Equipment codes for PMDG planes in 2012 ICAO flight plans

[Budbud 227]

Why? Because they have designed a B744 and B737 and now the T7. They can tell what kind of ACARS (PDC, D-FIS, FMC WPR...) and what kind of CPDLC (ATN VDL, FANS 1/A...Mode2, mode4, SATCOM)?

Though they are not used and even fully programmed in sim, I like filling a flight plan as realistically as possible like if I was flying a real airliner. That's why also we love PMDG, isn't it? For the realism they put in their products.

 

To answer to your comment:

It's not like they've hidden anything in there, and part of it is up to your own discretion (specifically that of PBN capabilities).

Sure they haven't hidden anything, but I'm not able to recognise the CPDLC ATN VDL from a FANS1/A...

So as silly as it may seem, I just like to know what equipment are in an airliner even if I can't recognise them or if I don't use them in a sim...

[scandinavian13 5,192]

 

 

Sure they haven't hidden anything, but I'm not able to recognise the CPDLC ATN VDL from a FANS1/A...
So as silly as it may seem, I just like to know what equipment are in an airliner even if I can't recognise them or if I don't use them in a sim...

 

Sorry.  I didn't mean to be completely dismissive of your question.  To me it seemed very straightforward, but that's because I have to deal with the mess the ICAO 2012 format throws at us.

 

It all varies by operator, just like the Collins versus Honeywell.  Since none of the PMDG models have CPDLC installed, then one couldn't really pin down a particular version they modeled.  As for what's in the real 737/747/777, it depends on what airline you ask.

 

This is why we have equipment codes, otherwise we'd be able to just infer based on the aircraft type.

[Budbud 227]

No worries.

It's just a bit frustrating not to be able to know which aircraft is equipped with what. But as you explain it's a matter of choice from companies, I'm not surprised anymore not to be able to find whether the B744 is equipped with a CPDLC FANS1/A  or a ATN VDL or else...even on Boeing's website.

Regarding ACARS, it should be the same but can a B744 have the codes E1E2E3 (FMC WPR, D-FIS and PDC at the same time?

Well, I guess it is more of a rethorical question as to really understand the answer I would need to know what is each of them...   :rolleyes:  

 

At the end, it doesn't change anything while flying in the network (as long as you don't try flying a RNP1 approach with a C172...  )

The thing is that on tours on IVAO we are strongly encouraged to fill realistic equipment for such a type of aircraft. If you don't, some of your legs may be rejected. Would be strange to fill a code for a CPDLC on small prop aircraft, wouldn't it?

 

Thanks for your answers.

[Ramón Cutanda 4]

This post is what I call a lesson!!! I really did not expect so many, varied and helpful answers. THANKS SO MUCH!!!

[Fabo 213]

Kyle, as it has been told, we on IVAO implemented the new format more or less at the same time it went online RW.

 

Regarding equipment: As was said, PMDG themselves do not supply any ACARS/AOC/CPDLC functionality.

Either way, in CPDLC field, you select which mode of communication aircraft uses, satellite, radio, which satellite etc. No difference in FS once you have CPDLC by some means (say VATSIM CPDLC gauge client, once the system goes live and someone makes a gauge).

 

GBAS, is not really available in FS. It works basically so:
-You have a very very precisely positioned ground GNSS (GPS, Glonass...) station.

-It will look at the current difference to GNSS provided position, computes correction, and transmits something along the lines of "If you are around where I am, current GPS error is 1.2 meters on 319deg true".

-Aircraft then corrects the GPS position by that. (GPS position is always precise in FS, although PMDG might be putting in a small artifical error)

 

LPV(APV with SBAS) - means that the aircraft is able to achieve Localizer Performance with Vertical Guidance, basically that it can, using SBAS - satellite based augmentation system standart - down to CAT I precision. There are more ways how to achieve this, one seems to be complementing GPS with other sattelites.

 

ADS-B and ADS-C means how much (and how) can airplane transponders communicate. The most visible thing to the general public is existence of sites like flightradar24, which works on collecting ADS-B(roadcast) signal from airplanes, which also contains the airplanes apparent position.

 

PBN/ in field 18 then has information which precision can airplane maintain, and which means. This can be used to filter flightplans to see whether airplane is legal to fly for ex. its planned airways.

 

 

All in all, I can recommend the site eurofpl.eu, it contains (among other things) a handy flightplan builder.

[Budbud 227]

Hi,

 

Thanks for these precisions, Peter. Regarding GBAS, we have the same system on merchant vessels (I'm a seaman) but called DGPS (Differential-GPS), a GPS with differential corrections which can be provided through satellites (SBAS) or land stations (GBAS).

So yes it was quite easy to guess what it is for an aircraft. However, is that aircraft equipped or not with it is another question.

Regarding LPV, I understand that it is a kind of ILS by GPS instead of radio? Does it require specific equipment on an airport or does it replace the "traditional" ILS cat 1?

[scandinavian13 5,192]

 

 

Regarding LPV, I understand that it is a kind of ILS by GPS instead of radio?

