Loading Procedures from Databases

Most IFR pilots who use GNSS (GPS) are aware that they must load instrument approach procedures (IAPs) by name from the unit’s database. But there’s some confusion in IFR land about flying instrument departure procedures, arrivals, and other routes.

For more information about database currency, see Database Currency for IFR Operations here at BruceAir.

AIM 1−1−17. Global Positioning System (GPS), 2. IFR Use of GPS, includes the following paragraph about IAPs:

(3) All approach procedures to be flown must be retrievable from the current airborne navigation database supplied by the equipment manufacturer or other FAA−approved source. The system must be able to retrieve the procedure by name from the aircraft navigation database, not just as a manually entered series of waypoints. Manual entry of waypoints using latitude/longitude or place/bearing is not permitted for approach procedures. (p. 1−1−20)

That language specifically address IAPs, but it doesn’t mention DPs, STARs, or airways.

If you use an IFR-approved GNSS (see AIM 1−1−17. Global Positioning System (GPS), 2. IFR Use of GPS for the details), you should check the Aircraft Flight Manual Supplement or the AFM (if you fly an aircraft with an IFR-approved GNSS installed as original equipment) for the limitations associated with the unit(s) in your aircraft.

For example, the AFM supplement (a required document for a unit installed under an STC) for the Garmin GNS 530W includes the following language:

2.5 Flight Planning

Whenever possible, RNP and RNAV routes including Standard Instrument Departures (SIDs), and Standard Terminal Arrival (STAR), routes should be loaded into the flight plan from the database in their entirety, rather than loading route waypoints from the database into the flight plan individually. Selecting and inserting individual named fixes from the database is permitted, provided all fixes along the published route to be flown are inserted. Manual entry of waypoints using latitude/longitude or place/bearing is prohibited. (Garmin document 190-00357-03_F)

Similar language appears in the AFM supplements for the GNS 430, GTN 750, and GTN 650 units. For example:

2.4 Flight Planning

Whenever possible, RNP and RNAV routes including Standard Instrument Departures (SIDs), Standard Terminal Arrival (STAR), and enroute RNAV “Q” and RNAV “T” routes should be loaded into the flight plan from the database in their entirety, rather than loading route waypoints from the database into the flight plan individually. Selecting and inserting individual named fixes from the database is permitted, provided all fixes along the published route to be flown are inserted. Manual entry of waypoints using latitude/longitude or place/bearing is prohibited. (AFMS, Garmin GTN GPS/SBAS System, 190-01007-A2 Rev. 8)

You should take care, however, when entering a departure procedure as a series of fixes rather than by name from the database. A DP is more than a series of points defined by LAT/LON. A DP typically contains several types of legs, and you must ensure that you understand how each leg works and how the GNSS in your aircraft handles different leg types and interfaces with your autopilot.

You can find more information about leg types in Avoiding Confusion when Flying GPS Legs here at BruceAir. See also Chapter 6 of the Instrument Procedures Handbook.

Advertisements

Impact of Magnetic Variation on PBN Systems

If you use an IFR-approved GNSS (GPS), you’ve probably noticed that the courses shown on the GNSS usually don’t match the numerical values printed on charts, if only by a few degrees. For example, as you fly an instrument procedure, a WAAS GNSS prompts you at each turn point to turn to a new course, but the number displayed on the screen is probably 2-3 degrees different from the number on the chart.

These differences are explained in AIM 1−1−17. Global Positioning System (GPS) , paragraph k. Impact of Magnetic Variation on PBN Systems (p. 1-1-27):

