The localizer-only of RNAV?
The ongoing evolution of WAAS generates some questions:
Since LPV and ILS precision approaches are "brothers" in many ways, is it fair to describe the LPV-LP relationship as simply the WAAS version of ILS-LOC? Is it fair to describe the newly appearing LP approaches as simply the LPV without the V"?
Why do we never see LPV and LP listed on the same approach plate?
Why would an LP approach that produces exactly the same minimums as an existing LNAV approach be added to an airport (see Cairo, Ga.)?
It's fair to call an LP approach an LPV without the V, similar to an ILS and a Localizer-only approach. However, you'll never see both LPV and LP on the same chart.
LP approaches exist where some terrain feature or obstruction precludes an LPV approach, but there is still the option for tighter lateral tolerances than plain-old LNAV. Also, LPV and LP require exactly the same equipment, so if you can fly an LP you can fly an LPV (although not always the reverse, do to software issues).
This is unlike an ILS versus localizer-only where it's possible to have a CDI capable offlying the localizer but not the ILS.
It seems odd the FAA would chart an LP where it didn't give an operational advantage over the existing LNAV approach. We don't know why this was done. It could be some forward-thinking act in anticipation of a change allowing a lower minimum on the LP--or it could be gratuitous government waste. We'll let you decide which is more likely.
North Palm Beach, Fla.