|
PBN required for the Military
are you guys in the UK receiving any kind of PBN training? It will be necessary for many routes and approaches from now on and it will be a minimum requirement t for the IR in August 2020. I am not sure if military operators are exempted from this. Regards |
PBN? Post Brexit Nightmares (for the remoaners)? Pre Bar Nutrients (eating’s cheating)? |
PBN= “Performance Based Navigation” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perf...sed_navigation It’s under the auspices of ICAO so I’m not sure how much relevance it will have to a lot of what the military does but aspects of it (e.g. RNAV approaches, knowledge of the various procedures and requirements) is increasingly being checked/tested on a regular basis and qualifications added as licence endorsements in the civil world..... |
It has massive relevance. The civvies are rapidly moving away from radio based due to cost. That means rapidly reducing availabilory of VORDME and ILS. It just costs too much. Once CAT 3 autoland APV VNAV is the norm, forget using civvie bases as diversions. Issues with certification of systems as civilian certified RNP sensors is problematic. There is already airspace certified as RNAV only through Europe and the Middle East. No certification (to civilian equivalent standard)? No play. And as it was introduced for capacity reasons, forget an exemption during busy periods.
Certainly be interesting to see how we will cope with only three major radio nav aids in the UK as well. There are other cns atm issues on top of PBN. So can't do anything until probably d day -6 months, then there will be panic as we try to meet the equipment, operational and training requirements, a la 8.33 spacing. Also, fms based 4D nav requirements are inbound in the next few years. Bedtime reading: https://www.eurocontrol.int/publications/civil-military-cnsatm-interoperability-roadmap |
Based on 8.33 it will be D +6 months +
|
Originally Posted by VinRouge
(Post 10254066)
It has massive relevance and people need to wake up to it. The civvies are rapidly moving away from radio based due to cost. That means rapidly reducing availabilory of VORDME and ILS. It just costs too much. Once CAT 3 autoland APV VNAV is the norm, forget using civvie bases as diversions. Issues with certification of mil spec GPS as a civilian certified RNP sensor, plus others. There is already airspace certified as RNAV only through Europe and the Middle East. No certification (to civilian equivalent standard)? No play. And as it was introduced for capacity reasons, forget an exemption during busy periods.
Certainly be interesting to see how we will cope with only three major radio nav aids in the UK as well. PTs aware, unfortunately as per usual, CNS ATM compliance is dull compared to shooty warry stuff and wont be looked at. There are other cns atm issues on top of PBN. So can't do anything until probably d day -6 months, then there will be panic as we try to meet the equipment, operational and training requirements, a la 8.33 spacing. The fact we need to get from A to B to use said warry stuff seems to have been lost. I will be bemused to see how we will meet 4D nav requirements we have inbound in the next few years. Bedtime reading: https://www.eurocontrol.int/publicat... |
Once CAT 3 autoland APV VNAV is the norm As for the rest, I agree. |
Currently there is an exemption in place which means that UK IR holders do not need PBN endorsement unless they wish to fly PBN approaches or in airspace which mandates <RNAV5.
Another exemption applies to commercial operators who do not use PBN procedures if their aircraft are not fitted with PBN-compliant systems. From 2020, all civil IRs must include PBN endorsement; this will be achieved through training and PBN testing during initial IR Skill Tests or revalidation proficiency checks. It should be fairly simple to accommodate PBN training/testing for military IRs - it's hardly a big deal. |
The important point here is that there are no plan to switch to PBN as far as I know. is the Typhoon PBN approved? It doesn’t have a VOR, just TACAN with ILS and of course GPS and INS. |
Is the issue not the fact that Typhoon operates under a derogation from the ANO and so EASA and ICAO regs don't apply? It goes with the fact that (most) military pilots are unlicensed, so a PBN endorsement becomes irrelevant - you would expect a military pilot to hold an instrument rating but it will not be the same as the civilian version.
|
Is this a storm in a teacup? I remember Military flying in the days of non-procedural ratings and flying airways / approaches without the aids! :rolleyes:
However, I would be interested how our FJ mates get over these restrictions today? Outside Mil Ops / airspace, FL280 was a bit of a stopper for FJ. :* OAP |
Originally Posted by Fortissimo
(Post 10254842)
Is the issue not the fact that Typhoon operates under a derogation from the ANO and so EASA and ICAO regs don't apply? It goes with the fact that (most) military pilots are unlicensed, so a PBN endorsement becomes irrelevant - you would expect a military pilot to hold an instrument rating but it will not be the same as the civilian version.
|
Originally Posted by Markos.
(Post 10255108)
the fact is that we operate in civilian airspace with civilian regs. An illustrative example would be that many airfields in France are removing aids from smaller airdromes because they are switching to GPS approaches. More over there are many places where xpdr S is mandatory (many FJ don’t have it yet) and many places don’t let you fly into RVSM even if you have stated in your Fplan that you are not RVSM and you are exempted. Do you imagine how big the difference is fuel wise? Plus VDL Mode 2, Plus TCAS 7.1.... |
Originally Posted by Brain Potter
(Post 10255211)
Exempt from RVSM? How? |
With 2000 ft seperation required? |
Yes, or at least that was the case with the VC10 K and I can’t see things have got any easier. It all depended on the ATC situation at the time. |
Originally Posted by Brain Potter
(Post 10255238)
With 2000 ft seperation required? |
Originally Posted by EUops
(Post 10255269)
It's not guaranteed you'll get it, it depends on the traffic load, but the military GAT flights at that level is such a small percentage that usually the ATC can accommodate their request.
|
Originally Posted by EUops
(Post 10255221)
STS/STATE, I guess...
|
Originally Posted by Markos.
