Thanks to my inside source for passing on this issue with RNAV approach coding in the Airbus. Below we have the FM setup to do the Melbourne 16 RNAV approach. You will notice that the missed approach point is at MMLNM. This point seems to be located at the threshold, but it is not coded as the threshold waypoint (so can you be sure of its location?). If you look at the Melbourne 34 RNAV approach, you will notice that the missed approach point is coded as YMML34 which is much less ambiguous.

The question, then, is whether or not we can fly this approach in fully managed modes. There is an OEB (number 20/2.0) that relates to this issue if you are using an older standard Honeywell FMS, but it may be a bit less than definitive on the issue. It does seem as though there may be some ambiguity here, but I'm sure different people will have different ideas.

_________________
Dan Lambeth

Thanks Dan,
Those of us who fly RNAV Approaches regularly, in particular into Melbourne, will have first hand experience with the ambiguities ( and sometimes lack of correct execution despite correct cues being visible, eg Blue Descent arrow yet no descent etc).
Runway 34 as mentioned is depicted accurately, and I can definitely see where the confusion arrises with the RNAV Approach RWY 16. This could indeed, among other factors, explain why many crew have experienced issues with this approach.
Great food for thought and further analysis.
Cheers