|
RNP approval |
Post Reply 
|
Page 12> |
| Author | ||
luchetto 
Senior Member 
Joined: 10 Dec 2015 Location: Switzerland Status: Offline Points: 119 |
 Post Options
 Thanks(0)
 Quote Reply
 Topic: RNP approvalPosted: 06 Jan 2016 at 4:22pm |
|
|
I have read some conflicting information regarding the above. Can somebody shed some light?
|
||
 |
||
|
luchetto
Senior Member
Joined: 10 Dec 2015 Location: Switzerland Status: Offline Points: 119 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 06 Jan 2016 at 4:54pm |
|
|
The POH 3-29 clearly states it is not approved for RNP procedures instead AFM supplement says it is approved for RNP procedures, very confusing.
The practical example is that a German airport used to have an approach chart labelled as RNAV approach and now it is labelled as RNP. The DH is labelled as LPV DH. Will the FMS load this approach and are we allowed to fly it? |
||
|
||
|
tony
Senior Member
Joined: 06 Dec 2011 Location: Atlanta Status: Offline Points: 466 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 06 Jan 2016 at 5:01pm |
|
|
You need to be more specific with your question. Are you referring to PBN? The IFD 540 is a GPS navigator with an accuracy down to 0.3. It is not a DO-236 multi-sensored FMS with RNP alerting. I asked this question, a few years ago, if it would be possible to achieve RNP with two 540s and the answer that came back from avidyne was no. I don't think the integrity monitoring is in the architecture.
|
||
|
||
|
luchetto
Senior Member
Joined: 10 Dec 2015 Location: Switzerland Status: Offline Points: 119 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 06 Jan 2016 at 5:14pm |
|
|
Tony, I posted a very specific example. If I read the handbook it is clearly stated as not approved if I read the AFM supplement it seems it is approved for terminal RNP approach procedures. The approach plate now is labeled as RNP RWY 32 whereas before it was RNAV (GNSS) RWY 32. Can I fly the approach?
|
||
|
||
|
Gary T
Groupie 
Joined: 13 Nov 2013 Location: Michigan Status: Offline Points: 80 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 06 Jan 2016 at 8:31pm |
|
|
The latest IFD540 Pilot guide Rev 02 pages 5-27 and 5-28 seem to suggest RNP approaches(certain types) can be achieved.
|
||
|
Gary-T
|
||
|
||
|
luchetto
Senior Member
Joined: 10 Dec 2015 Location: Switzerland Status: Offline Points: 119 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 07 Jan 2016 at 1:01am |
|
|
Gary, I see it now. I had downloaded my PG maybe 2 months ago and didn't realize it was already old😳
|
||
|
||
|
tony
Senior Member
Joined: 06 Dec 2011 Location: Atlanta Status: Offline Points: 466 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 07 Jan 2016 at 6:34am |
|
|
Luchetto, I will let avidyne answer the will the 540 do it questions. The confusion is coming from the term RNP. The FAA caused this years ago. It could mean required navigation precision or required navigation performance. Precision means navigational accuracy, performance means an availability of that nav accuracy which is architecture dependent. In general if the approached is terps using an SBAS sensor RNAV (GPS) the 540 can legally flight it. If its an RNP approach (these used to be called SAAR approaches) you cannot legally fly them using the 540. If the box loads it or not is irrelevant (again an avidyne question). To legally fly an RNP approach the nav system has to be complaint to DO-283. The pages reference in the POH is referring to operating rules not MOPS. I think both the FAA and EASA needs to better clarify this for the pilots. Can you a link to the approach plate you are referring to? The fact that you are referring to LPV leads me to believe its a GPS approach. If you go look at all the approaches for Atlanta (http://airnav.com/airport/KATL) In my opinion, the 540 cannot legally fly the Z approaches. Edited by tony - 07 Jan 2016 at 6:39am |
||
|
||
|
luchetto
Senior Member
Joined: 10 Dec 2015 Location: Switzerland Status: Offline Points: 119 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 07 Jan 2016 at 8:28am |
|
|
|
||
|
||
|
chflyer
Senior Member
Joined: 24 Jan 2013 Location: LSZK Status: Offline Points: 1038 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 07 Jan 2016 at 8:48am |
|
|
Placido,
Your link seems to be broken. Did you use the globe/link icon to create it? What is the airport? Vince Edited by chflyer - 07 Jan 2016 at 9:49am |
||
|
Vince
|
||
|
||
|
oskrypuch
Senior Member
Joined: 09 Nov 2012 Location: CYFD Status: Offline Points: 3061 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 07 Jan 2016 at 9:03am |
|
And with the cool RTF segments, too. * Orest |
||
|
||
|
chflyer
Senior Member
Joined: 24 Jan 2013 Location: LSZK Status: Offline Points: 1038 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 07 Jan 2016 at 9:46am |
|
|
Orest, do you mean RF segments (Radius to Fix)? If not, what are RTF segments?
