Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

PBN approved RAF aircraft types

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

PBN approved RAF aircraft types

Old 30th Dec 2019, 16:22
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,798
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
PBN approved RAF aircraft types

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?
NorthSouth is offline  
Old 30th Dec 2019, 21:08
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: The South
Age: 57
Posts: 498
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Juno and Jupiter are PBN approved.
FloaterNorthWest is offline  
Old 30th Dec 2019, 23:29
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Anglia
Posts: 2,049
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
Rigga is offline  
Old 30th Dec 2019, 23:55
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Wherever it is this month
Posts: 1,710
Likes: 0
Received 19 Likes on 10 Posts
Originally Posted by Rigga View Post
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, itís late, but on what planet are C17 and A400M civil types??
Easy Street is offline  
Old 31st Dec 2019, 04:12
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: GC Paradise
Posts: 1,069
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Easy Street View Post


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.




















FlexibleResponse is offline  
Old 31st Dec 2019, 09:11
  #6 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 14,268
Received 136 Likes on 70 Posts
Equally there is a civil version of the C-130J, the LM-100J.....

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

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...-assembly-line

https://c130mro.com/2018/07/09/will-...certification/
ORAC is offline  
Old 31st Dec 2019, 17:01
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: In the State of Denial
Posts: 1,013
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
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 wasnít 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) didnít support RNP approaches & departures anyway.
Ken Scott is offline  
Old 31st Dec 2019, 18:41
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Wellington, NZ
Posts: 217
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Ken Scott View Post
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?
Not Long Here is offline  
Old 31st Dec 2019, 20:46
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Not Long Here View Post
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.

VinRouge is offline  
Old 31st Dec 2019, 21:13
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: In the State of Denial
Posts: 1,013
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Especially as GPS is a military satellite system & with the P code switched back on civ GPS would be hopelessly inaccurate for aviation purposes.
Ken Scott is offline  
Old 31st Dec 2019, 21:19
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Bristol, England
Age: 64
Posts: 1,746
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Ken Scott View Post
with the P code switched back on civ GPS would be hopelessly inaccurate for aviation purposes.
Why would that be?
Alex Whittingham is offline  
Old 7th Jan 2020, 14:12
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 27,076
Received 357 Likes on 154 Posts
Originally Posted by Easy Street View Post


OK, itís late, but on what planet are C17 and A400M civil types??
Asteroid and Hemorrhoid?
NutLoose is offline  
Old 7th Jan 2020, 14:42
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: UK
Age: 68
Posts: 1,341
Received 5 Likes on 4 Posts
Originally Posted by Ken Scott View Post
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?
beardy is offline  
Old 7th Jan 2020, 14:57
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by NutLoose View Post
Asteroid and Hemorrhoid?
A400M has been certified to CS25. Its on the Easa types list.

https://www.easa.europa.eu/documents...s-lsa/easaa169

C17 due to its design and field performance compromises (particularly 4 engine baukled approach) will never meet Perf A requirements.
VinRouge is offline  
Old 7th Jan 2020, 16:20
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 26,383
Received 26 Likes on 15 Posts
Originally Posted by beardy View Post
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?
BEagle is offline  
Old 8th Jan 2020, 11:43
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: In the State of Denial
Posts: 1,013
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
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 Clintonís 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 arenít enabled with it.
Ken Scott is offline  
Old 8th Jan 2020, 14:26
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 26,383
Received 26 Likes on 15 Posts
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.
BEagle is offline  
Old 8th Jan 2020, 15:52
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: In the State of Denial
Posts: 1,013
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Oh Beagle, you are such a pedant!

Clinton directed that what makes GPS accurate for the military should be turned off so that itís 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?!
Ken Scott is offline  
Old 8th Jan 2020, 21:44
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 26,383
Received 26 Likes on 15 Posts
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.
BEagle is offline  
Old 9th Jan 2020, 06:28
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 9,697
Received 126 Likes on 61 Posts
BEagle isn't being pedantic, he is just being correct.

The AAC Gazelles are PBN equipped and capable.
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

Copyright © 2023 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.