I have been studying questions on this site, and just found this explanation from John in a post: "At this point, the WAAS GNS and G1000 do not support approaches that are RNAV (RNP) and they are not in the database. These approaches do not use WAAS for vertical guidance, but use Baro VNAV (Link: http://www.askacfi.com/25241/challenging-approach-plate-for-me-kmso.htm)."
This got me curious. Why RNP approaches use Baro VNAV when they can use WAAS, which is more reliable and accurate and thus provides lower minimums. As I see it, RNP approaches offers greater lateral accuracies than WAAS approaches, and that might be the reason why the FAA requires additional instrument and special pilot training to shoot RNP approaches. But if you look at RNP charts, you easily find that RNP charts provide higher minimums compared to those of WAAS, and I kind of feel it betrays the purpose of the development of RNP approaches, which I assume is to provide greater accuracy than WAAS approaches.
So is there any good reasons that RNP approaches use Baro NAV instead of WAAS's electrical signal for their vertical guidance?
The following terms have been auto-detected the question above and any answers or discussion provided. Click on a term to see its definition from the Dauntless Aviation JargonBuster Glossary.