SID Question

[Murdoughnut]

If I want to file and fly a SID, but don't plan on, or can't reach the MEA on an outbound route, can I still fly it? Here's the SID in question...

http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0909/00027JUNPR.PDF

I want to take it down to AMG, but don't really want to climb to 10k. Can I file it with a en route altitude of 6,000 and fly that leg at 6,000? Or would ATC expect me to fly it at 10k?

Thanks!

 

[deadstick]

If I want to file and fly a SID, but don't plan on, or can't reach the MEA on an outbound route, can I still fly it? Here's the SID in question...

http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0909/00027JUNPR.PDF

I want to take it down to AMG, but don't really want to climb to 10k. Can I file it with a en route altitude of 6,000 and fly that leg at 6,000? Or would ATC expect me to fly it at 10k?

Thanks!

This is a guess. The 10,000 ft is an MEA, and the 2,300 is a MOCA. The big difference is the guarantee of a nav (VOR) signal beyond 22nm. If you are file and using GPS, I imagine you won't have a problem.

Otherwise, just file the waypoints as your route and the altitude you want.

 

[CFIT99]

a SID is relying on the fact that all the controller says is JUNPR 2 DEPARTURE

if you say NO SIDS in the remarks section of the Flight Plan, that implies that you don't have the SID's with you or you want him to verbally communicate the departure, but either way the controller won't say the JUNPR 2 DEPARTURE but he may give you directions to fly it.


either way GPS will take care of the reception problem as aformentioned above

 

[tgrayson]

Can I file it with a en route altitude of 6,000 and fly that leg at 6,000?

I've done this many times.

 

[CFIT99]

:yup::clap:

 

[TFaudree_ERAU]

Are you RNAV1 capable? If you're using the GNC 300XL in your club's 172, the answer is no.

 

[Murdoughnut]

Are you RNAV1 capable? If you're using the GNC 300XL in your club's 172, the answer is no.

I wasn't even aware of that distinction - wow, thanks for pointing it out to me!

 

[TFaudree_ERAU]

I wasn't even aware of that distinction - wow, thanks for pointing it out to me!

Yeah, AC 90-100 is an unknown regulation to a lot of people. I spent nearly an hour explaining to my former CP why we couldn't fly the JAKIE arrival into TEB with a KLN90B.

His response was basically "screw you, we're going to file it anyway because it is easier than whipping out the enroutes and flying /A"

 

[meritflyer]

Yeah, AC 90-100 is an unknown regulation to a lot of people. I spent nearly an hour explaining to my former CP why we couldn't fly the JAKIE arrival into TEB with a KLN90B.

Not questioning what you're suggesting, but which provision in AC 90-100 spells out the use of RNAV 1?

 

[TFaudree_ERAU]

Not questioning what you're suggesting, but which provision in AC 90-100 spells out the use of RNAV 1?

It is dependent on the capability of the GPS unit being able to monitor and display its navigational accuracy

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...fs/afs400/afs470/media/AC90-100compliance.xls

 

[Mike H]

Yeah, AC 90-100 is an unknown regulation to a lot of people. I spent nearly an hour explaining to my former CP why we couldn't fly the JAKIE arrival into TEB with a KLN90B.

His response was basically "screw you, we're going to file it anyway because it is easier than whipping out the enroutes and flying /A"

And the CP was right. The KLN90B is IFR approved as long as the database is current.

 

[JLF]

According to the FAA the KLN90B is not approved to fly RNAV SIDs/STARs/ODPs.

 

[JLF]

Why? I didn't get that far as there are a lot of ACs and TSOs on the subject. I can only speculate that the KLN98,90,94 etc were TSO'd under a less stringent standard.

It does say in the unit's manuals that that they are approved for IFR En route, Terminal, and Non-precision Approach operations. This alone doesn't imply RNAV 1 capability (obviously).

I'd like to know specifically why the KLN products aren't approved vs. even the older Garmin boxs that are approved in the table.

 

[TFaudree_ERAU]

And the CP was right. The KLN90B is IFR approved as long as the database is current.

Did you read the AC90-100 compliance table?

 

[TFaudree_ERAU]

Why?

AC90-100A, Appendix 3, Para. 10 a, b and c

a. The aircraft must have the capability to automatically execute leg transitions and maintain tracks consistent with the following ARINC 424 path terminators, or their equivalent:
• Initial Fix (IF)
• Course to Fix (CF)
• Direct to Fix (DF)
• Track to Fix (TF)

b. The aircraft must have the capability to automatically execute leg transitions consistent with VA, VM and VI ARINC 424 path terminators, or must be able to be manually flown on a heading to intercept a course or to go direct to another fix after reaching a procedure-specified altitude.

c. The aircraft must have the capability to automatically execute leg transitions consistent with CA and FM ARINC 424 path terminators or the RNAV system must permit the pilot to readily designate a waypoint and select a desired course to or from a designated waypoint.


From the KLN90B Pilot's guide:

Even though the database contains
SID and STAR procedures, there is a lot of information
that is not included in the database. Therefore, the paper
chart is still the primary source of information. For example,
many procedures require the aircraft to fly to a certain
altitude, along a heading until intercepting a course, and
many other procedures that the KLN 90B can not automatically
accomplish. Many procedures require pilot
action to ensure that the proper path is flown over the
ground.

 

[JLF]

There it is, thanks for that.