Legal requirement to tune and identify aids for SID?

[extricate]

Hi there,

Where can I find information on whether is it a requirement to tune and identify radio aids for non-RNAV SIDs? Say for example, out of Sydney, Richmond 5 SID.

Thanks

[Capt Scribble]

It probably comes under common sense and airmanship. If you are going to use a radio aid you need to check its the correct one, unless it auto identifies.

[Tom!]

You should fly the departure with reference to the (raw data) radio navaids it has on the chart, doesn't matter what your magenta line shows. A bit difficult if you do not tune them.

[Tomaski]

Originally Posted by extricate

Hi there,

Where can I find information on whether is it a requirement to tune and identify radio aids for non-RNAV SIDs? Say for example, out of Sydney, Richmond 5 SID.

Thanks

It depends on the aircraft. If you have suitable navigation equipment (GPS/FMS) with the required accuracy and a current database in the FMS with the particular SID, then you do not need to monitor the navaids. On the other hand, if you actually need the navaid source to fly the SID, then you need to tune, identify, and monitor. I can't quote you chapter and verse right now, but it is a requirement.

[vilas]

Originally Posted by extricate

Hi there,

Where can I find information on whether is it a requirement to tune and identify radio aids for non-RNAV SIDs? Say for example, out of Sydney, Richmond 5 SID.
Thanks

Which aircraft are you talking about? In A320 FMGC has it's own logic and it auto tunes also identifies the required nav aids on its own. It's not mandatory to manually tune them.

[pineteam]

Ahhhh the nav aids. Never really undestood why people put so much stress on it. Talking about A320 family: I see guys deselecting all sort of U/S VORs during cockpit preparation, but unless you are flying a very old model, the FMGC never uses VOR/DME for navigation as long as you have GPS primary. If you pay attention to the progress page you can’t even update the position anymore unless you deselect the GPS or lose them like during alignement. The Take Off Shift also is not used for position computation anymore like the old models so if you take off from runway intersection and leave it blank or put an erroneous value, well no problem as its function is inhibited with GPS Primary. I never deselect or use Rad Nav except for EOSID or if I’m doing a VOR approach. Completely waste of time IMHO.
For those who doubt my words for what I said, I can provide references.

[FlyingStone]

Originally Posted by pineteam

Ahhhh the nav aids. Never really undestood why people put so much stress on it. Talking about A320 family: I see guys deselecting all sort of U/S VORs during cockpit preparation, but unless you are flying a very old model, the FMGC never uses VOR/DME for navigation as long as you have GPS primary.

What happens when GPS or FMGC goes haywire? Or is that not the possibility you are taking into account?

[pineteam]

Originally Posted by FlyingStone

What happens when GPS or FMGC goes haywire? Or is that not the possibility you are taking into account?

5 years+ flying Airbus only lost 1 GPS once for less than 2 min then auto recovered . Never lost FMGC. So yes I can’t be bothered.
In the very unlikely it happens, I will simply request radar vectors. Where I fly, we are under radar control 100% of the time. =)

[Tomaski]

Originally Posted by FlyingStone

What happens when GPS or FMGC goes haywire? Or is that not the possibility you are taking into account?

If the FMS/GPS or whatever RNAV system in use can no longer meet the Required Nav Performance (RNP) for the particular phase of flight, then there will be an annunciation to that effect at which time the pilots will switch to alternate means of navigation as appropriate to their aircraft. There's no harm in having enroute navaids tuned up, but there is no requirement to do so either.

[FlyingStone]

Originally Posted by pineteam

In the very unlikely it happens, I will simply request radar vectors. Where I fly, we are under radar control 100% of the time. =)

Lucky you. My outfit still operates into procedural-only airports or with airports where SID/STARs/MAPs take you well below MRVA. In those cases, it's nice to have a backup plan.

Originally Posted by Tomaski

If the FMS/GPS or whatever RNAV system in use can no longer meet the Required Nav Performance (RNP) for the particular phase of flight, then there will be an annunciation to that effect at which time the pilots will switch to alternate means of navigation as appropriate to their aircraft. There's no harm in having enroute navaids tuned up, but there is no requirement to do so either.

Your FMS won't know that by NOTAM the navaid has been moved to a new position and is operating on test, and will try to use that signal to calculate aircraft's position, which could obviously be grossly incorrect.

Boeing in one of the technical manuals does mention that crew should inhibit the non-operating/on test navaids:

The pilot is expected to have current NOTAM information for navaids along the intended route, and to utilize this information to blackball updating from those navaids.

