Eg RNAV1 will become RNP1 etc.
That is very confusing and worrying
Should we get RNP1 by Garmin STC then in aircraft in AFMS of DA40 to fly an RNAV1 SID or RNAV1 STAR?
If you mean PBN then I would agree, PBN = RNAV and RNP
Yes PBN only refers to RNAV, RNP, PRNAV.
I don’t understand what you mean about the Garmin STC. The plan AIUI is to simplify things by not having all the different acronyms in the top right hand corner of IACs etc.
At the moment some charts have GPS in the top right, others GNSS yet others RNAV or GNSS/RNAV. Instead now we will have the conventional charts or RNP charts.
The RNP procedures will be in the database so you don’t have to worry about whether or not it is RNP1 or RNP10. If the approach you want to fly is not in your database you can not fly it.
What is gained by putting such things on the flight plan? I don’t know, perhaps its for the AAIB to say that the crash was probably caused by the aircraft being flown to a 200’ minima witho the required equipment.🙂
gallois wrote:
AIUI from the EASA roadshow the plan is to replace charts headed up GNSS, GPS, RNAV (whatever) PRNAV, BRNAV etc etc are to be replaced with RNP. Eg RNAV1 will become RNP1 etc.
I don’t think that’s correct. PRNAV, BRNAV and GPS/RNAV approaches were concepts introduced before PBN. “RNAV 1” is a proper PBN specification. There is no reason why it should be replaced by RNP 1. The main difference between the RNAV 1 and RNP 1 specifications is that RNP 1 includes position integrity checks while RNAV 1 does not. Thus RNAV 1 can only be used in a radar environment where the controller can check that the aircraft is on the correct flight path.
All Garmin GPS navigators can do RNP 1 as RAIM/SBAS provides the necessary integrity checks. DME/DME navigation systems can do RNAV 1, but not RNP 1.
gallois wrote:
Yes PBN only refers to RNAV, RNP, PRNAV.
PRNAV is a pre-PBN concept. It is approximately the same as RNAV 1.
@Airborne_Again wrote " PRNAV is a pre-PBN concept. It is approximately the same as RNAV 1."
If there had been RNP before PBN then there probably would have been no necessity for PRNAV to ever have surfaced.
They are all the same the RNAV1 and RNP1 are the same PRNAV is PBN, GNSS/GPS approaches are RNP approaches but many still publish it as RNAV. This is the reason the EASA roadmap is all about simplifying things in publications.
The roadmap is about evolution in the future.
Yes DME/DME can be RNAV1 and not RNP, but how many single DME’s are there around these days let alone being able to tune into 2 of them.
DMEs also have disadvantages such as range and only having the ability to cope with a maximum of 100 aircraft at a time (not great in what is expected or hoped for increasing aviation activity world). So DMEs are becoming increasingly redundant.
RNP puts the onus on pilots and equipment manufacturers to enable a flight to a particular accuracy.
PBN very simply about a pilot knowing what that accuracy should be and how to use the equipment to achieve that accuracy. RNAV even BRNAV opened up instrument flying to not having to stick to airways (note the you tube video I posted in the thread about strikes). DCTs became possible where there were no airways. But RNAV /BRNAV had limitations because they were not accurate enough to increase the number of aircraft in the same airspace beyond a certain point .The philosophy behind PBN is to move to the next stage by using modern GNSS equipment to improve the accuracy with which pilots are able to fly. That in turn should both allow more and safer traffic movements even in congested areas. Routes which you could not fly in IMC before, because of a lack of ground based equipment in that area can now be flown with GPS.
One has to remember I am referring to EASAs roadmap. It is not going to happen all at once it is an evolving process. Sometimes it will be delayed by some countries refusing to treat GPS as a primary source of navigation. Others insist that NDB approaches must be a major part of the IR curriculum whereas yet other countries have or a getting rid of NDB equipment.
So IACs everywhere are not immediately going to change from GNSS or RNAV to RNP it will possibly happen quicker in some countries than in others. There will be conventional approach charts, conventional SIDs and STARS and INAs There will be RNP approaches SIDs and STARs and INAs and as is the case now there will be RNP or RNAV SIDs , STARS and INAs to conventional FNAs. Your GNSS equipment is automatically switching between the 2 a specific point in the approach just like your RNP arrival is automatically switching from RNP5 (RNAV5 if you prefer) to RNP1 to RNP0.3 and back to RNP 1 if you go missed. All done automatically within the nav equipment in the aircraft.
Under PBN it is for you as PIC to make sure that you have the right equipment/database/pilot knowledge of that equipment for the departure, route and approach of any flight you are going to make.
If not you will have committed a violation. Whether (short of an accident or near miss) you will ever be found out will probably greatly depend on the country in which you are flying.
gallois wrote:
Airborne_Again wrote " PRNAV is a pre-PBN concept. It is approximately the same as RNAV 1."
If there had been RNP before PBN then there probably would have been no necessity for PRNAV to ever have surfaced.
I don’t understand most of your post. Either we are talking past each other or there is a massive confusion of terminology here.
PBN (Performance Based Navigation) is a navigation concept that focuses on the “performance” of the navigation system and not on how it actually works. Within PBN there are various “Performance specifications”, such as RNAV 5, RNP APCH etc, each of which demand a certain level of functionality, precision, and reliability. PBN navigation equipment onboard aircraft are certified to meet some of these performance specifications. There are two main classes of PBN specifications, RNAV and RNP. The principal difference between them is that RNP specs require the aircraft equipment to have integrity monitoring, while RNAV specs do not.
