Departure/Enroute RAIM

On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 11:42:49 -0700, wrote:

That is correct, but few folks have WAAS 146 boxes and no biz jet or air
carrier has WAAS.

I'm not sure of the relevance of this comment to my statement.

1. The fact that most folk may not have WAAS 146 box still means that the
RAIM stuff is not applicable to the 146a boxes.

2. Not only do the biz jet or air carriers not have WAAS, but it is my
understanding that very few have GPS. Hence they would not be doing RAIM
to assure their RNP accuracy in any event.

3. The lack of intercontinental coverage is not really an issue for most
as the procedures are being enacted in US airspace, aren't they?




Ron Rosenfeld wrote:

On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 05:56:12 -0700, wrote:

The practical aspect for light aircraft equipped with either TSO 129 or
146 boxes is that a terminal RAIM check must not be accomplished before
using an RNAV ODP.

According to the AOPA article, RAIM check's need NOT be done for a TSO 146
box unless there is a WAAS outage.

"Of course, if you have the latest IFR GPS navigation system, a Wide Area
Augmentation System (WAAS) receiver, no RAIM checks are needed. Just make
sure no WAAS notams are published, and you're good to go."

Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:

On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 11:42:49 -0700, wrote:

That is correct, but few folks have WAAS 146 boxes and no biz jet or air
carrier has WAAS.

I'm not sure of the relevance of this comment to my statement.

The relevance is that most users with GPS, light aircraft, biz jet, or air
carrier cannot exercise the WAAS option.



1. The fact that most folk may not have WAAS 146 box still means that the
RAIM stuff is not applicable to the 146a boxes.

2. Not only do the biz jet or air carriers not have WAAS, but it is my
understanding that very few have GPS. Hence they would not be doing RAIM
to assure their RNP accuracy in any event.

The vast majority of the business jet fleet has GPS as a sensor in it FMS sensor
array. The percentage is smaller in the air carrier fleet.



3. The lack of intercontinental coverage is not really an issue for most
as the procedures are being enacted in US airspace, aren't they?

My point was that even the latest and greatest jets do not have WAAS because it
does not travel well. There is no point in equipping that type of aircraft for
something that is only useful in this country. Baro VNAV, GPS, and IRUs work all
over the world.

On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 13:09:11 -0700, wrote:

The relevance is that most users with GPS, light aircraft, biz jet, or air
carrier cannot exercise the WAAS option.

OK, but my comment was solely related to the WAAS boxes.
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:

On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 13:09:11 -0700, wrote:

The relevance is that most users with GPS, light aircraft, biz jet, or air
carrier cannot exercise the WAAS option.

OK, but my comment was solely related to the WAAS boxes.
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

And, ok, you responded to my comment about the situation that changed a whole
lot yesterday and affects the majority of the GPS-using community; i.e.,
TSO-C129 panel mounts and the high-end FMS/LNAV suites. I don't believe you
started a new thread. ;-)

On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 14:53:18 -0700, wrote:



Ron Rosenfeld wrote:

On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 13:09:11 -0700, wrote:

The relevance is that most users with GPS, light aircraft, biz jet, or air
carrier cannot exercise the WAAS option.

OK, but my comment was solely related to the WAAS boxes.
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

And, ok, you responded to my comment about the situation that changed a whole
lot yesterday and affects the majority of the GPS-using community; i.e.,
TSO-C129 panel mounts and the high-end FMS/LNAV suites. I don't believe you
started a new thread. ;-)


You are correct that I did not start a new thread. I did not feel it was
warranted when I was correcting your statement about RAIM being required
for TSO 146a boxes.

At least that's what I thought I was doing. However, what you actually
wrote was:

"The practical aspect for light aircraft equipped with either TSO 129 or
146 boxes is that a terminal RAIM check must not be accomplished before
using an RNAV ODP".

I thought you had made a typo -- "RAIM check must not be accomplished..."
should have read "RAIM check must NOW be accomplished..." and that was what
I was responding to.

If it was a typo, then your statement about the 146 boxes was incorrect; if
it was not a typo, then your statement about the 129 boxes was incorrect.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

It was a both a typo and a misunderstanding about 146 boxes when I made the
original post. One of my sources pointed out after my initial posting that 146
boxes were good to go absent WAAS NOTAMs.

My purpose of having made the posting was to point out to users of this Usenet
group the onnerous requirements just imposed on most IFR GPS users.

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:

On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 14:53:18 -0700, wrote:



Ron Rosenfeld wrote:

On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 13:09:11 -0700, wrote:

The relevance is that most users with GPS, light aircraft, biz jet, or air
carrier cannot exercise the WAAS option.

OK, but my comment was solely related to the WAAS boxes.
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

And, ok, you responded to my comment about the situation that changed a whole
lot yesterday and affects the majority of the GPS-using community; i.e.,
TSO-C129 panel mounts and the high-end FMS/LNAV suites. I don't believe you
started a new thread. ;-)


You are correct that I did not start a new thread. I did not feel it was
warranted when I was correcting your statement about RAIM being required
for TSO 146a boxes.

At least that's what I thought I was doing. However, what you actually
wrote was:

"The practical aspect for light aircraft equipped with either TSO 129 or
146 boxes is that a terminal RAIM check must not be accomplished before
using an RNAV ODP".

I thought you had made a typo -- "RAIM check must not be accomplished..."
should have read "RAIM check must NOW be accomplished..." and that was what
I was responding to.

If it was a typo, then your statement about the 146 boxes was incorrect; if
it was not a typo, then your statement about the 129 boxes was incorrect.

Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 18:56:15 -0700, wrote:

It was a both a typo and a misunderstanding about 146 boxes when I made the
original post. One of my sources pointed out after my initial posting that 146
boxes were good to go absent WAAS NOTAMs.

My purpose of having made the posting was to point out to users of this Usenet
group the onnerous requirements just imposed on most IFR GPS users.

Now that that's cleared up, do you know which equipment suffix should be
used for those with GPS units that are capable of the RNP2 and RNP1
requirements (in order to fly the RNAV SIDS/STARS)? Should we be using /G
or /R (assuming no RVSM)?


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)