Peter,
The CF leg terminator is not used in all RNAV SIDS, but may be used for the first leg of the RNAV SID. Since it is not supported in the database by the early GPS units, including the KLN94, the requirement to load such procedures from the database can't be met, You will note that I stated that although you could get the same effect from using the OBS mode, it isn't permitted. My point is that it is not a Honeywell conspiracy, it is a stated requirement for some (not all) RNAV SID and ODP and the older units simply don't comply. I didn't make the rule, just reporting what the rule is. It has nothing to do with accuracy of the KLN94.
There is a fine example on page 109 here.
That one is actually PRNAV i.e. it cannot be flown unless the aircraft is PRNAV approved and the crew has had the extra "training". This is one step above BRNAV approval which is required for all IFR in CAS in Europe.
All the ones I have seen are at radar airports anyway, so are they actually operated?
The standard phraseology goes something like:
"N113AC do you haf visky visky six fife six in your box?" "Affirm, N113AC" "N113AC direct visky visky six fife zen vectors ILS one one"
Can you cite one with multiple links between the same STAR-end and IAF?
Yes, but they are just a SID/STARs using RNAV. I flew an RNAV departure out of EDDK last week. No different from a "normal" SID other than using waypoints instead of headings, VORs and radials ie much easier to use.
Are you sure you flew an "RNAV departure"? Didn't you fly a conventional departure using an RNAV overlay?
You might have to fly an RNAV SID out of Schiphol.
Can you cite one with multiple links between the same STAR-end and IAF?
Frustratingly I cannot right now, but I 100% remember seeing one and I am fairly sure it was LOWW - several years ago. But the plates for LOWW don't contain one of these. It looked like this
and I recall it being discussed at the time, with emphasis on the fact that even though the waypoints were in the KLN94 there was probably no way to load them in the time one would have been given by ATC if that procedure was actually operated as apparently intended.
Perhaps one of the pilots who flies IFR a lot in that area (Germany/Austria/Switzerland) might recognise it?
Are you sure you flew an "RNAV departure"? Didn't you fly a conventional departure using an RNAV overlay?
The "RNAV" departure, IIRC, was this one, discussed in the trip writeup at the time.
The initial waypoint of the filed return route was VEBIT and for the active departure runway 10 this suggested the VEBIT 2E SID (standard instrument departure). Like all Zurich SIDs departing in the relevant direction, this is an RNAV SID. There are a few old-style SIDs which are traditionally flown using VORs etc or with an IFR GPS. There are also some PRNAV SIDs which can be easily flown with an IFR GPS but are legal only with PRNAV certified aircraft - almost unheard of in GA. Due to a dumb policy of Honeywell, my IFR GPS (KLN94) database does not contain most RNAV SIDs/STARs so I advised Tower that I am unable to fly VEBIT 2E; their relaxed response was "fly the overlay" which is readily apparent as being based on some VOR radials, and in any case all the RNAV SID waypoints BREGO, ZH554, ZH558 and of course VEBIT are in the database, so doing this departure for real was trivial. Tower re-checked with me that VEBIT 2E was OK.
I cannot see what the "overlay" was supposed to be, in terms of plates actually published.
There are probably a fair number of airports whose SIDs are all RNAV, AFAICS.
There are two proposed techniques for buffering arrivals that are a little more environmentally friendly than burning pretty ovals in the sky. One is called point merge, illustrated e.g. here, the other goes by the delightful name of "tromboning", though if you want to google for images of that one I'd recommend enabling safe search first. ;) It's basically variable length (of the downwind leg) transitions. You're thinking of that, I think.
The "RNAV" departure, IIRC
No I was responding to Jason's departure from EDDK. AFAIK, it has no PRNAV SIDs, only overlays of conventional ones.
bookworm you are correct, it was an RNAV overlay.
Prague Ruzyne LPKR only has RNAV departures and states P-RNAV required for all of them.
Prague is about as close to "don't ask don't tell" as aviation gets:
LKPR AD 2.22 FLIGHT PROCEDURES
2.22.3.2.3 RNAV procedures
2.22.3.2.3.1 P-RNAV certification is required for RNAV arrival routes.
2.22.3.2.3.2 Aircraft not certified for P-RNAV can also utilize STARs with certification for B-RNAV. Aircraft not certified for RNAV may incur delays and/or extended routing during peak periods.
2.22.3.2.3.3 Only a pilot-in-command of an aircraft not certified for B-RNAV shall inform the ATC when establishing the first radio contact.
2.22.3.3.7 RNAV procedures
2.22.3.3.7.1 P-RNAV certification is required for RNAV departure routes. Separation on parallel departure routes (for example RNAV SID from RWY 24 to the north) is provided by ATC service.
2.22.3.3.7.2 Aircraft not certified for P-RNAV can also utilize SIDs with certification for B-RNAV. Aircraft not certified for RNAV may incur delays and/or extended routing during peak periods
2.22.3.3.7.3 Only a pilot-in-command of an aircraft not certified for B-RNAV shall inform the ATC when establishing the first radio contact.
How does the UK CAA handle P-RNAV certification of flight crew? It's a prerequisite for P-RNAV. The German CAA (LBA) issues a letter to pilots provided they declare that they have familiarized themselves with the equipment and requirements. I didn't bother yet as I don't think anybody would complain at this point.