(1) Differences may exist between PBN systems and the charted magnetic courses on ground−based NAVAID instrument flight procedures (IFP), enroute charts, approach charts, and Standard Instrument Departure/Standard Terminal Arrival (SID/STAR) charts. These differences are due to the magnetic variance used to calculate the magnetic course. Every leg of an instrument procedure is first computed along a desired ground track with reference to true north. A magnetic variation correction is then applied to the true course in order to calculate a magnetic course for publication. The type of procedure will determine what magnetic variation value is added to the true course. A ground−based NAVAID IFP applies the facility magnetic variation of record to the true course to get the charted magnetic course. Magnetic courses on PBN procedures are calculated two different ways. SID/STAR procedures use the airport magnetic variation of record, while IFR enroute charts use magnetic reference bearing. PBN systems make a correction to true north by adding a magnetic variation calculated with an algorithm based on aircraft position, or by adding the magnetic variation coded in their navigational database. This may result in the PBN system and the procedure designer using a different magnetic variation, which causes the magnetic course displayed by the PBN system and the magnetic course charted on the IFP plate to be different. It is important to understand, however, that PBN systems, (with the exception of VOR/DME RNAV equipment) navigate by reference to true north and display magnetic course only for pilot reference. As such, a properly functioning PBN system, containing a current and accurate navigational database, should fly the correct ground track for any loaded instrument procedure, despite differences in displayed magnetic course that may be attributed to magnetic variation application. Should significant differences between the approach chart and the PBN system avionics’ application of the navigation database arise, the published approach chart, supplemented by NOTAMs, holds precedence.

The key text is:

a properly functioning PBN system, containing a current and accurate navigational database, should fly the correct ground track for any loaded instrument procedure, despite differences in displayed magnetic course that may be attributed to magnetic variation application.

Paragraph 2 in that section of the AIM also notes that:

(2) The course into a waypoint may not always be 180 degrees different from the course leaving the previous waypoint, due to the PBN system avionics’ computation of geodesic paths, distance between waypoints, and differences in magnetic variation application. Variations in distances may also occur since PBN system distance−to−waypoint values are ATDs [along-track distances] computed to the next waypoint and the DME values published on underlying procedures are slant−ranged istances measured to the station. This difference increases with aircraft altitude and proximity to the NAVAID.

A similar question also arises when comparing DME and GNSS-derived distances, such as when flying holding patterns.

AIM 5−3−8. Holding provides further details on this issue in:

  • 5. Distance Measuring Equipment (DME)/GPS Along−Track Distance (ATD)
  • 6. Use of RNAV Distance in lieu of DME Distance

Substitution of RNAV computed distance to or from a NAVAID in place of DME distance is  permitted when holding. However, the actual holding location and pattern flown will be further from the NAVAID than designed due to the lack of slant range in the position solution (see FIG 5−3−7). This may result in a slight difference between RNAV distance readout in reference to the NAVAID and the DME readout, especially at higher altitudes. When used solely for DME substitution, the difference between RNAV distance to/from a fix and DME slant range distance can be considered negligible and no pilot action is required.

For more information about using GNSS to substitute for or to complement conventional navaids, see Use of GPS on Conventional Approaches (Update) and Use of Approved GPS (RNAV) Systems on Conventional Procedures and Routes here at BruceAir.

For more information about how the FAA assigns magnetic variation to VORs and other navaids, see FAA Order 8260.19H.

Jeppesen also discussed this issue in one of its Chart Clinic series: The Chart Clinic – Database Series.

Fall 2017 Update on VOR Decommissioning

At the October 2017 meeting of the Aeronautical Charting Forum, the FAA provided an update on the program gradually to decommission about 309 VORs by 2025 as part of the switch to GNSS-based performance based navigation (PBN).

To see the full list of VORs that FAA plans to decommission, visit this post at BruceAir.

VORandMON-Overview

According to the minutes of that meeting and a presentation from an FAA representative, the switch to the mininimum operational network (MON) of about 587 VORs includes the following highlights:

Discontinued 16 VORs to date:
– [EDS] Edisto, in Orangeburg, SC – February 4, 2016
– [BUA] Buffalo, in Buffalo, SD – July 21, 2016
– [PNN] Princeton, in Princeton ME – July 21, 2016
– [PLB] Plattsburgh, in Plattsburgh, NY – September 15, 2016
– [AOH] Allen County , in Lima, OH – September 15, 2016
– [ABB] Nabb, in Nabb Indiana – January 5, 2017
– [SYO] Sayre, in Sayre Oklahoma – April 27, 2017
– [ENW] Kenosha, in Kenosha Wisconsin – June 22, 2017
– [BTL] Battle Creek, in Battle Creek, Michigan – June 22,2017
– [HRK] Horlick, in Horlick Wisconsin – June 22, 2017
– [HUW] West Plains, Missouri – August 17, 2017
– [RIS] Kansas City, Missouri – September 14, 2017
– [DDD] Port City, in Muscatine, IA – October 12, 2017
– [JKS] Jacks Creek, TN – October 12, 2017
– [MXW] Maxwell, CA – October 12, 2017
– [STE] Stevens Point, WI – October 12, 2017

