All-PRNAV airports
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Too close to EASA
Posts: 408
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EHSI
The requirement for an EHSI comes from Section 7.1 of TGL-10, box 1.
The course selector of the deviation display shall be automatically slaved to the RNAV computed path.
EASA have accepted that for smaller Part 23 aircraft of relatively low speed (we have suggested max cruising below 150kts initially), that an auto-slewed H.S.I may not be required as the pilot will have time to adjust the course pointer manually at a leg change and re-position the aircraft to the new track without going outside PRNav limits.
EASA have accepted that for smaller Part 23 aircraft of relatively low speed (we have suggested max cruising below 150kts initially), that an auto-slewed H.S.I may not be required as the pilot will have time to adjust the course pointer manually at a leg change and re-position the aircraft to the new track without going outside PRNav limits.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EASA have accepted that for smaller Part 23 aircraft of relatively low speed (we have suggested max cruising below 150kts initially), that an auto-slewed H.S.I may not be required as the pilot will have time to adjust the course pointer manually at a leg change and re-position the aircraft to the new track without going outside PRNav limits.
There is also the "alternative means of compliance" text, later in the same para
All very much debated over the years
PPL/IR have banged on the CAA about this for years, including doing flight testing with a CAA official who accepted that an EHSI is not required.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The requirement for an EHSI comes from Section 7.1 of TGL-10, box 1
"An acceptable alternative is a navigation map display readily, visible to the flight crew, with appropriate map scales and giving equivalent functionality to the lateral deviation display, except that scaling may be set manually by the pilot"
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gosh, that is really clever. That is a moving map GPS. How much did some ex ISO9000 quality manager get paid to compose that Shakespearian description? Must be careful though; Germans take ISO9000 deadly seriously so JAA probably had to pay him loads of euros to lure him away from his previous cushy number. I bet he never knew he would be immortalised as the first man (or possibly a woman?) to invent a whole new name for a moving map GPS.
Anyway, the full unedited garbage of TGL10 is here and the relevant text is in the middle of page 8 of the PDF.
Anyway, the full unedited garbage of TGL10 is here and the relevant text is in the middle of page 8 of the PDF.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: FMMI
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was searching info about PRNAV and came acros this thread. Found this website at Eurocontrol: EUROCONTROL Navigation Domain - Approval Status
The Garmin 400 - 500 series is listed as compliant to JAA TGL10.
So I assume that makes al the Garmin 430 installations on a IFR platform PRNAV approved. Or do I miss something here?
The Garmin 400 - 500 series is listed as compliant to JAA TGL10.
So I assume that makes al the Garmin 430 installations on a IFR platform PRNAV approved. Or do I miss something here?
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 430/530 GPS is PRNAV approvable.
The installation is not however. There is a process for doing that, which the status of the GPS itself merely makes possible.
I don't know any more detail. I think there are some documents on PPL/IR about it. This PRNAV thing has been going back and forth for years now and I have stopped following it.
The number of GA planes that are PRNAV approved can be counted on your fingers. The pilot also needs some kind of approval.
It's all a load of Euro bollox.
The installation is not however. There is a process for doing that, which the status of the GPS itself merely makes possible.
I don't know any more detail. I think there are some documents on PPL/IR about it. This PRNAV thing has been going back and forth for years now and I have stopped following it.
The number of GA planes that are PRNAV approved can be counted on your fingers. The pilot also needs some kind of approval.
It's all a load of Euro bollox.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Sweden
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We went thru the PRNAV process 6 years ago, the approval in itself was just a matter of showing our CAA the appropriate documents and wasnt very expensive, less than 200 Euros if I remember it correctly. We did this after we had made a major upgrade to the panel (100kEuro), since it was a major mod we already had all the documents they were asking for. And since EASA requires a typerating and HPA for the PA46 we as pilots were already approved since the HPA included it... So all in all I believe the approval was a nonevent, uppgrading the aircraft however was a whole different story with avionic shops trying to dig really deep into your pockets by not telling you the small things like the fact that you can get a PRNAV approval flying manual so you really dont need that approved rollsteering computer for the AP...
