Martin wrote:
I was talking about the use of RNAV(GNSS) in approach designations. Why FAA went from GPS to RNAV(GPS) is beyond me and I don’t see what it has to do with ICAO. I also don’t see the claimed annual change of terminology. This single change is happening simply because ICAO wants to switch over to PBN which is IMHO a move in the right direction. But perhaps you prefer to be stuck in the past… like there is no hope of getting rid of imperial units (I have to laugh when reading Annex 5).
Well, we use GPS. always have. You use GPS and call it GPSS. ICAO is great at making new terminology. You guys talk about PBN, we do it.
Not even for P-RNAV, which is RNAV 1. It’s the fundamental difference between RNAV and RNP. Some P-RNAV set-ups are DME/DME without any sort of on-board monitoring.
you are right – RAIM is only required for approaches (and now, P-RNAV / RNP 1).
Cobalt wrote:
Either is required for iFR GPS prmary navigation receivers, so if you have RNAV x with a GPS you also have RNP x.
Are you sure that integrity monitoring is required for RNAV 5 (B-RNAV). What I’ve read (e.g. the PPL/IR PBN manual) seem to imply that it is not.
Isn’t RNP just something that was invented to create regulatory work, after GPS caused the bottom to fall out of the navigation business around 1995?
RAIM (receiver autonomous integrity monitoring) for non- WAAS receivers
WAAS (EGNOS) for more modern kit includes monitoring and alerting
Either is required for iFR GPS prmary navigation receivers, so if you have RNAV x with a GPS you also have RNP x.
NCYankee wrote:
Although the term GNSS may have been around some time
I was talking about the use of RNAV(GNSS) in approach designations. Why FAA went from GPS to RNAV(GPS) is beyond me and I don’t see what it has to do with ICAO. I also don’t see the claimed annual change of terminology. This single change is happening simply because ICAO wants to switch over to PBN which is IMHO a move in the right direction. But perhaps you prefer to be stuck in the past… like there is no hope of getting rid of imperial units (I have to laugh when reading Annex 5).
My cut and paste did not work, sorry for the incorrect acronym.
Regardless, it is of no importance to pilots flying in the US and using the GPS terminology for the last 21 + years.
NCYankee wrote:
So what approach is approved for using GLOSNASS? What certified avionics are available that can be use GLOSNASS?
GLONASS, not GLOSNASS. UUDD and UUEE Moscow and USTR Tyumen have 4 precision GLONASS approaches each (one for each runway), UNEE Kemerovo, URWW Volgograd and URMM Mineralnye Vody have two each, UHPP Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky and UIAA Chita have one each. All of them are GBAS-enhanced. Plus a number of non-precision ones. Any certified avionics is obviously Russian-made, but GLONASS reception capability is present in many mass-produced chipsets and uncertified devices. One Russian manufacturer of uncertified GA avionics is planning to move the production to Czech Republic and get their EFIS EASA-certified as soon as they can. Generally speaking, a receiver supporting GPS and GLONASS selects them transparently to the user and can even combine satellites from both systems in a single navigation solution.
Ultranomad wrote:
You forgot the Russian GLONASS (fully operational by now) and Chinese Beidou (operational over some 20% of the globe?). On my uncertified devices, GLONASS+GPS give a substantially better precision than GPS only.
So what approach is approved for using GLOSNASS? What certified avionics are available that can be use GLOSNASS? GLOSNASS has only been fully operational for 5 years and has not had a very reliable history. I did not forget GLOSNASS, I ignored it.