|
||
|
Vince
|
||
|
||
|
roltman
Senior Member
Joined: 04 Aug 2011 Status: Offline Points: 173 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 07 Jan 2016 at 9:57am |
|
|
tony et al.
I think the latest IFR magazine touched on this RNP stuff across the pond. In Europe LPV GPS approaches are being renamed as RNP approaches, which I think this is what causing some confusion here. While I didn't read the article that closely, I think it's just a name change for those approaches. In other words there's an expanded meaning to RNP beyond what we know it as w.r.t. FAA and the IFD 540 may be authorized to do those RNP approaches. Again some more research needs to be done to better characterize it for Europe and I think that's what luchetto was asking. |
||
|
||
|
wookie
Groupie
Joined: 18 Feb 2015 Location: Colorado Status: Offline Points: 56 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 07 Jan 2016 at 10:24am |
|
|
Have I missed something? I didn't think there was WAAS in Europe. LPV would not apply
without WAAS. BH |
||
|
BH
|
||
|
||
|
chflyer
Senior Member
Joined: 24 Jan 2013 Location: LSZK Status: Offline Points: 1038 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 07 Jan 2016 at 10:32am |
|
|
I agree. Do you mean the latest (Jan16) IFR mag? It has a comment in the letters section replying to an article on this in the Oct15 IFR mag where it rather vaguely says that authorization is required for all RNP approaches, whether the equipment AFM allows them or not. I say "vaguely" because the IFR article says at the same time that this is due to RF segments which are implied to be on all RNP approaches (may or may not be true). The IFD540/440 AFM specifically says that RF segments are NOT approved.
I would have 2 questions: 1) Does the RNP RWY 32 approach referenced by luchetto include RF segment(s) Yes/No? If Yes, then the IFD is NOT approved per AFM. 2) If No, the IFDxxx IS approved to fly the approach (per the AFM) assuming that there is no "authorization required" statement on the chart. But is the operator approved to fly the RNP RWY 32 approach? I don't think the answer to 2) is clear, even for US or CA operations. Perhaps someone can provide an authoritative response with reference? |
||
|
Vince
|
||
|
||
|
chflyer
Senior Member
Joined: 24 Jan 2013 Location: LSZK Status: Offline Points: 1038 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 07 Jan 2016 at 10:50am |
|
|
Yes, there is WAAS in Europe including LPV approaches. See below.
 |
||
|
Vince
|
||
|
||
|
oskrypuch
Senior Member
Joined: 09 Nov 2012 Location: CYFD Status: Offline Points: 3061 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 07 Jan 2016 at 12:06pm |
|
I just put an extra T in there. RTF * Orest |
||
|
||
|
chflyer
Senior Member
Joined: 24 Jan 2013 Location: LSZK Status: Offline Points: 1038 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 07 Jan 2016 at 12:50pm |
|
|
Just what I thought .... but checking to make sure I hadn't missed a new acronym ;-)
|
||
|
Vince
|
||
|
||
|
chflyer
Senior Member
Joined: 24 Jan 2013 Location: LSZK Status: Offline Points: 1038 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 07 Jan 2016 at 1:23pm |
|
Agree, since 540/440 not approved for RF segments. Even if it could though, the stopper is the "authorization reguired" note and very few piston aircraft will have the additional kit to get this approval to say nothing about the operator approval too. Anyone have an example of an approach with RF segment that doesn't have the "authorization required" note? |
||
|
Vince
|
||
|
||
|
luchetto
Senior Member
Joined: 10 Dec 2015 Location: Switzerland Status: Offline Points: 119 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 07 Jan 2016 at 4:56pm |
|
|
Vince
it was the Sylt RNP RWY 32 but for whatever reason it would not take the image. Placido |
||
|
||
|
tony
Senior Member
Joined: 06 Dec 2011 Location: Atlanta Status: Offline Points: 466 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 07 Jan 2016 at 5:15pm |
|
|
There are. They have their own satellite. I think they call it SBAS augmentation |
||
|
||
|
clydeps
Groupie
Joined: 05 Sep 2015 Location: Australia Status: Offline Points: 72 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 07 Jan 2016 at 6:02pm |
|
They call it SBAS in the US too. The WAAS system and the European EGNOS are both Satellite Based Augmentation Systems (SBAS). Several other countries have their own SBAS.
