PBN approved RAF aircraft types

[NorthSouth]

Does anyone know which RAF types are currently PBN-approved? As I understand it, C17s, A400s and A330s are, but the C130Js aren't. What about other types? Given the declining number of military bases and the ICAO requirement for all civil procedures to be PBN by 2024, I presume there's a plan in place for any military aircraft that might need to access a civil airfield IFR?

[FloaterNorthWest]

Juno and Jupiter are PBN approved.

[Rigga]

Cant you see the pattern there? "C17s, A400s and A330s are, but the C130Js aren't" The first three are civil aircraft types (as are the 'Juno and Jupiter") - the C130's civil equivalent is the L100. Nobody sees the need or want to pay money to update old military aircraft.

[Easy Street]

Cant you see the pattern there? "C17s, A400s and A330s are, but the C130Js aren't" The first three are civil aircraft types (as are the 'Juno and Jupiter") - the C130's civil equivalent is the L100. Nobody sees the need or want to pay money to update old military aircraft.

OK, it’s late, but on what planet are C17 and A400M civil types??

[FlexibleResponse]

OK, it’s late, but on what planet are C17 and A400M civil types??



According to Wike,
"MD-17: Proposed variant for civilian operators, later redesignated as BC-17 after 1997 (Boeing) merger."
"MD-17 received FAA Certification 9 June 2007."

According to Flight Global 14 March 2013,The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) has approved full civil certification for the Airbus Military A400M tactical transport, edging the type closer to its entry into service in mid-2013.

So, when any of the Military versions are retired, civil tankers and transports might easily pop-up with civil registration.

[ORAC]

Equally there is a civil version of the C-130J, the LM-100J.....

https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/products/lm-100j.html

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/7540/first-civilian-version-of-the-c-130j-super-hercules-rolls-off-the-assembly-line

https://c130mro.com/2018/07/09/will-the-lockheed-lm-100j-sell-without-easa-certification/

[Ken Scott]

The C130J was B-RNAV certified but only if the mil-standard GPS was removed from the solution and the ac was in range of land-based navaids to update the INSs. It wasn’t going to be fully PBN until fitted with civil certified GPS, I forget which block upgrade that was intended to be on.

Only a fool would actually have deselected the GPSs though. The database in the CNI-MU (FMS) didn’t support RNP approaches & departures anyway.

[Not Long Here]

The C130J was B-RNAV certified but only if the mil-standard GPS was removed from the solution



It has always struck me as quite strange that mil-standard GPS isn't acceptable for civil PBN certification. I know that they don't normally come with TSO 145/146 but when you actually delve into performance/FDE etc the Mil GPS installed in most military aircraft easily meet the requirements. Certification through equivalence?

[VinRouge]

It has always struck me as quite strange that mil-standard GPS isn't acceptable for civil PBN certification. I know that they don't normally come with TSO 145/146 but when you actually delve into performance/FDE etc the Mil GPS installed in most military aircraft easily meet the requirements. Certification through equivalence?


Lack of RAIM prediction and electing, or SBAS (which omits the RAIM prediction requirement) as part of the MGPS milspec is an issue.

[Ken Scott]

Especially as GPS is a military satellite system & with the P code switched back on civ GPS would be hopelessly inaccurate for aviation purposes.

[Alex Whittingham]

with the P code switched back on civ GPS would be hopelessly inaccurate for aviation purposes.
Why would that be?

[NutLoose]

OK, it’s late, but on what planet are C17 and A400M civil types??

Asteroid and Hemorrhoid?

[beardy]

Especially as GPS is a military satellite system & with the P code switched back on civ GPS would be hopelessly inaccurate for aviation purposes.
Are you confusing GPS navigation with RNAV?

[VinRouge]

Asteroid and Hemorrhoid?
A400M has been certified to CS25. Its on the Easa types list.

https://www.easa.europa.eu/documents/type-certificates/aircraft-cs-25-cs-22-cs-23-cs-vla-cs-lsa/easaa169

C17 due to its design and field performance compromises (particularly 4 engine baukled approach) will never meet Perf A requirements.

[BEagle]

Are you confusing GPS navigation with RNAV?

Indeed! Perhaps he means that with SA re-enabled, civil C/A code GPS receivers would lack sufficient accuracy?

[Ken Scott]

Yes, whilst RNAV does not have to involve GPS, indeed the first RNAV routes were in the early 70s before any GPS satellites were launched, it only really worked once the system was available. Switching off the P code was Clinton’s gift to the world & allowed civ GPS to be accurate enough for precise navigation. The GA world in particular would be screwed by the P code being switched back on although I believe that more recent GPS satellites aren’t enabled with it.

[BEagle]

Clinton did not 'switch off the P-code'! He directed that Selective Availability, the feature which reduced the accuracy of C/A-code receivers, would no longer be used. Which has nothing whatsoever to do with P code!

More recent GPS satellites no longer even have the capability of using SA.

The P (Precise) code signals have never been available to non-military users.

[Ken Scott]

Oh Beagle, you are such a pedant!

Clinton directed that what makes GPS accurate for the military should be turned off so that it’s accurate for civvies too...

I might not have the terms strictly accurate but the sense was correct.

As I said, the recent satellites no longer have the capability anyway. Happy now?!

[BEagle]

No - you're still writing total bolleaux!

Clinton directed that the feature which could, when enabled, render civil users' GPS inaccurate would be discontinued. It had nothing whatsoever to do with military GPS functionality, then or now.

[[email protected]]

BEagle isn't being pedantic, he is just being correct.

The AAC Gazelles are PBN equipped and capable.

[Rigga]

According to Wike,
"MD-17: Proposed variant for civilian operators, later redesignated as BC-17 after 1997 (Boeing) merger."
"MD-17 received FAA Certification 9 June 2007."

According to Flight Global 14 March 2013,The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) has approved full civil certification for the Airbus Military A400M tactical transport, edging the type closer to its entry into service in mid-2013.

So, when any of the Military versions are retired, civil tankers and transports might easily pop-up with civil registration.

I am informed that, for the RAF A400Ms, the base maintenance activities are carried out by civilian EASA Part 66 Licenced Engineers Type Rated for A400M and some of the RAF Technicians hold those licences for deployment and line maintenance use. I believe the French use a similar system.

It was originally Airbus' intention that the A400 was to be produced for the civil market too, and thats why it was conformed to CS25 and has full civilian type ratings, but delays and reliability issues may have closed that programme long ago.

Qatar had one of its C17s painted in Qatar Emiri Flight colours for VVIP uses but it remained military registered. As stated earlier, the C17 was proposed to produce a civl variant and has US FAA Type Ratings and approvals.