[index] [month] [prev] [next] [thread-next]

Peter
I flew in France some years ago, but I cannot remember that France aviation
authorities did publish RNAV enroute or terminal operations. (Q1) RNAV is a
IFR navigation system and can, as with any navigation system, be used for
VFR enroute operations.

I used to fly a C210 with a KNS80 RNAV installed. I had to enter RNAV
waypoints with VOR-Radial and DME distance to the coupled DME. During
flight, the VOR had to be selected and identified as normal. So, RNAV
waypoints are strictly related to a given VOR / DME pair. Dual VOR was not
foreseen, and the system could not handle stand-alone DMEs in conjunction
with waypoints. (Q2)

Of course, GPS will substitute RNAV equipment in general aviation, at least
in the low cost segment of it. Now I fly a plane with a Garmin GNC 300 GPS
coupled to a CDI in addition to the NAV-COM with GS. Using the GPS (RNAV)
waypoints from the database is much simpler. I would never invest into
VOR-based RNAV equipment anymore. However, we will need VOR (or RNAV)
equipment for a while. (Precision approaches and alternate requirements)
(Q3)
FAA calls now RNAV GPS Approaches simply RNAV Approaches, so GPS is a subset
of RNAV (or maybe a superset)

Jakob



"Peter" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:0vkbdtcj0aq8o1ef3o66tln8brje5ghml3@4ax.com...
> Hi All,
>
> My understanding is that "RNAV" refers to a product which can create a
> virtual VOR which you can fly to in the same way you can fly towards a
> real VOR.
>
> It does this using a VOR plus its associated DME, and I understand how
> it works in that case.
>
> Q1: does it work in e.g. France where few if any VORs have a DME in
> the same place?
>
> Q2: has it ever been done with two VORs (i.e. no DME)? I realise that
> VOR+DME is better than VOR+VOR because statistically you are more
> likely to be within range of a single VOR (plus its DME) than you are
> likely to be in range of two VORs. But doing it with two VORs would
> enable the equipment to be sold as non-certified (in a hand-held
> version) because it is a passive receiver only.
>
> Q3: isn't RNAV totally obsolete now for any new users, because of GPS?
>
>
> Peter.
> --
> Return address is invalid to help stop junk mail.
> E-mail replies to zX80@digiYserve.com but remove the X and the Y.
> Please do NOT copy usenet posts to email - it is NOT necessary.

View index by [date] [author] [subject]
Previous message: Re: ASE VOR Approach Questions, JerryK
Next message: Re: JeppView, L. R. Du Broff
Next message in thread: Re: Question on RNAV, terpster