I apologize if this topic has been discussed, searched and found nothing.

Anyone know when the United A320's were certified to fly RNP approaches?

Not sure about the A319's, but I've been seeing a few A320's flying the RNP approaches to IAH in recent weeks making the same tight lateral track as what the Boeing fleet is flying. So that made me curious as for years it was only the Boeings for United not to mention other carriers as Delta with their Airbus fleet and Boeing, Alaska, WestJet etc.

Thanks in advance for any input.

I'm not sure it was an aircraft issue so much as a crew issue. The US3 seem a bit behind WN, AS and OO in making RNP AR approaches their preferred modus operandi. While most mainline GPS systems aren't up to the accuracy of what the GA fleet has (OO is pretty much the only major carrier regularly employing WAAS on their fleet), they generally meet the RNP 0.3 requirement at this point. The issue is getting crew certification done. I'll say that I rarely hear any of the US3 asking for approaches like the RNP Z 27 at SAN, while WN and OO practically beg for it and AS has their RNP M that is similar.

United has, on the other hand, been one of the leaders in equipping with GLS, which is why you see GLS approaches now into 3 of their hubs (EWR, SFO and IAH) and one of their partner hubs (FRA). So my guess is they have been assuring their fleet has GPS with the required level of accuracy and precision.

N1120A wrote:

I'm not sure it was an aircraft issue so much as a crew issue. The US3 seem a bit behind WN, AS and OO in making RNP AR approaches their preferred modus operandi. While most mainline GPS systems aren't up to the accuracy of what the GA fleet has (OO is pretty much the only major carrier regularly employing WAAS on their fleet), they generally meet the RNP 0.3 requirement at this point. The issue is getting crew certification done. I'll say that I rarely hear any of the US3 asking for approaches like the RNP Z 27 at SAN, while WN and OO practically beg for it and AS has their RNP M that is similar.

United has, on the other hand, been one of the leaders in equipping with GLS, which is why you see GLS approaches now into 3 of their hubs (EWR, SFO and IAH) and one of their partner hubs (FRA). So my guess is they have been assuring their fleet has GPS with the required level of accuracy and precision.

CO had RNAV RNP approach approval before the merger with UA. Of course, CO didn't have A320/319s either.

Velocirapture wrote:

CO had RNAV RNP approach approval before the merger with UA. Of course, CO didn't have A320/319s either.

Hundred percent correct. We were deeply involved with CO with both RNP and GLS stuff at IAH in guessing now the early 2000's. While it took a bit for complete RNP for the NG's then the B738/9 they started getting with GLS, it got accomplished. Houston TRACON now is currently assigning the RNAV (RNP) Y to a number of operators with the entire UAL Boeing fleet flying them here at IAH, yep even the B772's PW birds UAL had pre-merger. Some days either the Sup or controllers don't use them for whatever reason (traffic, uncomfortable which is silly based on ADS-B Exchange flight tracks turning 12 mile base legs which the non-players in front on downwind continue 20 or more miles, or crew not wanting them due to re-brief the approach).

In any event they work great and no vertical separation is required during independent simultaneous ops with the other runways due to the tight lateral tracks and FAA approvals a few years ago to the 7110.65.

Thus my Bus curiosity as the UAL bus fleet had not played till recently.

Velocirapture wrote:

N1120A wrote:

I'm not sure it was an aircraft issue so much as a crew issue. The US3 seem a bit behind WN, AS and OO in making RNP AR approaches their preferred modus operandi. While most mainline GPS systems aren't up to the accuracy of what the GA fleet has (OO is pretty much the only major carrier regularly employing WAAS on their fleet), they generally meet the RNP 0.3 requirement at this point. The issue is getting crew certification done. I'll say that I rarely hear any of the US3 asking for approaches like the RNP Z 27 at SAN, while WN and OO practically beg for it and AS has their RNP M that is similar.

United has, on the other hand, been one of the leaders in equipping with GLS, which is why you see GLS approaches now into 3 of their hubs (EWR, SFO and IAH) and one of their partner hubs (FRA). So my guess is they have been assuring their fleet has GPS with the required level of accuracy and precision.

CO had RNAV RNP approach approval before the merger with UA. Of course, CO didn't have A320/319s either.

Interesting. They don't seem to insist on RNP approaches when available in this area, which is interesting.

UA's 319/320 fleet received RNP AR authorization in June, although each individual aircraft has to be approved. Both crew training and upgrades to the avionics (MMR) are required for a 319/320 to accept an RNP AR approach. Some of the older 320s will never be RNP AR approved due to avionics limitations. I believe the current approved limitation for approved aircraft is RNP 0.3, but many will eventually be capable of RNP 0.1 minima.

