EASA AND THE IMCR - NEWS
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You get systems which use DME/DME then VOR/DME VOR/VOR and then only then will they use GPS raw.
All the GNS family do it this way. Alot of commercial system don't have GPS as the primary but use DME/DME as the primary.
So soaring is completely correct.
As much as peter doesn't like to admit most IFR flights don't reference GPS commercially which is why there is no drive to get GPS approaches.
All the GNS family do it this way. Alot of commercial system don't have GPS as the primary but use DME/DME as the primary.
So soaring is completely correct.
As much as peter doesn't like to admit most IFR flights don't reference GPS commercially which is why there is no drive to get GPS approaches.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To be fair to Peter, what he is actually saying is the only way to get BRNAV in a light aircraft is with a BRNAV GPS and he is quite correct.
Commercial aircraft are using FMS that are updated from different sources including a DME/DME fix but I have not seen many FMS equipped light aircraft.
VOR/DME
DME/DME
Loran C
Don't quite meet the requirements for BRNAV certification in a light aircraft....
Commercial aircraft are using FMS that are updated from different sources including a DME/DME fix but I have not seen many FMS equipped light aircraft.
VOR/DME
DME/DME
Loran C
Don't quite meet the requirements for BRNAV certification in a light aircraft....
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Okay - BackPacker is quite right. This was what I missed from the FAA AC 90-96 Appendix 2:
Now I understand peterh337's point. Thank you.
The following system functions are the minimum required to conduct BRNAV/RNP-5 operations:
1. Continuous indication of aircraft position relative to track to be displayed to the pilot flying on a navigation display situated in his primary field of view;
NOTE: In addition, where the aircraft type certificate requires more than one
pilot, information to verify aircraft position must be displayed in the non-flying
pilot’s primary field of view.
2. Display of distance and bearing to the active (To) waypoint;
3. Display of ground speed or time to the active (To) waypoint;
4. Storage of waypoints; minimum of 4; and
5. Appropriate failure indication of the RNAV system, including the sensors.
1. Continuous indication of aircraft position relative to track to be displayed to the pilot flying on a navigation display situated in his primary field of view;
NOTE: In addition, where the aircraft type certificate requires more than one
pilot, information to verify aircraft position must be displayed in the non-flying
pilot’s primary field of view.
2. Display of distance and bearing to the active (To) waypoint;
3. Display of ground speed or time to the active (To) waypoint;
4. Storage of waypoints; minimum of 4; and
5. Appropriate failure indication of the RNAV system, including the sensors.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You get systems which use DME/DME then VOR/DME VOR/VOR and then only then will they use GPS raw.
All the GNS family do it this way. Alot of commercial system don't have GPS as the primary but use DME/DME as the primary.
All the GNS family do it this way. Alot of commercial system don't have GPS as the primary but use DME/DME as the primary.
The GNS430/530 (which I assume you refer to by "GNS") have no DME functionality whatsoever. They are pure GPS receivers. They have built-in VOR/LOC/GS navigation receivers but those do not participate in the RNAV solution.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: France
Posts: 481
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mad Jock's reply was, in fact, quite correct, if he meant something other by 'GNS'.
There are a very significant number of commercial types which prioritise rho-rho or rho-theta over GPS. It is only recently (the last decade, off the top of my head) that some airliners prioritise GPS for the navigation solution, and even this is with a 'confidence check' from available ground stations (the manufacturers are known to be guarded about precisely how the navigation solution is derived in these situations).
Although MJ may have meant something by 'GNS' other than that which you inferred, Peter, you should not make bold statements like that.
You're too often wrong.
There are a very significant number of commercial types which prioritise rho-rho or rho-theta over GPS. It is only recently (the last decade, off the top of my head) that some airliners prioritise GPS for the navigation solution, and even this is with a 'confidence check' from available ground stations (the manufacturers are known to be guarded about precisely how the navigation solution is derived in these situations).
Although MJ may have meant something by 'GNS' other than that which you inferred, Peter, you should not make bold statements like that.
You're too often wrong.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There may indeed theoretically be other ways of meeting the requirements. However the practicality is you will need an IFR GPS in a light aircraft.
Even our turboprop work aircraft use the GNSx range to meet the requirements. We canned the Honeywell FMS a couple of years ago.
Even our turboprop work aircraft use the GNSx range to meet the requirements. We canned the Honeywell FMS a couple of years ago.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To install something in an aircraft with an ICAO CofA it needs to be certified, and a navigation source needs to be more strictly certified than most other stuff.
I am not aware of a certified product for piston-level GA which meets BRNAV, other than
- an IFR GPS (TSO-C129 etc), or
- a KNS80, with antenna filters for FM Immunity
However, as I said before, you need practical RNAV capability and while there are KNS80 hacks which can navigate you to a straight line to a virtual waypoint say 200nm away (and do so in a manner which doesn't upset the radar controllers too much), a GPS is the only practical solution.
