➣➣ S YS T E M N O T E S | BY J O R DA N M I L L E R

USING RNAV/RNP
now, requested a vector to !nal. The con-
troller vectored the Bonanza to the same
IAP, and, once again, cleared the pilot for
approach #6. The pilot responded saying,
“I’m getting tired of #ying this airplane.” Having a modern GPS navigator gives us a lot of capability,
This is the crap that gives controllers but unfortunately, there are still pro!les that are out of
nightmares long into retirement. Again,
the controller asked if the pilot would pre- bounds.
fer to divert to VMC. The pilot responded
that he was determined to land at HQZ,

I
as #ight-planned, and would “keep work- n 1957 the Soviet Union launched tower, hence the Chart Supplement note,
ing until we get it.” Note the !rst-person Sputnik, the !rst man-made satellite. “Unmonitored when ATCT closed.” Na-
plural, “we.” We, the pilot, the Bonanza The American psyche was troubled by vaids are monitored by ATC or the FAA,
… and the controller. the potential of this technological second who is alerted to performance problems.
place. This planted the seeds of one of While the DoD does monitor the sat-
We Are Not Amused America’s greatest military and techno- ellites in the GPS constellation, the gov-
A sitcom, pee’d-my-pants-but-everyone- logical innovations—GPS. ernment can’t monitor the performance
laughed ending would be sweet here, but As Sputnik whirled around the plan- of the box in your plane. Instead, the box
two minutes into the sixth approach, the et, two American physicists realized they must monitor itself and tell the pilot when
Bonanza that would not quit trying, quit could use the Doppler E&ect to determine it doesn’t meet required performance.
#ying. The NTSB reported: “The airplane its position. This observation led to the The textbook de!nition of RNP is area
impacted terrain in a nose low, right wing !rst satellite navigation system, success- navigation “that includes the requirement
down attitude and the engine impacted fully tested in 1960. for onboard performance monitoring
28 feet beyond the initial impact point, Half a century later, aviation lives in and alerting.” When flying through a
creating a 4-foot deep crater. The aircra$ a performance based navigation (PBN) mountain pass, it’s nice to know you re-
tumbled and separated into multiple world with satnav as the backbone. PBN ally are where the box says.
pieces. The fuselage came to rest 110 feet encompasses Area Navigation (RNAV)
beyond the initial impact point.” and Required Navigational Performance Lie Detection
Conclusion? Ain’t none other than (RNP). Simply put, area navigation is the How does onboard performance moni-
the obvious. A quali!ed instrument pi- ability to #y point-to-point while RNP is toring work? The old school method is
lot, #ying a !ne instrument platform in the ability to #y RNAV within given ac- RAIM, which is still used for TSO-C129
adequate conditions, found every way to curacy requirements. receivers and TSO-C146 when WAAS
auger himself, an airplane and, by exten- Notwithstanding a few technophobes isn’t available. RAIM, Receiver Autono-
sion, an air traffic controller miles away and fiscal limitations, pilots have em- mous Integrity Monitoring, is automati-
into unnecessary tragedy. Pushing your braced GPS. But, the world of PBN can cally performed before a GPS approach.
limits is one thing; ignoring reality is un- be confusing with its continual advance- Integrity refers to the “truth telling” abil-
acceptable. Go !gure…because I can’t. ments. Pilots seemingly need GPS to ity of navigational performance. RAIM is
Perhaps the pilot had insufficient ex- navigate all the acronyms. the lie detector when not using WAAS.
perience with the toys in the panel. If we If you don’t want to play, just avoid RAIM ensures that enough satellites
assume that’s the case, the obvious lesson anything notated with RNP minimums will be in view to achieve the needed
is not to attempt any real IMC until you or authorization required. Most GPS re- RNP. The RNP value is also the Hori-
can, well, #y the new toys. ceivers provide RNP 2, RNP 1 and RNP zontal Protection Limit (HPL) because
Regardless of the reason our deter- Approach operations. But, as discussed the pilot is alerted when the position un-
mined pilot needed six tries to get it se- previously, RNP approach minimums certainty potentially exceeds this limit.
riously wrong, the other take away is to require a navigation speci!cation not au- RAIM works by using one more satel-
have some kind of Plan B at hand and to tomatically granted. RNAV for en route, lite than is needed for position and tim-
be ready to admit when Plan A just ain’t departures and arrivals is fair game, but ing. The box compares computed posi-
workin’. Perhaps that way you can live there are nuances to consider. tions swapping in the extra satellite for
long and prosper. the others. It’s all good if the computed
GPS Lie Detector position doesn’t change. If it does change,
All navigation aids, including RNP and something is wrong.
RNAV, need some type of performance Many GPS navigators have fault de-
Having scared himself enough in IFR situations, monitoring. With terrestrial navigation, tection and exclusion (FDE). The !rst step
Paul Berge, editor emeritus of IFR, now flies his this largely isn’t a pilot’s problem. For ex- is detecting a fault—a satellite that isn’t
Aeronca and enjoys both eyes on the scenery. ample, most ILSes are monitored by the providing good info. The second is ex-

