WAAS equipment code coming?

RotorDude

RotorDude

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Aug 31, 2014
Messages
2,321
Display Name
Display name:
GliderDude
My understanding is that the FAA is switching to ICAO flight plans (including domestic routes) later this year. Along with that form comes the more detailed equipment code declaration, which includes SBAS (WAAS), among others. Up to now I felt it was odd that Canadian ATC had "LPV capable" indication while our FAA ATC didn't, so presumably this difference will disappear. I have not read about this implication of the change anywhere, am I presuming correctly?
 
Last edited:
peerlesscowboy said:
I'd wonder also if at some point there'll be an equipment code to indicate ADS-B out capability?
Click to expand...

Maybe, though I can't imagine where that ADS-B out capability would be pertinent to ATC, unless it would allow for ADS-B "radar" coverage in areas where traditional radar coverage may not exist.
 
Turningfinal said:
Maybe, though I can't imagine where that ADS-B out capability would be pertinent to ATC, unless it would allow for ADS-B "radar" coverage in areas where traditional radar coverage may not exist.
Click to expand...
Well if it's not pertinent to ATC then who would it be pertinant to? ....yes I'm think of the vast areas of the west where traditional radar coverage is poor to nonexistent at the lower IFR altitudes.
 
ICAO FPLs are confusing as **** to me. A shining example of complexity for complexity's sake. I tried learning them after getting my IR and just gave up - mostly because they suck and I had a choice to use the domestic form.

Guess I'll have to wade into all that BS again with feeling this time. :D
 
petrolero said:
ICAO FPLs are confusing as **** to me. A shining example of complexity for complexity's sake. I tried learning them after getting my IR and just gave up - mostly because they suck and I had a choice to use the domestic form.

Guess I'll have to wade into all that BS again with feeling this time. :D
Click to expand...

They are definitely anti-KISS (more like kitchen sink). ;)
 
Have you folks read AIM 5-1-9? It's all in there, including ADS-B.

Bob Gardner
 
petrolero said:
Yes. It's all in there and it's still more complex than it should be.
Click to expand...

You want complex? Go to the ICAO site and read the original document. The AIM does a commendable job, considering what they have to work with.

Having said that, I fully expect the Belvoir pubs and the monthly glossies to have explanatory articles long before October.

There are pilots on this and other GA forums who use the ICAO format every day and live through the experience.

Bob Gardner
 
bobmrg said:
You want complex? Go to the ICAO site and read the original document. The AIM does a commendable job, considering what they have to work with.

Having said that, I fully expect the Belvoir pubs and the monthly glossies to have explanatory articles long before October.

There are pilots on this and other GA forums who use the ICAO format every day and live through the experience.

Bob Gardner
Click to expand...

Yes, I think it's been mandatory for international flights (e.g. Canada) for a few years now. The FAA used to (and I presume still do -- haven't checked in a while) translate the old FAA format into the ICAO, but when you go online, e.g. LockMart, you must use ICAO if you go international.
 
petrolero said:
ICAO FPLs are confusing as **** to me. A shining example of complexity for complexity's sake. I tried learning them after getting my IR and just gave up - mostly because they suck and I had a choice to use the domestic form.

Guess I'll have to wade into all that BS again with feeling this time. :D
Click to expand...

I find myself wondering if this change will cause even fewer pilots to file VFR flight plans than are doing so now.
 
Palmpilot said:
I find myself wondering if this change will cause even fewer pilots to file VFR flight plans than are doing so now.
Click to expand...

I think many if not all of the online services (including LockMart) will let you keep your aircraft parameters and possibly your favorite routes in their database, so filing should be fairly easy. I've been doing this for international flights for a couple of years now, both IFR and VFR, and usually it's just a couple of clicks to change the date and time.
 
Foreflight and fltplan.com save your profile, so you just have to figure everything out once and you're good.

However, it could make air-filing more complex I would think.
 
RotorDude said:
I think many if not all of the online services (including LockMart) will let you keep your aircraft parameters and possibly your favorite routes in their database, so filing should be fairly easy. I've been doing this for international flights for a couple of years now, both IFR and VFR, and usually it's just a couple of clicks to change the date and time.
Click to expand...

The ability to save aircraft parameters may not be all that helpful to renter pilots, who probably constitute the majority of non-commercial pilots.
 
dans2992 said:
Foreflight and fltplan.com save your profile, so you just have to figure everything out once and you're good.

However, it could make air-filing more complex I would think.
Click to expand...

Yes. Would be nice if ATC could have access to the parameters of each aircraft by tail number, but maybe that's too much to ask.
 
Palmpilot said:
The ability to save aircraft parameters may not be all that helpful to renter pilots, who probably constitute the majority of non-commercial pilots.
Click to expand...

