RNP SID with RF leg

[divinehover]

Let me clear something up here.

My company is a RNP-AR certified operator. The pilots are trained (or will be) for RNP-AR ops. Other aircraft in our fleet have full RNP-AR certification but the A340-300 is not and Airbus doesn't seem too interested in certifying it for RNP-AR ops. The A340-300 can however legally fly RNP 1 SID's and can fly RF Legs.

We will have to get our Nav DB vendor to code these procedures before we use them so there will be no manual insertion into the FMS nonsense.

Can the A340-300 with Honeywell FMS 2 legally fly this procedure if it is in the aircraft's Nav DB?

[aterpster]

divineholder:

We will have to get our Nav DB vendor to code these procedures before we use them so there will be no manual insertion into the FMS nonsense.

Good idea. I doubt you can manually build an RF leg in the 340. I don't know that with certainty however.

Can the A340-300 with Honeywell FMS 2 legally fly this procedure if it is in the aircraft's Nav DB?

Depends your flight ops and the state that holds your certificate. You most likely could not (yet) if you were a U.S. carrier. Once the FAA gets off the dime about non-AR RF legs, and they will, then you would NOT have to be RNP AR qualified to fly those VHHH departures.

[aterpster]

Check out this RF leg:

[FlightPathOBN]

The HK departure simply mentions "aircraft with appropriate approval' in the text...

My answer with regards to HK is I do not know what they accept. The ICAO criteria is different than the US.
As far as I know, the US does not accept foreign based carriers certification for RNP. We looked at getting Westjet approved for PSP, to no avail. Not sure if ICAO States accept FAA RNP, or who does/does not...

I would suppose you either know you can do this, or you dont...then the next line of defense would be asking to use the procedure..it looks better than the ATENA 2A in the book...which has the beginning waypoints of the turn as fly-over, not fly-by...

then there is the 5000 foot at 5nm PORPA/ROVER

It would be interesting for someone with the procedure in their box, to provide what that data....

terpster...just saw your post...yes, the FAA has been doing this lately, did similar for KSEA approaches from the North...In the profile, it says procedure turn NA?? and of course 20miles out and 195...wahoo

[aterpster]

FlightPathOPN:

terpster...just saw your post...yes, the FAA has been doing this lately, did similar for KSEA approaches from the North...In the profile, it says procedure turn NA?? and of course 20miles out and 195...wahoo

You've lost me. All I see at Seattle for RNAV are ordinary RNAV IAPs without course reversals. Those are all over the country.

[FlightPathOBN]

OK,
thanks for the information...not sure about the RF turns, going from RNAV to VNAV transition...

Yes, it does something, unfortunately, every ones box does something, and not the same. @ of the boxes route GPS data through the IRU, which depending on the manuf and version, can have a pseudo RAIM calc to transition between loss of enough sats, to latency between RNP values in the legs, hence, the varied results and expectations.

"Somewhat complicated" is certainly redundant when dealing with the FAA
(I gave up after PSP, BDL, and SCC with RNP procedure designs in the US)


terpster,

as OK stated, it looks like KSEA is still provisional, I know Alaska was trying it out some time ago. It a right turn over Elliot Bay (there are no left turns with the FAA )

[9.G]

Can the A340-300 with Honeywell FMS 2 legally fly this procedure if it is in the aircraft's Nav DB?

The requirements are clearly stated on the plate. Are you RNP 1 approved - YES. Do you have this particular SID in the box- YES. Is your aircraft airworthy-YES. So you're good to GO. Decision making in aviation isn't based on ballot principle but on hard core data. It's HKG, not FAA or ICAO or CASA. If not sure just don't do it.

[FlightPathOBN]

Decision making in aviation isn't based on ballot principle but on hard core data.

You obviously don't know anything about ICAO or the FAA....

The information provided on the HK "plate" was so ambiguous, that experienced designers question the design and the 'aircraft' requirements....

Aside from that, the coding is simply not correct. While the coding from your navdatabase provider may be, if it works, it wont be like what is shown on that supplement....

Good luck!

[9.G]

FPO, get over it dude. You're barking at the wrong tree here. I might be a simple minded bus driver but you remind me on certain characters who love to twist pilot's mind with all this academical crap but when it comes to the decision making they usually scream, sorry Sir but you're the captain.

[FlightPathOBN]

far be it that the driver, should dismiss any concepts of how the road was designed..

sorry Sir but you're the captain

with your questions and reasoning, I certainly hope that you are not either...

a professional driver understands everything about the road course and his vehicle to optimize the performance...

a hacker drives the vehicle until he crashes...

dont be a hacker...

[aterpster]

FlightPathOBN:

My answer with regards to HK is I do not know what they accept. The ICAO criteria is different than the US.

Which criteria? The design criteria or the approval process? ICAO has accepted FAA Order 8260.52 the ICAO design standard.

As far as I know, the US does not accept foreign based carriers certification for RNP. We looked at getting Westjet approved for PSP, to no avail. Not sure if ICAO States accept FAA RNP, or who does/does not...

