Jump to content

Saab 340A - Announcing New Feature!


Cameron
 Share

Recommended Posts

I don´t know where you read that, but if it´s true then I am breaking the law almost daily!

 

Horani already gave some more details, but here are the sources I have my information from:

 

 

1. A DFS presention held 2009 at an ICAO conference in Paris:

 

http://www.paris.icao.int/documents_open_meetings/download.php?maincategory=76&subcategory=96&file=PBN_TF3IP04Germany.pdf

 

On page 2 it says "B-RNAV is mandatory for flights in airspace above FL095 within Germany"

 

On page 6 it gets clear that VOR/DME and NDB are only meant as backups (used on just 1 RWY per airport), but GNSS is the primary, and used on ATS controlled routes.

 

On page 7 you can see the schedule for this "further thinning of conventional navigation systems" (p. 8), i.e. the dates when which VOR/DME/NBDs were or are planned to be removed.

 

 

2. I guess it started in 1998 with the Luftfahrt-Bundesamt's ("Federal Aviation Office") "Bekanntmachung über die Einrichtung von Lufträumen mit vorgeschriebener Flächennavigationsausrüstung" which is apparently not available freely anymore. Can be purchased here:

 

http://www.luftverkehr.de/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=192:c1998-1-073-c085a&catid=63:brd-bekanntmachungen-nfl-1&Itemid=182)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Horani already gave some more details, but here are the sources I have my information from:

 

 

1. A DFS presention held 2009 at an ICAO conference in Paris:

 

http://www.paris.icao.int/documents_open_meetings/download.php?maincategory=76&subcategory=96&file=PBN_TF3IP04Germany.pdf

 

On page 2 it says "B-RNAV is mandatory for flights in airspace above FL095 within Germany"

 

On page 6 it gets clear that VOR/DME and NDB are only meant as backups (used on just 1 RWY per airport), but GNSS is the primary, and used on ATS controlled routes.

 

On page 7 you can see the schedule for this "further thinning of conventional navigation systems" (p. 8), i.e. the dates when which VOR/DME/NBDs were or are planned to be removed.

 

 

2. I guess it started in 1998 with the Luftfahrt-Bundesamt's ("Federal Aviation Office") "Bekanntmachung über die Einrichtung von Lufträumen mit vorgeschriebener Flächennavigationsausrüstung" which is apparently not available freely anymore. Can be purchased here:

 

http://www.luftverkehr.de/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=192:c1998-1-073-c085a&catid=63:brd-bekanntmachungen-nfl-1&Itemid=182)

 

I am all down with that, but the initial statement was that GPS was required above FL100, and that is not the case. B-RNAV is not dependent on GPS and many of the A320 family aircraft I fly do not have GPS equipment (or they do, but it is not tied to the navigational equipment, but only serves to power the EGPWS position).

 

The ANP is much better than the RNP of B-RNAV, of course, because they have 3 IRS systems that back up the position with info from DME, VOR and LOC receivers.

 

Jan

 

Edit: Oh, I just read the .pdf - it is a planned schedule for implementation! That made me laugh - do you have any idea for how long they tried to implement some stuff (like CPDLC, for example)? This might happen some time - like in 20 years :-)

Edited by Litjan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Edit: Oh, I just read the .pdf - it is a planned schedule for implementation! That made me laugh - do you have any idea for how long they tried to implement some stuff (like CPDLC, for example)? This might happen some time - like in 20 years :-)

 

If I understand your post correctly, I take it that you are a real-world Airbus pilot, so I guess I'll simply believe you. :) It's not a law then, but a planned regulation one should prepare for.

 

My main focus is on the "primary" state that satellite (GNSS) based navigation "will" have soon, according to DFS, and the thinning of VOR/DME/NDBs, which has already begun years ago.

 

During the "Saab Release Week" I had several discussions in several forums with flight simulation users (both XP and MSFS) complaining that online flying without GNSS RNAV equipment is nearly impossible in Germany, so they said the Saab would be nearly useless for them. These documents seem to confirm this problem.