By the way this was in Sweden, UK CAA I have no experience with.
By the way this was in Sweden, UK CAA I have no experience with.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's interesting. Especially that your local CAA demanded (or the avionics shop demanded) roll steering.
There were "easy" avenues years ago, before the powers to be got their heads around it. I know somebody on the N-reg who got PRNAV approval from the FAA by basically burying them with documents on how well equipped his aircraft is and how experienced a pilot he is, courses attended, ect (AIUI). Today, the FAA process is not hard and I know of somebody who claims he can arrange it for $600 - provided you have the correct equipment installed. There are claims going around that the FAA requires course pointer auto-slew (which is not the same as roll steering but the end result is similar for autopilot operation) but I now gather that is not true.
The FAA gives automatic PRNAV approval to all aircraft which are IFR approved (e.g. for flying GPS approaches) which makes completely logical sense since PRNAV is RNP1.0 (IIRC) whereas GPS/RNAV approaches are RNP0.3, but this is not valid in EU airspace, in which the air is different (it's thinner) so the airplanes fly less accurately due to the higher AoA.
EASA is something else. It's a Major Mod allright but I don't know the details.
Incidentally, why did you go for the approval?
There were "easy" avenues years ago, before the powers to be got their heads around it. I know somebody on the N-reg who got PRNAV approval from the FAA by basically burying them with documents on how well equipped his aircraft is and how experienced a pilot he is, courses attended, ect (AIUI). Today, the FAA process is not hard and I know of somebody who claims he can arrange it for $600 - provided you have the correct equipment installed. There are claims going around that the FAA requires course pointer auto-slew (which is not the same as roll steering but the end result is similar for autopilot operation) but I now gather that is not true.
The FAA gives automatic PRNAV approval to all aircraft which are IFR approved (e.g. for flying GPS approaches) which makes completely logical sense since PRNAV is RNP1.0 (IIRC) whereas GPS/RNAV approaches are RNP0.3, but this is not valid in EU airspace, in which the air is different (it's thinner) so the airplanes fly less accurately due to the higher AoA.
EASA is something else. It's a Major Mod allright but I don't know the details.
Incidentally, why did you go for the approval?
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Sweden
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We went for it to save time.... When our bird was in the avionics shop (took 2 months) we chartered a jet, and with the jet we never got to fly the long STAR that we always got with the PA46. I asked about the reason and the answer was that if you had PRNAV the controller was able to give you a different route, so we looked into the possibillity to get the approval and since it wasnt any big things we needed to do we went for it...We have been saving roughly 20 min flying time every week since then...Huge cost saving for us 
The rollsteering is needed if you want to be able to fly on AP, we didnt know at the time that you are allowed to fly PRNAV manually. In the jet we always flew on AP so we never questioned it...However another PA46 in Sweden got the approval with the restriction to fly manual, CAA had something against his S-TEC AP, we have King.
The rollsteering is needed if you want to be able to fly on AP, we didnt know at the time that you are allowed to fly PRNAV manually. In the jet we always flew on AP so we never questioned it...However another PA46 in Sweden got the approval with the restriction to fly manual, CAA had something against his S-TEC AP, we have King.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: PommyLand - but I'll be back!
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For what it is worth, and it is of no consolation whatever, GA and lighties are not the only ones with these PRNAV problems.
It really is, (put Single European Sky, mandatory ADSB, CPDLC etc. etc in the same category), a load of Euro bollox. Those were Peterh's words, I could not possibly bring myself to use such words about the dreams of the inhabitants of the ivory towers.
