RNP SID with RF leg
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: paradise
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ICAO DOC 8168 p 520 specifies RNAV RNP DEP criterion. Jeppesen chart states that this departure is available to RNP 1 equipped and approved operator. I don't see any dilemma here. If a operator has the approval then there's nothing precluding from using that departure. 
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
9.G
Jeppesen will not publish public (non AR) procedures with RF legs until such time that the FAA (and presumably other states as well) authorize the public use of RF legs in non-AR IAPs.
I was able to download all of the HKG SIDs today. All the VHHH SIDs that Jeppesen publishes in their public subscription do not have RF legs.
The VHHH SIDs that RF legs are as follows:
ATENA 1E and 1F
LOGAN 1E and 1F
RASSE 1E and 1F
SKATE 1E and 1F
TITAN 1E and 1F
These are not in the Jepp public subscription. The public SIDs essentially are overlays of the RF SIDs except for a TF to TF turn instead of the RF legs.
ICAO DOC 8168 p 520 specifies RNAV RNP DEP criterion. Jeppesen chart states that this departure is available to RNP 1 equipped and approved operator. I don't see any dilemma here. If a operator has the approval then there's nothing precluding from using that departure. 
I was able to download all of the HKG SIDs today. All the VHHH SIDs that Jeppesen publishes in their public subscription do not have RF legs.
The VHHH SIDs that RF legs are as follows:
ATENA 1E and 1F
LOGAN 1E and 1F
RASSE 1E and 1F
SKATE 1E and 1F
TITAN 1E and 1F
These are not in the Jepp public subscription. The public SIDs essentially are overlays of the RF SIDs except for a TF to TF turn instead of the RF legs.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: engineer at large
Posts: 1,409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
9.G,
RNAV RNP, not RNP AR....
Currently the criteria only addresses vertical on approach, it does not address vertical for departure, nor any RF turns.
8168 is TF to TF design, (which is why the containments are so odd looking, accounting for flying inside and over the waypoint)and lays out a foundation for departures, however brief, much more a a placeholder to allow for private departure designs...
note this from 9905...
"The manual includes design criteria to aid States in the implementation of RNP AR approach procedures in accordance with the PBN Manual, Volume II, Part C, Chapter 6, Implementing RNP AR APCH. Similar criteria for departure procedures will be incorporated when developed."
Kijan,
The procedure must be in your navdatabase, because there are a few required points, such as the radial point, that you cannot enter. Essentially, how the box determines a turn, the beginning TF leg, to tan beginning waypoint of the RF leg, maintain "x" distance away from the radial point to the end waypoint of the RF leg, tangent to the TF leg...
RNAV RNP, not RNP AR....
Currently the criteria only addresses vertical on approach, it does not address vertical for departure, nor any RF turns.
8168 is TF to TF design, (which is why the containments are so odd looking, accounting for flying inside and over the waypoint)and lays out a foundation for departures, however brief, much more a a placeholder to allow for private departure designs...
note this from 9905...
"The manual includes design criteria to aid States in the implementation of RNP AR approach procedures in accordance with the PBN Manual, Volume II, Part C, Chapter 6, Implementing RNP AR APCH. Similar criteria for departure procedures will be incorporated when developed."
Kijan,
The procedure must be in your navdatabase, because there are a few required points, such as the radial point, that you cannot enter. Essentially, how the box determines a turn, the beginning TF leg, to tan beginning waypoint of the RF leg, maintain "x" distance away from the radial point to the end waypoint of the RF leg, tangent to the TF leg...
Last edited by FlightPathOBN; 12th Jul 2012 at 18:13. Reason: spell check!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Front right seat
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FBO
Your input has validated my concern (confusion). Here's a non-legal question though. What would the risk to safety be in the case of a RF Leg, RNP 1 capable aircraft which hasn't had a full RNP-AR upgrade flying this procedure? Is this a equipage capability issue or a legal issue? Or both?
