Unable LFMN RNP A RWY 04L/04R approach in TBM 930. Why?

I am trying to fly the RNP A approach for runways 04L and 04R into LFMN in the TBM 930. My problem is that the approach does not exist in the G3000. In this post I will reason why this is a bug.

EDIT: Apparently this is indeed a bug because IRL the TBM 930 can fly this approach.

EDIT 2: Apparently this is not a bug.

The approach is selectable in the MSFS flight planning map and other airplanes such as the FBW A32NX. When the approach is loaded through the MSFS flight planner, it gets loaded into the G3000 correctly. However, on the PROC page in the G3000, the approach cannot be found and the only way to select the approach is through the MSFS flight planner.

I already asked this question in another topic. They said that the TBM 930 is not approved for RNP approaches whose minima are defined in terms of the RNP level required (RNP 0.1, 0.2, 0.3). However, the approach in question is not an AR approach and only has an MDA(H) that is the same for everyone. Therefore its minima are not defined in terms of the RNP level and the TBM 930 ought to be certified to fly it.

Looking at the approach chart, the approach seems to only require RNP APCH equipment, which means PBN/S1. The TBM 930 is RNP APCH capable according to the POH (page 56 or 2.6.4).

In summary and in my opinion, there is nothing special about this approach that would make it impossible to fly it legally in the TBM 930. I’d like to know your thoughts on why this approach can’t be found in the G3000.

That approach is RNP only, it has no RNAV minima. The TBM needs LNAV, L/VNAV, LP, or LPV minima to fly it. An RNP without LNAV, LNAV/VNAV, LP, or LPV minima isn’t flyable by the TBM.

As mentioned in the linked thread, the TBM must have one of the following minima types listed on an RNAV and/or RNP approach:

  • LNAV
  • LP
  • LPV

RNP approaches which do not contain any of those are not certified in the TBM. You can see the minima required listed in the POH here:



Thanks. I find it weird that the PBN codes don’t make a distiction between systems that are either

  1. certified only for LNAV, LNAV/VNAV and LPV minima , or
  2. certified for MDA(H) minima, as is the case here (right?).

Secondly, this might be a result of the recent change in terminology, but I dont understand “That approach is RNP only, it has no RNAV minima.” I understand that having RNAV minima means that the RNP approach in question has separate minima for different approach types (LNAV, LNAV/VNAV, LPV).

But what is “RNP only”? How did you determine that the approach in question is one of those? How do you know that the TBM 930 is not RNP capable (atleast that’s how I interpret that)? Is there a PBN code for “able RNP only RNP approaches”? Funnily, when “RNP only” is interpreted using the modern terminology, it makes no sense; of course an RNP approach is RNP only.

The terminology depends on the location, at the moment. The US, for example, has not moved from calling everything RNAV to calling everything RNP. The whole thing worldwide in general is very confusing, more confusing than it needs to be, but that’s aviation for you sometimes.

In this particular case, either the RNP approach contains LNAV, LNAV/VNAV, LP, or LPV minima, or it does not contain any of those, instead containing just one RNP MDH (as here, with no specific level listed) or several RNP level (1.0, 0.3, 0.1, etc) specific MDHs. The TBM can only fly those which contain LNAV, LNAV/VNAV, LP, or LPV minima. In the US, those are just called RNAV approaches still, we don’t have RNP approaches which have those minima. Elsewhere though now, with those being renamed, you may find RNP approaches with those minima.

There is, as yet, no worldwide naming standard which has been fully completed.

Your reply clears things up very well. Thanks.

I assume this limitation of the TBM 930 arises from the fact that it is an American plane, and the United States is the only place where a distinction between those 2 kinds of approaches is made, as the modern terminology does not make this distinction.

Isn’t the TBM a Daher product, made in France?

Nevermind, you’re all wrong. IRL the TBM 930 can fly the approach in question. My source is a reputable aviation professional in the Vatsim Discord. Therefore this is indeed a bug.

1 Like

Nevermind, I and the aviation professional are wrong. This is not a bug.

According to people in the Working Title Discord, the problem is that it cannot be determined if a runway specified RNP circling approach has only circling minima. (If it does, the TBM 930 can fly it. Otherwise it’s an RNP AR and the TBM cannot fly it.) To me this sounds like a limitation of the navdata. Should I make a bug report or feature request for this?