318 didn't go as expected since the birdie wasn't providing much in the way of useful advice. That's when I said, "I'm gonna fly ya like a Boeing and yer gonna like it." I guess that's what you do in that situation, but the offset approach seems unduly weird to me. Automation gets you plenty close enough to make the runway visually, but the NPA feature didn't seem to work very well.

Corfu LGKR: Not so puzzling, since the excellent Airbus Pro tutorial uses it and does a good job explaining how to do a non-precision approach. However, I'm not sure how you know a full NPA will work there, and not in the above example. I'm not sure about flying a full NPA anywhere else because Navigraph charts don't say "NPA" or anything on them and apparently some airports just don't allow for it.

Samos LGSM: The visual approach illustration in the documentation is fine, and it's not too hard to pick out your landmarks. But there's nothing in the actual Navigraph charts to tell you any of that. In fact, there's not any approach at all. You get pointed at the VOR (at the airport) and that's it. Good luck. Seems like the charts should provide some guidance beyond that. Samos per se isn't the problem, since the visual approach isn't too bad after a few practice runs. I'm just wondering about other charts in the same category that don't have developer's documentation.

So, three nice sceneries, three lovely Greek islands, all with different approaches and not an ILS to be found. Guess there's not much poor visibility there. Each can be flown okay, but raise questions for other airports that might pose similar puzzles.

I'm guessing that with the LGKO VOR approach, by establishing in the 317 track to the VOR you'll cross the extended centre line of the runway before reaching the VOR, probably around 2 miles out, given the minima for the approach is 507 ft above the ground. If you established on a track of 323, you'll always be parallel to runway, never crossing through the centre line?

Just a guess!

Eugene

Makes sense. The RNP approach can fly the runway course because it's not depending on the VOR at all. I'll try it again and see if the Airbus will cue on it that way. since it presumably knows where it's at and where the runway is. But it is essentially a visual approach, and that's the way I've seen it flown on YouTube. Thanks.

I suppose the information on visual approaches are just not contained on Jeppesen charts. There are no doubt company resources IRL.

Here's a good video I found today that does a better job explaining a TRACK FPA VOR in the Airbus. I did a flight from LEBL to LFBO (the destination in the video). Haven't quite got my head wrapped around it yet, but it's interesting.

Video: Real World Airbus Pilot Demonstrates VOR Approach NAV/FPA TRK/FPA

I'd like to add that the reason for an offset VOR approach is sometimes b/c of nearby terrain /mountains (LGKR rwy35)

These obstales will not allow an approach with same course as the runway due to limitations in PANS-OPS (same principles as FAA TERPS for our american readers)