DH
Your input has validated my concern (confusion). Here's a non-legal question though. What would the risk to safety be in the case of a RF Leg, RNP 1 capable aircraft which hasn't had a full RNP-AR upgrade flying this procedure? Is this a equipage capability issue or a legal issue? Or both?
DH
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Latvia
Age: 53
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
About manually flying P-RNAV procedure - it is allowed only with GPS as a sensor. It is assumed that FTE (flight technical error) for manual flying is 0.8 nm, so with GPS precision you don't exceed 1 nm limit. Manual means no flight director, just HSI. With other types of sensors like DME/DME, VOR/DME or IRS, positioning error is more significant therefore at least flight director is required to significantly reduce FTE (source - Eurocontrol).
RF legs is a recommended option of P-RNAV specification (ref. JAA TGL 10) so at my opinion if on-board systems support RF legs, they may be flown as RNP-1 procedure.
RF legs is a recommended option of P-RNAV specification (ref. JAA TGL 10) so at my opinion if on-board systems support RF legs, they may be flown as RNP-1 procedure.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: engineer at large
Posts: 1,409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The discussion is not about P-RNAV, it is about RNP-AR...
The difference, among other things, is coded turns...
There are many recommended functions, virtually none of which have been implemented...
DH,
I look at it this way, one is either authorized or not....sure, one can look at a chart, and fly the procedure, but there are many variables, one just may not be aware of...
Even with coded procedures, the different configurations act differently, and are coded differently...the 424 code for a honeywell box on a 737-800, is not the same 424 code for a Thales box on a A320.
While the procedure waypoint may have an altitude at or above, it is working with the other waypoints, and the way the individual box interprets waypoint...this is why public procedures and the coding is having such a tough time, between the rounding up/down, waypoint and other resolution values, they can all act different...that is why when a procedure is designed, is it desktop simmed, full motion simmed, and flight validated PER the specific ac type...
It is very, very difficult to code a multi-variant RNP procedure....
The difference, among other things, is coded turns...
There are many recommended functions, virtually none of which have been implemented...
DH,
I look at it this way, one is either authorized or not....sure, one can look at a chart, and fly the procedure, but there are many variables, one just may not be aware of...
Even with coded procedures, the different configurations act differently, and are coded differently...the 424 code for a honeywell box on a 737-800, is not the same 424 code for a Thales box on a A320.
While the procedure waypoint may have an altitude at or above, it is working with the other waypoints, and the way the individual box interprets waypoint...this is why public procedures and the coding is having such a tough time, between the rounding up/down, waypoint and other resolution values, they can all act different...that is why when a procedure is designed, is it desktop simmed, full motion simmed, and flight validated PER the specific ac type...
It is very, very difficult to code a multi-variant RNP procedure....
Last edited by FlightPathOBN; 12th Jul 2012 at 21:55.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The "hub" of an RF leg is the "turn point." In implementation in the U.S. that is called the "arc center point."
The reason most FMS vendors won't permit pilots to manually construct RF legs because the RF leg must be at a tangent to the preceding and suceeding leg, which could be a TF leg or another RF leg.
The reason most FMS vendors won't permit pilots to manually construct RF legs because the RF leg must be at a tangent to the preceding and suceeding leg, which could be a TF leg or another RF leg.
ICAO DOC 8168 p 520 specifies RNAV RNP DEP criterion
I believe both Australia & NZ have developed their own RNP(AR) departure crtieria...
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: engineer at large
Posts: 1,409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Given the performance parameters of departure, currently, RNP-AR departures must be individually designed... there is no public criteria that includes a coded RF turn...
if you look into it, the criteria only addresses a straight out missed...
if you look into it, the criteria only addresses a straight out missed...
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: paradise
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HK has new RNP 1 SID's that use an RF Leg. Are these to be considered -AR (SAAAR for you Yanks) procedures because of the RF Leg or is it merely an issue of equipage?
One of the major differences between RNAV AR and RNP is more stringent accuracy requirement of 0,1 instead of 0,3 apart from others.
