Is there any procedure in the Europe that uses or requires O2 verses D2? Please provide a reference for the procedure if there is one.
I really don’t know.
Will you be denied a request to fly an RNP approach if you fail to specify S1 or S2?
AFAIK ATC gets only info of PBN capability and they assume you can fly any PBN related procedure. It’s up to you to let them know if you have any limitation (aircraft or crew).
@Snoopy wrote:
Basically the below EASA text says: If the POH (or POH supplement – AFMS) s
You’re quoting the wrong text! This is for helicopters which possibly don’t have the same rules as aircraft! You should look at GM1 to NCO.IDE.A.195.
So, somehow the circle closes and I conclude that GNS430 (non W) can fly PRNAV/RNP1 SIDs, STARs and APPs (LNAV minima).
That has been clear from the outset! The question is if an aircraft with a GNS430 (non W) installed can do that. (Or rather “may”, of course it can.)
Anyway, I agree with your analysis. Possibly the only grey area is RNAV/RNP 1 as the GM says “FAA AC 20-138 for the appropriate navigation specification” but the navigation specification is not explicitly mentioned in the AFMS — it just mentions “terminal operations” “within the U.S. National Airspace System”. But I would not worry about that.
So once again, can anyone produce a reference to a SID or STAR that requires RNP1. In the US, for all practical purposes, out of 1000 RNAV SID/ODP/STAR procedures in the US,only a handful of exceptions require RNP 1. Like I said, I am only aware of 1, but there may be a few more.
NCYankee wrote:
So once again, can anyone produce a reference to a SID or STAR that requires RNP1. In the US, for all practical purposes, out of 1000 RNAV SID/ODP/STAR procedures in the US,only a handful of exceptions require RNP 1. Like I said, I am only aware of 1, but there may be a few more.
Do you mean RNAV 1? I don’t see much point in RNP 1 in areas with radar coverage unless you want to use RF legs, OTOH RNP 1 approved equipment don’t have to handle RF legs…
Anyway, Heathrow has some RNAV 1 STARs, e.g. FITBO1H.
(Oddly enough, all Heathrow SIDs seem to be based on conventional navigation.)
Airborne_Again wrote:
Do you mean RNAV 1? I don’t see much point in RNP 1 in areas with radar coverage unless you want to use RF legs, OTOH RNP 1 approved equipment don’t have to handle RF legs…
I mean RNP 1 as the required PBN Nav Spec for the procedure, thus mandating specifying O2. Like I said there are only a few such procedures in the US and they are because of the use of RF legs on the SID or STAR. In the US, when this occurs, the requirement is for O2. I agree O2 does not require RF, but RF requires O2.
@airborne_again thank you for the correction.
ENBR requires RNAV 1 for their STARs
The following isn’t for the demographic found on EuroGA, it’s a generalization of my experience instructing private owners on aircraft (partly with legacy avionics).
The interesting part of this subject, to me, is that 99% of PPL IR pilots just fly the procedures that are in the database of their avionics, without consideration if it is legal or not.
The “RNAV 1 required” will be read out during the Jepp chart briefing, but what it means is irrelevant. It’s not intent obviously, it’s ignorance. Somewhere between IR instruction in the 1980’s using VOR and ADF to punish them hard and today’s magenta line NAV PBN RNP stuff this dissonance happened and it’s just too much nuisance and too complicated to follow it all so people just shrug their shoulders, press the PROC key on their GNS and fly.
The fault lies with the regulator and the OEMs as well as facilities installing these things that leads to cryptical AFM supplements that reference 10 other documents.
I don’t think people want to do something illegal at all, but at some point it’s just too much effort to sift through this all and one simply goes flying. And it works, too.
At least if the RNaV procedure is in the DB, then the equipment is capable of flying the RNAV 1 procedure. Capability does not mean authorization.