IAHFLYR wrote:

I apologize if this topic has been discussed, searched and found nothing.

Anyone know when the United A320's were certified to fly RNP approaches?

Not sure about the A319's, but I've been seeing a few A320's flying the RNP approaches to IAH in recent weeks making the same tight lateral track as what the Boeing fleet is flying. So that made me curious as for years it was only the Boeings for United not to mention other carriers as Delta with their Airbus fleet and Boeing, Alaska, WestJet etc.

Thanks in advance for any input.

A320s a certainty certified of flying RNAV (RNP) and RNP (AR) approaches, however like EDTO/ETOPS/LVO and other operational approvals it it the overall airline system from operator options, maintenance, MEL, training, operational control, pilot training, OPSSPEC that goes into an airline getting approval to fly those approaches.

dctraynr wrote:

UA's 319/320 fleet received RNP AR authorization in June, although each individual aircraft has to be approved. Both crew training and upgrades to the avionics (MMR) are required for a 319/320 to accept an RNP AR approach. Some of the older 320s will never be RNP AR approved due to avionics limitations. I believe the current approved limitation for approved aircraft is RNP 0.3, but many will eventually be capable of RNP 0.1 minima.

That answers my question, thanks much. Do you know if the crew training was in the sim or bulletin?

IAHFLYR wrote:

dctraynr wrote:

UA's 319/320 fleet received RNP AR authorization in June, although each individual aircraft has to be approved. Both crew training and upgrades to the avionics (MMR) are required for a 319/320 to accept an RNP AR approach. Some of the older 320s will never be RNP AR approved due to avionics limitations. I believe the current approved limitation for approved aircraft is RNP 0.3, but many will eventually be capable of RNP 0.1 minima.

That answers my question, thanks much. Do you know if the crew training was in the sim or bulletin?

Pretty sure RNP AR approach approval requires more than bulletins.

N1120A wrote:

Pretty sure RNP AR approach approval requires more than bulletins.

One would think, but ya never know! Can't recall what CO did years ago, but pretty sure sim time was required.

N1120A wrote:

IAHFLYR wrote:

That answers my question, thanks much. Do you know if the crew training was in the sim or bulletin?

Pretty sure RNP AR approach approval requires more than bulletins.

The RNP AR approval itself comes via the issuance, or in the case of an operator already authorized for RNP AR on other fleets - an update, of a specific OpSpec. This OpSpec indicates that the FAA is authorizing RNP AR approaches for the fleet in question by approving the aircraft equipment update and crew training method. I'm not sure about the nature of the initial RNP AR training, but it was likely a CBT course. Going forward, sim training (recurrent, etc.) will include RNP AR approaches amongst the many other sim training scenarios.

IAHFLYR wrote:

dctraynr wrote:

UA's 319/320 fleet received RNP AR authorization in June, although each individual aircraft has to be approved. Both crew training and upgrades to the avionics (MMR) are required for a 319/320 to accept an RNP AR approach. Some of the older 320s will never be RNP AR approved due to avionics limitations. I believe the current approved limitation for approved aircraft is RNP 0.3, but many will eventually be capable of RNP 0.1 minima.

That answers my question, thanks much. Do you know if the crew training was in the sim or bulletin?

I can only speak for my operator but RNP required both computer-based training and some stuff in the Panic Box (simulator).

Starlionblue wrote:

IAHFLYR wrote:

dctraynr wrote:

UA's 319/320 fleet received RNP AR authorization in June, although each individual aircraft has to be approved. Both crew training and upgrades to the avionics (MMR) are required for a 319/320 to accept an RNP AR approach. Some of the older 320s will never be RNP AR approved due to avionics limitations. I believe the current approved limitation for approved aircraft is RNP 0.3, but many will eventually be capable of RNP 0.1 minima.

That answers my question, thanks much. Do you know if the crew training was in the sim or bulletin?

I can only speak for my operator but RNP required both computer-based training and some stuff in the Panic Box (simulator).

For clarity, and this is completely the fault of the various regulators in not standardizing early enough, but a lot of people use RNP to mean an RNP AR (Authorization Required) approach. Technically, all RNAV GPS (also called GNSS, cause reasons) based approaches are RNP (Required Navigational Performance) approaches, but not all RNP approaches can be flown without prior aircraft and aircrew authorization - regardless of whether the avionics in the aircraft meet the standard to fly such an approach.

