RNAV1 and RNAV2 on STAR chart

J

John777

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Apr 1, 2016
Messages
199
Display Name
Display name:
Louis
I fly C172S with G1000 Navlll and ADS-B/WAAS, at one of the universities IN USA.

While going through the arrival chart, I noticed RNAV1 and RNAV2, and AIM has only minmal amount of explanation of that. I understand it is the type of navigation we need to fly but I do not know if G1000 is certified to fly those STARS with RNAV-1/2 depicted on the chart.

I also went through AC90-100A and it states that lateral deviation indicator(for us it's CDI with TB) and autopilot and/or flight director to fly RNAV1 with approved GPS/GNSS whereas RNAV2 strongly encourages pilot to fly with FD and AP.


Need your help !
 
Last edited:
Hey Everybody!!!
Dont Spam our forum by posting your question Twice!
If it is important enough for Anyone to read,
Once will be plenty.....
 
Yes. You can do it. RNAV 1 refers to a navigational system that has less than 1 mile system error over 95% of the flight, or words of similar effect. RNAV 2 refers respectively to a 2 mile error 95% of the time.

DME/DME RNAV, inertial nav, etc may not meet this spec. IFR GPS equipment that can be used for approaches and otherwise meets relevant TSO 129(non WAAS) or 145/146 (WAAS) with or without FMS (fd/ap/etc) will meet this specification in the US.
 
Doggtyred said:
Yes. You can do it. RNAV 1 refers to a navigational system that has less than 1 mile system error over 95% of the flight, or words of similar effect. RNAV 2 refers respectively to a 2 mile error 95% of the time.

DME/DME RNAV, inertial nav, etc may not meet this spec. IFR GPS equipment that can be used for approaches and otherwise meets relevant TSO 129(non WAAS) or 145/146 (WAAS) with or without FMS (fd/ap/etc) will meet this specification in the US.
Click to expand...

And yea... at 1-2 AM overnight, the board is kind of slow.. no need to post in multiple places... once will do.
 
Sorry, i will put down the another post... !
Where did you find that information ? What I saw was we need autopilot or flight director in order to fly RNAV1/2...
Can you also mention where you found it and what page?

Sorry for making you bothersome...
 
International student in a professional flight school? Assignment due in the morning?

In AC90-100a Chg 2, Section 7:
7. RNAV SYSTEM ELIGIBILITY.
a. Aircraft with a statement of compliance to this AC in their Airplane Flight Manual (AFM), Pilot’s Operating Handbook (POH), or the operating manual for their avionics meet the performance and functional requirements of this AC.

b. Aircraft with P-RNAV approval based on GNSS capability meet the functional requirements of this AC. Due to differences in radio navigation infrastructure in the United States, if the approval is based on DME/DME or DME/DME/IRU, the operator should ensure the equipment meets the criteria in appendix 1 or 2, as applicable.

c. The following systems meet many of the requirements defined in this AC. Such equipment still requires evaluation by the manufacturer against all the functional and performance requirements in this AC. The RAIM prediction program should comply with the criteria in AC 20-138A, paragraph 12.

(1) Aircraft with TSO-C129/C129a sensor (Class B or C) and the requirements in a TSO-C115b FMS, installed for IFR use IAW AC 20-130A.
(2) Aircraft with TSO-C145a sensor, and the requirements in a TSO-C115b FMS, installed for IFR use IAW AC 20-130A or AC 20-138A.
(3) Aircraft with TSO-C129/C129a Class A1 (without deviating from the functionality described in Appendix 3 of this document) installed for IFR use IAW AC 20-138 or AC 20-138A.
(4) Aircraft with TSO-C146a (without deviating from the functionality described in Appendix 3 of this document) installed for IFR use IAW AC 20-138A

Note that Item C3 and C4 do not have any mention of flight management system. This equipment must be installed in accordance with AC 20-138 or -138a. The current document that superseded both of these versions of AC 20-138 is now AC 20-138d (Airworthiness Approval of Positioning and Navigation Systems). You can refer to that AC for further learning.

Your homework exercise is meant to make you teach yourself how research for yourself to get the answer you need. So you will go from AC90-100 to the various TSO's and AC 20-138 to find your answers. Its not a single source, single location answer. You might even need to look at the several hundred page manual that accompanies the Garmin G1000 NavIII, and the POH for your airframe (which is specific to that airframe) to formulate your "proof" for your question's answer. Every AC and TSO referenced in AC90-100a is a potential source for you to use.

The answer is yes, that system in that plane can fly that procedure. But I'm not going to do your work for you.
 
Thank you.
This is not a homework but was doing my research to learn in detail and where it comes from. I do not know how you came to a conclusion that I am a international student but it is insulting...
I tried my best to go through the pages of ACs but did not have idea how to conduct BETTER research and you helped me.
 
