Better get boned up on RNAV (GNSS) boys and girls
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: USA/Europe/Central Asia
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Better get boned up on RNAV (GNSS) boys and girls
Looks like the French are working to phase out VOR approaches and only allow RNAV approaches to Nice, France (LFMN). It seems if you are not RNAV equipped and capable you will be soon restricted from NICE (LFMN)
From:
MINISTÈRE DE L'ÉCOLOGIE, DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DURABLE ET DE L'ÉNERGIE
Object: Users consultation regarding the suspension of VOR B and C procedures and use of RNAV (GNSS) 22 (Nice Cote d' Azur airport)
Dear Sirs,
The users' feedback these past few years has indicated that the VOR B procedure is not simple to fly, particularly for pilots that are not accustomed to coming to Nice airport and that safety issues could be at stake. The prescriptions to airmen that have been included in various aeronautical publications do not seem to be systematically complied with. The DGAC has thus established that it is necessary to improve the approach procedures when operating RWYs 22.
The DSAC (national surveillance authority) is considering the possibility to enforce the use of the RNAV (GNSS) 22 procedure as sole means of instrumental approach for RWYs 22, instead of current VOR B and C procedures, starting 1st January 2014, in order to ensure a higher level of safety for the aircraft coming in to Nice when RWYs 22 are in service.
In order to avoid problems with non-equipped RNAV flight in case of QFU changes, RNAV aircraft equipment and pilots' ratings shall be required in order to fly to Nice.
The purpose of this mail, address to all flight operators using Nice platform, is to assess as precisely as possible the number of air operators, may they be commercial or private, that are already able to fly RNAV (GNSS) procedures, and determine a list of those which cannot.
For the last category it is important for the DGAC to identify the proportion of operators which will not be able to fly RNAV (GNSS) by 1st January 2014 and which difficulties shall be preventing them from doing so. The DGAC also needs to know the schedule of those who already planned to get equipped.
This assessment will allow the DGAC to establish the terms of the suspension of VOR B and C procedures (maybe even VOR A in order to avoid problems during RWY changes). considering the various restraints of Nice air operators.
Followed by a reporting survey!
From:
MINISTÈRE DE L'ÉCOLOGIE, DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DURABLE ET DE L'ÉNERGIE
Object: Users consultation regarding the suspension of VOR B and C procedures and use of RNAV (GNSS) 22 (Nice Cote d' Azur airport)
Dear Sirs,
The users' feedback these past few years has indicated that the VOR B procedure is not simple to fly, particularly for pilots that are not accustomed to coming to Nice airport and that safety issues could be at stake. The prescriptions to airmen that have been included in various aeronautical publications do not seem to be systematically complied with. The DGAC has thus established that it is necessary to improve the approach procedures when operating RWYs 22.
The DSAC (national surveillance authority) is considering the possibility to enforce the use of the RNAV (GNSS) 22 procedure as sole means of instrumental approach for RWYs 22, instead of current VOR B and C procedures, starting 1st January 2014, in order to ensure a higher level of safety for the aircraft coming in to Nice when RWYs 22 are in service.
In order to avoid problems with non-equipped RNAV flight in case of QFU changes, RNAV aircraft equipment and pilots' ratings shall be required in order to fly to Nice.
The purpose of this mail, address to all flight operators using Nice platform, is to assess as precisely as possible the number of air operators, may they be commercial or private, that are already able to fly RNAV (GNSS) procedures, and determine a list of those which cannot.
For the last category it is important for the DGAC to identify the proportion of operators which will not be able to fly RNAV (GNSS) by 1st January 2014 and which difficulties shall be preventing them from doing so. The DGAC also needs to know the schedule of those who already planned to get equipped.
This assessment will allow the DGAC to establish the terms of the suspension of VOR B and C procedures (maybe even VOR A in order to avoid problems during RWY changes). considering the various restraints of Nice air operators.
Followed by a reporting survey!
Last edited by noneya; 8th Oct 2013 at 14:32.
Well, it will be for RWY22 only in the beginning. Although we operate a super modern jet, our authorities have not yet certified us to perform these RNAV-approaches. I guess it is because there's no one at the CAA who's got a clue about this so-called modern stuff. Or is it because we are not allowed to bribe them anymore? :P
Last edited by EatMyShorts!; 9th Oct 2013 at 11:00.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far away from LA
Posts: 1,032
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Eat My Shorts... You are flying in the only corporate/charter/ whatever outfit of this scale that is NOT approved for this model and type to fly such approaches, not even mentioning CAT2/3...
It is like this my friend...
It is like this my friend...
Join Date: May 2010
Location: europe
Age: 67
Posts: 645
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The users' feedback these past few years has indicated that the VOR B procedure is not simple to fly...........
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far away from LA
Posts: 1,032
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
in a modern plane, you do not fly dme arcs... not mentioning the ndb approaches, or the VOR's.. all FMS derived...Some surprises, yes of course , in countries not WGS 84 compliant...but then it is natural selection..