|
||
|
||
|
AviJake
Admin Group 
Joined: 26 Mar 2009 Location: Lincoln MA Status: Offline Points: 2815 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 08 Jan 2016 at 9:22am |
|
|
Phew, that was a lot of information.
In an attempt to summarize the Avidyne position..... 1. The FAA is also in the process of calling more and more SBAS operations "RNP". That is getting very confusing and approaches that used to be RNAV are now being labeled as RNP. I bet this is going to get more confusing for a while before it stabilizes and we all get used to it. 2. The IFD pilot guides (e.g. pages 5-27, 5-28 of Rev 02 of the IFD540 manual) try to directly address this. The IFD boxes are okay to fly many/most RNP approaches but we are not authorized to fly approaches that contain an RF (Radius-Fix) leg type or state that "Authorization is Required". Here is a snippet from that section: RNP/RNAV Operations
The IFD540 complies with the equipment requirements
of AC 90-105 and meets the equipment performance and functional requirements to
conduct RNP terminal departure and arrival procedures and RNP approach
procedures without RF (radius to fix) legs. Part 91 subpart K, 121, 125, 129,
and 135 operators require operational approval. The IFD540 installed with an SBAS approved antenna,
provides pilot and automatic flight control guidance for the following
operations conducted under instrument flight rules (IFR): ·
VOR, LOC, ILS instrument
approach procedures (procedures using VHF radio guidance) ·
RNP instrument approach
procedures using the following lines of minima: o
LNAV minima (including when
using advisory vertical guidance from the system); o
LNAV/VNAV minima; o
LPV minima; and o
LP minima. The IFD540 when installed with
a non-SBAS antenna, provides pilot and automatic flight control guidance for
the following operations conducted under instrument flight rules (IFR): ·
VOR, LOC,
ILS procedures (procedures using VHF radio guidance); ·
RNP
instrument approach procedures using LNAV lines of minima only. The IFD540 complies with requirements of AC 90-100A
for RNAV 1 and RNAV 2 operations. In accordance with AC 90-100A, Part 91
(except subpart K) are authorized to fly RNAV 1 and RNAV 2 procedures. The IFD540 complies with the requirements for GPS
Class II oceanic and remote navigation (RNP-10) and (RNP-4) without time
limitations. A second navigation source may be required for these operations to
meet availability requirements. 3. Global navigation systems come in several different formats. We use the GPS constellation which is augmented by several regional additional systems or SBAS. WAAS, EGNOS, MSAS, GAGNAN aid the GPS constellation as SBAS systems and all are compatible with the IFDs. Other satellite-based constellations that are NOT compatible with the GPS system are Galileo, GLONASS, Compass. Here is another note I have in the Pilot Guide to try and address this: NOTE
Global
SBAS Support Wide
area/regional satellite based augmentation system (SBAS) support provided by
the IFD include WAAS (Continental US, Alaska, Canada and most of Central
America), EGNOS (most of Europe and North Africa), MSAS (Japan) and GAGNAN
(India). These are regional
augmentations of the GPS satellite constellation and should not be interpreted
as meaning the IFD is compatible with other GNSS constellation systems such as
Galileo (Europe), GLONASS (Russia), or Compass (China). |
||
|
Steve Jacobson
sjacobson@avidyne.com |
||
|
||
|
chflyer
Senior Member
Joined: 24 Jan 2013 Location: LSZK Status: Offline Points: 1038 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 08 Jan 2016 at 2:20pm |
|
|
Many thanks for this, Steve.
