There are many legacy systems that don’t provide PBN ICAO compliance, but do comply. In FAA land, this is covered by a compliance table referred to in AC 90-100A. The AFMS you posted shows what the system compliance is. So based on the AFMS, I would code the following in an ICAO flight plan:
ICAO Equipment: S, G, R
ICAO Surveillance: S
ICAO PBN: B2, C2, D2, S1
B2 because of compliance with AC 20-138A and AC 90-96
C2 and D2 because of compliance with AC 90-100A and the compliance table where it refers to the G1000 and the compliance with AC 90-105
S1 because of its compliance with AC 90-105. I would not code A1 for RNAV 10 even though the AFMS says it can because at least in the US, the compliance with either A1 or L1 requires a Letter of Agreement from the FAA.
It does not comply with SBAS.
NCYankee wrote:
There are many legacy systems that don’t provide PBN ICAO compliance, but do comply. In FAA land, this is covered by a compliance table referred to in AC 90-100A. The AFMS you posted shows what the system compliance is. So based on the AFMS, I would code the following in an ICAO flight plan:
The issue is not with the DA42 POH but with the DA42NG POH which does not have a reference to any FAA AC’s. (At least not on the pages that Cttime has shown.)
It doesn’t need to have the reference. AC 90-100A refers to a reference document that will handle most of it for a G1000 system. References should also be found in the G1000 pilot guide and in the AFMS.
NCYankee wrote:
References should also be found in the G1000 pilot guide and in the AFMS.
Yes, but according to Cttime there are no such references in the AFMS. References in the G1000 pilot guide does not help as they can only refer to the capabilities of the equipment, not of the installation.
References in the G1000 pilot guide does not help as they can only refer to the capabilities of the equipment, not of the installation.
Exactly. And actual G1000 capabilities depend on LRUs installed in specific aircraft.
Airborne_Again wrote:
Yes, but according to Cttime there are no such references in the AFMS. References in the G1000 pilot guide does not help as they can only refer to the capabilities of the equipment, not of the installation.
Many valid AFMS predate the 2012 PBN designations. That is why in the US, the AC 90-100 Compliance document was generated. Under US regulations, updates to the AFMS is not required unless an AD is issued that dictates the document to be updated.
NCYankee wrote:
Under US regulations, updates to the AFMS is not required unless an AD is issued that dictates the document to be updated.
This is not the case under EASA. Even if it was compliant under AC 90-100 it needs to be stated in the AFM or supplement that it is. Also, revision 8 was released in 2021 so it’s no excuse for it to be missing from the AFM… nor would it make sense to say it was the case that they left it out because the aircraft is TC was issued prior to 2012 since the TDI manual contains the required statements.