RNP SAAR is ruling nowadays, and because of the savings induced, and the independence of ground infrastructures it suits a lot of people. But without 2 IRS on board as a continuous backup, i do not feel confident on shooting a stand alone GNSS approach to minimas anywhere on the planet, and especially in urban area, due to very hazardous threat of GPS jamming signals.
But this is me only..You have to do what you have to do..
RNP SAAR is ruling nowadays, and because of the savings induced, and the independence of ground infrastructures it suits a lot of people. But without 2 IRS on board as a continuous backup, i do not feel confident on shooting a stand alone GNSS approach to minimas anywhere on the planet, and especially in urban area, due to very hazardous threat of GPS jamming signals.
But this is me only..You have to do what you have to do..
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: France
Age: 54
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This VOR B Rwy 22 is basicly tracking a radial until 5 NM out followed by a visual approach.
If the French CAA gets feedback that this is difficult then the proper action should be to take that pilots license away cause it means you don't know how to fly.
But then I think the feedback is not the reason because nobody would be dumm enough to call CAA and tell this approach is difficult, so it probably has something to do with cost involved to maintain a VOR procedure.
If the French CAA gets feedback that this is difficult then the proper action should be to take that pilots license away cause it means you don't know how to fly.
But then I think the feedback is not the reason because nobody would be dumm enough to call CAA and tell this approach is difficult, so it probably has something to do with cost involved to maintain a VOR procedure.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far away from LA
Posts: 1,032
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is for these approaches that Nice has a black star for decades. It is not the Blue Bay anymore but still. Airlines want an ILS everywhere. Were you aware that most of them have a guidance to the threshold in the database ?
Every year you have quasi CFIT on 22 approach, and every year you have a couple of low overflying of Nice town center.
And the wording in the atis...what a F... joke... So if at the end they manage to say : "Approach in service RNAV 22L"... and that's it... it will be a quantum leap..
Every year you have quasi CFIT on 22 approach, and every year you have a couple of low overflying of Nice town center.
And the wording in the atis...what a F... joke... So if at the end they manage to say : "Approach in service RNAV 22L"... and that's it... it will be a quantum leap..
Last edited by CL300; 11th Oct 2013 at 19:37.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airlines want an ILS everywhere. Were you aware that most of them have a guidance to the threshold in the database ?
I have worked in bizav and value it tremendously, but I think we can all agree an airline provides more standardized guidelines for certain approaches and runs a tighter ship in terms of stabilization criteria than some bizav outfits? I am not sure the airlines are to blame here. In fact I am not sure anyone is.
Last edited by INNflight; 11th Oct 2013 at 19:57.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far away from LA
Posts: 1,032
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
INNFlight. I used to be a consultant at Nice for safety and security, the black star is given by airlines to some airports. Management hates it.
Airlines (globally) tend to standardize the operation at any given place, as a safety standpoint it is easier to achieve such metrics with an ILS to the runway. In this committee the most representative airlines told us that they have a guidance from the MAP to the threshold ( this is 5 years ago), and the GNSS are from 2012.
Airline are now the only body represented in these safety meetings, no GA at all.
Last year quasi CFIT was equal between GA and airlines 2 each...on RWY 22 Approach in marginal weather of course. One was from an airline that was not RNAV, and dialed in the wrong radial to intercept, another one from the GA was an incorrect waypoint manually entered.. This scheme repeat itself with time, hence this proposal. ( they already know the answer, the same survey was sent 6 years ago..)
Airlines (globally) tend to standardize the operation at any given place, as a safety standpoint it is easier to achieve such metrics with an ILS to the runway. In this committee the most representative airlines told us that they have a guidance from the MAP to the threshold ( this is 5 years ago), and the GNSS are from 2012.
Airline are now the only body represented in these safety meetings, no GA at all.
Last year quasi CFIT was equal between GA and airlines 2 each...on RWY 22 Approach in marginal weather of course. One was from an airline that was not RNAV, and dialed in the wrong radial to intercept, another one from the GA was an incorrect waypoint manually entered.. This scheme repeat itself with time, hence this proposal. ( they already know the answer, the same survey was sent 6 years ago..)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: schermoney and left front seat
Age: 57
Posts: 2,438
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have worked in bizav and value it tremendously, but I think we can all agree an airline provides more standardized guidelines for certain approaches and runs a tighter ship in terms of stabilization criteria than some bizav outfits?
The one size fits all approach is wrong IMO. A CJ is not a B737. A Sovereign is not an A380. I guees if I´d fly a 737 like I fly my Sovereign I´d be in the news every other day. Yet when I´d be at a 1000ft at Vapp, then the controllers at busier airfields would go barking mad. (that might be as little as 108 KIAS)
So I´m one of the bizav cowboys... thats a different discussion.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So I´m one of the bizav cowboys... thats a different discussion.
As I said, I don't really think anyone is at fault. Approaches and techniques evolve. We'll see how fast it goes in NCE.