On a route like e.g. this you are likely to get several DCTs which are over 100nm and thus out of the DOC of the usable navaids. And that's before one gets onto the subject of most French VORs not having a co-located DME
There are no DME/DME solutions on the GA market. I vaguely recall some old-timer in the USA telling me Collins (?) developed a DME/DME / VOR/DME RNAV "GA" box in the 1980s but abandoned it because the introduction of GPS caused the bottom to drop out of the navigation market.
In theory you could install an INS in a light GA aircraft
I believe somebody in the USA has done that... one out of some jet fighter.
This forum is called
Private Flying LAA/BMAA/BGA/BPA The sheer pleasure of flight.
and "GNS" means only one thing in that context. Maybe there is an airliner FMS called GNS-something? I wouldn't know about that.
Anyway, frontlefthamster, please put in the time to point out whenever I am wrong and how exactly. As I told you before, I am happy to learn new things
I am not aware of a certified product for piston-level GA which meets BRNAV, other than
- an IFR GPS (TSO-C129 etc), or
- a KNS80, with antenna filters for FM Immunity
However, as I said before, you need practical RNAV capability and while there are KNS80 hacks which can navigate you to a straight line to a virtual waypoint say 200nm away (and do so in a manner which doesn't upset the radar controllers too much), a GPS is the only practical solution.
On a route like e.g. this you are likely to get several DCTs which are over 100nm and thus out of the DOC of the usable navaids. And that's before one gets onto the subject of most French VORs not having a co-located DME
There are no DME/DME solutions on the GA market. I vaguely recall some old-timer in the USA telling me Collins (?) developed a DME/DME / VOR/DME RNAV "GA" box in the 1980s but abandoned it because the introduction of GPS caused the bottom to drop out of the navigation market.
In theory you could install an INS in a light GA aircraft
I believe somebody in the USA has done that... one out of some jet fighter.
Although MJ may have meant something by 'GNS' other than that which you inferred, Peter, you should not make bold statements like that.
You're too often wrong.
You're too often wrong.
Private Flying LAA/BMAA/BGA/BPA The sheer pleasure of flight.
and "GNS" means only one thing in that context. Maybe there is an airliner FMS called GNS-something? I wouldn't know about that.
Anyway, frontlefthamster, please put in the time to point out whenever I am wrong and how exactly. As I told you before, I am happy to learn new things
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I meant "gobal navigation systems".
Not some garmin moving map.
I think A & C said there was a NARCO unit that did DME/DME for light aircraft.
Bose how many garmins did you have to install to cover the BRNAV requirment?
Not some garmin moving map.
I think A & C said there was a NARCO unit that did DME/DME for light aircraft.
Bose how many garmins did you have to install to cover the BRNAV requirment?
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think A & C said there was a NARCO unit that did DME/DME for light aircraft.
The KNS80 has also been discontinued, for longer than I have been flying.
The European BRNAV requirement is met with a single suitably approved GPS (the recently discontinued GNS430 perhaps being one of the cheapest options, though the also recently discontinued KLN94 might be even cheaper
) plus a suitably located CDI indicator and some annunciators, IIRC.In technical nav terms, BRNAV is hardly onerous. It is within 5nm of track 95% of the time.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: France
Posts: 481
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Peter,
You could start by avoiding making posts like these:
In each case, you boldly present your opinion, without substantiation.
You need to realise that there are others here, and everywhere, with more experience, expertise, and ability. A degree of moderation in your statements, and some humility, might improve your contributions significantly.
You did ask.
You could start by avoiding making posts like these:
Most of the stuff they made was junk - the worst quality avionics that ever existed for GA.
and "GNS" means only one thing in that context
MJ you haven't got a clue, sorry!
You need to realise that there are others here, and everywhere, with more experience, expertise, and ability. A degree of moderation in your statements, and some humility, might improve your contributions significantly.
You did ask.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
frontlefthamster
I congratulate you on your appointment as a moderator
With people like me on here, Genghis, BRL and the rest of the crowd need all the help they can get.
I am sure they will be very grateful
BTW, I thought that
was self evident fact, which anybody who repairs avionics would wholeheartedly agree with
I congratulate you on your appointment as a moderator
With people like me on here, Genghis, BRL and the rest of the crowd need all the help they can get.
I am sure they will be very grateful
BTW, I thought that
Most of the stuff they made was junk - the worst quality avionics that ever existed for GA.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had a quick google for what that phrase could reasonably mean. All I saw were various GPS systems and references to Decca and Omega (and Loran for wide region) (along with some network traffic management systems 
).
I am interested, what current technology for global navigation exists other than GPS or INS with DME/DME,DME/VOR position updates? The second of which introduces the joy of 'Map Shift'.
). I am interested, what current technology for global navigation exists other than GPS or INS with DME/DME,DME/VOR position updates? The second of which introduces the joy of 'Map Shift'.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
doesn't have to be INS to have DME /DME etc.
Most Turbo props won't have INS and alot of the regional jets won't have either. So no map shift, you can get the difference between GPS position and DME /DME derived if you go through a few pages but the unit bins the gps position if there is a conflict and goes with DME/DME.
Alot have the Honeywell GNSX type of kit which have various different features depending on the mode.
