All-PRNAV airports

[IO540]

Just noticed that Prague (LKPR) has every SID and STAR PRNAV-only.

How does this work in reality?

They must just turn a blind eye to most of their traffic.

[soaringhigh650]

Isn't this stuff illegal?

That shuts out the majority of light aircraft IFR for a start.

[FlyingStone]

Flying to LKPR comes with ~200€ bill, plus the airport is co-ordinated, so you need a slot for arrival and departure - this basically kills most light aircraft at the beginning.

Considering P-RNAV, you can always say that you are "unable (P)RNAV", but I believe it is up to ATC whether they will permit you depart or arrive via radar vectors.

Extracts from Czech Republic AIP AD LKPR:

2.22.3.2.3 RNAV procedures
2.22.3.2.3.1 P-RNAV certification is required for RNAV arrival
routes.
2.22.3.2.3.2 Aircraft not certified for P-RNAV can also utilize
STARs with certification for B-RNAV. Aircraft not certified for
RNAV may incur delays and/or extended routing during peak
periods.
2.22.3.2.3.3 Only a pilot-in-command of an aircraft not
certified for B-RNAV shall inform the ATC when establishing
the first radio contact.
2.22.3.2.3.4 For aircraft not approved for RNAV operations,
necessary number of conventional procedures or vectoring
will be provided.

2.22.3.3.9 RNAV procedures
2.22.3.3.9.1 P-RNAV certification is required for RNAV
departure routes. Separation on parallel departure routes (for
example RNAV SID from RWY 24 to the north) is provided by
ATC service.
2.22.3.3.9.2 Aircraft not certified for P-RNAV can also utilize
SIDs with certification for B-RNAV. Aircraft not certified for
RNAV may incur delays and/or extended routing during peak
periods.
2.22.3.3.9.3 Only a pilot-in-command of an aircraft not
certified for B-RNAV shall inform the ATC when establishing
the first radio contact.
2.22.3.3.9.4 For aircraft not approved for RNAV operations
vectoring will be provided.
2.22.3.3.10 Aircraft not equipped in accordance with
requirement 2.22.3.3.9 for RNAV departure routes will be
radar vectored to exit points of relevant departure routes.

[FlyingForFun]

RNav has been mandatory in the UK above FL100 for quite some time, and is now (or very soon, I can't remember the exact date) mandatory for almost all UK airways. The reference is in AIP ENR, somewhere near the beginning. If I get time later on, I'll try to dig it out unless someone beats me to it.

I'm not familiar with Czech rules, but this is the way IFR flying is going in the UK, and presumably worldwide.

FFF
----------

[what next]

Hello!

I'm not familiar with Czech rules, but this is the way IFR flying is going in the UK, and presumably worldwide.

In ECAC airspace B-RNAV capability requirements were introduced in 1998. That is thirteen years ago (see: EUROCONTROL Navigation Domain - B-RNAV ). The Czech Republic joined the ECAC states in 1991, therefore the B-RNAV requirement was introduced there in 1998 as well.

[FlyingForFun]

The reference for UK airways is AIP ENR 1.1.1, paragraph 2:

2.1 In accordance with ICAO Annex 11, the following prefix designators are used to indicate European Regional RNAV Routes, L, M, N, P and for non Regional RNAV Routes Q, T, Y, Z. Routes designated with these prefixes are compulsory RNAV at all levels except when otherwise notified, eg sections of certain ADRs in the Scottish FIR.

Having checked the list of Lower ATS Routes, I've found that every single airway has a prefix which indicates mandatory RNav. Many Advisory Routes do too, although there are 8 Advisory Routes which are not mandatory RNav. There are occasional notifications of exemptions, for example Q41 between SAM and ORTAC below FL95.

I haven't been able to find anything that says what level of RNav is required - it may be that B-RNav is sufficient, in which case this may be (slightly) less relevant to your Prague query than I originally thought. [Edit - crossed posts with What Next, who has all but confirmed this.]

FFF
------------

[IO540]

Aircraft not certified for P-RNAV can also utilize
STARs with certification for B-RNAV.

OK, that would be normal, but is this printed on the plate? Nobody reads the AIP.

Aircraft not certified for
RNAV may incur delays and/or extended routing during peak
periods.

