Nobody flies dive and drive any more, hence, whether on a ln RNP approach you have a glidepath indication or not does nothing about noise.
Yes no one does DnD as CDFA on LNAV for commercial flyers but you can comply with CDFA even if you hit 300ft MDA at 4nm from threshold and go missed (some call that CFDA, let’s be honest and call it fiasco)
boscomantico wrote:
Nobody flies dive and drive any more, hence, whether on a ln RNP approach you have a glidepath indication or not does nothing about noise.
In the US, DnD is still used and needed if the weather conditions are anywhere close to minimums and one wishes to complete the approach with LNAV or LP minimums.. CDFA is preferred, but requires better minimums than the charted ones, sometimes quite significant. Some RNAV (GPS) approaches have obstacles in the visual segment and one can’t follow the +V below the MDA without risk of hitting something, so in these cases, CDFA works to the MDA, but one must visually avoid obstacles in the visual segment, so the CD portion of CDFA is not available to the runway in these cases.
In the US, TSO C145/146 WAAS GPS navigators are authorized to use LNAV/VNAV minimums using WAAS for the vertical guidance in lieu of Baro-VNAV. If it mattered, S2 could be specified as a PBN capability with such a GPS. However, in the US, it has no effect on flight plan filing or routing. ATC does not have the approach related codes displayed, so if one requests an RNAV approach, they will get it assigned. The only PBN code I specify for my GTN 750Xi is O2 for RNP 1 using GPS. That code allows RNAV 1, RNAV 2, and RNP 1. There are some new codes that will be required to fly some RNAV SIDs that have RF legs and are specified in NAV/ as Z1.
Peter wrote:
I normally use
-TB20/L-SYLDFGOR/S
and that doesn’t get rejected.
In some countries, specifying S and also O and L, which is redundant will not be accepted. SYDFGR/S is identical to SYLDFGOR/S
boscomantico wrote:
Means: no more IFR flights to Nantes (and many more airports will surely follow) with say a GNS430 as of 2025…
With the Non-WAAS GNS430 you mean? The 430W does have the vertical capability.
Peter wrote:
There isn’t a policeman within a 100nm radius of any airport with the mental capability to physically check this, and probably less than 1% of the employees of any national CAA have such a mental capability.
That argument is pretty close to those asking how many speed traps are there on particular bits or road. If you rely on not being found out, that does not make an ops legal. The way it looks is that France moves more and more into the direction of replacing ILS’s with GNS approaches which, if you wish to have the GP guidance you get on an ILS, means you need a navigator capable of this. Which includes most WAAS capable units such as the GNS430 and obviously all newer ones like the IFD440/550 and the GTN navigators.
And with regards to flight plans, it is not only the codes you quote, but also the ones which go into the remark section 18 (PBN/) which are of importance.
I’ve been filing PBN/B2 since for ever, or nothing, according to whether I am filing with the Autorouter, or with EuroFPL.
Still looking for input on what these codes do w.r.t. ATC practices or Eurocontrol (if anything).
However, in the US, it has no effect on flight plan filing or routing. ATC does not have the approach related codes displayed, so if one requests an RNAV approach, they will get it assigned.
I suspect something similar here, and then definitely nobody in the system is going to post it 
As an approach controller I can not easily find out what kind of equipment is on board. I can have somebody retrieve the whole flightplan, but why would I? I don´t particularly care about it, and I´m pretty sure that´s the case with most of my colleagues, as long as you go with the flow.
Not too many years ago I had a crew of a well-known German airline requesting a (then) GPS approach. Ok, no problem. A few minutes later said crew wanted to fly an ILS instead….“we´ve just found out the aircraft doesn´t even have GPS installed”. We had a good laugh and that was it.
Flightplans might get rejected if certain criteria are not met (8,33 / RNP etc), but once you´re in my sector your equipment is not on the top of my priority list.
That’s very funny, about GPS 
Caba wrote:
we´ve just found out the aircraft doesn´t even have GPS installed”
I guess that with a multiple sensor FMS/Nav system it might not be immideately obvious to the crew exactly what is installed. And if aircraft in the same fleet are differently equipped…
This shows that this “requirement” will be basically ignored, just like all the other similar ones.
BTW, jet airliners tend to use FMS (with inertial input) as primary, so they get a “virtual ILS” everywhere they go. No idea what equipment they declare on the flight plan
It would also be undetectable to ATC if somebody flew an LPV approach without LPV capability – unless the pilot messed up really badly. But he could claim he was hand-flying the approach (autopilot coupling is not being made mandatory for all) and didn’t fly it too well…
So another useless regulation.
