6 hours ago, Michael Moe said:

1. Yes RNP-AR is a whole other game and is based on stored navigation . Curved RF legs is also typically for these SID/STAR/APP which works on MSFS and the new simmer aircrafts as well.(PMDG,Fenix,FSL,iFly etc)

2. Its LNAV /VNAV mode and ANP/RNP on the ND is yours to check plus vertical minima in the FMC

1.  RNP-AR is basically the most sophisticated category of LPV approaches (LPV on steroids), insofar it is also satellite based. RNAV and RNP are subcategories of PBN and are defined in specifications by the ICAO. The extent to which crew and equipment comply with these specifications determines the type and minimum of possible approaches. Depending on whether only lateral navigation (LNAV), additional barometrically supported vertical navigation (VNAV) or on-board performance monitoring and alerting (Localizer Performance with Vertical Guidance, LPV) is possible, RNAV (GPS) or RNP approaches are defined with a minimum "down to" LNAV, LNAV/VNAV or LPV. And as FENIX and the PMDG can even fly RNP approaches with curved RF legs, they are LPV capable per se. Many more MSFS aircraft are (see below 3.1).

2. In the A320 family - (without the new SLS option) the autopilot mode for RNP(-AR) as well as LPV would be FINAL APP,  the Boeing equivalent would be indeed LNAV/VNAV PATH.  But those are simply differing mode announciations based on the manufacturers operating philosophy.  The real differences are technical, legal and licensing-related requirements (see above). Keeping these separate is what causes the much-described confusion surrounding these approaches.

21 hours ago, Michael Moe said:

Put it simple (GA has it :G1000 , GTN etc)  : How do you go from LPV to LNAV/VNAV in case of a mall function in a airbus or Boeing ?

3. The same technical, legal and licensing-related requirements determine the kind of approach you would use if the initial approach has to be aborted. In case of your example RNP Rwy28 in LSZH that would mean:

1. I haven't tried, but I am 100% sure every aircraft with the G1000, G3000, WT GNS 430/530 and all modern airliners in MSFS can fly this approach, including PMDG and FENIX.
2. The minimum depends on the installed version, in case of Garmin e.g. the G100Nxi can go down to LPV CAT1, whereas an older G1000 without SBAS is limited to the LNAV minimum. Every pilot would have to check the aircraft POH and GPS manual to make sure the required criteria are met.
3. As for the Airbus, this is what I take from an irl A320 Capt.: In case of the Airbus showing GPS PRIMARY LOST on one Navigation Display or NAV ACCUR DOWNGRAD on one FMGS, I could continue down to LNAV/VNAV minimum using the remaining Flight Director/Autopilot, in case of those messages on both devices or XTK > 0.3 NM or NAV FM/GPS POS DISAGREE on ECAM I would have to abort the landing. I assume it is dependant on the POH and airline SOP's.

Edited January 4, 20251 yr by Tom_L

1 hour ago, Tom_L said:

RNP-AR is basically the most sophisticated category of LPV approaches (LPV on steroids),

Most RNP AR are not based on SBAS thus unable to use LPV minimas...(however a few recent actually are, take ENTC for example).

But approach minimums between AR vs LPV can be quite different.

ESSA RNP y 19R (AR)

minimum is 480ft MSL for all categories.

ESSA RNP z 19R, 

Cat C LPV minimum is 294ft MSL...THR elev. is 118 ft for 19R.

1 hour ago, Tom_L said:

The same technical, legal and licensing-related requirements determine the kind of approach you would use if the initial approach has to be aborted.

In SBAS active G1000 this is fairly straightforward (versus how it seems to be in heavy iron).

In the plane I fly, You will get a caution "Approach Downgrade",  the magenta Glidepath indicator replaced by "NO GP" and LPV status being replaced by LNAV (in yellow or magenta depending on conditions). You do not have to initiate a missed approach if the published procedure has both LPV and LNAV minimums.

This is a very interesting thread, btw. I agree that the GPS approach nomenclature is a worm hole and it is easy to get lost, moreso even when adding manufacturer specific flavors (IAN, FLS etc)

Try and look up LOWI 26 RNP. Here its the RNP-AR with lowest DA vs LPV which make sense in the terrain.

Thanks

Michael Moe

Edited January 4, 20251 yr by Michael Moe

2 hours ago, Michael Moe said:

Try and look up LOWI 26 RNP. Here its the RNP-AR with lowest DA vs LPV which make sense in the terrain.

Thanks

Michael Moe

That is because the LPV takes you back immidiately to where you came from over a distance of just 22 trackmiles in case of a go around, whereas the RNP makes you continue further west and climbing before returning you as well giving you twice as many trackmiles. That's why you can start the go around later.

Edited January 4, 20251 yr by Farlis

11 hours ago, Michael Moe said:

Try and look up LOWI 26 RNP. Here its the RNP-AR with lowest DA vs LPV which make sense in the terrain.

Thanks

Michael Moe

That approach used to be a regular RNP 0.3 with minimas of 2.600ft vs. The current RNP AR 0.15 offers 2.500ft.

The "conventional" RNP 0.3 approach was initially published almost 20 years ago IIRC, so the AR part have obviously lowered the minimums, but not by much.

LPV minimas are as Farlis points out, due to the fact that you immediately break off and not continue through the valley west of the airport.