In article , wrote:
AOPA just issued a bulletin on the subject, which I feel really glosses
over the issues raised by all of this.

http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsite...50901rnav.html

Thanks for posting this. It's the first I've ever heard of any of this!

Reading over the AOPA writeup, I see some problems already. They say:

First off, to use any of the new RNAV procedures, you must have a TSO
C-129 or C-146 certified GPS (panel mount, IFR certified for en route
and approach operations) or certain kinds of FMS (flight management
system) equipment, and a current database.

The CNX-80/GNS-480 (perhaps unique among IFR units?) does not require that
you have a current database. It only requires that you have verified the
accuracy of the waypoint data (presumably by comparison to a current
chart). I can't imagine that this has changed any.

It also seems odd that an RNAV SID should be treated any differently from
any other departure procedure. If the plate says, "Track outbound on the
315 bearing from the XYZ NDB until reaching 1800 feet", why should the
rules change if they take that procedure and wrap it up in a named SID?
The terrain is the same either way.