Its not really a FMC because although it can do certain fuel calcs and can have an input from the fuel flow, not all do.
I am sure there are far more fancy pieces of kit in the GA world.
The idea that the world s commercial aircraft are flying around putting all there trust in GPS is rather stretching it. Its a tool but most of the time it comes down very low on the list of Nav data. Hence why there really isn't that much of a push from commercial operators to have GPS approaches. So there is no one to pay for the surveying and production which is why nothing is really progressing on that front.
Most Turbo props won't have INS and alot of the regional jets won't have either. So no map shift, you can get the difference between GPS position and DME /DME derived if you go through a few pages but the unit bins the gps position if there is a conflict and goes with DME/DME.
Alot have the Honeywell GNSX type of kit which have various different features depending on the mode.
Its not really a FMC because although it can do certain fuel calcs and can have an input from the fuel flow, not all do.
I am sure there are far more fancy pieces of kit in the GA world.
The idea that the world s commercial aircraft are flying around putting all there trust in GPS is rather stretching it. Its a tool but most of the time it comes down very low on the list of Nav data. Hence why there really isn't that much of a push from commercial operators to have GPS approaches. So there is no one to pay for the surveying and production which is why nothing is really progressing on that front.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here we are again out of the GA context, but obviously DME/DME is not going to work where there are no DMEs, and the only ways to maintain lateral navigation will be either inertial (INS) or GPS.
If you have DME/DME, that is a reasonable policy. It's just that there are no GA products for that, so it's a bit irrelevant.
Preferring VOR/DME over GPS is slightly nutty but normal for attitudes from say 15 years ago
Its a tool but most of the time it comes down very low on the list of Nav data.
Preferring VOR/DME over GPS is slightly nutty but normal for attitudes from say 15 years ago
Thread Starter
Most current GNSS use the GPS constellation. However, with commercial use of GLONASS being promoted by Russia and with Galileo sloooowly emerging, will any existing Garmin Wonderbox navigation systems be capable of using systems other than GPS?
I note that EGNOS is supposedly able to improve the accuracy of my automotive Garmin using signals from Inmarsat (ID33) and Artemis (ID 37). However, in practice I've noticed no difference and the system rarely sees any EGNOS signal. Presumably aviation systems track EGNOS in Europe these days?
I note that EGNOS is supposedly able to improve the accuracy of my automotive Garmin using signals from Inmarsat (ID33) and Artemis (ID 37). However, in practice I've noticed no difference and the system rarely sees any EGNOS signal. Presumably aviation systems track EGNOS in Europe these days?
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: london
Posts: 676
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Most current GNSS use the GPS constellation. However, with commercial use of GLONASS being promoted by Russia and with Galileo sloooowly emerging, will any existing Garmin Wonderbox navigation systems be capable of using systems other than GPS?
I note that EGNOS is supposedly able to improve the accuracy of my automotive Garmin using signals from Inmarsat (ID33) and Artemis (ID 37). However, in practice I've noticed no difference and the system rarely sees any EGNOS signal. Presumably aviation systems track EGNOS in Europe these days?"
Nick,
I'm not convinced that this constant sneering at Garmin GPS navigation systems really does a man in your position much credit. However, in case you had forgotten, the commonest certified GNS fitted to GA aircraft, the Garmin 430 is perfectly able to operate as a VOR in VLOC mode, so the suggestion that they can't operate in any other mode using data from another source is simply not true. As for using the Russian system, I suspect that if there were any suggestion of our systems relying on a Russian satalite network, the CAA would attempt outlaw any kind of GPS navigation, which isn't far from the position we have at the moment.
I note that EGNOS is supposedly able to improve the accuracy of my automotive Garmin using signals from Inmarsat (ID33) and Artemis (ID 37). However, in practice I've noticed no difference and the system rarely sees any EGNOS signal. Presumably aviation systems track EGNOS in Europe these days?"
Nick,
I'm not convinced that this constant sneering at Garmin GPS navigation systems really does a man in your position much credit. However, in case you had forgotten, the commonest certified GNS fitted to GA aircraft, the Garmin 430 is perfectly able to operate as a VOR in VLOC mode, so the suggestion that they can't operate in any other mode using data from another source is simply not true. As for using the Russian system, I suspect that if there were any suggestion of our systems relying on a Russian satalite network, the CAA would attempt outlaw any kind of GPS navigation, which isn't far from the position we have at the moment.
Thread Starter
Saul, I really don't know why you think I doubt GPS. I've been using it for years and think it's truly excellent.
The latest Garmin systems are superb; my question was whether they are capable of processing GNSS signals other than the GPS constellation in order to provide additional redundancy. This will be of particular importance with the emergence of the Galileo GNSS.
I'm fully aware that the GNS430 can use terrestrial signals, the question related to alternative space-based systems.
RTFQ!
The latest Garmin systems are superb; my question was whether they are capable of processing GNSS signals other than the GPS constellation in order to provide additional redundancy. This will be of particular importance with the emergence of the Galileo GNSS.
I'm fully aware that the GNS430 can use terrestrial signals, the question related to alternative space-based systems.
RTFQ!