IAHFLYR wrote:

dctraynr wrote:

UA's 319/320 fleet received RNP AR authorization in June, although each individual aircraft has to be approved. Both crew training and upgrades to the avionics (MMR) are required for a 319/320 to accept an RNP AR approach. Some of the older 320s will never be RNP AR approved due to avionics limitations. I believe the current approved limitation for approved aircraft is RNP 0.3, but many will eventually be capable of RNP 0.1 minima.

That answers my question, thanks much. Do you know if the crew training was in the sim or bulletin?

According to the answer I just received, sim training was required for UA and CO pilots.

I've done the training for 737s, 777s and 787s.

IAHFLYR wrote:

N1120A wrote:

Pretty sure RNP AR approach approval requires more than bulletins.

One would think, but ya never know! Can't recall what CO did years ago, but pretty sure sim time was required.

The qualification is being issued after completing the required training in the sim. The training is being accomplished as crews go through their recurrent which is making it take a bit longer to get everyone qualified.

PHLapproach wrote:

The qualification is being issued after completing the required training in the sim. The training is being accomplished as crews go through their recurrent which is making it take a bit longer to get everyone qualified.

Why did it take so long for UA's Airbus fleet to get this capability? UA 'Bus crews are fond of calling the 737s Jurassic or antiques, but the 737 fleet has had this capability (RNAV RNP) for years.

Velocirapture wrote:

Why did it take so long for UA's Airbus fleet to get this capability? UA 'Bus crews are fond of calling the 737s Jurassic or antiques, but the 737 fleet has had this capability (RNAV RNP) for years.

When looking at things like it is a commercial decision, what is the cost benefit of obtaining and retaining the approval against not doing it. The advantage on that approach in terms of fuel savings is minimal. It might seem like nothing to you, when an airline looks at it across a big fleet, it might wash out to be $250,000 per aircraft to get all aircraft and crew approved, and then keep current. The benefit vs cost does not make commercial sense.

zeke wrote:

Velocirapture wrote:

Why did it take so long for UA's Airbus fleet to get this capability? UA 'Bus crews are fond of calling the 737s Jurassic or antiques, but the 737 fleet has had this capability (RNAV RNP) for years.

When looking at things like it is a commercial decision, what is the cost benefit of obtaining and retaining the approval against not doing it. The advantage on that approach in terms of fuel savings is minimal. It might seem like nothing to you, when an airline looks at it across a big fleet, it might wash out to be $250,000 per aircraft to get all aircraft and crew approved, and then keep current. The benefit vs cost does not make commercial sense.

Believe me, I understand commercial decisions. UA has two hubs where RNAV RNP approaches are common (DEN, IAH). Yet, a mix of UAL narrow body aircraft couldn't fully realize the benefits of the RNP approaches when an Airbus aircraft was in the middle of the mix.

Yet the investment was worthwhile for the 737s and other UA fleets (777, 787).

I've been flying RNP approaches for nearly 15 years and flew one just yesterday. On the heavier wide body aircraft (777), the fuel savings can be significant (OGG RNAV RNP 02 is a good example of that (versus the 20+ mile downwind leg)).

Velocirapture wrote:

Believe me, I understand commercial decisions. UA has two hubs where RNAV RNP approaches are common (DEN, IAH). Yet, a mix of UAL narrow body aircraft couldn't fully realize the benefits of the RNP approaches when an Airbus aircraft was in the middle of the mix.

Yet the investment was worthwhile for the 737s and other UA fleets (777, 787).

I would completely agree and add the B756 fleet to that investment!

Having been watching ADS-B Exchange of IAH arrivals from time to time over the last few years and when that mix of airplanes is inbound, quite often you'd find the non RNP folks continuing on downwind while those flying the RNAV (RNP) Y approach are turning inside of them making their RF within 12 NM of the airport. The non RNP aircraft may fly an additional 20-25 total miles further than those flying the Y approach. Not all the controllers would be that savoy to reduce their workload for whatever reason, though I'm seeing it more and more.

Take those Airbus aircraft who are flying long downwind legs (a fleet that is a fairly large number at IAH), toss in a few RJ's (other than SkyWest E175's who are RNP) into those extended downwind legs and the fuel costs would seem to increase by a good number.

IAHFLYR wrote:

Velocirapture wrote:

Believe me, I understand commercial decisions. UA has two hubs where RNAV RNP approaches are common (DEN, IAH). Yet, a mix of UAL narrow body aircraft couldn't fully realize the benefits of the RNP approaches when an Airbus aircraft was in the middle of the mix.

