That I agree with 100%, NCYankee
I do wonder why Honeywell decided to thus cripple the product, which does otherwise integrate very smoothly into the rest of the very solid product range of that era (KLN94, KMD550, KCS55, KX1xx, etc) and which does the "Euro IFR" job 99%; the other 1% being LPV.
A few years ago I bumped into somebody in Germany who with more persistence than I have managed to extract some info from somebody inside Honeywell on the database coding in the KLN94, and IIRC they just didn't bother to implement the RNAV coding. And by the time it became relevant c. 2005, everybody with any competence inside the Honeywell GA division had moved on.
I did not wish to turn this into a KLN94/RNAV thread but ripping out the '94 means ripping out the KMD550 MFD also, because the '550 is not compatible with the Garmin data stream, in the OBS mode. Funnily enough I had this conversation with the man from Avidyne and he could not comment on the compatibility of their MFDs with Garmin GPSs, in the OBS mode. So if one wants compatible avionics, and of course PRNAV, LPV, and given the difficulty of doing field approvals in Europe, a GTN650+750 is the logical way. Unfortunately I keep reading of bugs bugs and more bugs in these - on top of the inability to use litres. I suppose they will be sorted by the time I am pressed to spend the money
That isn't quite true Peter. As you have seen from the PPL/IR post where I discussed it, their concern for private operators is that they have some formal training. Commercial operators etc will have their own ways of showing training and compliance usually through an appointed training officer.
The Ts & Cs of the PPL/IR site prevent me from copying/pasting posts from there (not that I would anyway) including any that you may have made, but which exact bit of what I wrote above is actually wrong?
The FAA don't recognise the PRNAV class certificate from the class run by the other gentleman, whose name I also can't post here
I don't see what that leaves us with.
Obviously you are free to post here information which you posted elsewhere. You will get many more people seeing it here.
For G-reg, private ops, the UK CAA seems to have issued that dispensation. That is good for the time being, but since you don't get any kind of certificate you don't get any grandfather rights and any future agency can strip you of the privilege.
It's all a mess. But on the scale of things which you might do without the paperwork and not get caught, I think PRNAV crew approval ranks about level with flying VFR in IMC Until we get some PRNAV-only enroute airspace, that is.
Ummm, it isn't the only thing they recognise. But for private operators it is practically the only way you can show training. They won't endorse or approve any particular course or prohibit others but I know that they will accept King Schools. Other than the fact that due to the sequester getting a PRNAV approval is so low on the priority list it isn't really worth applying.
We fly the equivalent to PRNAV with RNAV 1 SID, STAR, and ODP procedures. There is no formal training required for a part 91 operator other than AC 90-100A and there is no certificate of compliance required, at least here in the US.
Yes but for Europe P-RNAV, the FAA must issue a LoA. In addition to AC 90-96A you have to show compliance with TGL-10 and show training etc.
I've just found my notes from that 2008 Eurocontrol conference.
I can't post them publicly in entirety (too damn frank about some speakers) but here are extracts:
Eurocontrol Workshop on Navigation Avionics Requirements for General & Business Aviation 10-11 December 2008
This workshop was convened apparently to discuss the feasibility of developing a backup for GPS particularly for PRNAV routes.
I attended this workshop partly because [top Eurocontrol official] made an obviously ill informed speech in Greece, saying that GPS is not enough for PRNAV and a backup using either INS or Loran will be required.
He said that “new chips” have come out which will make an INS for GA possible. I did research on this (as I had done ~ 4 years ago) and found this claim to be totally bogus. State of the art in solid state accelerometers is of the order of 1 degree drift every 1-2 minutes; no good for an INS which uses DME/DME corrections unless one assumes DME will always be available, and if DME is always available then no inertial device is needed because one can just use a computer to fill in the gaps. It is amazing how much effort Eurocontrol have sunk into this false premise without anybody checking it out…
Notes on Proceedings
[name removed] : NDBs are finished. VORs will be removed next. Stressed that they want to avoid the c. 1997 BRNAV debacle (where no consultation was done and Eurocontrol had to issue c. 3000 exemptions in the 3 days after it became mandatory) so this time they want to consult.
[name removed] : VORs will cease to be mandatory for IFR 2015-2020. GPS Cat2/3 approaches in place by 2020 but ILS to remain.
[name removed] : 95% PRNAV compliance claimed for some airspaces already. Wants uniform use through Europe of ICAO airspace classes. No plans to make enroute PRNAV mandatory.
[name removed] : EGNOS approved for Cat1 approaches 2010. By 2015 for Cat2/3 using Navstar L1 signal + Galileo. Radar will be the fallback for GPS, OK since only few aircraft will be totally GPS RNAV. NO phaseout of DME or ILS. EGNOS to be free through 2013 and “fair pricing” thereafter. Eurocontrol strongly objects to any EGNOS pricing especially as only 2% of its use will be aviation. Privately he said that Galileo/EGNOS pricing plans were always “bullshit” and were done only to get it started with EU money.
