Do you mean the IFD boxes can fly these now but not legally, or not at all?
Timothy wrote:
Every RNP or RF leg procedure comes with a comment from those operating older aircraft saying that there must be conventional or RNAV alternatives which do not add track miles or time penalties.
Sorry if I’m not sympathetic, but that point is essentially a question of business decisions regarding competitiveness, which is not the same as the GA arguments about regulations that add an unavoidable cost burden just to keep flying. Every airline needs to constantly make a tradeoff between continuing to operate existing equipment vs upgrading vs investing in new planes. I see no reason why companies who are ready to adapt new technology that benefit themselves and the customers should be held back by those who won’t or can’t. The argument against removing support for older technology has merit, but not that new facilities should not be allowed if they disadvantage companies unwilling or unable to take advantage of the benefits (track miles, time).
Peter’s point about needing at some point to retire old equipment is a fact of life… fazit the CNX480 users and GNS530/430 (non-WAAS).
So long as they keep the other procedures in place, I am happy.
And it looks like they will for many years to come.
For each owner who doesn’t want to blow 5 figures and writes this on a forum, there are dozens who stay quiet. Or who just quietly give up flying (I know lots of those).
Actually the biggest problem is not blowing the 5 figures but finding a shop where you can blow the 5 figures without them wrecking your plane and delivering a “95% solution” also known as the “British builder fait accompli”.
Peter wrote:
Do you mean the IFD boxes can fly these now but not legally, or not at all?
The boxes can only fly the IAPs that are included in its db. The provider provides “rules” to Jepp regarding the navdata implementation for each box. The VEBIT1K RNAV SID shown at the beginning of this thread is not in the Avidyne IFD navdata. The RF leg is likely the reason. My guess is that Avidyne has not included the RF leg type in their set of rules to Jepp.
If you want to (illegally) fly it, then you need to enter all the waypoints manually, and that wouldn’t work because the connection between them would be a sequence of straight lines not curved RF legs.
Peter wrote:
Actually the biggest problem is not blowing the 5 figures but finding a shop where you can blow the 5 figures without them wrecking your plane and delivering a “95% solution” also known as the “British builder fait accompli”.
“Thread creep” Peter? ;-)
Peter wrote:
So long as they keep the other procedures in place, I am happy.And it looks like they will for many years to come.
I agree with that, and hope so too. Even NDB approaches can be flown with a GPS if the IAP is in its db.
Timothy’s point was not about maintaining existing procedures, but rather about not developing advantageous new procedures (which could be ignored if the equipment isn’t on-board) unless equivalent procedures are also developed for those with less-capable equipment. Somewhat different. That’s a bit like complaining that a new IFR airport only has RNAV approaches and no ILS. (I can imagine the responses this comment will attract ;-))
Peter wrote:
My point is that this new complexity is pointless unless it delivers tangible benefits.Whether the curved path does that in that Zurich SID
Some are likely for regulatory reasons, either noise or other. In the Zurich case, it might be due to a German ban on overflights north of Switzerland under 10000’ mornings and evenings. The ban has caused major rerouting during those periods to avoid the ban, especially for landing but perhaps also for north departures in this case.
That’s a bit like complaining that a new IFR airport only has RNAV approaches and no ILS. (I can imagine the responses this comment will attract ;-))
Actually that is understandable, given that an ILS costs c. 1M to install and c. 100k/year to keep running.
Most airlines go for the ILS every time.
Putting in RNAV1/RNP procs and removing the old ones seems just dumb – especially as so many airliners can’t fly the new ones. So many times I have gone into some “big / airline” airport and heard one airline after another asking for the VOR approach, not the GPS one. They fly the VOR one using FMS guidance (with a synthetic GS) and just need the VOR to ident and not be notamed INOP.
Airborne_Again wrote:
Peter wrote:The SID plate for Zürich explicitely quotes noise abatment (note 5) and close obstacles (note 6), so I would say yes and hence the necessity to fly them accurately.
That is why I asked whether these RF arcs are put in “just for fun, because they are there” or whether they can serve a meaningful obstacle clearance function.
In the Zürich case, I’m believe they do.
Arne wrote:
The SID plate for Zürich explicitely quotes noise abatment (note 5) and close obstacles (note 6), so I would say yes and hence the necessity to fly them accurately.
Noise abatement, yes. Close-in obstacles means significant obstacles that are close to the runway. Such obstacles may have to be avoided visually (meaning higher departure minima) or reduced take-off mass to cater for engine failures. They can’t be the reason for the RF leg in this case.
