Do ATC in Sweden have extra proprietary/public MVA charts covering en-route in whole country or just public ones in terminal area? I think UK NATS were not willing to publish their en-route radar coverage (so MVA = ENR CAS)
Also under PBN, what is the required RNAV when you get “direct to”, RNAV1/2/5?
I am confused, if this depends on airspace or my FPL? 
Ibra wrote:
I think UK NATS were not willing to publish their en-route radar coverage
It’s in the AIP, ENR 6-9…6-12.
Ibra wrote:
Do ATC in Sweden have extra proprietary/public MVA charts covering en-route in whole country or just public ones in terminal area? I think UK NATS were not willing to publish their en-route radar coverage (so MVA = ENR CAS)
That’s not an issue as outside terminal areas the lowest flight level in controlled airspace is at FL100 (or, occasionally in mountains, FL130) which is everywhere well above the safe altitude.
Also under PBN, what is the required RNAV when you get “direct to”, RNAV1/2/5?
I am confused, if this depends on airspace or my FPL?
That would depend on what PBN specification is required in that airspace.
Ibra wrote:
Also under PBN, what is the required RNAV when you get “direct to”, RNAV1/2/5?
There’s no applicable navigation specification, because PBN specs only apply to routes defined by waypoints (that’s an essential component of the PBN concept). That’s why, in essence, a “direct to” clearance is equivalent to a vector in terms of responsibilities. In practice, ATC will expect the same sort of track keeping as they would get from a vector.
bookworm wrote:
There’s no applicable navigation specification, because PBN specs only apply to routes defined by waypoints (that’s an essential component of the PBN concept). That’s why, in essence, a “direct to” clearance is equivalent to a vector in terms of responsibilities. In practice, ATC will expect the same sort of track keeping as they would get from a vector.
Isn’t a “direct to” clearance implicitly a route from the present position to the next waypoint?
It is true that PBN specs apply to routes, but there can also be a general requirement to be e.g. RNAV 5 capable when flying in some specific airspace.
bookworm wrote:
because PBN specs only apply to routes defined by waypoints
I checked UK AIP, yes indeed it’s RNAV5 or RNAV1 depending on the waypoint (the waypoint can be in “terminal” or “en-route” airspace)
So I suppose when you press “Direct SABER”, in AIP SABER is RNAV1 while in en-route navigation, GPS CDI scaling goes +/-1nm?
What about “direct destination”? I don’t think there are PBN specs in AIP associated with aerodrome overheads?
CDI scale changes as one is 30nm close to departure/destination in GPS FPL but not sure how does that fit with RNAV1 waypoint specs?
Say GPS FPL is: ZZZZ airfield then 60nm to SABER(RNAV1) then 60nm back ZZZZ airfield, how CDI scaling evolves?
Ofc one should not confuse CDI scaling with PBN route specs or equipment approval but things should work somehow 
I have lost track (no pun intended) of what this is about
What has actually changed?
Isn’t a “direct to” clearance implicitly a route from the present position to the next waypoint?
Yes, in a manner of speaking, but what use is it? Routes are verified as safe from terrain and obstacles at a particular level by the airspace designer, and may be deconflicted from other routes. Neither of those are possible with an ad hoc direct-to, so the controller simply applies the criteria for vectoring.
depending on the waypoint
No, the PBN spec is specific to the route or procedure, not the waypoint.