[name removed - FAA speaker] : GPS backup is needed and will be done by keeping VORs. DME/DME fixing will remain, for INS aircraft. Part 91 will be amended to not allow sole usage of GPS (I think he meant that a VOR+DME will have to be carried). ILS and VOR approaches to remain. A laid back but impressive speaker. Keen on co-operation with Europe and careful to avoid a collision.
Four Eurocontrol speakers made the following points: 8.33 will be mandatory 2015 below FL200 (not clear if this includes VFR in any form). GPS will be mandatory for RNAV 2015, with an alternative RNAV capability being made mandatory sometime after that. LPV approaches 2020 at most runways. A 25% reduction in radar coverage saves 0.5% on IFR route charges which is of much interest to airlines. TIS will never happen.
[name removed - UK VFR GA rep] : strong objections to lots of the usual stuff. Eurocontrol assured him that nothing will be mandated for VFR. However they did not make it clear that they meant VFR both in and out of CAS.
[name removed - US avionics] : backup for GPS not technically feasible.
[name removed - US high end avionics] : their products use mixed sensors anyway (GPS, DME, VOR, dead reckoning) so a “fallback” from GPS to some sort of backup is not meaningful. He also mentioned they use solid state accelerometers and I asked him privately what these were doing; he replied they perform some short term filling-in function (which makes sense).
[name removed - US avionics] : INS will never be cost effective for GA. A multi-constellation (Navstar+Galileo) sensor would be totally adequate.
[name removed - Euro big bizjet mfg] : DME/DME not justifiable. Suprisingly (given he is French) he was very scathing about these proposals. He said that a mistake is to always follow ICAO because a lot of the provisions are out of date (e.g. RNP1 and RNP2 are identical and both mean GPS anyway).
[name removed - US industry] : INS not possible ven for > 5700kg. Scanning DME not feasible. Selling 20 jets/year in Europe.
[name removed - NAA] : Spoke as if acutely aware of various political issues re EASA. LPV proposals to be published by end 2009. Would not be pinned down on the EHSI requirement but said that a TGL-10 clarification will be out 2011. Therefore, PRNAV approval applications are stalled till 2011 unless they meet TGL-10 literally (EHSI etc). After some questioning from me it turned out that there is massive resistance to mandating a moving map GPS for RNAV.
The premise for the workshop was largely a load of nonsense. The TOR were bogus, starting with the assumption that GPS cannot be used for IFR without a backup, and with the assumption that a low cost INS with DME-DME corrections can be developed. Only the latter one was sufficiently discredited however. The former one, driven by name removed, carries on. He is a seasoned committee warrior who doesn’t take NO as an answer and knows that if he pushes something at enough events, enough people will start to believe it. All non-Eurocontrol speakers were being extremely pleasant overtly and extremely scathing of Eurocontrol’s GPS backup proposal privately. Those at Eurocontrol were mostly unimpressive although some were very frank about the bogus way Galileo was set up to look like a big moneymaker for the EU. The industry representatives (I spoke to quite a few) were mostly very on the ball but most were careful to not say anything which would directly upset Eurocontrol – they have to work with these people the rest of the time.
There was no doubt however that Eurocontrol got a strong message that a backup for GPS is not going to be feasible – except perhaps in the form of a multi-constellation GPS receiver once Galileo is running. My feeling is that this may indeed be the outcome.
Somebody said that the Amsterdam TMA is mandatory-PRNAV at night.
I asked some questions of the various speakers:
Q: How will EGNOS fees be collected past 2013? A: Eurocontrol objects to any EGNOS pricing.
Q: Who will be willing to make DME/DME backup for GPS equipment, given that the only market will be in Europe and all avionics manufacturers are American? A: There will be lots of demand for such a product outside the USA.
Q: Has Eurocontrol done any studies to verify the VLJ sales hype which was largely based on a failed air taxi business model? A: No.
Q: Why not have the grounding of IFR GA if GPS fails as an acceptable solution? A: Because it might happen enroute, and ATC manpower will in the meantime have been reduced (to save route charges) to the point where a radar service will not be available to all traffic which might need it.
Q: How will EGNOS fees be collected past 2013? A: Eurocontrol objects to any EGNOS pricing. Q: Who will be willing to make DME/DME backup for GPS equipment, given that the only market will be in Europe and all avionics manufacturers are American? A: There will be lots of demand for such a product outside the USA. Q: Has Eurocontrol done any studies to verify the VLJ sales hype which was largely based on a failed air taxi business model? A: No. Q: Why not have the grounding of IFR GA if GPS fails as an acceptable solution? A: Because it might happen enroute, and ATC manpower will in the meantime have been reduced (to save route charges) to the point where a radar service will not be available to all traffic which might need it.
I'm sorry to say but these answers show total ignorance.
So what is the opinion of the NAA's with respect to slaved course pointer HSI's?
My avionics shop tells me a Sandel EHSI or an Aspen would be necessary, my reading of TGL10 tells me the map display of any reasonably modern GPS should do.