@ aterpster, no idea bout the public domain but it's on my IPAD.
Last edited by 9.G; 13th Jul 2012 at 04:09.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: engineer at large
Posts: 1,409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the major differences between RNAV AR and RNP is more stringent accuracy requirement of 0,1 instead of 0,3 apart from others.
RNP AR has RF legs, RNP APCH has TF/TF with turns, RNAV straight legs with turns.
RNAV AR...hmmmmm.
Unfortunately, there is much of the information in the text regarding this procedure, that does not show up on the plate...
A19-11 Sup
"2.5 RNP 1.0 navigation accuracy is required. Aircraft must be approved by State of Registry in accordance with ICAO RNP 1 standard."
2.6 For those capable and approved aircraft planning to fly the RF SID procedure, voice request for the RF SID via radio frequency from aircrew is required before sending the Pre-Departure Clearance (PDC) request to ATC via data link.
Recommended R/T phraseology from aircrew: ‘Request Radius-to-Fix SID’."
The terminology, as well a the coding are all mixed up on this one....it would be interesting to see how Jepp coded this up...
and from the top of the plate...
Here is what I am not sure how you would be able to meet requirements flying this manually. First off, the procedure has to be in the navdatabase, so then why fly this manually.
Next,how can you maintain on track accuracy and the alert system for the required containment?
Then there is the system RAIM and GPS availability, coupled with on-track error. If this is not coded up, how is all of that engaged....
Last edited by FlightPathOBN; 13th Jul 2012 at 20:23.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FlightPathOBN:
RNP AR approaches may, or may not, have RF legs. There are many RNP AR IAPs in the U.S. with TF/TF legs and turns. RF legs are an optional application where they present the optimal solution.
The U.S. does not yet have RNAV APCH, but all of our "plain vanilla" RNAV IAPs have TF/TF legs, more often than not with turns.
RNP AR has RF legs, RNP APCH has TF/TF with turns, RNAV straight legs with turns.
The U.S. does not yet have RNAV APCH, but all of our "plain vanilla" RNAV IAPs have TF/TF legs, more often than not with turns.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: engineer at large
Posts: 1,409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That is correct, they may not, but if there is a coded RF leg, it is AR.
I was also talking about RNP APCH, not RNAV APCH...
While the FAA doesnt call it APCH, in reality that is what these are...
+Z+RWY+10R/png/1)
I was also talking about RNP APCH, not RNAV APCH...
While the FAA doesnt call it APCH, in reality that is what these are...
Last edited by FlightPathOBN; 13th Jul 2012 at 23:46.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: paradise
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the question relates to departure not the approach. Why is everybody referring to terms for the approach is beyond me. Anyways as for the original question:
I'd recommend to read getting to grips with RNAV AR brochure from Airbus.
With the MOI of 20624/S30934 330/340 aircraft are certified for this departure.
AP OFF with FD on demonstrated accuracy for DEPARTURE is 0,6 NM. NUFF
I'd recommend to read getting to grips with RNAV AR brochure from Airbus.
With the MOI of 20624/S30934 330/340 aircraft are certified for this departure.
AP OFF with FD on demonstrated accuracy for DEPARTURE is 0,6 NM. NUFF
Last edited by 9.G; 13th Jul 2012 at 23:59.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: engineer at large
Posts: 1,409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
9.G,
Are you dyslexic or something? The Airbus doc is Getting to grips with RNP AR... NOT RNAV AR...fix it!
BTW, when you are reading that document, the design plates, you are speaking with one of the people responsible for that design. The Departures are a custom criteria, Naverus, Quovadis, and other, have their own custom departure criteria.
While it has been shortened from SAAAR to AR, the meaning is still the same, and just because an aircraft type is certified, doesnt mean your airline bought that package, the aircraft has MAINTAINED cert, or that the Aircrew is certified.
The aircrew must be certified with RNP AR, and maintain cert, just like the ac...including flight validations of the procedures...