The statement is also in the AFM, which is important because it is an authoritative reference when ramp-checked and the legality of using the IFD540 for IFR approaches is queried, especially in Europe. The migration of RNAV (GNSS) or RNAV (GPS) approached to RNAV (RNP) is also being seen in Europe, and was the trigger for this thread. Not wanting to load up with too much more info, but there is a good presentation of this in a Cessna tech briefing: https://tresor.it/s#J58L1shjYCrY5qY7SL_O3w The most relevant info to this thread is on page 4 and copied below:  There is a secondary question not specifically Avidyne's "problem" which is an operator's authorization to actually make the approach using the approved equipment. There have been considerable discussions on this theme in IFR Magazine and other forums, but the above Cessna note is the clearest and concisest that I've seen. Any RNAV (GNSS) or RNAV (GPS) approaches that are simply rename to RNAV (RNP) can be flown as before. No change. The ones that cannot be flown at this time are the RNP AR APCH's which are those with RF segments and/or require a higher performance capability (equipment and/or crew) that "requires authorization". Thanks for your confirmation and focus on the Avidyne statements regarding IFDxxx approvals. |
||
|
Vince
|
||
|
||
|
chflyer
Senior Member
Joined: 24 Jan 2013 Location: LSZK Status: Offline Points: 1038 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 24 Mar 2016 at 6:12am |
|
Steve, It seems that there is some FAA movement on this subject with publication of a new AC 90-105A last month, and with RF legs prior to the FAF now ok for Part 91 operations without any additional approval. Eg. KCRQ RNAV (GPS) X RWY 24. This approach is not AR, and is apparently now also in the Garmin GTN database. There is a discussion on this in the Beech forum here: http://www.beechtalk.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=120670. Waiting for the FAA position in writing, but confirmed via phone per one of the forum posts. When might we expect this to be added to the IFD's? |
||
|
Vince
|
||
|
||
|
AviSimpson
Senior Member
Joined: 31 Mar 2015 Location: Lincoln, MA Status: Offline Points: 765 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 24 Mar 2016 at 9:08am |
|
|
I know I'm not Steve but here is a response to your question:
TBD. We are currently focused on the
Release 10.2 end game. When that is complete, we'll spend more time
analyzing recent guidance/policy changes.
|
||
|
Simpson Bennett
Avidyne Corporation Product Manager |
||
|
||
|
chflyer
Senior Member
Joined: 24 Jan 2013 Location: LSZK Status: Offline Points: 1038 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 24 Mar 2016 at 6:39pm |
|
|
Ok, thanks Simpson. Just keep in mind that the G760's have RF RNAV approaches today that the IFD's don't.
|
||
|
Vince
|
||
|
||
|
oskrypuch
Senior Member
Joined: 09 Nov 2012 Location: CYFD Status: Offline Points: 3061 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 24 Mar 2016 at 6:55pm |
|
|
G760's ?
* Orest |
||
|
||
|
chflyer
Senior Member
Joined: 24 Jan 2013 Location: LSZK Status: Offline Points: 1038 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 25 Mar 2016 at 3:36am |
|
|
Sorry, typo, meant GTN 750.
|
||
|
Vince
|
||
|
||
|
jhbehrens
Senior Member
Joined: 15 Dec 2012 Location: Netherlands Status: Offline Points: 128 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 04 Jul 2016 at 3:01pm |
|
|
It seems Garmin have now added approval to fly radius to fix (RF) legs to their STC for the GTN series with some limitations, see http://https://bruceair.wordpress.com/2016/03/18/garmin-gtn-avionics-and-rf-legs/
Is Avidyne planning the same for the IFD?
|
||
|
||
|
AviJake
Admin Group
Joined: 26 Mar 2009 Location: Lincoln MA Status: Offline Points: 2815 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 10 Jul 2016 at 10:03am |
|
|
It's on the to-do list. No assigned release identified yet.
|
||
|
Steve Jacobson
sjacobson@avidyne.com |
||
|
||
|
chflyer
Senior Member
Joined: 24 Jan 2013 Location: LSZK Status: Offline Points: 1038 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 27 Sep 2016 at 5:34am |
|
|
What is the current status of this? Did support for RF slip in without any notice? What about the AFM update?