Yet the investment was worthwhile for the 737s and other UA fleets (777, 787).

I would completely agree and add the B756 fleet to that investment!

Having been watching ADS-B Exchange of IAH arrivals from time to time over the last few years and when that mix of airplanes is inbound, quite often you'd find the non RNP folks continuing on downwind while those flying the RNAV (RNP) Y approach are turning inside of them making their RF within 12 NM of the airport. The non RNP aircraft may fly an additional 20-25 total miles further than those flying the Y approach. Not all the controllers would be that savoy to reduce their workload for whatever reason, though I'm seeing it more and more.

Take those Airbus aircraft who are flying long downwind legs (a fleet that is a fairly large number at IAH), toss in a few RJ's (other than SkyWest E175's who are RNP) into those extended downwind legs and the fuel costs would seem to increase by a good number.

I was hoping you'd contribute your thoughts, so thank you.

In my experience, if an aircraft ahead of my flight wasn't capable of an RNP approach (or just didn't want to fly one), then the sequencing dictated that the following aircraft also not fly the RNAV RNP approach. Rather, everyone just ended up following that non-RNP airplane on extended downwind legs. From your comments, it seems that's not always the case, at least not any longer and I'm glad to read that.

I enjoy the challenge of the RNP approaches although I know pilots who don't or at least aren't confident in flying them. To me, the way to overcome that lack of confidence is to fly them as often as possible.

Velocirapture wrote:

I was hoping you'd contribute your thoughts, so thank you.

In my experience, if an aircraft ahead of my flight wasn't capable of an RNP approach (or just didn't want to fly one), then the sequencing dictated that the following aircraft also not fly the RNAV RNP approach. Rather, everyone just ended up following that non-RNP airplane on extended downwind legs. From your comments, it seems that's not always the case, at least not any longer and I'm glad to read that.

I enjoy the challenge of the RNP approaches although I know pilots who don't or at least aren't confident in flying them. To me, the way to overcome that lack of confidence is to fly them as often as possible.

When I was still working and we started to adopt the tailored RNAV approaches with CO, a huge number of controllers would not use them though a few of us would assign the approach and slowly a few others gained confidence in them. Mind you that was looooooong ago and had to show thousands and thousands of repeatable lateral tracks, of course nothing close to what the RNAV Y's here provide and other RNP spots.

Good friend flew the 73 fleet till upgraded to Capt. on 77's. He loved seeing those non players ahead of him and getting cleared for the "Y" while they went on downwind for headed for IDU or BPT!! Now in the 77's, even the old UA domestic birds he says far to simple not to fly them.

As far as controller workload goes, they are no longer required to provide vertical separation using the "Y" approach to the outboard runways like they are required to provide with the RNAV Z or ILS when vectoring to final and no need to have those long downwind legs to apply it with GS intercept from below. Just clear them for the approach from just about anyplace on the arrival tied to the "Y" and put them on the tower frequency before the first RF leg or close to that point to comply with final monitoring during simul independent ops dual/triple. If I was still working every RNP airplane from SW, DL, AS, OO, UA, WS, AA and anyone else capable would be issued a "Y" here to an outboard unless no conflicting arrivals to give the closest runway to their gate.

If it is helping controllers workload as much as you claim, the FAA should be funding it to be a mandate.


Decreasing controller workload or increasing airport capacity would not be a KPI for any airline manager.

zeke wrote:

If it is helping controllers workload as much as you claim, the FAA should be funding it to be a mandate.

Decreasing controller workload or increasing airport capacity would not be a KPI for any airline manager.

Anything that reduces radio transmissions is a reduction for both pilot and controller would you not agree? I certainly do not propose to have the least bit of insight into KPI, but at increase in capacity would that not at least have managers ear just a bit?

Regardless, I'm glad to see RNP working as it was presented years ago.

While discussing RNP, do these also have a particular vertical path to fly between waypoint to waypoint? Or is it basically just curvy, precise, obstacle-weaving approaches?

CarlosSi wrote:

While discussing RNP, do these also have a particular vertical path to fly between waypoint to waypoint? Or is it basically just curvy, precise, obstacle-weaving approaches?

Yes, there is typically a vertical path dependent on the altitude constraints. In NAV (VNAV) the aircraft will manage the descent appropriately based on the coding of the approach.

The important thing is to commence the approach within the vertical capture window of the initial fix, or the modes won't change to the appropriate ones, e.g. "FINAL APP" on the 'bus (or F-LOC/F-GS).

