RNAV vs PRNAV approaches

I am confused by too much detail. Does all this mean that I (SR22 with Avidyne R9 capable of LPV…) can land or cannot land at Schiphol? Same question for people with GNS430W or G1000 with WAAS/EGNOS. Aeroplus has been there as he said in another conversation. So my understanding is that we are fine.

Schiphol EHAM seems to have departed from normal practice in that the approach plates don’t say on the plate that RNAV1/PRNAV is required – e.g.

Note that BRNAV (which is mentioned) is trivial. Every IFR GPS is BRNAV (if installed with the required annunciators, etc).

However there is a general note

But the bit I highlighted shows one way to get in there with a non-PRNAV plane. (Note that TGL-10 is PRNAV).

The other way is to not say anything but maybe that’s not a good idea at EHAM. It is the usual routine everywhere else; ATC doesn’t normally care, and obviously you aren’t going to crash because you don’t have the AFMS+LOA

As regards an SR22 with R9, this is highly unlikely to have PRNAV. If N-reg, it needs (currently) the FAA LOA which has been virtually unobtainable for years (some people got in under the wire, early on). If EASA-reg, also highly unlikely because it’s a Major Mod.

And this is why there are exemptions like the above. So many planes are not PRNAV and will never be.

I seem to see commenters conflating SID/STAR with approaches. Is there a reason for this? I have yet to see an approach plate with PRNAV on it, do they exist in Europe or is everyone just referring to the SID/STAR procedures when they discuss PRNAV? RNAV 1 in the US or its equivalent PRNAV don’t require WAAS, at least in the US. Is this different in Europe?

is there actually a system which is PRNAV without WAAS/EGNOS?

Yes e.g. a GNS430 / 530.

These could be PRNAV approved, even in a Cessna 150

Shows what a complete farce this is.

I have yet to see an approach plate with PRNAV on it, do they exist in Europe

I don’t recall seeing one.

NCYankee wrote:

I have yet to see an approach plate with PRNAV on it, do they exist in Europe or is everyone just referring to the SID/STAR procedures when they discuss PRNAV?

There is no final approach plate requiring RNAV 1. RNAV final approach requires RNP APCH.
However, in Paris we issue Initial Approach (INA) procedure which are RNAV 1.

There is an exemption going until 08/11/2018 so that one can fly those RNAV 1 procedure without being fully RNAV 1 compliant.
In order to fly those RNAV 1 procedure without being RNAV 1 compliant, you must have:

- Data base including navigation aids, waypoints and encoded paths of procedures in the affected area.
- Display of the data base period of validity indicator
- Determination of aircraft position with GNSS or DME/DME sensors in the navigation computer
- Cross-track sensitivity of horizontal situation indicator (HSI or the equivalent) by +/- 1 NM along segments of instrument procedures
- Identification display of the active waypoint
- Ability to incorporate into the navigation system flight plan the complete published procedure by only selecting the procedure name
- Automatic selection of navigation aids (DME and VOR) used by the RNAV system to determine the aircraft position
- “Direct to” function

Walter wrote:

One last question (sorry guys): is there actually a system which is PRNAV1 without WAAS/EGNOS?

Yes. For more infomation, you should check this ICAO PBN manual.

p31 says :

A navigation application (e.g. SID/STAR) is designed using the navigation specification (e.g. RNAV 1) based upon a specific NAVAID Infrastructure (e.g. GNSS); which may be different in another State
The RNAV 1 specification in Volume II of this manual shows that any of the following navigation sensors can meet its performance requirements: GNSS or DME/DME/IRU or DME/DME.
Sensors needed to satisfy the performance requirements for an RNAV 1 specification in a particular State are not only dependent on the aircraft on-board capability. A limited DME infrastructure or GNSS policy considerations may lead the authorities to impose specific navigation sensor requirements for an RNAV 1 specification in that State.
As such, State A’s AIP could stipulate GNSS as a requirement for its RNAV 1 specification because State A only has GNSS available in its NAVAID infrastructure. State B’s AIP could require DME/DME/IRU for its RNAV 1 specification (policy decision to not allow GNSS).
Each of these navigation specifications would be implemented as an RNAV 1 application.
However, aircraft equipped only with GNSS and approved for the RNAV 1 specification in State A would not be approved to operate in State B

Peter wrote:

Yes e.g. a GNS430 / 530.

These could be PRNAV approved, even in a Cessna 150

Shows what a complete farce this is.

RNAV 1 has never required WAAS. If it did, virtually no airliners could fly it. Earlier TSO C129a units did not satisfy the requirement to accept a course to a fix leg type in the database, so most could not comply. One could fly the route using OBS mode, but this is not permitted as the course needs to come from the database to assure the path will match the narrower obstacle protection. The GNS430 and G1000 non WAAS systems support the leg type in the database, it is as simple as that. It has nothing to do with WAAS.