 

You could consider it that in a procedures sense (follow the ILS-like indications), yes.

 

 

 

Does it require specific equipment on an airport or does it replace the "traditional" ILS cat 1?

 

If it's anything like our WAAS, it requires additional equipment on (or near) the field, yes.

GBAS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBAS#Ground-based_augmentation_system

WAAS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WAAS

 

It cannot currently replace a CAT I ILS because that type of approach has an error tolerance of 14'.  Augmented GPS has only been able to provide somewhere around 50'.  This is one of the reasons why RNP was developed.

[Steven_Caffey 23]

Does the NGX (and the real NG for that matter) have LPV capability? I thought that required WAAS, which I didn't think was available on the 737. I know GLS/LAAS is an option on the real one which as far as I know isn't modeled in the sim.

[davidz 26]

No worries.

It's just a bit frustrating not to be able to know which aircraft is equipped with what. But as you explain it's a matter of choice from companies, I'm not surprised anymore not to be able to find whether the B744 is equipped with a CPDLC FANS1/A or a ATN VDL or else...even on Boeing's website.

Regarding ACARS, it should be the same but can a B744 have the codes E1E2E3 (FMC WPR, D-FIS and PDC at the same time?

Well, I guess it is more of a rethorical question as to really understand the answer I would need to know what is each of them... :rolleyes:

 

At the end, it doesn't change anything while flying in the network (as long as you don't try flying a RNP1 approach with a C172... )

The thing is that on tours on IVAO we are strongly encouraged to fill realistic equipment for such a type of aircraft. If you don't, some of your legs may be rejected. Would be strange to fill a code for a CPDLC on small prop aircraft, wouldn't it?

 

Thanks for your answers.

Most B744s operating over the Pacific Ocean are equipped with FANS 1/A (CPDLC/ADS-C).

 

FMC WPR (FMC Waypoint reporting): At each waypoint, the ACARS will send a position report to the airline based on FMC data. This is forwarded to ATC. This is a substitute for VHF/HF position reporting on aircraft without CPDLC.

 

PDC (Predeparture clearance): Prior to the estimated off-blocks time, ATC will issue an airways clearance to the airline. When the pilots press the button in ACARS, the airline will forward the clearance to the pilots.

[Fabo 213]

 

 

If it's anything like our WAAS, it requires additional equipment on (or near) the field, yes.
GBAS: http://en.wikipedia....entation_system
WAAS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WAAS
 

 

At least some, if not indeed all, applications of LPV work with satellite augmentation, no specific ground equipment neccessary (WAAS or GBAS).

 

Good thing about RNP is that as long as you are precision certified, noone cares how you achieve the precision.

[Richard McDonald Woods 168]

No mention yet of who is the reader/actioner of this information. I have been told by an experienced VATSIM controller that all that is required is the V or T for voice or text communications. All else is little understood and not actionable.

 

I believe that PFPX will support the specification of equipment codes for aircraft and that they will be fed to ATC as a part of the FP. This will look very professional, but apparently will not be much used by ATC.

[scandinavian13 5,192]

I have been told by an experienced VATSIM controller that all that is required is the V or T for voice or text communications. All else is little understood and not actionable.

As one myself, I would both agree and disagree. It depends on the ATC client they use. When I'm serving as an approach controller, the client I use will add certain information to the "scratchpad" of the datablock, and it will also add additional lettering for RNAV aircraft who filed an RNAV STAR. So, there can be error here if the pilot filed a STAR for which the aircraft is not capable, but still used the right equip code. As I go to the path of least resistance, seeing the RNAV ID in the datablock, I'd treat the aircraft as RNAV-capable. Only if I picked up some hint that there was trouble would I open the flight plan to check the aircraft capability.

 

The actual aircraft capability information is displayed in the flight plan, should we pull it up. There is also a setting in vSTARS (a TRACON client) to show a digest of the plan, to include the aircraft capabilities, on initial track. It's actually remarkably simple: <VP> [Type Aircraft Callsign] <ENTER>, or <VP> <SLEW> ("slew" in ATC terms essentially means click on the aircraft target, and <VP> on a normal keyboard is the F6 key), but you're not going to do that for each and every aircraft you track.

 

It would take too much time, and you can see here, we don't have much of that sometimes (all the white datablocks are ones I tracked as finals for DCA two years ago - note the scatter at about 15", caused by two pilots not paying attention - and you'll want this in 720p for better clarity):

This will look very professional, but apparently will not be much used by ATC.

I'd disagree, but it all depends on how clever each facility's FE is. I'm a nut about how I set my facility files up (probably not surprising - plus, I have access that most others do not), and there was another controller where I "work" who was a complete realism nut, who helped immensely. As such, knowing/utilizing this information is made easy for our controllers.

 

I know a few other vARTCCs that do not have theirs set up like ours, which has forced some of their controllers to do their own tinkering.

[paulyg123 135]

This topic is now old, but I was wondering specifically if BDFGILORVW/S applies to the PMDG 777 200?