Why? All the internet filing providers I've seen have provisions for multiple aircraft. Most renters fly maybe 2-3 different aircraft. Not hard to set up.
 
bobmrg said:
You want complex? Go to the ICAO site and read the original document. The AIM does a commendable job, considering what they have to work with.

Having said that, I fully expect the Belvoir pubs and the monthly glossies to have explanatory articles long before October.

There are pilots on this and other GA forums who use the ICAO format every day and live through the experience.

Bob Gardner
Click to expand...

And so shall I. But the ICAO FPL deserves to be flamed.

It's to be expected from one government and to be expected in spades from a committee of governments. :)
 
Related question: when filing via ForeFlight, does the system know when ICAO is required and automatically file using that format? Or do you need to specifically tell it?

The reason I ask is that within the past year I've filed IFR several times for routes going over Canada. I didn't specify a FP format, just let ForeFlight do its thing, and only learned later that the ICAO format was, indeed, mandatory for those routes. Yet the system took my flight plan and ATC delivered my clearance without any issue or warning that I should have filed ICAO.
 
azure said:
Related question: when filing via ForeFlight, does the system know when ICAO is required and automatically file using that format? Or do you need to specifically tell it?



The reason I ask is that within the past year I've filed IFR several times for routes going over Canada. I didn't specify a FP format, just let ForeFlight do its thing, and only learned later that the ICAO format was, indeed, mandatory for those routes. Yet the system took my flight plan and ATC delivered my clearance without any issue or warning that I should have filed ICAO.
Click to expand...


I don't think so.. I've just set mine to ICAO as default and moved on.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
azure said:
Related question: when filing via ForeFlight, does the system know when ICAO is required and automatically file using that format? Or do you need to specifically tell it?

The reason I ask is that within the past year I've filed IFR several times for routes going over Canada. I didn't specify a FP format, just let ForeFlight do its thing, and only learned later that the ICAO format was, indeed, mandatory for those routes. Yet the system took my flight plan and ATC delivered my clearance without any issue or warning that I should have filed ICAO.
Click to expand...

Foreflight has a setting that allows you to tell it which form is default. In the individual FPL itself you can change the form also.
 
azure said:
Related question: when filing via ForeFlight, does the system know when ICAO is required and automatically file using that format? Or do you need to specifically tell it?

The reason I ask is that within the past year I've filed IFR several times for routes going over Canada. I didn't specify a FP format, just let ForeFlight do its thing, and only learned later that the ICAO format was, indeed, mandatory for those routes. Yet the system took my flight plan and ATC delivered my clearance without any issue or warning that I should have filed ICAO.
Click to expand...

As of October 15 this question will be moot.

Bob Gardner
 
petrolero said:
And so shall I. But the ICAO FPL deserves to be flamed.

It's to be expected from one government and to be expected in spades from a committee of governments. :)
Click to expand...

I've been reading comments from pilots who do not fly in the US, and the consensus seems to be "Poor babies!!! It's about time you joined the rest of the world."


Bob Gardner
 
bobmrg said:
I've been reading comments from pilots who do not fly in the US, and the consensus seems to be "Poor babies!!! It's about time you joined the rest of the world."


Bob Gardner
Click to expand...

Alas we seem to be joining the rest of the world in many areas of life lately.
 
Jeff Oslick said:
Why? All the internet filing providers I've seen have provisions for multiple aircraft. Most renters fly maybe 2-3 different aircraft. Not hard to set up.
Click to expand...

I suppose you're right. The club I'm in has 33 planes that I'm checked out in, but not everyone is in that position.
 
petrolero said:
Alas we seem to be joining the rest of the world in many areas of life lately.
Click to expand...
This really isn't a big deal. It's not like you are buying your fuel in litres and doing your weights in KG and then referencing performance charts that are in LB/gal. Besides, who fills out a flight plan form anymore anyway ? You enter your pertinent info into your favorite app or web page and it does the form for you.
 
JHW said:
This really isn't a big deal. It's not like you are buying your fuel in litres and doing your weights in KG and then referencing performance charts that are in LB/gal. Besides, who fills out a flight plan form anymore anyway ? You enter your pertinent info into your favorite app or web page and it does the form for you.
Click to expand...

Didn't say it was a big deal, I said it was idiotically and unnecessarily complex.

The form was never the problem. Figuring out WTF to put in it was.

Don't worry, I'll cope. I'll get with someone who understands all that jibberish and figure it out. But to suggest that just flipping through the AIM is enough assumes that I understand all that PBN and RNP stuff to begin with. Most of us, remember, have been told "oh don't worry about that stuff it doesn't pertain to you." Well yeah. It does now.

Once I figure out what I need to put in the ICAO form I will put it into FF once and forget about it.
 