Over the next six months, the following  seven VORs are scheduled to be shut down:

– [AOO] Altoona, PA
– [BRD] Brainerd, MN
– [DKK] Dunkirk, NY
– [HVN] New Haven, CT
– [PNE] North Philadelphia, PA
– [RNL] Rainelle, WV
– [RUT] Rutland, VT

You can follow the links in the list above to see the VORs on a VFR chart. Note that these navaids are not the only VORs in the vicinity. In fact, in most cases, at least one VOR is within just a few miles of the facility slated for shutdown.

HVN-VOR

Part of the switch to the MON is establishing new VOR service volumes. The FAA representative noted that upgrading and flight checking remaining VORs is one the next steps in the VOR MON program. The upgraded service volume values will be 70 nm at or above 5000 ft and 130 nm above 18,000 ft for high VORs. When the flight checks are complete, new information about VOR service volumes will be published in the Chart Supplement and the AIM.

A Quick Way to Search for GPS NOTAMs

The FAA NOTAM search site (https://notams.aim.faa.gov/notamSearch) provides the quickest way to find GPS NOTAMs that alert you to disruptions in the satellite-based navigation system. If you’ve ever tried to find and sort through the text descriptions of these alerts, you’ll appreciate the lists and map views that show how GPS tests and other issues may affect your ability to navigate using GPS.

To learn more about using the FAA NOTAM search site, you can download the User Guide from the FAA website or from my Aviation Documents folder at OneDrive.

NOTAMs-UserGuide

To find GPS-related NOTAMs at the FAA website follow these steps:

After acknowledging the disclaimer, on the main page, select the Predefined Queries option and choose GPS.

FAANotams-PredefinedQuery
FAANOTAMS-selectGPS

Click the Search button, and you’ll see a list of GPS NOTAMs.

FAAGPSNOTAMs-List.jpg

You can also show the NOTAMs in a table.

FAAGPSNOTAMs-Table.jpg
Or in a table with an adjacent map.

FAAGPSNOTAMS-Map+List.jpg
You can filter the list to show only the NOTAMs effective in one or more air route traffic control centers.

FAAGPSNOTAMs-ARTCCListFilter

And you can zoom in on the map and click a NOTAM flag to see more information about that notice.

GAAGPSNOTAMs-MapWide

FAAGPSNOTAMS-MapZoomed.jpg

Use the +/- buttons in the upper-left corner of the map to zoom in and out. To print a NOTAM, click the print icon next to the text.

Use of IFR GPS on Conventional Approaches

FAA has published an update to the AIM, effective 26 May 2016, and it includes a big change if you have an IFR-approved GPS [i.e., a “suitable navigation system” as defined in AC 20-138 and AIM 1-2-3 (b).]

Now, if you fly a conventional approach based on a VOR or NDB (but not a localizer), you can fly the procedure entirely with the GPS, provided you can monitor (using a separate CDI or a bearing pointer) the VOR or NDB facility specified for the approach.

For more information about the use of GPS along the final approach course of a VOR or NDB approach, see Use of GPS on Conventional Approaches (Update)

If you prefer to switch the CDI to “green needles,” see Setting the CDI on a Conventional Approach (The “Kill Switch”) here at BruceAir.

The new language is in section 1−2−3. Use of Suitable Area Navigation (RNAV) Systems on Conventional Procedures and Routes.

The summary of changes to this AIM update notes that:

This change allows for the use of a suitable RNAV system as a means to navigate on the final approach segment of an instrument approach procedure (IAP) based on a VOR, TACAN, or NDB signal. The underlying NAVAID must be operational and monitored for the final segment course alignment.