 

I did my first flight in VATSIM yesterday and under equipment I just put 777.  Clearance asked me what type of equipment I had on board.  I was caught off guard and said "a microwave oven and color TV's."

Looking at the list provided in the link above, I could never figure what sort of "stuff" is on my 777 - 1/2 of the list I wouldn't recognize if it hit me in the head.

 

Can some one clue me in on the proper equipment ID for our PMDG 777-200? 

[richjb2 195]

LPV minima is based on SBAS, which uses differential GPS to improve basic GPS position.  WAAS is the US version, but there is a European, Indian, and Japanese version as well.  Precisely surveyed ground based receivers receive the basic GPS position and transmit corrections signals back to satellites in geostationary orbits.  These satellites transmit GPS correction signals that are used by SBAS-capable GPS systems.  Orbital errors, atmospheric errors, etc. corrections are transmitted to the receiver to develop a precise position, precise enough to permit a GPS derived vertical glide path as opposed to a barometric vertical path that is used with TSO C129 approach approved GPS systems to LNAV/VNAV minima.  The accuracy of TSO C145/C146 WAAS approach GPS systems permits approaches that use the same lateral obstacle clearance area as an ILS approach.  This permits approaches to CAT I (200' & 1/2 SM) using the LPV minima.  WAAS in the US will eventually replace most CAT I ILS systems at other than the major airports.

 

GBAS is similar to WAAS with respect to the corrections it applies to the GPS position.  However, GBAS covers a specific airport (or may serve a few airports in close proximity) where as WAAS covers a larger geographic area (one ground station in the US may cover parts of several States).  WAAS correction signals are uplinked to satellites and then transmitted down to all the receivers in that area.  GBAS signals are transmitted directly to the airplane and to the receiver.  Therefore, the uplink is faster and since the corrections are localized the resulting accuracy is better. GBAS will initially support CAT I landings using the GLS line of minima.  Eventually GBAS will support CAT II and CAT III minima, where after the ILS will move to a back up role.  GBAS is being tested by United Airlines, first at EWR, but now at IAH.  There are several public GLS approaches at IAH. 

 

Both WAAS/LPV and GBAS/GLS use the same basic approach criteria as an ILS approach, the same lateral obstacle assessment areas and the same sloping vertical obstacle clearance surface (OCS). WAAS LPV provides greater accuracy and lower minima in the final approach than RNP AR unless the RNP value down to 0.1.      

 

RNP AR approaches do not use the traditional US TERPS or PANS-OPS criteria.  Lateral containment can go from 1.0 down to 0.1 (more reasonably 0.5) in the initial and intermediate segments, down to 0.1 in the final approach, and remain below 1.0 in the missed approach.  There are no secondary obstacle clearance areas with RNP AR approaches.  If the RNP is 0.5 in the segment being flown, then there could be an obstacle at two times the RNP value,  RNP 1.0 or 6076'.  If the RNP is 0.10, an obstacle could be 1200' from the course centerline, hence the limitation on airplane wingspan found on some RNP AR approaches.  Unlike RNAV approaches with LNAV/VNAV or LPV minima where the final approach course must be aligned with runway centerline - or nearly so -, RNP AR approaches can curve in the final approach segment with a final approach rollout point being as low as 300' above the threshold.  This is a key feature of RNP AR approaches at terrain challenged airports.  An Vertical Error Budget is used to calculate vertical clearance above obstacles in the final approach segment, as opposed to a sloping OCS for other approaches.  Certain features of RNP AR (RF legs in the final approach, RNP > 0.3 in the final, RNP > 1.0 in the missed) require highly accurate GPS position information and an IRU, but just not any IRU.  The IRU position and drift is continually tracked and updated using GPS information.  If GPS signal is lost in the final or missed approach, the IRU position and drift history is used to correct the FMS position, now based on IRU position only, to extract the airplane without exceeding the RNP value.  Basically, RNP AR can be made to do things that conventional approaches are not able to do.  There are some videos on Youtube that illustrate these features.

 

In the US, airlines are not keen on WAAS/LPV approaches. They receive added benefit of reduced track miles, efficient idle thrust descents using RNP AR approaches when the weather permits, but then revert to the ILS when it does not.  Adding WAAS/LPV approaches to their OpSpecs adds another approach that must be trained and checked. They view WAAS/LPV as unnecessary in their world and would prefer to rely on RNP AR, the ILS (for now) and GBAS/GLS (for the future).

 

Advanced RNP (non-AR approaches) will permit RF legs in the initial and intermediate segment of an approach and tie-into ILS/GLS approaches.

 

This thread began on the subject of ICAO FPL 2012 codes, FAA recently released a table that ties the equipment codes with type of operation/operational guidance.  Google "operational approval guidance table" and you will be able to find it (sorry, don't know how to post links ).

 

Best regards,

 

Rich Boll

Wichita KS

[paulyg123 135]

So in VATSIM, what do I list as equipment for our standard PMDG777?