If Westjets has been granted operational authority to operate into KPSP, then there is no reason I can think of why the FAA wouldn't authorize the use of the KPSP public RNAP AR approaches. It would seem to be a matter of proper coordination between Transport Canada (or whoever holds Westjet's operating certificate) and FAA's AFS-470 in Washington.

AFS-470 would need to be satisifed that Westjets would, or is, in compliance with the requirements of AC90-101A. Unlike my business aviation friends, who have to jump through the validation hoops for every RNP AR approach, air carriers are required to validate only the RNP AR approaches for their authorized airports.

[FlightPathOBN]

ICAO uses 9905 which is virtually the same for the approach design, but different in that it has a level section (SOC) for the missed approach surface, 8260.52 does not...

8260.52A is supposed to be ICAO compliant, but I havent seen this floating around for years.

Some agencies such as NavCanada, CASA, and others have allowed the use of 8260.52, with an exemption, mostly keeping the RNP at the same level as approach, not jumping to RNP 1 for the missed. (which frequently catches the tower, and drives the DA even higher)

We were trying to get WestJet certified to use the Alaska Airlines RNP procedure into PSP, which as you know, is a custom RNP criteria... There is a public RNP into PSP, but last I heard, ATC would not clear anyone to use it, but that may have changed.

The reason we were told by the FAA why foreign carriers cannot, is that the US airports are not ICAO certified, and in accordance with the Chicago Convention of 1944, PSP or whichever airport, would have to be ICAO certified....

Seems odd, but that is what we were told...

[aterpster]

FlightPathOBN:

ICAO uses 9905 which is virtually the same for the approach design, but different in that it has a level section (SOC) for the missed approach surface, 8260.52 does not...

It doesn't? What would you call Section 1a then?

Some agencies such as NavCanada, CASA, and others have allowed the use of 8260.52, with an exemption, mostly keeping the RNP at the same level as approach, not jumping to RNP 1 for the missed. (which frequently catches the tower, and drives the DA even higher)

8260.52 provides the option to begin the MAS with the same RNP as final to avoid that tower. Those are all those charts annotated "Missed approach requires RNP less than 1.0."

We were trying to get WestJet certified to use the Alaska Airlines RNP procedure into PSP, which as you know, is a custom RNP criteria... There is a public RNP into PSP, but last I heard, ATC would not clear anyone to use it, but that may have changed.

The Alaska special is not 8260.52 compliant, as are many of their State of Alaska specials. AFS-460 has granted them a deviation from criteria based on fleet performance. I doubt AFS-470 would permit that for another operator. So far as the public procedures go, ATC sometimes balk when the weather is good, but not when one of those winter rain storms makes the 13R RNP AR the only game in town.

The reason we were told by the FAA why foreign carriers cannot, is that the US airports are not ICAO certified, and in accordance with the Chicago Convention of 1944, PSP or whichever airport, would have to be ICAO certified....

Seems odd, but that is what we were told...

Sounds like a old wives tail.

[FlightPathOBN]

When I was originally speaking about the criteria of FAA vs ICAO, I was referencing the criteria to become RNP and RNP AR certified, not design ctiteria...

Section 1a is the 50' momentary descent...

The 9905 section is not all that clear, in the 9905 approach, Vpa is the glide path..the section shows obstacles in approach and missed approach...

in the diagram, for the approach obstacle, the OCH line would be extended across to SOC', that is your MOC or level section....an MDA if you will, then it is up to the operator to determine the approach minima, using their own calc for momentary descent, but not crossing the MOC...

Here is how you calculate the origin of the missed approach surface, much different that 8260.52... (Ha is the pressure altimeter height loss for the aircraft category!)

[9.G]

FPO,

Aside from that, the coding is simply not correct. While the coding from your navdatabase provider may be, if it works, it wont be like what is shown on that supplement....

FYI, if the DEP is in the DB that means it's been approved by the operator and crosschecked by the relevant departments and is in accordance with the published procedures. BTW this DEP is published in Jeppesen. That doesn't preclude PIC from checking it again. however if it's in the box it's been validated and it's a simple equation for all the aforesaid reasons, namely GO. Now you're a engineer at large, you say. Tell me the difference between a DME ARC and RF from the geometrical point of view? We've been flying DME ARCs outta box for ages and the only difference now is the operation contingency procedure for loss of RNP capability.

On this accord DH asked you a clear cut question

Can the A340-300 with Honeywell FMS 2 legally fly this procedure if it is in the aircraft's Nav DB?

I haven't seen your clear cut answer yet.

[aterpster]

FlightPathOBN:

When I was originally speaking about the criteria of FAA vs ICAO, I was referencing the criteria to become RNP and RNP AR certified, not design ctiteria...

Section 1a is the 50' momentary descent...

The 9905 section is not all that clear, in the 9905 approach, Vpa is the glide path..the section shows obstacles in approach and missed approach...

in the diagram, for the approach obstacle, the OCH line would be extended across to SOC', that is your MOC or level section....an MDA if you will, then it is up to the operator to determine the approach minima, using their own calc for momentary descent, but not crossing the MOC...