The new text in the AIM is in paragraph 5 of AIM 1-2-3:

5. Use of a suitable RNAV system as a means to navigate on the final approach segment of an instrument approach procedure based on a VOR, TACAN or NDB signal, is allowable. The underlying NAVAID must be operational and the NAVAID monitored for final segment course alignment.

This change is the result of a discussion at the Aeronautical Charting Forum in 2014.

Handy WAAS and RNAV (GPS) Approach Fact Sheets

You can find a couple of handy FAA fact sheets on WAAS and RNP Approaches (which most of us know as RNAV (GPS) approaches at the FAA website, here.

The WAAS fact sheet outlines the advantages of a WAAS-capable navigator.

Required Navigation Performance (RNP) Approaches (APCH) succinctly explains the different lines of minimums and provides helpful references to ACs, the AIM, etc.

New FAA Policy on IFR Alternates with GPS

The FAA has updated its policies for filing alternate airports for pilots who use an IFR-approved GPS.

According to the new policy, which will added to future versions of the AIM, advisory circulars, and other documents, pilots with non-WAAS GPS navigators can now file an alternate airport that is served only by GPS-based instrument approaches, provided the original destination airport has ground-based procedures, or vice-versa.

Pilots flying WAAS-equipped aircraft with baro-VNAV capability (typically only business jets and airliners) can now use the LNAV/VNAV decision altitude for applicable alternate airport weather minimums.

Pilots without baro-aided LNAV/VNAV capability must still meet the requirements of 14 CFR § 91.169, which specifies alternate airport weather minima for non-precision approach procedures. In other words, at the estimated time of arrival at the alternate airport, the forecast weather at the alternate must call for a ceiling of at least 800 feet and visibility of at least 2 statute miles.

The new NOTAM, issued April 4, explains that:

The FAA [has] also studied the availability of GPS and Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS) for GPS­ and WAAS-based instrument approaches at destination and alternate airports. As a result, the FAA has updated the policy and provided clarification to enable additional flexibility for users while maintaining safety in the National Airspace System (NAS).

Non-WAAS Users

For pilots who fly with IFR-approved GPS navigators without WAAS capabilities, the NOTAM explains that:

The current alternate airport planning policy allows users equipped with non-WAAS navigators…to plan for GPS-based instrument approach procedures (IAP) at their destination but not at their alternate airport.

The FAA has updated this policy to allow an option to flight plan for use of a GPS-based IAP at either the destination or the alternate airport, but not at both locations. At the alternate airport, pilots may plan for applicable alternate airport weather minimums using:

1. Lateral navigation (LNAV) or circling minimum descent altitude (MDA);

2. LNAV/vertical navigation (LNAV/VNAV) decision altitude (DA) if equipped with and using approved barometric vertical navigation (baro-VNAV);

3. RNP 0.3 DA on an RNAV (RNP) IAP if specifically authorized with approved baro-VNAV equipment.

…The FAA based this policy clarification on the facts that GPS-based lateral guidance is the same for LNAV, LNAV/VNAV and RNP 0.3 DA and approved barometric vertical navigation equipment does not rely on GPS information. Therefore, a loss of GPS vertical would not affect these WAAS users navigating vertically with baro-VNAV.

WAAS Users

The change in policy for WAAS users does not affect most pilots who fly light GA aircraft with IFR-approved WAAS navigators. According to the NOTAM:

The current alternate airport planning policy explicitly prohibits TSO-C145() and TSO-C146() equipped users (WAAS users) from planning to use WAAS vertical guidance at their alternate airport.

There are some WAAS integrations that use baro-VNAV for vertical guidance. WAAS users should consult their flight manuals for this information. This policy clarification allows properly trained and approved, as required, WAAS users equipped with and using approved baro-VNAV equipment to plan for applicable alternate airport weather minimums using:

1. LNAV/VNAV DA at an alternate airport.

2. RNP 0.3 DA on an RNAV (RNP) IAP at the alternate airport if specifically authorized.

The FAA based this policy clarification on the facts that GPS-based lateral guidance is the same for LNAV, LNAV/VNAV and RNP 0.3 DA and approved barometric vertical navigation equipment does not rely on GPS information. Therefore, a loss of GPS vertical would not affect these WAAS users navigating vertically with baro-VNAV.