|
Legal requirement to tune and identify aids for SID?
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 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. |
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.
|
Originally Posted by extricate
(Post 10599029)
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 |
Originally Posted by extricate
(Post 10599029)
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 |
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. |
Originally Posted by pineteam
(Post 10599105)
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.
|
Originally Posted by FlyingStone
(Post 10599156)
What happens when GPS or FMGC goes haywire? Or is that not the possibility you are taking into account?
In the very unlikely it happens, I will simply request radar vectors. Where I fly, we are under radar control 100% of the time. =) |
Originally Posted by FlyingStone
(Post 10599156)
What happens when GPS or FMGC goes haywire? Or is that not the possibility you are taking into account?
|
Originally Posted by pineteam
(Post 10599169)
In the very unlikely it happens, I will simply request radar vectors. Where I fly, we are under radar control 100% of the time. =)
Originally Posted by Tomaski
(Post 10599173)
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.
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. (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. |
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...... |
So no answer to such a simple question. :}
|
Originally Posted by FlyingStone
(Post 10599156)
What happens when GPS or FMGC goes haywire? Or is that not the possibility you are taking into account?
|
Originally Posted by FlightDetent
(Post 10599677)
So no answer to such a simple question. :}
|
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.
|
Originally Posted by FlightDetent
(Post 10600262)
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.
|
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. |
Originally Posted by Vessbot
(Post 10600266)
Obviously he wasn't asking if you need to tune and identify a VOR if you're flying it with a VOR receiver.
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. |
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. |
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. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 21:12. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.