Two of the three RNAV approaches used for my home base require RF. All three approaches are proposed in the pull-down list and can be loaded from the current IFD540 navdata database. But these are explicitly not approved in the AFM. Edited by chflyer - 27 Sep 2016 at 5:37am |
||
|
Vince
|
||
|
||
|
AviSimpson
Senior Member
Joined: 31 Mar 2015 Location: Lincoln, MA Status: Offline Points: 765 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 27 Sep 2016 at 9:34am |
|
|
There has been no update to the previous reply from Jake. It's on the list but it hasn't been assigned a release level or date.
|
||
|
Simpson Bennett
Avidyne Corporation Product Manager |
||
|
||
|
swood7
Newbie 
Joined: 29 Sep 2016 Location: Oregon Status: Offline Points: 9 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 29 Sep 2016 at 6:23pm |
|
|
I'm not certain exactly how things are approved for Part 91, but one of my previous airlines helped develop many RNP approaches out here in the Pacific Northwest (and our parent company pioneered the technology in Alaska). In ground school, it was mentioned that we still owned most if not all of those approaches and if another operator wanted Ops Spec approval to use them, those carriers have to pay a lot of money for their use. Obviously we don't use Ops Specs, but if we wanted access to the owned approaches I assume it would be very expensive for us little guys. But as I said, that may not be the case for Part 91 vs Part 121.
As a side note, my Cherokee is in the shop as we speak getting its IFD-440, MLB-100 and AXP340 and I'm beyond excited to pick it up when I get home from this trip. |
||
|
Sean Wood
|
||
|
||
|
hamilton
Newbie
Joined: 23 Jul 2014 Location: New Zealand Status: Offline Points: 28 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 28 Nov 2016 at 8:45pm |
|
|
Still no movement on this?
It has created quite the issue in New Zealand with our CAA and Airways moving to PBN and RNP. With no SIDS / STAR our Avidyne operators now have to get radar vectored every time, not all of our hilly country has radar coverage either.......... I don't see us selling another unit until this gets cleared as the competitors products don't have the same limitation.
|
||
|
||
|
chflyer
Senior Member
Joined: 24 Jan 2013 Location: LSZK Status: Offline Points: 1038 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 29 Nov 2016 at 5:58am |
|
|
hamilton, I think you mean RF support.
Avidyne IFDxxx support PBN and RNP (which is simply the new name for what previously were called RNAV (GNSS)), as explained in the exchange above. The official reference is in the AFMS provided by Avidyne with the installation STC. There are many of these in Europe and they are all in my IFD540. Looking at the NZ AIP, I see lots of RNAV SIDs and STARs that should be supported and appear in the Avidyne navdata. What Avidyne does indeed NOT yet support is RF (radius to fix), and this IS supported by G*. On my IFD540 there are some RNAV approaches requiring RF. These appear nonetheless in the Avidyne navdata, but do not include the full approach via IAF as a pull-down option for selection since these legs require RF. However, there are pull-down options for Vectors and direct to the FAF. I do agree that this will quickly become a competitive disadvantage as the number of approaches requiring RF is extended. It has started in Europe and is perhaps moving even faster in NZ. However, from a quick check of the NZ AIP I see that all the approaches requiring RF also require operator approval by CAANZ. What is the process to get this and is it achievable for NZ GA piston pilots? In the USA, some RF approaches also require operator approval from the FAA and these normally can't be flown by GA piston pilots either even if they have the G* equipment. In Europe there is an increasing number of RF approaches without any special operator approval needed. These are flyable with G* today, but not with Avidyne. In any case, it is not the PBN or RNP that is limiting. |
||
|
Vince
|
||
|
||
|
hamilton
Newbie
Joined: 23 Jul 2014 Location: New Zealand Status: Offline Points: 28 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 29 Nov 2016 at 3:34pm |
|
|
Thanks for that chflyer.
NZ is in the process of a phased progression from existing RNAV (GNSS) to RNP, our base here in Hamilton has changed over in the last two months so all RNAV approaches have been in essence renamed. Our first IFD customer was actually the first GA private operator to gain RNP approval for his aircraft in the country, ironic now that his setup has become the least capable. With what airways are doing and the slow removal of existing ageing nav aids to fly IFR in NZ you will basically have to be GPS equipped and PBN approved (private with a single box, two for transport). I do have to give kudos to our CAA for their simplifying the application process for private operators, we thought we were in for a nightmare there like many of the transport operators. It appears basically anything with an RNP 1 requirement from our NZ AIPs is out, this from Jeppesen; "What
this means is that, per the source documentation, we have to code these
as RNP SID/STAR procedures. Unfortunately not all avionics manufacturers
subscribe to RNP SID/STAR procedures. The Avidyne Avionics extract parameters
are currently set to exclude RNP SID/STAR procedures. It is the avionics
manufacturers responsibility to review their avionics capabilities and then
review their extract parameter settings with us to ensure they are getting all
procedures which their systems can support. I will send a follow up to my
contact at Avidyne, asking him to confirm they do not want RNP SID/STAR
procedures included in their NavData subscriptions." Talking to our IFD customer based here in Hamilton, that takes out all our arrivals and departures.