October 2017 | IFR | 15

 Many RNAV departures require a climb
rate of 500 feet/NM to 500 feet AGL.
The transition to PBN is
This ensures a pilot reaches the RNAV The !rst is simple—!ling the correct
going to require pilots to
engagement altitude within a mile of #ight plan with equipment codes. RNAV
check that they possess the
the runway. It doesn’t have anything SIDS and STARs require an ICAO #ight
required navigation capa-
to do with obstacles. plan. Entering equipment codes and ca-
bility and equipment.
pabilities can get extremely complicated.
Fortunately, the FAA isn’t into all the
unnecessary complication common to
parliamentarians and only cares about a
couple equipment codes. For most of us,
a G (GNSS) and S (standard equipment)
for equipment permits #ying RNAV from
SC-2, 20 JUL 2017 to 17 AUG 2017 take-o& to touchdown.
While #ight planning it’s good prac-
cluding that satellite’s information from ity, both horizontal and vertical accuracy tice to check required performance and
the position calculation. FDE requires an are considered. equipment. Most terminal RNAV pro-
additional satellite over that required for If the signal does not meet the vertical cedures list performance and equipment
RAIM—typically six. protection limits, the box won’t let you requirements—frequently RNAV 1 and
RAIM is checked before using non- even select a GPS approach with VNAV. DME/DME/IRU or GPS. Given those
WAAS GPS, or when WAAS is not avail- If you can’t #y it, you can’t load it. specs, you’re good to go with an IFR GPS.
able, for RNAV 1 (arrivals and depar- You typically only see a loss of integ- If speci!c equipment is listed and doesn’t
tures) or RNAV 2 (en route). AC 90-100A rity when some approved organization include GPS or GNSS, you’ll be out of
and 90-105A, covering RNAV and RNP intentionally messes with GPS signals. luck. As PBN evolves, so will equipment
operations respectively, both state that NOTAMs usually forecast these outages, and performance speci!cations, so start
“RAIM availability must be con!rmed but outages can occur without notice. getting used to looking for them.
for the intended route of flight … for Checking NOTAMs is critical when Check for a current database. The
the intended RNAV 1 or RNAV 2 opera- navigating with GPS, particularly with days of getting away with one or two
tions.” (AC 90-100A) WAAS. Since the WAAS program con- updates a year are gone. To fly RNAV,
Numerous methods to check RAIM ducts the integrity monitoring (instead “onboard navigation data must be cur-
exist. The easiest is using the navigator of having to perform a RAIM check), rent and appropriate for the region of
itself, which does report RAIM. Another the only way to see if you’ll have a loss of intended operation and must include the
option is to use the FAA’s Service Avail- navigational performance is by NOTAM. navigation aids, waypoints, and relevant
ability Prediction Tool website. Some Even when doing a RAIM check, satel- coded terminal airspace procedures for
#ight planning so$ware might also in- lites with known issues need to be taken the departure, arrival, and alternate air-
clude RAIM checking. out of the calculations. NOTAMs advise !elds.” (AC90-100A)
WAAS e&ectively replaces RAIM. In- pilots of known satellite problems. Procedures should be selected from
stead of having your navigator identify a A black and white world would be a current database rather than built by
satellite anomaly, a Wide Area Reference nice, but when it comes to GPS NOTAMs, hand from the !xes. Getting a STAR or
station identi!es the anomaly and sends many embrace the gray. As described in SID from the database typically assures
a correction or exclusion message to your the AIM, a NOTAM indicating “GPS correct scaling and sensitivity for the pro-
box. As the FAA wrote in describing MAY NOT BE AVAILABLE” or “UNRE- cedure. It is permissible to input a proce-
WAAS, “The Wide Area Augmentation LIABLE” doesn’t preclude use. Instead, dure by !x names. But, doing so might
System (WAAS) provides an augmenta- ATC is supposed to know if GPS testing result in GPS sensitivity automatically
tion signal to GPS … that provides cor- is occurring and should not allow ac- changing to en route at the wrong time.
rection and integrity information intend- tual instrument GPS approaches during Don’t even think of inputting !xes by
ed to improve positioning navigation and that time. Implicit in the government’s lat/log or bearing/distance; it’s forbidden.
timing.” The key word is integrity. WAAS description of GPS-testing NOTAMs is Don’t mess with a procedure by making a
ensures truth telling. that accuracy would not be downgraded #y-by waypoint a #y-over waypoint. The
below the HPL required for en route and procedure is designed the way it is for a
Where am I? terminal operations. reason.
Even with WAAS and RAIM, GPS navi- Before #ight, the last step is to verify
gators can still get lost, although it’s rare. Checkin’ the Details the route. Check what’s in the navigator
Termed a loss of integrity, getting lost can When utilizing RNAV to the fullest there with what is published on the charts and
happen when not enough satellites are in are some items to be aware of in addi- the clearance. Occasional database errors
view or a signal becomes corrupted. For tion to checking RAIM (if required) and do sneak in. More commonly, an errant
navigators with VNAV approach capabil- NOTAMs. button push sends you to a !x on a dif-

