The US definitely has similar requirements to Europe for use of GPS in IFRz
FAA equivalent requirements for RNP:
AC90-96 also gave the requirements for a U.S.-registered aircraft to operate under BRNAV/RNAV5 in European airspace but this has now been superseded into AC20-105A.
AC20-138() provides guidance on getting the aircraft equipment and installation certified
Peter wrote:
CAT is not relevant to this because they meet the requirements with INS,
INS does not meed BRNAV requirements. DME/DME does
What is BRNAV called today? Has the carriage requirement gone?
The thing closest to what used to be called BRNAV is RNAV 5. I don’t know what you mean by “carriage requirement”. Of course you must have the proper equipment.
The thing closest to what used to be called PRNAV is RNAV 1. By the way, IIRC, DME/DME does not meet RNAV 1 requirements when you hand fly on raw data – only when you fly using an FD or AP.
If GPS is your whole world, then sure! But it isn’t the whole world for all of aviation, like CAT
CAT is not relevant to this because they meet the requirements with INS, which uses DME-DME (plus GPS, on modern airliners) for fixups. They have had that capability since for ever.
But seriously, the terms BRNAV and PRNAV haven’t been used for years
What is BRNAV called today? Has the carriage requirement gone?
I know PRNAV died, years ago. Amid all kinds of threats like an EHSI (auto rotating course pointer) being a proposed requirement.
The BS is not with the concepts but with the hurdles set up to use RNAV.
All the same thing. Just different words. See below.
Fortunately that’s getting better with manufacturers having STC AMLs for almost everything.
For sure, these regulations have made Garmin lots and lots of money (having somehow got EASA to agree to AML STCs, which previously EASA said they would never agree to; the concept is largely bogus – an artefact of manipulating the ICAO certification system). Always the way. Many years ago I sat on some BS (British Standards) committee, which was stuffed with manufacturer reps, every one of them with a grinder under the table.
Peter wrote:
So what does “BRNAV” serve? Pointless debate really; entirely circular.
If GPS is your whole world, then sure! But it isn’t the whole world for all of aviation, like CAT. (And it didn’t use to be for light GA either.)
But seriously, the terms BRNAV and PRNAV haven’t been used for years. If you can still see them around it’s because some documents (like POHs and all too frequently AIPs) are not updated.
with everybody chasing around like crazy getting the PRNAV LoA.
The BS is not with the concepts but with the hurdles set up to use RNAV. Fortunately that’s getting better with manufacturers having STC AMLs for almost everything.
The concept of BRNAV is pure BS.
B-RNAV is defined as RNAV that meets a track keeping accuracy equal to or better than +/-5 NM for 95 percent of the time
You can achieve that with a GPS from a camping shop, easily, by a factor of 100×.
So what does “BRNAV” serve? Pointless debate really; entirely circular.
It’s like PRNAV. A load of BS, with everybody chasing around like crazy getting the PRNAV LoA. One guy, one of the early adopters, got his by burying some FAA FSDO in paperwork, proving how great a pilot he is (with an FAA ATP) and how great his plane is (a 421C with a load of kit). The FSDO must have thought it was all hilarious but they signed it off. Everybody else (him included) thought that too.
Peter wrote:
That is the European way: if there is no regulation, you have to create one. T
You mean the the FAA has no regulations about the accuracy needed for RNAV systems? Astonishing!
A_and_C wrote:
This is a bit of a play on words,
A VOR or a DME/DME/INS is not supplemental means and may be used as the sole source for IFR Navigation. “Supplemental means” has a definition, so if definitions are a play on words, so be it. A WAAS GPS may be used as the sole source for IFR Navigation, a TSO C129 GPS can not. Just because someone doesn’t understand the usage of the term “Supplemental Means” and applies more meaning than intended, doesn’t change the meaning that it requires the aircraft to have additional navigation equipment installed that may be used as the sole source of IFR navigation. A Garmin GPS 175 may be installed as the only navigation equipment on an aircraft and legally fly IFR. A KLN94 can’t be installed as the only navigation equipment in an aircraft and be used for IFR flight. What is reasonable to do is not the issue, it is what you must do.
VOR 
They don’t “have” to “have” something.
That is the European way: if there is no regulation, you have to create one. There used to be a great video online of a Brussels character going by the name of Seebohm actually saying almost exactly that.
The whole BRNAV / PRNAV / RNAV this or that is a European / ICAO invention, intended to maintain a regulatory climate after GPS did to navigation what the CD did to music
Peter wrote:
They don’t have BRNAV over there – that is regulatory BS also.
What do they have?
Peter
I could not disagree with your opinion of European regulation.
The latest U.K. AIC allowing data base GPS position to substitute for DME or ADF has left the back up in case of GPS failure rather unclear.
I doubt if this is all at the top of the agenda at the U.K. CAA when they have yet to issue so many licences to those EASA returners who will soon not be able to fly because the CAA are unable to perform their duties.