Airlines also are faced with HUGE bills and logistical / equipage problems owing to this nonsense. Imagine a jet plying the airways to many ports in Europe many of which suddenly have only PRNAV approaches. That means the FMS database has to contain all the approaches and waypoints for all the European PRNAV airports to which it is likely to fly. Sadly the FMS in these aircraft, have unbelievably limited memory. Including all these procedures exceeds the capacity of the box. So it requires amongst other things an FMS upgrade at a few $100K a pop. Then there's the crew training etc., etc. Then consider, all these aircraft in Europe need access to an avionics shop but guess what? The time required for all these refits will stretch way beyond the mandatory compliance date. Oh Bugger! Oh, and who do you think will pick up the bill? One guess!
I actually believe that the Euro (aviation) dream has overstretched itself, specifically with the ETS fiasco where it is about to be challenged by the world's major developing power, (China). Sooner or later someone is going to stand up to these people and say, "NO!" and the whole edifice will come tumbling down. The EASA/Eurocontrol zealots seem to be hell bent on making aviation, both private and commercial, all but impossible.
I can only say, I guess the eleventh commandment applies!
It really is, (put Single European Sky, mandatory ADSB, CPDLC etc. etc in the same category), a load of Euro bollox. Those were Peterh's words, I could not possibly bring myself to use such words about the dreams of the inhabitants of the ivory towers.
Airlines also are faced with HUGE bills and logistical / equipage problems owing to this nonsense. Imagine a jet plying the airways to many ports in Europe many of which suddenly have only PRNAV approaches. That means the FMS database has to contain all the approaches and waypoints for all the European PRNAV airports to which it is likely to fly. Sadly the FMS in these aircraft, have unbelievably limited memory. Including all these procedures exceeds the capacity of the box. So it requires amongst other things an FMS upgrade at a few $100K a pop. Then there's the crew training etc., etc. Then consider, all these aircraft in Europe need access to an avionics shop but guess what? The time required for all these refits will stretch way beyond the mandatory compliance date. Oh Bugger! Oh, and who do you think will pick up the bill? One guess!
I actually believe that the Euro (aviation) dream has overstretched itself, specifically with the ETS fiasco where it is about to be challenged by the world's major developing power, (China). Sooner or later someone is going to stand up to these people and say, "NO!" and the whole edifice will come tumbling down. The EASA/Eurocontrol zealots seem to be hell bent on making aviation, both private and commercial, all but impossible.
I can only say, I guess the eleventh commandment applies!
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess the eleventh commandment applies!
and with the jet we never got to fly the long STAR that we always got with the PA46. I asked about the reason and the answer was that if you had PRNAV the controller was able to give you a different route,
In theory there is a database of PRNAV approved aircraft, which in theory is accessible to ATC, which in theory could be done in real time.
If you look at e.g. Zurich, which last time I looked was totally closed to all non PRNAV IFR traffic, how does this work? It's obvious that ATC there don't operate the system anyway.
Airlines also are faced with HUGE bills
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Sweden
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
how did ATC know you have PRNAV approval in the jet?
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: 59°45'36N 10°27'59E
Posts: 1,032
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nothing, but you might feel like a prat when ATC is telling you off for not following a P-RNAV transition accurately....
In reality the oposite is more common, biz jets forgettin to put the P in.
In reality the oposite is more common, biz jets forgettin to put the P in.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A big driver of going the PRNAV way is ATC procedure design. It simply costs way too much airspace designing those nifty arrival transitions and departure routes within the limits of BRNAV (which is equivalent to RNAV5). If the transition downwind and inbound are 3NM (heard 5NM somewhere) apart they are PRNAV compliant, to design the same in BRNAV requires 5 times more space.
But yes, it does hurt airlines as well, however they do have some more or less clever ways around it. We had to get PRNAV approval on our 737 classic fleet for its last 3 years, which required us to get new FMC boxes at around 100k$ per plane (to upgrade the memory from 192kb to around 1MB). There is simply no business case to make up that kind of money within 2 or 3 years, but there is the possibility to lease those boxes, which is what we did.