16 | IFR | October 2017

ferent continent. Some transitions and
clearances can be confusing. A review of
the chart and route on the chart or MFD RNP ADVANTAGES
will help identify any zig-zags before ATC What’s the big deal about approaches with RNP mins? Normal GPS approach-
ominously asks, “Where are you going?” es perform to a 0.3 NM tolerance, the same as many RNP minimums. The most
significant difference, and advantage, is elimination of the secondary obstacle
SIDs and STARs clearance area.
RNAV SIDs and STARs have specific Most paths incorpo-
requirements. A new concept associated rate two obstacle clear-
with RNAV SIDs is RNAV engagement ance areas; a primary and
altitude. It is de!ned as the altitude at secondary. The primary is
which “the pilot must be able to engage a box around the course.
RNAV equipment to follow flight guid- The secondary area is half
ance for lateral RNAV.” (AC 90-100A)
the width of the primary
The RNAV engagement altitude is no
and has a sloped bot-
later than !ve hundred feet AGL. #is
tom creating a triangular
peculiar requirement answers why many
shape. When building ap-
departures required an initial climb rate

SW-3, 20 JUL 2017 to 17 AUG 2017

SW-3, 20 JUL 2017 to 17 AUG 2017

proaches in mountainous
of five hundred feet per nautical mile,
such as the SWABR4 RNAV departure areas, terrain often im-
from DAL. (Note that the non-RNAV pedes the secondary area
CYOTE 8 departure only requires a stan- preventing approaches.
dard climb rate when departing the 31s). Another feature of ap-
It has nothing to do with obstacles, but proaches with RNP mins
simply to get flights to start following the are curved courses known
lateral path as soon as possible. as radius-to-fix (RF) legs.
Beyond zipping up to the RNAV en- Non-RNP approaches can
gagement altitude, SIDs and STARs have also have RF legs, like the
additional requirements. Pilots must use RNAV (GPS) X RWY 24 into
a lateral deviation indicator (or equiva- KCRQ. Non-RNP proce-
lent moving map display), and either an dures with RF legs are rare
autopilot or flight director. The lateral because “RF leg limits IFP
deviation indicator can be a CDI or HSI. availability to some users;
#e more onerous requirements are for a therefore use of an RF leg
flight director or autopilot. requires Flight Standards
It’s easy to forget the requirement to approval.” (FAA Order
use a flight director and switch it o$ when 8260.58A) Additionally, non-RNP procedures require a two mile straight seg-
flying an arrival. Flight directors can be ment before the final approach segment. These two factors make RNAV (GPS)
annoying when trying to hand fly. Plug- approaches with RF legs as rare as a Northern White Rhino. —JM
ging in the director commands while
flying more than doubles your workload.
most common authorization required #e world has come a long way since
Gettin’ the Job Done approaches are titled RNAV (RNP). Sputnik beeped over the heads of school
#e power and !delity of GPS make it the There are some steps to ensure children. #e military transitioned from
go-to navigation system. With a TSO- RNAV bliss. Keep the database up-to- developing satellite navigation to !gur-
C129 or TSO-C146 navigator you can fly date. When !ling an ICAO flight plan, ing out how to interfere with it. Aviation
RNAV 1 (departure and arrivals), RNAV include code G in box 10. Check GPS embraced the development of satellite
2 (en route including G and T routes) NOTAMs. If WAAS is NOTAMed un- navigation. Now GNSS is the backbone
and RNAV approaches. Technically, available, conduct a RAIM check for the upon which PBN flies.
you’re approved for RNP approaches, route. A “MAY NOT BE AVBL” NOTAM
but RNP approaches doesn’t mean RNP means just that. It’s probably a good idea
minimums. Instead, the RNP approach to have a backup navigation source ready
category contains LNAV, LNAV/VNAV, if “may not” turns into “isn’t.” When fly- Jordan Miller flies for a major U.S. airline where
LP and LPV. Any procedure containing ing RNAV 1 ensure the flight director or he really doesn’t need to worry about this stuff
“authorization required” is o$ limits. #e autopilot is on. since what he can do is outlined in his SOP.

October 2017 | IFR | 17