Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

PBN Capability and flight plan equipment codes

What requires authorization?
How do you know what requires authorization?
How do you know if the installation is authorized?

ESME, ESMS
In the US, this is fairly well defined by several AC. AC 90-100A deals with RNAV routes including T/Q and RNAV 1 SID/STAR. AC 90-105A deals with RNP APCH, RNP 1 terminal, RNP 2, RNP 4, and RNP 10. AC 90-107 deals with LP and LPV. AC 90-108 is for use of RNAV on conventional routes and procedures.
KUZA, United States

Dimme wrote:

What requires authorization?
How do you know what requires authorization?
How do you know if the installation is authorized?

In other words:

The great mistery of EASA IFR flying with pre G1000 avionics ;)

always learning
LO__, Austria

Dimme wrote:

What requires authorization?
How do you know what requires authorization?
How do you know if the installation is authorized?

“Authorization” refers to the operator. For noncommercial ops no authorisation is required except for RNP AR approaches.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

Isn’t everybody with an IR (and in EU-land the one-off PBN signoff) authorised to fly any procedure which is in the nav box, except “special crew authorisation” one?

Flying an RNAV procedure with a KLN94 isn’t legal because the procedure is not in the database – even though the waypoints are so constructing the procedure is trivial

The reason it isn’t in the database is because HBK never got the FAA LoA for [P]RNAV all those years ago, whereas Garmin got it for the GNS430 etc.

And ATC never look at the flight plan equipment codes, and AFAIK Eurocontrol don’t validate the nav related equipment codes. They validate 8.33 (“Y”) and some others I think…

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Peter wrote:

The reason it isn’t in the database is because HBK never got the FAA LoA for [P]RNAV all those years ago, whereas Garmin got it for the GNS430 etc.

These older generation navigators are not approved because they don’t support a CF ARINC leg terminator in the database. CF legs are often the first leg of an RNAV SID. See the footnotes, note 2 in AC 90-100A Compliance Matrix that reads:

2 RNAV systems must be fully compliant with AC 90-100A. (Refer to AC 90-100A, Appendix 3, paragraph 10.a., Note 2, for information on automatic CF leg capability.)

The KLN94 supports the OBS mode, but this is not satisfactory for RNAV SIDs which require the CF leg.

KUZA, United States

Peter wrote:

And ATC never look at the flight plan equipment codes, and AFAIK Eurocontrol don’t validate the nav related equipment codes. They validate 8.33 (“Y”) and some others I think…

Actually they look at the equipment codes. E.g. if I put SDGRY (and B2D2O2S1) in flight plan I will be offered RNAV based SID or STAR while if omit G standard SID or STAR will be offered. I don’t know if it’s like that everywhere but I can confirm for Croatia, Slovenia, few airports in France and few in Italy. Since in 2020 I practically didn’t fly abroad and I can’t remember how it was earlier, I can’t confirm more.

LDZA LDVA, Croatia

In the US, without PBN D1, D2 or D4, one will not get an RNAV SID or RNAV STAR. Also the FAA validates the sensors, so if you use D1, you need to have D, G, I, R all specified in field 10A. Approach capability is not validated, so PBN codes of S1 or S2, T1, or T2 are not relevant nor is B in 10A. There are only a very few SIDs that require PBN O2 as these RNAV SIDs that have RF turns require RNP 1 instead of RNAV 1 using GPS. Z in 10A requires that there be an 18 entry in COM/, DAT/, or NAV/ or the flight plan will not pass validation. I see no use for NAV/SBAS being enforced or used in the US. US also has a PBN override in the NAV/ entry of the form NAV/RNVDnEnAn where n is 0 (No RNAV), 1 (RNAV 1) or 2 (RNAV 2) for and D is departure (SID), A is Arrival (STAR), and E is enroute RNAV route. To override PBN codes, either specify A0 to not accept RNAV STAR and D0 to not accept RNAV SID. If you don’t specify the An or Dn, that is treated the same as A0 or D0. So PBN/D2 NAV/A1 would permit assignment of RNAV STARs but not RNAV SIDs.

Edit: FAA also does not care about field 10b transponder type other than to indicate if it has altitude encoding or not. So C is as good as E or L. Also FAA asks that CODE/ be included for aircraft with ADS-B Out and that if the ADS-B Out is 2020 compliant, to include SUR/260B or 282B or both as appropriate.

Last Edited by NCYankee at 08 Oct 17:45
KUZA, United States

I’m reviving this old thread because it seems Diamond still doesn’t care about providing owners/operators with information on the correct PBN specifications for the G1000.

Let me explain:

As I alluded to in my original post from 5 years ago, an aircraft may use a certain PBN specification when the STC or TC holder provides a statement of compliance with the applicable specification(s). Well, I discovered during this year that the latest revision of the DA42 NG AFM has no such statement (I don’t remember seeing this in previous revisions either). To be clear it says nothing about what PBN specifications the G1000 is compliant with (disregarding that we know generally what is able to perform). Part NCO.IDE.A.195 (d) requires for PBN operations that “the aircraft shall meet the airworthiness certification requirements for the appropriate navigation specification.” The GM1 last out the ways in which this can be demonstrated (see my original post).

For contrast see the DA42 TDI (non-sbas) AFM

There we clearly see what PBN specifications and FAA/EASA standards it complies with.
If we look in the same section of the NG AFM, there are no such statements:

Note that some NG have SBAS in which the A33 supplement applies and provides a clear statement (non-SBAS lack any similar supplement).

All of this means (to me) that a pilot of a 42 NG without SBAS cannot comply with NCO.IDE.A.195 (d) because you can’t show what specifications are complied with. I’ve contacted Diamond several times and they either don’t understand the problem as I’ve laid it out or don’t care to pass the information on to someone who does.

Sweden

Cttime wrote:

I’ve contacted Diamond several times and they either don’t understand the problem as I’ve laid it out or don’t care to pass the information on to someone who does.

They just don’t care. Their primary (and probably only) goal is to sell as many as possible aircrafts to flight schools. And they are only concerned if the complaints come from these fleets.

LDZA LDVA, Croatia
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top