But yes, it does hurt airlines as well, however they do have some more or less clever ways around it. We had to get PRNAV approval on our 737 classic fleet for its last 3 years, which required us to get new FMC boxes at around 100k$ per plane (to upgrade the memory from 192kb to around 1MB). There is simply no business case to make up that kind of money within 2 or 3 years, but there is the possibility to lease those boxes, which is what we did.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It simply costs way too much airspace designing those nifty arrival transitions
IME (light GA) the answer, in N Europe, is "never". One may be assigned a STAR but then one gets radar vectored to the localiser.
In southern Europe, e.g. Greece, they tend to operate the STARs, but it seems to depend a lot on whether there is a radar controller.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: PommyLand - but I'll be back!
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Peterh you are of course absolutely correct. The STAR is seldom ever actually flown. One of the most commonly heard phrases in ATC: XX cancel STAR turn left / right heading YYY. So the design of the SID/STAR is practically immaterial.
I would also be interested to know why the careful design of the PRNAV STARs has resulted in procedures which complete about three S-shapes before intercepting the final approach track, and which are about 3 times the length of the conventional STAR. It rather smacks of the bureaucracy creating something which in a year or two they can tidy up and then claim credit for reducing the mileage and hence carbon emissions and "Hey, European Commission, aren't we clever boys, and can we have some more funding please?" Just a bit like the meeting in Morocco this week: the Moroccans introduced some 'directs' to improve routings out of the Canaries. But, hey that wasn't Eurocontrol's idea so the routes get rejected by IFPS. So now it will be Eurocontrol's idea and all in Brussels will add it to their KPIs and claim credit for carbon reduction.
As for PRNAV, yes it is indicated by a P in field 10 on the flight plan form. How many controllers actually know what all those different letters mean on the flight plan form? Not many, I would suggest. They rely on the pilot saying, "PRNAV unable" and then of course they will do what they always do and vector the aircraft to the ILS.
Peterh, yes, many of us have been to these Eurocontrol meetings/workshops and yes there are some of us for whom the Emperor has no clothes. Sadly there is a core group of 'meetings men' who spend their whole time trekking around Europe attending one of these meetings after another. I could mention the man from AB who does nothing else. It is in their interest to perpetuate all these meetings or else, God forbid, they may have to stay in the office and do some work. One or two others, like you and me, drift in and out and vow never to waste our time going to another one of these farces again!
I would also be interested to know why the careful design of the PRNAV STARs has resulted in procedures which complete about three S-shapes before intercepting the final approach track, and which are about 3 times the length of the conventional STAR. It rather smacks of the bureaucracy creating something which in a year or two they can tidy up and then claim credit for reducing the mileage and hence carbon emissions and "Hey, European Commission, aren't we clever boys, and can we have some more funding please?" Just a bit like the meeting in Morocco this week: the Moroccans introduced some 'directs' to improve routings out of the Canaries. But, hey that wasn't Eurocontrol's idea so the routes get rejected by IFPS. So now it will be Eurocontrol's idea and all in Brussels will add it to their KPIs and claim credit for carbon reduction.
As for PRNAV, yes it is indicated by a P in field 10 on the flight plan form. How many controllers actually know what all those different letters mean on the flight plan form? Not many, I would suggest. They rely on the pilot saying, "PRNAV unable" and then of course they will do what they always do and vector the aircraft to the ILS.
Peterh, yes, many of us have been to these Eurocontrol meetings/workshops and yes there are some of us for whom the Emperor has no clothes. Sadly there is a core group of 'meetings men' who spend their whole time trekking around Europe attending one of these meetings after another. I could mention the man from AB who does nothing else. It is in their interest to perpetuate all these meetings or else, God forbid, they may have to stay in the office and do some work. One or two others, like you and me, drift in and out and vow never to waste our time going to another one of these farces again!
PPRuNe Bashaholic
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 1997
Location: The Peoples Alcoholic Republic of Jockistan
Posts: 1,442
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How many controllers actually know what all those different letters mean on the flight plan form? Not many, I would suggest. They rely on the pilot saying, "PRNAV unable" and then of course they will do what they always do and vector the aircraft to the ILS.