You can see the vertical profile on the approach plate, same as for an ILS.

For that matter, FINAL APP (or Boeing equivalent) works on a VOR approach as well. The aim is to fly a constant descent, and not "steps", so the FM will calculate a vertical profile based on the constraints and a nominal descent angle, and then fly it (or give you the vertical deviation indicator so you can fly it).

zeke wrote:

If it is helping controllers workload as much as you claim, the FAA should be funding it to be a mandate.


Decreasing controller workload or increasing airport capacity would not be a KPI for any airline manager.

It only decreases their workload when there aren't other issues that require vectors to final. At SAN, for example, it is difficult for them to give the entire procedure from KLOMN instead of vectors because the downwind overflies the ILS for another airport at an altitude that doesn't work. At that point, the requests for the approach start increasing workload. Pretty much any busy Class B airport has STARs that now terminate at an IAF for an approach, but traffic doesn't really allow most to clear for the approach so far out.

I prefer to just take the visual to be honest….

bigb wrote:

I prefer to just take the visual to be honest….

Hey, who doesn't prefer the visual? But that's the really germane to this discussion, is it?

bigb wrote:

I prefer to just take the visual to be honest….

Sometimes this is a good option. It has to be availabe and visibility requirements have to be fulfilled, however.

In many cases, you really want that priceise guidance, for example with high terrain surrounding the airport. HKG's approaches to the new(ish) 25R ar a good example.

Starlionblue wrote:

bigb wrote:

I prefer to just take the visual to be honest….

Sometimes this is a good option. It has to be availabe and visibility requirements have to be fulfilled, however.

In many cases, you really want that priceise guidance, for example with high terrain surrounding the airport. HKG's approaches to the new(ish) 25R ar a good example.

Absolutely, but if visibility is low (But higher than CAT I) then I would rather couple to ILS to be honest. Haven’t been to HKG in about a year….

bigb wrote:

I prefer to just take the visual to be honest….

Oh for sure, love issuing a visual approach. U.S. ATC visual requirement to be vectored for a visual is the lowest reported ceiling must be 500' above MVA to be vectored for a visual, if you report the airport in sight then the controller can clear you for the visual. If not then a shorter RNP would seem to be much better than adding a longer downwind leg such as I've mentioned previously.

bigb wrote:

Starlionblue wrote:

bigb wrote:

I prefer to just take the visual to be honest….

Sometimes this is a good option. It has to be availabe and visibility requirements have to be fulfilled, however.

In many cases, you really want that priceise guidance, for example with high terrain surrounding the airport. HKG's approaches to the new(ish) 25R ar a good example.

Absolutely, but if visibility is low (But higher than CAT I) then I would rather couple to ILS to be honest. Haven’t been to HKG in about a year….

Agreed. ILS will give you the lowest minima. However RNAV and RNP approaches have their merits too if the visibility is not really down there.

Top tip: On your next trip, Read the notes on the ILS 25R RNAV transition and approach plates with care before you arrive.

Starlionblue wrote:

bigb wrote:

Starlionblue wrote:

Sometimes this is a good option. It has to be availabe and visibility requirements have to be fulfilled, however.

In many cases, you really want that priceise guidance, for example with high terrain surrounding the airport. HKG's approaches to the new(ish) 25R ar a good example.

Absolutely, but if visibility is low (But higher than CAT I) then I would rather couple to ILS to be honest. Haven’t been to HKG in about a year….

Agreed. ILS will give you the lowest minima. However RNAV and RNP approaches have their merits too if the visibility is not really down there.

Top tip: On your next trip, Read the notes on the ILS 25R RNAV transition and approach plates with care before you arrive.

Unfortunately, I don’t make my way to VHHH on my BASE/Equipment. But I’ll dig them up at some point again out of boredom. Actually Hong Kong was one of my favorites to fly into when I was with 5Y.

Starlionblue wrote:

Top tip: On your next trip, Read the notes on the ILS 25R RNAV transition and approach plates with care before you arrive.

Reading them seems optional, seen an A380 and 787 perform immaculate EGPWS escape manoeuvres.

Next approach ATC issue the LOC.

zeke wrote:

Starlionblue wrote:

Top tip: On your next trip, Read the notes on the ILS 25R RNAV transition and approach plates with care before you arrive.

Reading them seems optional, seen an A380 and 787 perform immaculate EGPWS escape manoeuvres.

Next approach ATC issue the LOC.

I haven't seen any EGPWS yet. But I've certainly heard some rather pointed comms from the approach controllers.