John777 said:
Thank you.
This is not a homework but was doing my research to learn in detail and where it comes from. I do not know how you came to a conclusion that I am a international student but it is insulting...
Click to expand...

It must be accurate. And if you are insulted, it must be something you are ashamed of. If you are ashamed of that, well.. thats unfortunate. Your English is very good, but its still apparent English is not your first/native language. People who were born here in the US have a different style of grammar, spelling and diction (and honestly most Americans grammar and spelling is horrible and atrocious. Yours is quite good, better than many American born natives, yet clearly not native. And thats nothing to be insulted over. Moving on..

Adult education, as far as I am concerned, is about giving you the tools to teach yourself. I've done that, and showed you where you can find the answers. You messaged me privately and asked in here for specific page numbers, which implies to me you want the spoon fed answer. Asking in multiple places at 1am hints of desperation, as in "I have an assignment due this morning and I cant find the answer". If anything you should be insulted that the expensive flight school you are attending isn't giving you better tools and guidance to problem solve this equation. After all.. you are paying for it. I answered your question with yes or no for free... And I told you where you can look to find the rest if you have to "show proof" or in your case "learn in detail where it comes from". If you want the broad understanding and all the relevant details, you need to read all the documents, not just a single paragraph of a single page. And we both know that.

We see more than the occasional student come through looking for answers to questions that take on the appearance of an assignment in an academic setting, and while many here can be a helpful bunch those same many see the value in doing it yourself. Give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime... or something cheeky like that.

Good luck. I might be wrong and missed the mark and jumped to many conclusions here with a smattering of evidence, or most curiously, I might have nailed it. Either way.. good luck with your learning. The G1000 NavIII must be fabulous to fly in IFR with... coming from someone who learned with an NDB, VOR, ILS and a paper map and no GPS...
 
"2) Aircraft with TSO-C145a sensor, and the requirements in a TSO-C115b FMS, installed for IFR use IAW AC 20-130A or AC 20-138A."

I lookep up AC20-138A and found this interesting text if I am correct..

3-4. TSO-C115(AR). a. TSO-C115d, Required Navigation Performance (RNP) Equipment Using MultiSensor Inputs defines an acceptable certification standard for obtaining design and production approval for multi-sensor navigation systems or FMSs integrating data from multiple navigation sensors. There is no plan to withdraw TSO authorizations granted under earlier TSO-C115 revisions. Manufacturers of earlier TSO-C115 revisions can continue production according to their TSOA/LODA; and the equipment is still eligible for installation in accordance with the guidance in this AC. However, integrating GNSS into TSO-C115/C115a multi-sensor navigation equipment is considered a major change and requires an application for a TSO-C115dTSOA/LODA.

(1) TSO-C115b only addressed TSO-C129 Class B and C sensors because it was published prior to TSO-C129a, TSO-C145(AR), TSO-C161(AR), and TSO-C196(AR). It is acceptable to integrate any GNSS sensor with TSO-C115b equipment

Therefore in my opinion, TSO-C145a being approved for multi sensor nav systems in compliance with TSO-C115b, it can be said that it is a type of navigation eligible to fly RNAV1 and 2? and same goes for RNP requirement?

Thanks for you advise and help, look forward to hearing from you sir,

John.
 
Last edited:
Doggtyred said:
Yes. You can do it. RNAV 1 refers to a navigational system that has less than 1 mile system error over 95% of the flight, or words of similar effect. RNAV 2 refers respectively to a 2 mile error 95% of the time.

DME/DME RNAV, inertial nav, etc may not meet this spec. IFR GPS equipment that can be used for approaches and otherwise meets relevant TSO 129(non WAAS) or 145/146 (WAAS) with or without FMS (fd/ap/etc) will meet this specification in the US.
Click to expand...

The comment about TSO C129 equipment meeting the requirements for RNAV 1 is not the full story as the GPS has to be approved for RNAV 1 operations on a SID/STAR/ODP. Most TSO C129 GPS navigators are not approved for this type of operation with the notable exception of the GNS430/530 legacy systems and the non WAAS G1000 system. KLN90B, KLN94, GNC300XL are not approved. Refer to the pdf at the link http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...fs/afs400/afs470/media/AC90-100compliance.pdf
 
John Collins said:
The comment about TSO C129 equipment meeting the requirements for RNAV 1 is not the full story as the GPS has to be approved for RNAV 1 operations on a SID/STAR/ODP. Most TSO C129 GPS navigators are not approved for this type of operation with the notable exception of the GNS430/530 legacy systems and the non WAAS G1000 system. KLN90B, KLN94, GNC300XL are not approved. Refer to the pdf at the link http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...fs/afs400/afs470/media/AC90-100compliance.pdf
Click to expand...