 

If it's not yet a big problem in reality (in contrast to desktop flight simulation), well, that's good :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I understand your post correctly, I take it that you are a real-world Airbus pilot, so I guess I'll simply believe you. :) It's not a law then, but a planned regulation one should prepare for.

 

My main focus is on the "primary" state that satellite (GNSS) based navigation "will" have soon, according to DFS, and the thinning of VOR/DME/NDBs, which has already begun years ago.

 

During the "Saab Release Week" I had several discussions in several forums with flight simulation users (both XP and MSFS) complaining that online flying without GNSS RNAV equipment is nearly impossible in Germany, so they said the Saab would be nearly useless for them. These documents seem to confirm this problem.

 

If it's not yet a big problem in reality (in contrast to desktop flight simulation), well, that's good :)

 

Yes, i am a real Airbus pilot (unfortunately), but that still doesn´t mean I know everything about these things ;) .

 

Implementation of new features in air traffic is woefully slow, and a lot of cool features are feasible and planned, but usually get implemented VERY slow, because most airlines shy away from the cost of installing new equipment and lobby the politicians to stall requirements that make them do so.

 

I think it is still possible to fly IFR in Germany without B-RNAV capability (even above Fl100), you just have to indicate so on your flightplan, and certain routes may be off-limits to you then.

 

There are certain arrival and departure routes that require a certain navigation performance (P-RNAV, RNP 1, etc.) and those can´t be flown without RNAV equipment, but I think airports have to have alternative procedures to accomodate those planes that can´t fly the RNAV SIDS and STARS.

 

It is pretty common standard, though, and flying a complicated arrival route without the aid of RNAV is at least very challenging - you also can not accept any direct routings and that alone will pay for the needed equipment fairly quick.

 

So I applaud the decision of LES to add that sort of capability to the Saab - it will not only make online flying feasible, but will also aid the run-of-the-mills offline pilot like me, wo just wants to go from A to B in a straight line without worrying about the totally unrealistic short-ranged VOR´s that X-Plane 10 still has (and THAT is another story...).

 

Jan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I think it is still possible to fly IFR in Germany without B-RNAV capability (even above Fl100), you just have to indicate so on your flightplan, and certain routes may be off-limits to you then.

 

 

 

Jan,

 

I do NOT think you can fly IFR above FL95 (or in CAS) without certified B-RNAV capability. Try to pass such a flightplan via Eurocontrol...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am almost afraid to ask if the mini GPS can be used in other planes... so that after buying the SAAB, the mini GPS also works in the B727 from FlyjSim. Then this fantastic feature may attract even more users to the Saab.

 

Probably not. The screenshots show that it is integral part of the Saab's menu system.

 

The FlyJSim 727, by the way, has the option show the X-Plane default FMS in 2D cockpit mode.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know its off topic but how do you mean by short range vor i x-plane? Are there fewer vor stations with bigger distance in the real world? Are vor-stations in x-plane not there in the same position in real world?

Sorry offtopic but this is interesting to me. :)

 

X-Plane's VOR database is in sync with the real world's.  In the US anyway there are 3 types of VORs, Terminal (T) with about a 25nm range, Low-altitude (L) VOR with a 40nm range, and then you have the high-altitude VORs (H) with 100-130nm range - there are some altitude restrictions to the reception range on the (L) and (H), but that's generally how they work.

Ah, here it is... (L) is 40nm from 1000-18000ft MSL, (H) is 40nm from 1000-14500 MSL, 100nm from 14500-18000, and 130nm from FL180-FL450

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably not. The screenshots show that it is integral part of the Saab's menu system.

 

The FlyJSim 727, by the way, has the option show the X-Plane default FMS in 2D cockpit mode.

 

In the US, adding an aftermarket GPS or FMS was pretty common on the 727.  There was also the CIVA INS system which can be bought for $10 as an add-on to the FlyJSim 727, which was apparently far more popular in Europe than it was in North America.  I own the CIVA INS and I use it, although it requires a bit more attention and care than a GPS since it has to be manually realigned with DME updates every so often to maintain its accuracy (just like the real one).