That means that you can use GPS, INS, DME/DME and even in principle VOR/DME RNAV systems and still fly according to PBN specs. (It is another matter that these systems can achieve different levels of performance. E.g. VOR/DME RNAV can only achieve RNAV 5, while SBAS GPS can, AFAIK, achieve all of them – although in some cases you may need dual GPSs.)
They are all the same the RNAV1 and RNP1 are the same PRNAV is PBN, GNSS/GPS approaches are RNP approaches but many still publish it as RNAV.
RNAV 1 and RNP 1 are not the same, as I explained in my last post. PRNAV is not PBN. PRNAV was a particular requirement on area navigation before the PBN concept was introduced, which is similar to RNAV 1. GNSS/GPS approaches are not designed the same as RNP approaches, as they rely on the particular characteristics of GPS which RNP does not. In practise, though, I would expect most GNSS/GPS approaches to be designed so that they also work as RNP approaches.
Yes DME/DME can be RNAV1 and not RNP, but how many single DME’s are there around these days let alone being able to tune into 2 of them.
DMEs also have disadvantages such as range and only having the ability to cope with a maximum of 100 aircraft at a time (not great in what is expected or hoped for increasing aviation activity world). So DMEs are becoming increasingly redundant.
DME/DME is an area navigation system used (mainly) by transport category aircraft that do not have GPS (and there are many of them). There are lots of single DME stations around and the number is actually increasing. DME/DME is the official primary backup for GPS in Europe at least, and is far from becoming redundant.
RNP puts the onus on pilots and equipment manufacturers to enable a flight to a particular accuracy.
Under PBN it is for you as PIC to make sure that you have the right equipment/database/pilot knowledge of that equipment for the departure, route and approach of any flight you are going to make.
If not you will have committed a violation. Whether (short of an accident or near miss) you will ever be found out will probably greatly depend on the country in which you are flying.
How is this different from pre-PBN systems!? And it is really should not be difficult to find out. The regs (NCO.IDE.A.195 “Navigation equipment” with GM1) say that you should look at the POH (or supplement in case of an STC installation) for information about what PBN specs the installation supports. E.g. the POH supplement for a GTN 650Xi that my club installed the other year says
“…meets the equipment performance and functional requirements to conduct RNP terminal departure and arrival procedures and RNP approach procedures including procedures with RF legs…”
“…has been found to comply with the requirements for GPS Class II oceanic and remote navigation (RNP-10)…”
“…complies with the equipment requirements for P-RNAV and B-RNAV/RNAV-5 operations…
It is more involved if the equipment was approved before PBN (i.e. for BRNAV or PRNAV), but then the regs give detailed advice on what refernces to look for in the POH to see if the equipment meets current RNAV 5 or RNAV 1 requirements.
I don’t understand most of your post.
Now you know how I feel when X takes a thread right off the rails 
Anyway, this is all about equipment carriage on which enforcement (in GA) is somewhere south of minus 273.16C. And like I said before, this proposal will be kicked into long grass because many jets don’t have GPS. Half of Europe lives in a little world of wishful thinking; a world where Europe is a vast region of the earth’s land surface.
I cannot be bothered to get into a debate about the evolution of RNP and PBN. I will leave that to someone who wishes to start a thread about the EASA roadmap. I will just point out that nearly all RNAV or GNSS approach charts in France will become RNP when they rely on GPS equipment or Conventional charts when they do not in the not too distant future after. As for DME the trend seems to be towards retirement here. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the DME arc at Nantes LFRS does not exist past 2025.
@Peter I thought the thread was about France mandating 3D approach capability VNAV/LPV, and I was attempting to explain the trend here.
PBN performance based navigation
RNP required navigation performance. As far as I see it both ILS and LPV require a certain level of performance. Whilst we need to know the concept (hence PBN training. For instance most modern GNSS equipment will automatically change from an accuracy of 1nm to 0.3nm at a certain point and how we can identify that point on an IAC so we can double check it has changed ) we don’t really need to know whether its called PRNAV,RNAV 1 or whatever the equipment your aircraft carries and the database will automatically give you the parameters you need to perform to and all you have to do is keep the needles/dots/lights or whatever in the middle and know if it goes out by more than a dot or two, you are not performing your navigation accurately enough.
If you don’t have the equipment needed for the departure, route or approach etc performance then PBN says you should avoid it.
The idea of the roadmap is to simplify things.
Airborne_Again wrote:
S2 means Baro VNAV, which you don’t have.
According to Garmin at https://static.garmincdn.com/apps/fly/files/support/icao-flight-plans/Garmin_ICAO_Flight_Plan_Information.xlsx in application of EASA AMC 20-27 with CM-AS-002, all their navigators with SBAS are allowed to file S2, because CM-AS-002 allows substitution of Baro/VNAV with SBAS for vertical guidance.
According to Garmin at https://static.garmincdn.com/apps/fly/files/support/icao-flight-plans/Garmin_ICAO_Flight_Plan_Information.xlsx in application of EASA AMC 20-27 with CM-AS-002, all their navigators with SBAS are allowed to file S2, because CM-AS-002 allows substitution of Baro/VNAV with SBAS for vertical guidance.
According to this table, for G1000 with GIA63W filling S2 is allowed.