|
||
|
||
|
chflyer
Senior Member
Joined: 24 Jan 2013 Location: LSZK Status: Offline Points: 1038 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 29 Nov 2016 at 4:24pm |
|
|
I would send a private email to Steve Jacobsen and ask him directly to sort this out with Jeppesen. I suggest you attach the Jepp note and copies of the SID/STAR plates that are missing from the IFD540 and ask why they are missing since nothing prevents IFD540 support.
This is not the first time I'm hearing that Avidyne and Jepp don't talk the same language. The AFMS extract quoted by Steve Jacobsen above confirms that Avidyne supports PBN and RNP, so there is no reason for Jepp to not include them on that basis. It is correct that Avidyne do not support RF (and G* do support it). The RNP approach/departure procedures currently published on the official NZ AIP web site (http://www.aip.net.nz/) seem to all require RF and I expect that is what keeps them out of the IFD540 navdata. I don't see any of these for Hamilton in the AIP, though. Perhaps you are using renamed versions of SID/STAR that are not yet published, because I also cannot find any SID/STAR in the AIP that are named RNP. All are named RNAV (GNSS), including those for Hamilton. The plates have a note: "Navigation requirement: RNP 1" which is supported by Avidyne so they should be available. Even if the plates are renamed to RNP, I see no reference on them that would prevent them from being supported by Avidyne and Avidyne definitely needs to make this clear to Jepp, as Jepp has indicated in their note that you quoted. The RNP approaches which have a "require RF" note will not be supported until Avidyne gets that support added. Edited by chflyer - 29 Nov 2016 at 4:29pm |
||
|
Vince
|
||
|
||
|
hamilton
Newbie
Joined: 23 Jul 2014 Location: New Zealand Status: Offline Points: 28 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 29 Nov 2016 at 4:48pm |
|
|
Since posting here I did get a reply from Avidyne who are in talks with Jeppesen and the FAA and will advise when they have some information.
On a side note the CNS480 is in the same boat as the Avidyne (run under G* AT) while the GNS and GTN are not and run by G* USA. We have a 480 operating out of Hamilton also, from the info he has received it almost appears that as the RNP procedures can include RF legs they have excluded all including those that don't. He said very few in NZ actually contain RF legs, none of the Hamilton procedures do but are still missing. I think it is partly how our airways have written their data, how Jepp have received and programmed that and then what Avidyne selected, it is obviously different to the states and somewhere along the line it has been excluded.
|
||
|
||
|
chflyer
Senior Member
Joined: 24 Jan 2013 Location: LSZK Status: Offline Points: 1038 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 29 Nov 2016 at 5:33pm |
|
|
Thanks for the additional info re CNS480. The message that you quoted from Jepp essentially says that they have received info from Avidyne to exclude all RNP procedures, even those that don't have RF legs. Based on the AFMS this is outright wrong, so Avidyne definitely need to get it corrected.
There are RNP procedures in Europe that don't include RF legs, and I'll check at the aircraft tomorrow to see if they are in the navdata. An example is Sylt EDXW (Germany). If they are missing then we have the same problem in Europe as you do in Australia. You may be onto something with your last statement. |
||
|
Vince
|
||
|
||
|
chflyer
Senior Member
Joined: 24 Jan 2013 Location: LSZK Status: Offline Points: 1038 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 30 Nov 2016 at 9:16am |
|
|
I've checked in Germany and found > 10 airfields with multiple RNP approaches, and in some cases only RNP approaches. These are in the IDF540 and are flyable via the sometimes multiple IAFs as pulldown list for selection. None of these approaches have any indicated operator restriction or RF requirement.