Well, a non RNAV capable aircraft won't get to LKPR in the first place because the whole IFR enroute system has been purely RNAV for at least 10 years

Only a pilot-in-command of an aircraft not
certified for B-RNAV shall inform the ATC when establishing
the first radio contact.

There won't be many of those since BRNAV has been mandatory for yonks, FL095+

RNav has been mandatory in the UK above FL100 for quite some time, and is now (or very soon, I can't remember the exact date) mandatory for almost all UK airways. The reference is in AIP ENR, somewhere near the beginning. If I get time later on, I'll try to dig it out unless someone beats me to it.

Actually BRNAV has been mandatory for FL095+ in Europe.

RNAV is merely the capability to fly direct to virtual waypoints, which is how the IFR enroute system has been working for yonks. VOR/NDB or any other navaid navigation has not been used for at least a decade.

Indeed they are proposing reducing the FL095 level.

I'm not familiar with Czech rules, but this is the way IFR flying is going in the UK, and presumably worldwide.

RNAV is the way flying has been for many years.

BRNAV is a certification level for the IFR GPS (in the GA context).

So nobody should have the slightest issue with RNAV or BRNAV which are the de facto only way to get about (IFR GPS). It is PRNAV which is the worrying bit because not only it is very hard to get (esp. under EASA where it is a major mod) but also it excludes most of the older avionics, regardless of having RNAV capability. It also involves crew certification.

Realistically, any IFR GPS can fly to PRNAV accuracy but without the paper approval for the aircraft, you "cannot go there". In the past, when I saw airports publish PRNAV-only procedures, there would normally be 1 or 2 non-PRNAV ones which one could use. But Prague seems to have done away with that.

What obviously happens is that 99% of the time one is radar vectored anyway (for departures too, IME) so no need to tell ATC your plane/crew are not PRNAV approved. And the rest of the time? I can't see anybody bothering; just fly the procedure as published. It's 100% GPS anyway which is easily accurate to RNP0.3 which is what PRNAV is.

Yeah, Prague is pricey these days for landing but not too bad for the odd visit. Not like LGW at £500 a pop.

I don't think LKPR is PPR BTW. They always told me to just file a flight plan (as if I was going to fly there without one ).

[FlyingStone]

Originally Posted by IO540

Nobody reads the AIP.

Well, I don't think this is wise actually, considering other countries you overfly may have entirely different sets of rules - Czech Republic for example doesn't allow flying VFR on top (coverage 4/8 or greater), unless you hold an IR and you fly aircraft, which is equipped for IFR flight, etc. Germany on the other hand has a legal (AIP being used as a legal basis) requirement for the PIC to seat in the left-hand seat (if not otherwise stated in the AFM), etc. In your case, check Jeppesen plate 10-1P4 for LKPR and you will see that your PRNAV issue is taken care of by the Jeppesen people...

[FlyingForFun]

I'm with you now, IO540.

Originally, I had missed the significance of the "P" in the P-RNav in your original post, but it clicked as I was writing my reply, and I now see exactly where you're coming from.

I think P-RNav is likely to become more and more common, though, with more RNav approaches popping up all over the place, and ICAO wanting to have an RNav approach on every instrument runway within a few years (I think 2018 was the target?).

But the aircraft I fly are all P-RNav-approved, it's easy for me to talk about a P-RNav world and forget the very valid point you make about the cost of the approval.

FFF
------------

[IO540]

Well, I don't think this is wise actually

I get your drift but operationally speaking that's how the world wags...

Czech Republic for example doesn't allow flying VFR on top

That's undetectable and thus unenforceable, and irrelevant in this context which is Eurocontrol IFR procedures But, yeah, I didn't know that... so they join the UK among the very few places where VFR above a OVC is not allowed without an IR.... trust my old countrymen to be anally retarded. They had to employ all the old workplace spies in some way...

Germany on the other hand has a legal (AIP being used as a legal basis) requirement for the PIC to seat in the left-hand seat

I wonder how they deal with flight instruction where the student is not legally capable of being PIC in the airspace in question? Not that it's relevant here, either. Anyway, one would just swap seats when enroute, surely? Might be interesting with a girl student... one of the fringe benefits of instructing, hey?

