But most light jets will be exempted from this requirement.
It hadn’t occurred to check Decisions for DLS exemptions. There are presently two, C(2011) 2611 of 20 May 2011 and C(2011) 9074 of 9 Dec 2011. There’s a permanent exemption for the 525 (M2) but the temporary one for the 510 expired 31 Dec 2012.
A recent amendment which I missed (consolidated DLS regulation here) has moved the DLS capability deadline for IFR GAT flights above FL285 to 5 Feb 2020.
A Datalink Regulatory Updates presentation (pdf) given at the Safety Data Management workshop, 17 Jan 2019, mentions a DLS exemptions review report (pdf) and it appears likely that a third consolidating Decision on exemptions will emerge.
bookworm, is there an official source for notified airspace requirements? Perhaps it’s hiding in this map of regulations… https://www.skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/4543.pdf
The exemptions are still under discussion between EASA and the Commission. Daniel Mihoci gave an updated version of that SDM workshop presentation last week.
An exemption is proposed for:
(e) aircraft which have a certified maximum seating capacity of 19 passengers or less and a MTOM of 45359 Kg (100000 lbs) or less, with a first individual certificate of airworthiness issued before 5 February 2020;
i.e. no retrofit for business jets.
As for notified airspace, the UK AIP is (according to the ANO) the place where airspace requirements are notified. But it does need to make the notification explicit, hence the phrase “hereby notified” is used in a number of places, for example:
5.3 Carriage of SSR Transponder Equipment
5.3.1 The requirements for the carriage of Secondary Surveillance Radar (SSR) transponder equipment are hereby notified for the
purposes of the UK Air Navigation Order. Aircraft shall carry SSR Mode S transponder equipment as prescribed in subparagraphs (a) to (g) below. Sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) detail the requirements in notified Mode S Enhanced Surveillance Airspace, and sub-paragraphs (c) to (g) detail the requirements in all other UK airspace. For the purposes of the UK Air Navigation Order, EU-OPS aeroplanes shall also be equipped in accordance with these requirements.
I don’t believe 5.2.1 is intended as a notification, merely a summary (and an outdated one). In the AirOps Regulation era, a shopping list of ADF/DME/VOR would be absurd.
The more interesting question, which you allude to, is whether there is a central EU repository of such notifications. I very much doubt it! But I can ask the question.
The exemptions just appeared in the comitology register.
For vote at EASA Committee this week.
From 1 Jan 2019, N-Reg aircraft equipped with ADS-B out that also meets altitude keeping requirements no longer need to apply for RVSM authorisation.
The FAA has eliminated the paperwork.
That is only in US airspace, no?
I may easily have misunderstood or overenthusiastically read about this change. I believe the FAA no longer requires RVSM approval for ADS-B equipped aircraft and will withdraw the process to apply for RVSM next year, when ADS-B becomes mandatory. This applies worldwide with the caveat that:
The FAA also notes that if a foreign country requires a specific authorization to operate in RVSM airspace, as specified in ICAO Annex 6, an operator may need to seek authorization under the provisions of Section 3, even if it meets the provisions of Section 9.
The FAA ruling with explanation can be found here
bookworm wrote:
The exemptions just appeared in the comitology register.For vote at EASA Committee this week.
There was no vote at EASA Committee for technical reasons. There was no discussion of substance in the committee so the rule should go into vote in written procedure next week.
Thanks for all your help. Will keep you posted on how it goes.
DavidC wrote:
I may easily have misunderstood or overenthusiastically read about this change. I believe the FAA no longer requires RVSM approval for ADS-B equipped aircraft and will withdraw the process to apply for RVSM next year, when ADS-B becomes mandatory. This applies worldwide with the caveat that:The FAA also notes that if a foreign country requires a specific authorization to operate in RVSM airspace, as specified in ICAO Annex 6, an operator may need to seek authorization under the provisions of Section 3, even if it meets the provisions of Section 9.
The FAA ruling with explanation can be found here
I suspect most transatlantic flights go through Canadian airspace, and I haven’t seen that they have loosened RVSM and MNPS approval requirements.
From the AIM valid to March 28, 2019:
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
1.10 MINIMUM NAVIGATION PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS (MNPS)
(a) All operators are to ensure that aircraft used to conduct flights within the North Atlantic (NAT) high level airspace (HLA) have the minimum navigation equipment. For detailed requirements, refer to the following documents:
(i) ICAO Doc 7030—Regional Supplementary Procedures;
(ii) ICAO NAT Doc 001—NAT SPG Handbook;
(b)
(iii) ICAO NAT Doc 007—North Atlantic Operations and Airspace Manual; and
(iv) Parts VI and VII of the Canadian Aviation Regulations (CARs).
Eastbound aircraft requesting an oceanic clearance from Gander area control centre (ACC) to enter HLA may be asked by air traffic control (ATC) to confirm that they are approved for minimum navigation performance specification (MNPS) operations. Pilots/operators unable to provide such confirmation will be issued an oceanic clearance to operate outside HLA (below FL 285 or above FL 420).
NAT
1.11 REDUCED VERTICAL SEPARATION
MINIMUM (RVSM)—MINIMUM AIRCRAFT SySTEM PERFORMANCE
SPECIFICATIONS (MASPS)
(a) All operators are to ensure that aircraft used to conduct flights within North Atlantic (NAT) high level airspace (HLA) where reduced vertical separation minimum (RVSM) is applied meet the minimum aircraft system performance specifications (MASPS). For detailed requirements, refer to the following publications:
(i) ICAO Doc 7030—Regional Supplementary Procedures;
(ii) ICAO NAT Doc 001—NAT SPG Handbook;
(iii) ICAO NAT Doc 007—North Atlantic Operations and Airspace Manual; and
(iv) Parts VI and VII of the Canadian Aviation Regulations.
(b) Eastbound aircraft requesting an oceanic clearance from Gander area control centre (ACC) to enter HLA at designated RVSM altitudes may be asked by air traffic control (ATC) to confirm that they are approved for minimum navigation performance specifications (MNPS) and/or RVSM operations. Pilots/ operators unable to provide such confirmation will be issued an oceanic clearance to operate outside HLA (below FL 285 or above FL 420) and/or outside the RVSM designated altitudes, as applicable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So appears doable without respective approvals below/above HLA levels.
There is no longer a requirement for an operational approval in Europe. Last year, I corresponded with FAA Flight Standard on this topic. They said “Currently we are reviewing at AC 90-96A, and the associated OpSpec and LOA, to determine if they can/should be revised, or even eliminated outright. We agree that the changes to RNAV designations in Europe have made portions, if not the entirety, of AC 90-96A obsolete.”
Does this LOA refer to the “whole aircraft” PRNAV approval, as it used to be called? This is the one which Vasa famously got for his 421C, maybe 15 years ago, which later was reported as taking over a year to get, which N-reg IFR planes “needed” in Europe, which the FAA didn’t bother with in US airspace, and which later became almost impossible to get and nobody bothered with?
Or does this LOA refer to the “GPS box” RNAV1 approval i.e. whether it can be legally used to fly RNAV SIDs/STARs? The GNS boxes had it, the King KLN boxes e.g. KLN94 never did even though they have the RNAV SID/STAR waypoints in their databases.