So the issue in NZ does seem to be something with the way CAANZ are coding the approaches and the instructions from Avidyne to Jepp. In any case, it's not because the approach is RNP. |
||
|
Vince
|
||
|
||
|
NZFlyer
Newbie
Joined: 27 Jun 2014 Location: New Zealand Status: Offline Points: 26 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 01 Dec 2016 at 5:57pm |
|
|
Regarding the exclusion of New Zealand RNAV(GNSS)SID & RNAV(GNSS)STAR with a note 'Navigational requirements: RNP1', I received the following email from Jeppesen:
'I received additional feedback from Avidyne regarding
the below issue. They have confirmed that at this point they do not want us to
include RNP SID/STAR procedures in the Avidyne NavData subscriptions. They
advised that they are looking into the possibility of doing this in the future
but they do not know when these types of procedures may be included.' The above stance appears to be at variance with the PG. It puts severe operational restrictions within NZ airspace for Avidyne users. Garmin GTN series appear not to have these procedure exclusions. I have contacted Avidyne directly and have been put on hold while they deliberate. It looks from the above that they have made up their mind. I just hope that this a communication problem. Thoughts appreciated. Sample chart below:   |
||
|
||
|
chflyer
Senior Member
Joined: 24 Jan 2013 Location: LSZK Status: Offline Points: 1038 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 02 Dec 2016 at 9:49am |
|
|
Their position is definitely contradictory. First Steve quoted the AFM which specifically lists RNP 1 as approved, and now they don't want Jepp to supply navdata for RNP 1. A bit strange indeed. I hope you get a positive response back soon, as it really eliminates the IFD540 as a viable option in NZ.
|
||
|
Vince
|
||
|
||
|
AviSimpson
Senior Member
Joined: 31 Mar 2015 Location: Lincoln, MA Status: Offline Points: 765 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 02 Dec 2016 at 3:56pm |
|
|
The request for Jeppesen to not include the procedures in the database came down from the FAA. At one point we were able to offer them. We are working right now to see what needs to be done on our end (a simple show of compliance, a change in our code or something else).
As soon as we have further clarity on this I will pass it along to you all.
|
||
|
Simpson Bennett
Avidyne Corporation Product Manager |
||
|
||
|
FlyingCOham
Senior Member
Joined: 30 Oct 2015 Location: COS (KFLY) Status: Offline Points: 125 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 02 Dec 2016 at 5:03pm |
|
|
Straight answer, thanks Simpson!!
|
||
|
Jim Patton
|
||
|
||
|
DavidBunin
Senior Member
Joined: 20 May 2015 Location: Rockwall, TX Status: Offline Points: 742 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 03 Dec 2016 at 7:16am |
|
That's insane. Why would the FAA step in like that? Why would they even care what your box does or doesn't do in New Zealand? (I haven't been a big fan of the FAA lately.) David Bunin |
||
|
||
|
NZFlyer
Newbie
Joined: 27 Jun 2014 Location: New Zealand Status: Offline Points: 26 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 03 Dec 2016 at 8:13am |
|
|
AviSimpson,
Why does this problem affect Avidyne IFD and not Garmin GTN? Is the problem restricted only to New Zealand RNP 1 procedures? |
||
|
||
|
chflyer
Senior Member
Joined: 24 Jan 2013 Location: LSZK Status: Offline Points: 1038 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 03 Dec 2016 at 1:24pm |
|
|
So the FAA have revoked the approval documented in the POH?
|
||
|
Vince
|
||
|
||
|
DavidBunin
Senior Member
Joined: 20 May 2015 Location: Rockwall, TX Status: Offline Points: 742 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 07 Dec 2016 at 3:02pm |
|
That seems to be "their jam" lately. David Bunin |
||
|
||
|
NZFlyer
Newbie
Joined: 27 Jun 2014 Location: New Zealand Status: Offline Points: 26 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 07 Dec 2016 at 10:18pm |
|
AviSimpson can you please reply to this post. Thanks |
||
|
||
|
AviSimpson
Senior Member
Joined: 31 Mar 2015 Location: Lincoln, MA Status: Offline Points: 765 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 08 Dec 2016 at 5:03pm |
|
We are working to clear up this issue and hope to have a resolution shortly. It has to do with the specific requirements for this type of procedure. There are a limited number of these approaches worldwide so I can't say with any certainty. When I have more information I will post it here.
|
||
|
Simpson Bennett
Avidyne Corporation Product Manager |
||
|
||
|
Post Reply
|
Page 12> |
Tweet
|
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
Topic Options
tony wrote: