PBN approved RAF aircraft types
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?
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.
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
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.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: GC Paradise
Posts: 1,069
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Easy Street
OK, it’s late, but on what planet are C17 and A400M civil types??
"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.
So, when any of the Military versions are retired, civil tankers and transports might easily pop-up with civil registration.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
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/
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/
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 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.
Only a fool would actually have deselected the GPSs though. The database in the CNI-MU (FMS) didn’t support RNP approaches & departures anyway.
Originally Posted by Ken Scott
The C130J was B-RNAV certified but only if the mil-standard GPS was removed from the solution
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Not Long Here
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.
Originally Posted by 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.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by NutLoose
Asteroid and Hemorrhoid?
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.
Originally Posted by beardy
Are you confusing GPS navigation with RNAV?
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 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.
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.
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.
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 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?!
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?!
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.
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.
