SID and STAR in CDU
-
@jmarkows I tried to find a reference (FAA or ICAO) confirming that SIDs and STARs had to be loaded from an on board database, but I couldn't find it anywhere.
Is this something you know (from sources other than flight sim), or do you know where that requirement is stated?
@trisager I have heard it through the grapevine that it is an ICAO requirement. I am not a real pilot, but I am a VATSIM S3 in the US so I looked through the 7110.65 and found the FAA does have a similar one. I don't have it offhand and am unlikely to find it on mobile, I will try to remember to look again when I get home way later.
Edit: I did have a few minutes to spare and I found a partial source: the FAA AIM, not the 7110.65, states in section 5-4-1 Arrival Procedures that "Use of STARs requires pilot possession of at least the approved chart. RNAV STARs must be retrievable by the procedure name from the aircraft database and conform to charted procedure." I believe it's sub section c but the mobile format of the AIM is really cramped.
The Departure Procedures doesn't seem to have the same verbiage but I'll keep looking at it as time allows. I thought I remembered the phrase "loading individual waypoints is not sufficient," but maybe that was the ICAO snippet quoted to me at some point in the near past.
-
It's so confusing. I fly the Starship with the GNS430 disabled. The starship manual states something about manually entering waypoints for an rnav approach if the approach is based off a VOR and how to fly it using the manual sequence function.
Also according to what Nick says, as far as he's aware, all the starships now have GNSS receiver installed in the avionics bay in the nose and his aircraft does, it also has GPS RAIM page in the FMS.
I dunno if this is the right way to do things but I load waypoints of an RNAV SID/STAR or approach manually as long as the chart doesn't state RNAV1 required. These are very few but I found one or two in Africa.
@Sunake said in SID and STAR in CDU:
It's so confusing. I fly the Starship with the GNS430 disabled. The starship manual states something about manually entering waypoints for an rnav approach if the approach is based off a VOR and how to fly it using the manual sequence function.
Also according to what Nick says, as far as he's aware, all the starships now have GNSS receiver installed in the avionics bay in the nose and his aircraft does, it also has GPS RAIM page in the FMS.
I dunno if this is the right way to do things but I load waypoints of an RNAV SID/STAR or approach manually as long as the chart doesn't state RNAV1 required. These are very few but I found one or two in Africa.
In 1997 Collins was approved for an STC on the AMS850 as installed in the Beechjet 400A allowing pilots to make GPS approaches and to use GPS as a primary means of navigation. This would have been an easy STC to get approved for the Starship since they were using the same navigation part of the avionics suite.
-
Alright, I should really get back to work, but in the FAA Instrument Procedure Handbook it is stated that
"Pilots are not authorized to fly a published RNAV or RNP procedure unless it is retrievable by the procedure name from the navigation database and conforms to the charted procedure. No other modification of database waypoints or creation of user-defined waypoints on published RNAV or RNP procedures is permitted, except to change altitude and/or airspeed waypoint constraints to comply with an ATC clearance/ instruction, or to insert a waypoint along the published route to assist in complying with an ATC instruction. "
This is in place for both Departure and Arrival Procedures. That's about as far as I can dig right now. Interesting the AIM doesn't quote it in the departure procedures section like it does arrivals. The IPH can be found here.
-
Digging up an old thread because I got back into the Starship after a few months. I was busy going over the equipment requirements again, to update my SimBrief profile. In short, if you're not using the GNS 430, but you accept the fact that your Starship has ONE GPS receiver:
-
You are not capable of RNAV10 or RNP4 remote or oceanic as this requires two independent Long Range Navigation Systems. The Starship has 2 FMC's, but they are linked to only ONE receiver. Hence, they are not independent. (There is a designated area where only one LRNS is sufficient)
-
Even though you meet all requirements for Terminal RNAV 1 SID's and STAR's, you can't accept one because it is not line-selectable from your FMS (FAA AC 90-100A 10. b. (3) "General Operating Procedures" pg. 13
-
You can fly an RNAV GPS approach down to LNAV minima, because you have a GPS receiver and the approach IS line-selectable from the database.
-
Due to having only one GPS receiver, NAT HLA is also not approved. (Except for the fact that you're not RNP4/RNAV10 qualified anyways).
Cheers,
-
-
Not by name, no, which means the Starship cannot fly an RNP1 or less procedure if you fly by the book.
-
Digging up an old thread because I got back into the Starship after a few months. I was busy going over the equipment requirements again, to update my SimBrief profile. In short, if you're not using the GNS 430, but you accept the fact that your Starship has ONE GPS receiver:
-
You are not capable of RNAV10 or RNP4 remote or oceanic as this requires two independent Long Range Navigation Systems. The Starship has 2 FMC's, but they are linked to only ONE receiver. Hence, they are not independent. (There is a designated area where only one LRNS is sufficient)
-
Even though you meet all requirements for Terminal RNAV 1 SID's and STAR's, you can't accept one because it is not line-selectable from your FMS (FAA AC 90-100A 10. b. (3) "General Operating Procedures" pg. 13
-
You can fly an RNAV GPS approach down to LNAV minima, because you have a GPS receiver and the approach IS line-selectable from the database.
-
Due to having only one GPS receiver, NAT HLA is also not approved. (Except for the fact that you're not RNP4/RNAV10 qualified anyways).
Cheers,
@MD82 @Mad_X Just to clarify, you can fly gnss sids and stars or any sids and stars that do not require RNAV1 or RNP 1 capability. Please correct me if I am misinterpreting. (I was not actually aware RNAV 1 SIDS and STARS could not be accepted when they are not line-selectable, @MD82 thank you).
CPL MIFR 🍁
-
-
@SadBucket it’s written somewhere in the FAA and EASA rules. The FAA ones were posted here somewhere and the EASA ones I would have to look up.
But in EASAland I we don’t have any procedures that do not require this type of precision. Which makes sense as in the terminal area traffic is much more tightly packed and closer to cumulus granitus.
-
@SadBucket it’s written somewhere in the FAA and EASA rules. The FAA ones were posted here somewhere and the EASA ones I would have to look up.
But in EASAland I we don’t have any procedures that do not require this type of precision. Which makes sense as in the terminal area traffic is much more tightly packed and closer to cumulus granitus.
@Mad_X Im from Canada and was told by my IFR instructor to enter sids and stars manually into the 430/530. Though many of our sids and stars appear to say "RNAV1 or GNSS required". Regardless very good to know as I thought I was fine to accept RNAV 1 with many of these older GPS units. I assume it may have to do with pre-programmed fly over waypoints vs fly by waypoints?...
-
@SadBucket GNSS SID/STAR's as you mention are generally procedures ending with the name RNAV. And although the whole RNAV/RNP nomenclature is extremely murky, it generally entails performance-based navigation and always have an accompanying RNP. All these require the procedure to line-selectable from your equipment and can't be flown.
Since conventional terminal procedures are also flown using conventional radio receivers there is no restriction placed on these non-RNP procedures.
I guess one of the main reasons of this requirement is also to guarantee altitude restrictions and constraints. Since there is a process by which these procedures are checked and validated, you can guarantee every pilot has these constraints, whereas building it manually leaves a lot of ambiguity. That's just what I think. Not sure.