In your case, check Jeppesen plate 10-1P4 for LKPR and you will see that your PRNAV issue is taken care of by the Jeppesen people...

Well spotted In the past this occassionally used to be a note on the plate itself.

I think P-RNav is likely to become more and more common, though, with more RNav approaches popping up all over the place, and ICAO wanting to have an RNav approach on every instrument runway within a few years (I think 2018 was the target?).

RNAV is OK. I don't have an issue with that, because as I said RNAV is de facto necessary just to fly in the IFR enroute system.

Equally, RNAV (GPS) approaches are a non event.

It is the gradual creepage of PRNAV which concerns me, and many others, for GA.

The funny thing is that PRNAV is a boat which left the port many years ago because GPS/RNAV approaches are equiv to RNP0.3 (on the final approach track) which is what PRNAV is enroute, but an EASA GPS approach approval is a minor mod, whereas a PRNAV approval is a major mod (under EASA) So basically PRNAV is an idiotic thing to be pushing now. 15 years ago, yes. But it's past its time.

Obviously somebody bent EASA's ear, several years ago, and told them that unless they make the RNAV approach approval a minor mod, GPS approaches will for ever be dead in the water in Europe.

But nobody has yet told the arrogant t0ssers sitting in their bunkers that PRNAV will kill IFR GA if it is allowed to spread, especially to any enroute airspace. I suppose, mind you, that transiting PRNAV airspace will never be checkable (practically, within the present-day ATC framework).

On an N-reg, PRNAV is more doable - if you have a Gamin 430/530/W. I don't know the details (my own GPS does approaches but is not PRNAV-paperwork compliant anyway). And US FSDOs do 337 approvals FOC. You just need a US agent to submit the approval for you because the NY IFU has stopped doing 337s.

But the aircraft I fly are all P-RNav-approved, it's easy for me to talk about a P-RNav world and forget the very valid point you make about the cost of the approval.

What do you fly? Jets I assume.

[M609]

Next week the 3 Oslo airports will get a completely new airspace structure that uses P-RNAV in the terminal area. That's ALL P-RNAV

Lots of NDBs gets switched off

Non-RNAV traffic will be given vectors

More:

http://flyger.no/arkiv/filer/ANSPbro...legversjon.pdf

[Sir George Cayley]

UK SITREP

Base of B-RNAV FL095 today. Consulted recently to lower to (I think) 3500' AMSL. Expect this in due course.

P-RNAV in the UK is coming but oh so slowly. LTMA first. UK PBN Policy document due out later this year.

Withdrawal of en-route NDBs, and later some VORs, tied to introduction of P-RNAV.

Concerns about access to:

Mr M Robinson
AOPA
London.

Sir George Cayley

[BackPacker]

Germany on the other hand has a legal (AIP being used as a legal basis) requirement for the PIC to seat in the left-hand seat

I wonder how they deal with flight instruction where the student is not legally capable of being PIC in the airspace in question?

My initial reaction was "WTF???" But it's true. From the German AIP, ENR 1.1 Section I Para 2:

(1) The provisions of the Aviation Regulation (LuftVO) concerning
the rights and duties of the pilot shall apply to the pilot-in-command,
irrespective of whether he is operating the aircraft himself or
not.
(2) Aircraft shall be operated by the pilot-in-command during flight
and on the ground. He shall take the seat of the pilot-in-command
except during training, familiarisation and test flights or, in the case
of paragraph 3, if the operator has decided differently.
(3) If several pilots entitled to operate the aircraft are on board, one
pilot shall be appointed as pilot-in-command. The appointment
shall be made by the operator or his legal representative or, in the
case of a legal person, by the authorised agent. On a par with persons
in charge according to sentence 2 are those entrusted with
the management or supervision of the other person's company or
those explicitly entrusted by the latter to make the appointment
according to sentence 1 at their own responsibility.
(4) If, contrary to the provision of paragraph 3 no appointment has
been made, the person operating the aircraft from the seat of the
pilot-in-command shall be responsible. If the seat of the pilot-incommand
is not specifically designated in the flight manual or in
the operating instructions of the aircraft, the following seats shall
be regarded as the seat of the pilot-in-command:
1. the left-hand seat for aeroplanes, powered gliders and gliders
with a side-by-side seat configuration,
2. the seat to be occupied during a solo flight for aeroplanes,
powered gliders and gliders with a tandem seat configuration,
3. the right-hand seat for rotorcraft.