EASA on the other hands as well recognizes the need for this (mainly for RNP AR operations) :

(d) NAVAID exclusion
1) The operator should establish procedures to exclude NAVAID facilities in accordance with NOTAMs (e.g. DMEs, VORs, localisers). Internal avionics reasonableness checks may not be adequate for RNP operations.

[Too Few Stripes]

From PANS OPS -
1.4 USE OF FLIGHT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (FMS)/ AREA NAVIGATION (RNAV) EQUIPMENT

1.4.1 Where FMS/RNAV equipment is available, it may be used to fly conventional procedures provided:

a) the procedure is monitored using the basic display normally associated with that procedure; and

b) the tolerances for flight using raw data on the basic display are complied with.

My take on this is - Tolerances of raw raw data can only be complied with if raw data is monitored ( as in a) and to monitor a Nav aid it has to be identified (aurally or auto if installed). Whether this actually happens day to day is another matter......

[FlightDetent]

So no answer to such a simple question.

[Denti]

Originally Posted by FlyingStone

What happens when GPS or FMGC goes haywire? Or is that not the possibility you are taking into account?

That is something i have heard a lot: what happens if my FMCG is gone? Well, then my tuned nav aids are gone as well as the radio nav page is not available anymore and i really have to manually tune stuff on the RMP. Which i have not seen ever done as a routine departure/arrival preparation. I have seen a loss of gps primary, but never GPS causing a nav solution to be wrong. Now, we do know that spoofing exist, but so far it has only been proving using ships as far as i am aware, not aircraft where the range of the required spoofing signal might be an issue much faster.

[Too Few Stripes]

Originally Posted by FlightDetent

So no answer to such a simple question.

i thought my post, with reference, was a simple answer ? ?

[FlightDetent]

I see you discussing the requirement for raw data identification when FMS/RNAV is being used to fly overlay of the conventional procedure. The logic and connection is clear, but not what was asked for.

[Vessbot]

Originally Posted by FlightDetent

I see you discussing the requirement for raw data identification when FMS/RNAV is being used to fly overlay of the conventional procedure. The logic and connection is clear, but not what was asked for.

Pretty sure that it is what was asked for. Obviously he wasn't asking if you need to tune and identify a VOR if you're flying it with a VOR receiver.

[HPSOV L]

I think the OP’s question related to the regulatory requirement rather than aircraft capability.
Effectively they are asking “can navaids specified on a SID chart be legally substituted with an aircraft’s GNSS system?”

It may change with jurisdiction. The FAA provides some guidance in an advisory circular if I remember correctly.

[FlightDetent]

Originally Posted by Vessbot

Obviously he wasn't asking if you need to tune and identify a VOR if you're flying it with a VOR receiver.

I think he did, more specifically if that was a legal requirement.

He might have wanted to ask what everybody here is answering, but the question itself is plain an simple: Is there a legal requirement to identify navaids on a non-RNAV SID?

I do not see the "when using an RNP avionic system" before the question mark there, unlike every single contributor. And non-RNAV means just conventional.

[hikoushi]

https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/...lar/90-108.pdf

This will lead to the FAA guidance on the subject.... basically within certain limitations RNAV systems can be used in lieu of VORs that are out of service, which also implies that raw data monitoring is not required. This is normally cooked into individual operators’ operation specifications and FOM. Typically navaid raw data monitoring is not required except on the final approach segments of instrument approaches based on said navaids, assuming the RNAV equipment meets the requirements and is working properly.

If one is flying a procedure using ONLY the raw data and NOT using RNAV, the following guidance exists in FAA land which recommends the only way to positively identify a VOR is by listening to the morse code or by reading the auto-decoded identifier on your fancy glass cockpit:

https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publ...section_1.html

This one is from the AIM, which is technically non-regulatory. However in many past enforcement cases, a pilot’s failure to follow the guidance therein has been deemed “careless and reckless operation” and cost them their certificate. So it might as well be regulatory.

Again this is USA FAA guidance only..... but it is guidance we are REQUIRED to follow on international flights to most everywhere I’ve flown to, so.... there you go. Take it for what it is worth.

[GaryGnu]

Given the OP cited an Australian SID as their example, they may be interested in the Australian regulatory perspective.

CAO 20.91 - Appendix 13 allows for conventional navigation to be performed using GNSS based area navigation systems as a substitute or alternate means of navigation subject to certain conditions.

Assuming the FMS RNAV system is capable of complying with the conditions of the CAO, then its use as a substitute means of navigation negates any requirement to tune an ADF for the procedure.