Also, in the US, I am not aware of any approaches which use RNAV 1 or P-RNAV. RNAV (GPS) approaches are RNP-0.3 or LPV/LP.
NCYankee, there are no approaches in Europe either using RNAV1. The most commonly referred to requirement is the Schiphol one:
From 15 November 2012 an RNAV1 approval is required for all IFR flights inbound and outbound AMSTERDAM/Schiphol. A P-RNAV
approval is considered to be equivalent to an RNAV1 approval. As a consequence, after 15 November 2012 all aircraft operators using
AMSTERDAM/Schiphol as destination or alternate must hold:
a. a P-RNAV operations approval issued by their state of registry which is compliant with the JAA Temporary Guidance Leaflet No. 10
(TGL-10) or equivalent (e.g. FAA AC 90-100); or
b. a temporary exemption issued by CAA The Netherlands.
These requirements are incorporated in Dutch law and adherence to it will be actively enforced by CAA The Netherlands.
Just looked at the latest revision of the FAA AC 90-100 and it doesn’t list any Avidyne boxes. Strange as I was thinking that an IFD540 would have at least the same capabilities as a GNS530W.
The requirement for an operational approval or LoA will change later this year. The EU has modified the Air Ops regulation to exclude RNAV1 (plus RNP1 and RNP APCH) from its requirements for a specific approval, and those rules will apply in most states from 25 August 2016 to EU registered aircraft and foreign-aircraft operators based or resident in the EU. RNP AR APCH (which no light aircraft will be capable of in the foreseeable future) continues to require a specific approval.
Note that this does not change the need for an airworthiness approval set out in the flight manual or similar.
The ICAO requirement also changes in November (I think). In principle, EU states could require evidence of operational approval for foreign registered aircraft until then. In practice, given that no one seems to understand the regulatory chaos we’ve had in PBN over the last 10 years, a few weeks is unlikely to matter.
Just looked at the latest revision of the FAA AC 90-100 and it doesn’t list any Avidyne boxes. Strange as I was thinking that an IFD540 would have at least the same capabilities as a GNS530W.
That’s definitely worth investigating!
Nobody with the slightest IFR ambitions should install any avionics unless they get PRNAV and the AFMS and all the other silly stuff.
How are Avidyne progressing with the EASA STC?
I hear from a bizjet pilot that Schiphol does check up on planes, so non PRNAV bizjets avoid going there. However this appears to be rare.
I especially laugh at the reference to TGL-10 which is a silly piece of crap, with national CAA interpretations moving faster than a whore’s knickers. It looks like a real jobsworth has dug himself in.
What is the landing fee at Schiphol, for say 1500kg?
The requirement for an operational approval or LoA will change later this year. The EU has modified the Air Ops regulation to exclude RNAV1 (plus RNP1 and RNP APCH) from its requirements for a specific approval, and those rules will apply in most states from 25 August 2016 to EU registered aircraft and foreign-aircraft operators based or resident in the EU. RNP AR APCH (which no light aircraft will be capable of in the foreseeable future) continues to require a specific approval.
Many thanks for the update, bookworm.
Does this mean that a PRNAV AFMS will be enough? No more LOAs?
Does this mean that a PRNAV AFMS will be enough? No more LOAs?
For aircraft subject to Part-NCO/NCC, yes. There is guidance material to be published on what needs to be in the documentation. For RNAV 1 for example, the GM will say something like this is required:
RNAV 1 or PRNAV or US RNAV type A
alternatively
CS-ACNS for the appropriate navigation specification or FAA AC 20-138 for the appropriate navigation specification or FAA AC 90-100A or
JAA TEMPORARY GUIDANCE MATERIAL, LEAFLET NO. -10 Rev1 (TGL-10) or FAA AC 90-100
(However, if position determination is exclusively computed based on VOR-DME, the aircraft is not eligible to operate RNAV 1/RNAV 2 routes.)
The following documents are considered acceptable sources of information:
(1) AFM, supplements thereto and documents directly referenced in the AFM;
(2) POH, supplements thereto and documents directly referenced in the POH;
(3) FCOM or similar document;
(4) Service Bulletin or Service Letter issued by the aircraft manufacturer/TC holder or STC holder;
(5) approved design data or data issued in support of a design change approval through a minor change approval by the STC holder;
(6) any other formal document issued by the TC or STC holders stating compliance with PBN specifications, AMC, Advisory Circulars (AC) or similar documents issued by the State of Design;
(7) written evidence obtained from the State of Desig
ploucandco wrote:
Just looked at the latest revision of the FAA AC 90-100 and it doesn’t list any Avidyne boxes. Strange as I was thinking that an IFD540 would have at least the same capabilities as a GNS530W.
The latest revision for the AC is 90-100A. At the time the AC was developed, there were existing GPS systems with valid AFMS that did not address the issue within the AFMS. The FAA added a spreadsheet that identified which of those existing systems were or were not in compliance with the AC and could be used for RNAV 1. All GPS systems released subsequent to the AC have this information contained in the AFMS itself, so the spreadsheet does not need to be updated to include them. This would include the latest versions of the GNS/GTN AFMS and the Avidyne units which address AC 90-100A in the AFMS, thus don’t need to be in the spreadsheet.
bookworm wrote:
For aircraft subject to Part-NCO/NCC, yes. There is guidance material to be published on what needs to be in the documentation. For RNAV 1 for example, the GM will say something like this is required:
GM to which regulation?
GM to this new rule in Part-NCO.
‘NCO.OP.116 Performance-based navigation — aeroplanes and helicopters
The pilot-in-command shall ensure that, when PBN is required for the route or procedure to be flown:
(a) the relevant PBN navigation specification is stated in the AFM or other document that has been approved by the certifying authority as part of an airworthiness assessment or is based on such approval; and
(b) the aircraft is operated in conformance with the relevant navigation specification and limitations in the AFM or other document mentioned above.’;
bookworm wrote:
GM to this new rule in Part-NCO.‘NCO.OP.116 Performance-based navigation — aeroplanes and helicopters
The pilot-in-command shall ensure that, when PBN is required for the route or procedure to be flown:
(a) the relevant PBN navigation specification is stated in the AFM or other document that has been approved by the certifying authority as part of an airworthiness assessment or is based on such approval; and
(b) the aircraft is operated in conformance with the relevant navigation specification and limitations in the AFM or other document mentioned above.’;
That’s great! When is it planned to come into force?
How does it relate to pilot training requirements?