Your airline also needs to have operational approval from the authorities, and will likely have RNP values increased until a minimum number of flights have been
The reason the conversation keeps drifting to Approach, is thats all that is available in the public criteria, there is no RNP AR missed, or EO.
ICAO has NOT developed a Departure criteria yet, neither has the FAA....
Are you dyslexic or something? The Airbus doc is Getting to grips with RNP AR... NOT RNAV AR...fix it!
BTW, when you are reading that document, the design plates, you are speaking with one of the people responsible for that design. The Departures are a custom criteria, Naverus, Quovadis, and other, have their own custom departure criteria.
While it has been shortened from SAAAR to AR, the meaning is still the same, and just because an aircraft type is certified, doesnt mean your airline bought that package, the aircraft has MAINTAINED cert, or that the Aircrew is certified.
The aircrew must be certified with RNP AR, and maintain cert, just like the ac...including flight validations of the procedures...
Your airline also needs to have operational approval from the authorities, and will likely have RNP values increased until a minimum number of flights have been
The reason the conversation keeps drifting to Approach, is thats all that is available in the public criteria, there is no RNP AR missed, or EO.
ICAO has NOT developed a Departure criteria yet, neither has the FAA....
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: paradise
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FPO, chill dude, it was a typo alright? Nobody said the operator doesn't need the approval. Flying this departure implies that operator is approved by it's own CAA, crews are trained and departure is in the DB. You're way too academical for a simple pilot mind. All I need to know is can I fly it or not? I know now my A340 is certified, my airline is approved for RNP OPS. I look into the box and pull up SID called ATENA 1 E, my aircraft is airworthy. DO I CARE bout AR? NO COZ it's not mentioned anywhere on departure plate. OFF WE GO.
P.S official info published on ATC section for HKG as follows:
RNP-AR APCH PROCEDURES
The RNP-AR APCH procedures are designed to take into account the proximity of high ground and neighbouring airspace. Authorization from Hong Kong Civil Aviation Department is required to fly the RNP-AR APCH procedures. An aircraft operator who intends to conduct the RNP-AR APCH procedures at VHHH shall complete the application form which is available for download at the Hong Kong Civil Aviation Department website: Application Forms
The completed application form and supporting documents shall be forwarded to the Hong Kong Civil Aviation Department as follows at least 30 days prior to the proposed date of adopting the procedures:
Chief, Flight Standards
Flight Standards and Airworthiness Division
Again as you can see not a WORD bout the departure. RNP 1 approval from the CAA of the OPERATOR is sufficient for this departure. BTW many misinterpret the meaning of AR. To my knowledge it means Authorization required from the local authorities of the airdrome location to conduct the APPROACH. Same as for CAT II, III. NO such approval from HKG authorities in this case is required to fly this DEP. Of course provided all other requirements are met.
Note:
Approval usually refers to the CAA of the aircraft registration.
Authorization to the CAA of the airdrome location.
P.S official info published on ATC section for HKG as follows:
RNP-AR APCH PROCEDURES
The RNP-AR APCH procedures are designed to take into account the proximity of high ground and neighbouring airspace. Authorization from Hong Kong Civil Aviation Department is required to fly the RNP-AR APCH procedures. An aircraft operator who intends to conduct the RNP-AR APCH procedures at VHHH shall complete the application form which is available for download at the Hong Kong Civil Aviation Department website: Application Forms
The completed application form and supporting documents shall be forwarded to the Hong Kong Civil Aviation Department as follows at least 30 days prior to the proposed date of adopting the procedures:
Chief, Flight Standards
Flight Standards and Airworthiness Division
Again as you can see not a WORD bout the departure. RNP 1 approval from the CAA of the OPERATOR is sufficient for this departure. BTW many misinterpret the meaning of AR. To my knowledge it means Authorization required from the local authorities of the airdrome location to conduct the APPROACH. Same as for CAT II, III. NO such approval from HKG authorities in this case is required to fly this DEP. Of course provided all other requirements are met.