Here is how you calculate the origin of the missed approach surface, much different that 8260.52... (Ha is the pressure altimeter height loss for the aircraft category!)

And, none of that would have anything to do with Westjets getting FAA approval to use the public KPSP RNP AR instrument approach procedures.

[FlightPathOBN]

terpster,

2 different question with relative answers.

9.G,

When you fly a DME arc, you are staying a certain distance away from the DME correct? So the DME is a radial point per se.
With an RF turn, your flying a certain distance away from a radial point. That radial point is a coded waypoint in the navdatabase.
There is quite a bit of difference flying a 25nm DME arc, than a 3nm RF turn and staying on course.

As far as answering DH question, I believe it already has been answered. The regulations are minimum requirements, Equipage and training have minimums as well.

You are misreading what Boeing and Airbus say about the aircraft, these aircraft meet the minimum requirements to be certified.


From Airbus:
The process to obtain an operational approval will be initiated by an application sent by the airline to its national authorities.

The airline with its national authorities will need to determine the aircraft equipment and the level of aircraft certification adequate for the intended type of RNP AR operations. The level of operational requirements and the way the national authorities will supervise how the airline comply, may influence this decision.

The list of required equipment should be established during the operational evaluation and the approval process, considering the available operational mitigation means for each individual procedure.

The following list of equipment should be considered to start an RNP AR procedure in a demanding environment:
- 2 FMGC (2 FM required for RNAV approach)
- 2 MCDU
- 2 FD
- 1 AP, but 2 AP if RNP < 0.3 for approach, or RNP < 1.0 in go around or departure, is required
- EFIS DU with 2 L/DEV and 2 V/DEV displays and RNP P/B (if installed)
- 2 GPS (MMR) (2 GPS required for RNAV approach)
- 3 ADIRS (2 ADIRS for a departure)
- EGPWS
- FCU with both channels

Extract of AC 90-101(Appendix 6, 12/15/2005)
1. The operator must have an RNP monitoring program to ensure continued compliance with the guidance of this AC and to identify any negative trends in performance. At a minimum, this program must address the following information. During the interim approval, the operator must submit the following information every 30 days to the CHDO or FSDO granting their
authorization. There-after, the operator must continue to collect and periodically review this data to identify potential safety concerns, and maintain summaries of this data.
a. Total number of RNP AR procedures conducted.
b. Number of satisfactory approaches by aircraft/system (Satisfactory if completed as planned without any navigation or guidance system anomalies).
c. Reasons for unsatisfactory approaches, such as:
1) UNABLE REQ NAV PERF, NAV ACCUR DOWNGRAD, or other RNP messages
during approaches.
2) Excessive lateral or vertical deviation.
3) TAWS warning.
4) Autopilot system disconnects.
5) Nav data errors.
6) Pilot report of any anomaly.
d. Crew comments.


The application should describe the project and the strategy chosen by the airline to comply with the applicable regulation.
The project may have quite different implications depending the level of RNP AR that is envisaged or if the project is to fly an existing public procedure or to develop a private (or tailored) procedure.

The ACD referenced in the AFM should be used to support the airline’s operational approval.
When the intended RNP value is lower then the Airbus demonstrated values in abnormal conditions, the airline must perform a Flight Operations Safety Analysis (FOSA) for the specific procedures being envisaged. When the RNP values in abnormal conditions are used no FOSA is required.
The operational evaluation will need to be reviewed by the national authorities, as it may induce specific operational requirements.
The overall check of the aircraft capability to fly the intended procedure, but also that the flight crew procedures and training are adequate, will be made during one (or more) validation flight(s) in good weather conditions (VMC).
The authorities may require the airline to accumulate a minimum experience during revenue flights with higher weather minima before granting approval to the lowest minima

Here is the Airbus deliverable to the airline to help with RNP authorization:

• The Airworthiness Compliance Document (ACD) and FM revision,
• Updated FCOM for aircraft with RNP AR certification (FM+ACD)
• Flight Crew Training
o Ground CBT course,
o Simulator training and simulator check for RNP AR (generic),
• Flight Operations Monitoring with AirFASE

The cert isnt for just the aircraft, it is for the airline, aircraft, and crew per the airlines State.

[9.G]

alright FPO, here's your next question can you fly a DME ARC with U/S NAV AID? As for the answer I'd like to see one word: YES or NO?

[FlightPathOBN]

Were you able to read, and well comprehend the post? http://www.pprune.org/7298826-post59.html which detailed the regulations?

I see that you are testing the old adage,

You have proven there are no stoopid questions, just stoopid people...

As I stated before, I hope that you are NOT a Captain anywhere...
("capt of a 150 doesnt really count..)

Again,

Good Luck!

[aterpster]

FlightPathOBN:

The cert isnt for just the aircraft, it is for the airline, aircraft, and crew per the airlines State.

That's what I have been trying to state with respect to Westjet and RNP AR at KPSP.

1. Transport Canada

2. FAA AFS-470

3. Full compliance with AC-90-101A