[My bold]

A whole new meaning to the word "Gründlichkeit" as far as I'm concerned.

Anyway, sorry for the thread drift. Back to the topic now.

[IO540]

P-RNAV in the UK is coming but oh so slowly. LTMA first. UK PBN Policy document due out later this year.

Yes; I have heard this. I am hoping that if it is delayed some more years everybody will realise it is no longer relevant to any flight and will quietly drop it

Also I don't see the UK CAA allowing IFR GA to be screwed. Other countries might do it without thinking.

The average cost of PRNAV compliance for GA would be at least £10k per aircraft and probably nearer to £20k by the time you do it properly, ensuring avionics interoperability with the new bit of kit you had to put in.

[Jwscud]

I don't have references immediately to hand, but I was under the impression that PRNAV was RNP1 en route whereas approach certification (IAPs not SID/STAR) was RNP0.3?

Happy to be corrected if I'm wrong

[S-Works]

But the aircraft I fly are all P-RNav-approved, it's easy for me to talk about a P-RNav world and forget the very valid point you make about the cost of the approval.

Out of interest how as that achieved, I thought your fleet were all the usual, pipers and Duchess?

[IO540]

Correct; PRNAV is RNP 1.0

From the above link

this level of navigation accuracy can be achieved using DME/DME, GPS or VOR/DME.

I'd like to know how you are going to get a < 1nm cross track error by VOR tracking

A lot of the PRNAV stuff on the Eurocontrol site is suspiciously old. This doc is 2003.

Page 19 6.2-1 of the above PDF is an intriguing piece of text, suggesting that an aircraft with a primary IFR GPS should be automatically PRNAV compliant

And 7.1-1 is an old chestnut... the "mandatory EHSI" requirement. The UK CAA agreed, several years ago, after some flight tests with a PPL/IR member, that this is not necessary. I wonder what the latest on that one is?

[englishal]

PRNav capability can be gained by installing something like a 430W installed as an IFR fit. You don't even need to have auto slewing HSI's. In an N reg, you are now PRNav approved in the USA.

To get PRNav approval in Europe you need a LOA issued by a FSDO in the USA, which will normally be issued by bringing your aircraft documents in and showing the FMS and test results (all checklists supplied by Garmin with a 430W). I can see no mention of crew training or anything else like that, and AFAIAA that is all that would need to be done to be PRNav approved.

In a G reg you'd probably have to have pink underpants, and have a funny handshake though....

[FlyingForFun]

Originally Posted by IO540

What do you fly? Jets I assume.

No, Beech Duchesses. I work as an instructor teaching CPL and IR.

Originally Posted by bose-x

But the aircraft I fly are all P-RNav-approved, it's easy for me to talk about a P-RNav world and forget the very valid point you make about the cost of the approval.

Out of interest how as that achieved, I thought your fleet were all the usual, pipers and Duchess?

No Pipers, just Duchesses. And one Beech Sierra. But they all have approved Garmin 430 installations.

The CAA started testing candidates on RNav approaches a year ago, on condition that the school stated in advance that they would train their candidates on RNav approaches, and the aircraft the candidate tests in has an approved installation.

So we had a big drive to get them all approved. I wasn't involved in that process, so I don't really know too much about it - I just saw the certificate that came out the other end. Englishal - my boss (and the aircraft owners) may well have a funny handshake, but I really don't want to know what colour underwear they had to wear to get it to happen!

We the first school at Bournemouth to have candidates tested on RNav approaches, and they were very popular with the examiners, presumably because the examiners very rarely got to see RNav approaches themselves! I think the novelty has worn off now, though - it's been a while since any of our students have been tested on them. But they are all trained on them.

FFF
--------------

[IO540]

No, Beech Duchesses. I work as an instructor teaching CPL and IR.

They might be BRNAV approved but they definitely won't be PRNAV approved.

The total # of PRNAV approved GA pistons in all of Europe is prob99 well under 10.

BRNAV is a piece of cake. My TB20 was BRNAV off the shelf, ex factory, 10 years ago.