No AR for the ATR?
Thread Starter
No AR for the ATR?
I was just wondering whether the Mt Cook ATR 72-600 is likely to be RNP-AR capable in the near future? I had the impression it was available out of the box, however that doesn't seem to be the case.
The 600 was advertised as AR "capable" but until Mount Cook ordered them no one has specified the capability.
As a result ATR is having to do a lot of work to actually certify it.
As a result ATR is having to do a lot of work to actually certify it.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: NZ
Posts: 656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mount Cook is currently developing its AR capability. I think we're the 1st operator to attempt it.
I think there was some clever marketing material which cleverly blurred the lines between "is" AR capable and "can be" AR capable 😉
I think there was some clever marketing material which cleverly blurred the lines between "is" AR capable and "can be" AR capable 😉
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: back to the land of small pay and big bills
Age: 50
Posts: 1,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The issue won't be the aircraft, the airline, the training or the manuals, the issue will be caanz. The factory can issue you with AFM and POM that states your system can achieve +/- 0.1 Nm at all times and has terminal scaling and is suitable for all RNP types factory standard, but unless the Wellington handbrake brigade are satisfied for themselves (including the vast caa 24091/08 application form) and issue you with the appropriate 2129 radio station approvals, you can hurry up and wait like the rest of us!!!
N4790P
Won't the aircraft need the FMS Standard 2 upgrades to be accomplished first? My limited understanding was only aircraft delivered after 12/14 were at the required standard.
Actually Matt in this case it is not the CAA that is the problem. I have heard that the main problem is with the coasting after GNSS failure due to the aircraft not having IRS position information.
In a RADAR environment you could use DR initially then vectors. But in ZQN with the loss of the GNSS position information in the valley you are up the creak without a paddle.
The Bus and the B737 have about 4 minutes before the IRS Nav Only performance exceeds the RNP, more than enough time to extract from the valley to MSA.
In a RADAR environment you could use DR initially then vectors. But in ZQN with the loss of the GNSS position information in the valley you are up the creak without a paddle.
The Bus and the B737 have about 4 minutes before the IRS Nav Only performance exceeds the RNP, more than enough time to extract from the valley to MSA.
Actually Matt in this case it is not the CAA that is the problem. I have heard that the main problem is with the coasting after GNSS failure due to the aircraft not having IRS position information.
In a RADAR environment you could use DR initially then vectors. But in ZQN with the loss of the GNSS position information in the valley you are up the creak without a paddle.
In a RADAR environment you could use DR initially then vectors. But in ZQN with the loss of the GNSS position information in the valley you are up the creak without a paddle.
It is what ATR are testing for approval at the moment. The new -600 sim in Auckland will have the ability to start AR training very soon.
The ANP uncertainty (for want of a better term) grows mathematically not actually. It has been a long time since I did some work on this so my numbers could be out. On the B737 CL the loss of all GPS updating (our regulations require DME/DME and VOR/DME updating turn off for RNP AR approaches) causes the ANP to start expanding after 12 second coasting and then by .01 every 6 seconds.
Note that it is not a real ANP increase but mathematical "certification" ANP increase, the IRS system performs much better than that in reality.
Note that it is not a real ANP increase but mathematical "certification" ANP increase, the IRS system performs much better than that in reality.
