Saab 340A - Announcing New Feature!

[Cameron]

wait, I thought the KLN was one of two default GPSes that X-Plane 10 has?

X-Plane 10 does not have a KLN. Not even close. This is an add-on.

[ss8913]

what's that one in the Baron/king air, then, that doesn't have the moving map?  or am I completely blind?

[Cameron]

what's that one in the Baron/king air, then, that doesn't have the moving map? or am I completely blind?

A Collins unit.

[ss8913]

ok.. that's the one I meant, then.  That allows direct-to fix/direct-to VOR/NDB, yes?

[BWolf7]

ok.. that's the one I meant, then.  That allows direct-to fix/direct-to VOR/NDB, yes?

Yes.

[Cameron]

ok.. that's the one I meant, then.  That allows direct-to fix/direct-to VOR/NDB, yes?

 

And now we're going in circles.

 

Irregardless of what it accepts, that GPS will not work with the systems integrated into the Saab.

 

Saab 340A = not simple minded product.

[ss8913]

Right, I wouldn't expect it to couple with the autopilot or anything.  I'll just be happy with the 340A the way it is, and I will buy the 340B Upgrade Pak with the FMS later after you've made that, and then have both

[Panman]

Id be happiest if it would release!   =D

 

I'll take it however you serve it ... that is one sweet aircraft ... my credit card remains primed and ready!

[Mario Donick]

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)

[Litjan]

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 September 17, 2013 by Litjan

[Mario Donick]

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

[Litjan]

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

[meshboy]

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.

[horani]

 

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...

[wim1976]

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.

[Mario Donick]

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.

[ss8913]

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

[ss8913]

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.

[Cameron]

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.

 

No, it is exclusive to the Saab.

[Mario Donick]

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 ).

[Litjan]

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

[Litjan]

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

[-TheoGregory]

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.

[Litjan]

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 September 18, 2013 by Litjan