Thank you for the link.
 
John Collins said:
The comment about TSO C129 equipment meeting the requirements for RNAV 1 is not the full story as the GPS has to be approved for RNAV 1 operations on a SID/STAR/ODP. Most TSO C129 GPS navigators are not approved for this type of operation with the notable exception of the GNS430/530 legacy systems and the non WAAS G1000 system. KLN90B, KLN94, GNC300XL are not approved. Refer to the pdf at the link http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...fs/afs400/afs470/media/AC90-100compliance.pdf
Click to expand...
Thank you sir, for providing with the link.
I looked up and under 'Garmin' section I did not notice G1000 with TSO-C145, 145 with which I am flying these days. I guess the whole document is intended for large carriers and airliners :). But it was a good reference to keep with.
Referring to the comment I left above yesterday, that was the best I could do in order to find out if WAAS(TSO-C145, 146) is capable of doing RNAV1/2 and most of texts were really hard to understand. I am really sorry making you bothersome but when I start teaching student I want to teach right thing at first time. If you do not mind could you please shed some light on this matter so I can better learn in detail ?

John.
 
For GPS that have an AFMS developed after AC 90-100A was written, they include statements to the affect that the AC is complied with. The earlier AFMS writers, not being psychic, they did not include such language. So the FAA developed a spreadsheet that listed all of the GPS systems in use at the time and indicated if they were approved for RNAV 1 or not. This document was later changed into the referenced pdf. So, although it references certain airframe manufacturers, it also includes the manufacturers of the then available GPS systems. Early TSO C129 GPS navigators are excluded from flying RNAV 1 SID, STAR, and ODP because they don't contain the procedures in their database and it is required that the procedure be loaded from the database. The main reason that these GPS systems are not included is due to the fact that the leg type CF (Course to a fix) is not supported as a valid leg type in the database design of these units, and since many SIDs and ODPs use this leg type, the GPS systems that can't support this capability in the database are excluded. The only means of flying this type of leg would be for the pilot to use OBS mode of operation and since this involves manual intervention and is not allowed with the RNAV SID,STAR,ODP.

The original GNS430/530/G1000 systems have the capability to code the CF leg in the database, so although they are TSO C129 units, they can comply with the requirements. There is no plan to go back and retrofit any of the other non compliant GPS systems. So if you have a KLN94, KLN90B, KLN89B, GPS155XL, GNC300XL, SL50/60/65, GX50/55/60/65, or 2001 systems, you are out of luck and you will not see any RNAV/SID/STAR in the database, although you may see conventional SIDs and STARs in some.
 
Thank you sir for your help.
I tried to find out that spreadsheet from FAA and googled it but It is not showing up. If you do not mind could youpost link for us ?

Thank you very much and have a great weekend!
 
The link is in post #12. I wrote:

John Collins said:
So the FAA developed a spreadsheet that listed all of the GPS systems in use at the time and indicated if they were approved for RNAV 1 or not. This document was later changed into the referenced pdf.
Click to expand...

The spreadsheet is now the pdf.
 
John Collins said:
The link is in post #12. I wrote:



The spreadsheet is now the pdf.
Click to expand...
Thank you sir, and the pdf doc was really helpful to learn more about the TSO and eligibility.
However I did not notice anything on TSO-C145 which I think my school's plane is certified upon, and from POH section 8, in the JAR OPS it states that GPS/GNSS receivers in the G1000 system are certified to TSO C145a.
In the next paragraph, it also states that 'G1000 system has been shown to be eligible for BRNAV(RNP-5) and PRNAV(RNP-1) Enroute and Terminal navigation per JAA TGL-2,....'

John.
 
Sir, TSO-C145 is a specification for a piece of equipment, not a piece of equipment or system. Only individual systems are mentioned in the pdf. The G1000 is mentioned, but more to the point, the AFMS or POH has the information in it that defines the limitations of the equipment. So first, look in the POH/AFMS to locate a statement regarding approval for operation on RNAV 1 SID/STAR in compliance with AC 90-100. If you find it, then your aircraft is capable of flying these routes. If not, look in the PDF, if you find your system in there and it says your system is compliant, you are also good to go.

TSO C145 and TSO 146 are essentially the same, the former applies to a WAAS sensor and the latter applies to a stand alone WAAS navigator that has a built in WAAS sensor. Often the two are listed as TSO C145/146. So a G1000 WAAS system has a GIA63W which is a WAAS sensor.
 