 

The CIVA INS is designed to be used with other planes as well.. may or may not work with the Saab's systems in coupled mode (I'm guessing not), but you could always fly the recommended headings/tracks yourself to use it for navigation.  You would of course also need accurate charts, since the CIVA unit does not accept a fix name (such as ERYKA) but instead needs the actual latitude and longitude coordinates to be programmed in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the US, adding an aftermarket GPS or FMS was pretty common on the 727.  There was also the CIVA INS system which can be bought for $10 as an add-on to the FlyJSim 727, which was apparently far more popular in Europe than it was in North America.  I own the CIVA INS and I use it, although it requires a bit more attention and care than a GPS since it has to be manually realigned with DME updates every so often to maintain its accuracy (just like the real one).

 

The CIVA INS is designed to be used with other planes as well.. may or may not work with the Saab's systems in coupled mode (I'm guessing not), but you could always fly the recommended headings/tracks yourself to use it for navigation.  You would of course also need accurate charts, since the CIVA unit does not accept a fix name (such as ERYKA) but instead needs the actual latitude and longitude coordinates to be programmed in.

 

CIVA is nice, yeah. For the German readers of FSMagazin I did a CIVA workshop just recently :) (And hope I made not too obvious mistakes :D ).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

X-Plane's VOR database is in sync with the real world's.  In the US anyway there are 3 types of VORs, Terminal (T) with about a 25nm range, Low-altitude (L) VOR with a 40nm range, and then you have the high-altitude VORs (H) with 100-130nm range - there are some altitude restrictions to the reception range on the (L) and (H), but that's generally how they work.

Ah, here it is... (L) is 40nm from 1000-18000ft MSL, (H) is 40nm from 1000-14500 MSL, 100nm from 14500-18000, and 130nm from FL180-FL450

 

The range of VOR´s in X-Plane is in sync with the GUARANTEED reception of VOR´s. In the real world, you are usually able to receive them at a significantly longer range.

 

I regularly fly approaches in X-Plane that I am familiar with from real flying and can not receive navaids that I can regularly receive at that altitude in the real world.

 

I can regularly receive VOR stations from as far away as 200NM, so limiting them to 130NM is artificial and not in line with the real world (even though in line with official documentation).

 

Jan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jan,

 

I do NOT think you can fly IFR above FL95 (or in CAS) without certified B-RNAV capability. Try to pass such a flightplan via Eurocontrol...

 

I really don´t know, fortunately our dispatch department files all the flightplans for us - but I will give them a call and ask them about it.

 

I remember that I was copilot on a flight from EDDS to EDDF in 1999 where the FMS on our B737 had failed. We navigated with VOR´s and radar vectoring, and at least back then (14 years ago, though!) it seemed to be no problem.

 

Jan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can regularly receive VOR stations from as far away as 200NM, so limiting them to 130NM is artificial and not in line with the real world (even though in line with official documentation).

 

 

Although you are correct, X-Plane also takes into account the fact that you can generally receive 130% (approx) of what is stated in official documentation. Most of VOR's in (virtual) Europe that have a 130nm range can be received atleast 150 NM away if not more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although you are correct, X-Plane also takes into account the fact that you can generally receive 130% (approx) of what is stated in official documentation. Most of VOR's in (virtual) Europe that have a 130nm range can be received atleast 150 NM away if not more.

 

Oh, I didn´t know that - guess I have to try the ranges in XP again, maybe they did increase those since the last time I did some longer VOR crosscountry flights.

 

Thanks for the heads-up!

 

Jan

 

Edit: Just tried it in XP10, and indeed the ranges of the VOR´s seem realistic (received a T-VOR at 60NM at FL250, with it´s offical range being 25NM), so I stand corrected on my previous claims of inadequate range. All is well :) .

Edited by Litjan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...