The equipment codes for most GA aircraft are pretty straight forward. If you don't know what a code means, it doesn't apply to you. S is for the standard equipment (VOR, ILS, and VHF Com). G is for GPS. D is for DME. F is for ADF. B is for LPV. So if you are currently filing /G, you will not be denied any service by filing with field 10 equipment codes of SG. Chose a surveillance code for your transponder, usually a C or S will do. If you have ADS-B Out,you can add a code for it B1 or B2 for 1090ES and/or U1 or U2 for UAT. Select 1 if the ADS-B is Out only, and 2 if it is both out and in. If you fly RNAV SIDs or STARs, then you can use R in the equipment field and PBN/D2 in field 18.

Like I said, if you file SG, you will not be denied any route unless it includes an RNAV SID or STAR.
 
What do you need to fly an RNAV SID/STAR?
 
John Collins said:
The equipment codes for most GA aircraft are pretty straight forward. If you don't know what a code means, it doesn't apply to you. S is for the standard equipment (VOR, ILS, and VHF Com). G is for GPS. D is for DME. F is for ADF. B is for LPV. So if you are currently filing /G, you will not be denied any service by filing with field 10 equipment codes of SG. Chose a surveillance code for your transponder, usually a C or S will do. If you have ADS-B Out,you can add a code for it B1 or B2 for 1090ES and/or U1 or U2 for UAT. Select 1 if the ADS-B is Out only, and 2 if it is both out and in. If you fly RNAV SIDs or STARs, then you can use R in the equipment field and PBN/D2 in field 18.

Like I said, if you file SG, you will not be denied any route unless it includes an RNAV SID or STAR.
Click to expand...
Thanks John, that was very helpful. I think I'm fully set up for ICAO in FF now.
 
bobmrg said:
I've been reading comments from pilots who do not fly in the US, and the consensus seems to be "Poor babies!!! It's about time you joined the rest of the world."


Bob Gardner
Click to expand...

petrolero said:
Alas we seem to be joining the rest of the world in many areas of life lately.
Click to expand...

New world order?

In aviation, we're well on our way, and will be even more so as GA decreases here. Be thankful that we don't have some of the intl medical standards.
 
wsuffa said:
New world order?

In aviation, we're well on our way, and will be even more so as GA decreases here. Be thankful that we don't have some of the intl medical standards.
Click to expand...
amen. When I stumbled across this nearly-free king air i actually hesitated because of thinking about the paperwork, we're in australia but it's still wearing ZS letters. I had to dust off my south african license and get a new medical. Man what a hassle. Of course if it were converted to VH letters then it would need a whole 'nother round of nanny-state maintenance-induced failures.

When I get back to America I'm going to kiss the ground (unless we enter through LA in which case I'll wait one more flight).
 
Jeff Oslick said:
Why? All the internet filing providers I've seen have provisions for multiple aircraft. Most renters fly maybe 2-3 different aircraft. Not hard to set up.
Click to expand...

True. I think Fltplan.com saves 8-10 different airplane profiles for you. I found it very useful when I was renting a variety of club planes.
 
dans2992 said:
What do you need to fly an RNAV SID/STAR?
Click to expand...

These are RNAV 1 procedures and require a GPS that meets AC 90-100A criteria. Most of the older legacy IFR GPS systems don't comply (eg KLN94, KLN90B, GPS155XL, GNC300XL). Starting from the Garmin GNS series, both WAAS and non WAAS, these GPS systems comply.

An ICAO flightplan is required in order to have an RNAV SID or STAR assigned. The original equipment code was unique to the US and involved specifying a Z in field 10. The Z is used to indicate that there is a further equipment specification in field 18. Field 18 needed a NAV/RNVD1A1 specification to indicate you have the equipment necessary to file a D1 (Departure 1 NM) and/or A1 (Arrival 1 NM) RNAV route. This form is still accepted but is obsolete. The international method is to specify the appropriate PBN capability.

To do this with PBN equipment codes, you specify R in field 10 and in field 18 you specify PBN/D2. Most GA aircraft are capable of specifying other PBN codes, but they won't affect what you will be assigned or not assigned in the US.

There are certain consistency checks made when you file with ICAO format, so for example if you specify a PBN code that requires a GPS, you had better specified G as well. Same for a PBN code that requires another navigation system. If you specify R for PBN, you must specify at least one PBN code. If you specify a Z, you must also specify a field 18 code for one of these: NAV/, or COM/, or DAT/.

The following characters may not be included in sub fields, particularly in field 18, the characters for slash "/" dash "-" left parenthesis "(" right parenthesis ")". These characters are used for delimiters of fields or sub fields and if you include them, your flightplan will get rejected. Where most pilots run into this is in the remarks field, particularly with the slash "/" and dash "-".
 
Thanks for the details! So, looks like my GNS480 will work for RNAV SIDS/STARS then...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top