(Post 10255336)
it happened to me twice last month over France. On initial contact with the French ATC, the first question was: are you RVSM approved? Our answer was negative so they instructed Us to descend to FL280. We were cruising at FL400.....we arrived to AAR stretching our fuel. |
Oh well I guess if you need to know a bit about PBN you can always go to the flying club at Benson, they have an aircraft that has the full RNAV equipment including P-RNAV and LPV approaches. |
Where’s the ‘like’ button? A an ex-military man who now plies his trade in controlled airspace, I would really appreciate you chaps being part of the integrated, layered safety system rather than finding yourselves having to constantly play the military/state joker. |
Originally Posted by VigilantPilot
(Post 10255366)
I doubt many fleets will require PBN approach training (past the final approach fix) as most don’t have the capability and the cost of gaining that capability on legacy aircraft probably outweighs the benefit. Many fleets do have the capability, however, for PRNAV in the terminal environment up to the FAF and, as per the MAA RA1380 duty holders should ensure crews are trained appropriately... Or are we going to continue with STS/STATE? This is not just the UKs problem, its a global mil issue that extends into assurance of civilian use of classified airspace. |
I expect a lot of states will mirror the actions of the French, In the past the French state has paid the bills for calibration and operation of ILS systems at all the regional airports but this support has now ended. To replace these approaches the french govenment has introduced GNSS LPV approaches to replace the ILS. Some airports have kept the ILS at their own expense but others now only offer a GNSS precision approach with an NDB/DME as the last line of defence aganst GPS outage. One only has to look just across the Channel to see the new order LeTouquet has now got GNSS LPV on both runways and maintains the ILS on one of these runways while Calais has withdrawn the ILS in favour of a GNSS LPV. In the foreseeable future I can see only CAT2/3 runways having ILS with all CAT 1 runways going to GNSS, If the RAF wishes to maintain an airforce that has any credibility it will have to adapt to the changing aviation environment. |
If the RAF wishes to maintain an airforce that has any credibility it will have to adapt to the changing aviation environment. |
The principal users of civil airports & GAT airspace are the ME fleet & the more modern types are RNAV compliant & more than capable of RNAV approaches. Crews are therefore trained to fly them. Some of the legacy types might have an issue but they could be modernised or more likely got rid of in the next SDSR if it’s deemed to be too much trouble! |
The principal users of civil airports & GAT airspace are the ME fleet FJs don’t often land at civil airports but often hold them as diversions, so they will need to keep pace with these changes somehow. Especially at home, where the MOD seems bent on reducing the number of military airfields available for diversion. A fly in the RNP ointment is jamming of GPS and DME transponder frequencies; military aircraft don’t have the easy civil get-out of not operating under such conditions. Alternatives will need to exist and will take up the precious avionic space that might otherwise be given over to triple-redundant IRUs with independent GPS. Copying the civil world doesn’t answer all our problems, I’m afraid, and military get-out clauses exist for that precise reason. |
STS/STATE is not going to solve most non-compliance issues. At best, it helps with minor issues between friendly nations cooperating. I would be amazed to hear anyone confirm that they have recently flown GAT non-RVSM above FL280 in Europe?
OAP |
Quite a lot of work being done on Mil compliance with PBN, around the area of equivalence. |
Originally Posted by VinRouge
(Post 10255857)
So, what's the plan when the enroute or destination diversion has no precision or non precision approaches other than those certified GNSS/PBN 0.3? Because it costs a fortune to maintain that ground infrastructure to support and its cheaper/easier to Do GNSS certification once with no follow up maintainable, backup or future calibration required of ground based navaids?
Or I may have that completely wrong. It’s not unknown. |
Originally Posted by PlasticCabDriver
(Post 10256458)
I didn't think you could nominate a destination alternate based solely on an RNAV procedure? You need a conventional approach in order to nominate an airfield as a diversion, although you may still do an RNAV procedure once you get there. Or I may have that completely wrong. It’s not unknown. For flight planning purposes, TSO-C129( ) and TSO-C196( ) equipped users (GPS users) whose navigation systems have fault detection and exclusion (FDE) capability, who perform a preflight RAIM prediction at the airport where the RNAV (GPS) approach will be flown, and have proper knowledge and any required training and/or approval to conduct a GPS-based IAP, may file based on a GPS-based IAP at either the destination or the alternate airport, but not at both locations. At the alternate airport, pilots may plan for applicable alternate airport weather minimums using:
|
Originally Posted by Fortissimo
(Post 10256181)
Call me old-fashioned if you will, but I thought the credibility of air forces was always based on their ability to perform on operations rather than their expertise at flying instrument approaches.
|
A lot of RAF bases are being converted to RNAV to enable those capable types, including Brize which has a big airspace project running. Don't see fighter types using precious rack space to make PBN, it will be done under agreed equivalence.
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 17:32. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.