John Collins said:
Sir, TSO-C145 is a specification for a piece of equipment, not a piece of equipment or system. Only individual systems are mentioned in the pdf. The G1000 is mentioned, but more to the point, the AFMS or POH has the information in it that defines the limitations of the equipment. So first, look in the POH/AFMS to locate a statement regarding approval for operation on RNAV 1 SID/STAR in compliance with AC 90-100. If you find it, then your aircraft is capable of flying these routes. If not, look in the PDF, if you find your system in there and it says your system is compliant, you are also good to go.

TSO C145 and TSO 146 are essentially the same, the former applies to a WAAS sensor and the latter applies to a stand alone WAAS navigator that has a built in WAAS sensor. Often the two are listed as TSO C145/146. So a G1000 WAAS system has a GIA63W which is a WAAS sensor.
Click to expand...
Thank you sir for your comments and assistance.
Under JAR-OPS Operational Eligibility, supplement 5 in POH, it says 'The GPS/GNSS receivers in the G1000 system are certified to TSOC129a Class A1 and ETSO C128a Class A1 or TSO C145a ETSO 2C145a. The installed performance of the G1000 system has been tested and approved for IFR enroute, terminal and non-precision (RNAV or GPS) approach operations per AC20-138A when using GPS/GNSS with the correction nav database'

Also it states that it meets the requirements for RNP10, shown to be eligible for RNP-5, 1 per AC90-96A provided that the G1000 is receiving usable navigation information from at least on GPS receiver.

So in my opinion, because it is TSO-145, and does not mention about RNAV1, it is not eligible to fly those routes?

John.
 
John777 said:
Thank you sir for your comments and assistance.
Under JAR-OPS Operational Eligibility, supplement 5 in POH, it says 'The GPS/GNSS receivers in the G1000 system are certified to TSOC129a Class A1 and ETSO C128a Class A1 or TSO C145a ETSO 2C145a. The installed performance of the G1000 system has been tested and approved for IFR enroute, terminal and non-precision (RNAV or GPS) approach operations per AC20-138A when using GPS/GNSS with the correction nav database'

Also it states that it meets the requirements for RNP10, shown to be eligible for RNP-5, 1 per AC90-96A provided that the G1000 is receiving usable navigation information from at least on GPS receiver.

So in my opinion, because it is TSO-145, and does not mention about RNAV1, it is not eligible to fly those routes?

John.
Click to expand...

John,

I don't know what your problem is, but the G1000 is eligible to fly RNAV 1 routes. Don't get hung up on TSO C145 verses TSO C146, they are essentially identical specifications. The difference is TSO C145 is for a sensor based system and TSO C146 is for a full Navigation system. The G1000 is both. The GIA63W Navigation receiver is a sensor, but the entire G1000 is a system. The whole reason the pdf document was prepared is that for systems that predated AC 90-100A, for example the G1000 system, they do not have references to the AC in their AFMS/POH because the writers where not psychic. So, rather than reissuing all AFMS to indicate if they complied or not with the AC, the PDF was produced to list existing systems and their level of compliance. As new systems were released or new versions of older systems AFMS were updated, they added statements in them indicating compliance. As a practical matter, all Garmin GPS systems released after the GNS430 in 1999 comply with the AC. It is a simple matter to check, look in your database of the G1000 for an RNAV SID or STAR. If it is in the database, then the avionics system supports it. If you have an older system such as the KLN90B or GNS300XL, you will find conventional SIDs in the database, but no RNAV SIDs.

Note that updates to the AFMS probably have the wording you are looking for, but sans an AD requiring an update to the AFMS, it can't be required that you get yours updated.
 
John Collins said:
It is a simple matter to check, look in your database of the G1000 for an RNAV SID or STAR. If it is in the database, then the avionics system supports it. If you have an older system such as the KLN90B or GNS300XL, you will find conventional SIDs in the database, but no RNAV SIDs.
Click to expand...

Are you sure about this? I flew under a Honeywell FMS for years that was most definitely not approved, but still had every RNAV SID and STAR in its database.
 
kayoh190 said:
Are you sure about this? I flew under a Honeywell FMS for years that was most definitely not approved, but still had every RNAV SID and STAR in its database.
Click to expand...

It probably depends on the rules under which the flight is being conducted. 121 and other certified operators need more than just capable equipment. Part 91 operators do not require individual approval for RNAV 1 operations,
 
John Collins said:
It probably depends on the rules under which the flight is being conducted. 121 and other certified operators need more than just capable equipment. Part 91 operators do not require individual approval for RNAV 1 operations,
Click to expand...

Ah, that makes sense. It was Part 135. This was also almost a decade ago and things might have changed. Honeywell wanted over $10K to update the firmware on our unit (it was incapable of properly handling flyover waypoints, IIRC), so we made do without, and ignored the RNAV SID and STARs in the box.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top