Note:
Approval usually refers to the CAA of the aircraft registration.
Authorization to the CAA of the airdrome location.
Last edited by 9.G; 14th Jul 2012 at 03:13.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: engineer at large
Posts: 1,409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You would have to read through the HK A19-11 Supplement to see the requirements.
As I alluded to before this meets the def of an AR procedure, what HK whats from that is what they want, each agency has its own procedures.
As I alluded to before this meets the def of an AR procedure, what HK whats from that is what they want, each agency has its own procedures.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: paradise
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FPO, OK here's what I've read and you posted in your quote before:
2.5
RNP 1.0 navigation accuracy is required. Aircraft must be approved by State of Registry in accordance with ICAO RNP 1 standard. Hope that nuff for a engineering mind.
2.5
RNP 1.0 navigation accuracy is required. Aircraft must be approved by State of Registry in accordance with ICAO RNP 1 standard. Hope that nuff for a engineering mind.
Last edited by 9.G; 14th Jul 2012 at 03:26.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: paradise
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ICAO reference
4 AREA NAVIGATION (RNAV) DEPARTURE PROCEDURES AND RNP BASED DEPARTURE PROCEDURES
4.1 The general principles of RNAV and RNP-based approach procedures apply also to RNAV and RNP-based departures.
4.2 Departures may be based on RNAV VOR/DME, RNAV DME/DME, basic GNSS or RNP criteria. Most FMS-equipped aircraft are capable of following RNAV procedures based on more than one of the above systems. However, in some cases the procedure may specify constraints on the system used.
4.3 To follow a procedure based on RNP, the RNAV system must be approved for the promulgated RNP and it is assumed that all navaids on which the RNP procedure is based are in service (see NOTAMs related to DME stations, GNSS, etc.).
4.4 A route may consist of segments where different RNP values are applicable. Note that the segment with the lowest RNP value is the most demanding one for the flight. Prior to the flight, the pilot must verify that the aircraft is able to meet the RNP requirements specified for each segment. In some cases, this may require the pilot to manually update the aircraft’s navigation system immediately before take-off.
4.5 During the flight, the pilot must check that the system complies with the RNP requirements of the current segment. The pilot must also check in particular the RNP changes along the route.
4.6 The pilot will use the system's information to intervene and keep the flight technical error (FTE) within the tolerances established during the system certification process.
4.7 There are for kinds of turns:
a.
turn at a fly-by waypoint;
b.
turn at a fly-over waypoint;
c.
turn at an altitude/height; and
d.
fixed radius turn (generally associated with procedures based on RNP).
4.1 The general principles of RNAV and RNP-based approach procedures apply also to RNAV and RNP-based departures.
4.2 Departures may be based on RNAV VOR/DME, RNAV DME/DME, basic GNSS or RNP criteria. Most FMS-equipped aircraft are capable of following RNAV procedures based on more than one of the above systems. However, in some cases the procedure may specify constraints on the system used.
4.3 To follow a procedure based on RNP, the RNAV system must be approved for the promulgated RNP and it is assumed that all navaids on which the RNP procedure is based are in service (see NOTAMs related to DME stations, GNSS, etc.).
4.4 A route may consist of segments where different RNP values are applicable. Note that the segment with the lowest RNP value is the most demanding one for the flight. Prior to the flight, the pilot must verify that the aircraft is able to meet the RNP requirements specified for each segment. In some cases, this may require the pilot to manually update the aircraft’s navigation system immediately before take-off.
4.5 During the flight, the pilot must check that the system complies with the RNP requirements of the current segment. The pilot must also check in particular the RNP changes along the route.
4.6 The pilot will use the system's information to intervene and keep the flight technical error (FTE) within the tolerances established during the system certification process.
4.7 There are for kinds of turns:
a.
turn at a fly-by waypoint;
b.
turn at a fly-over waypoint;
c.
turn at an altitude/height; and
d.
fixed radius turn (generally associated with procedures based on RNP).