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

 

You don't get that in depth on VATSIM.  They don't use ICAO2012 (which is that long string you listed).  They use FAA, so /X.

http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/fss/AppendixA.htm (search "MNPS approved" and you'll see the current FAA list around that point)

This is the line from one of our 77L's

 

-B77L/H-SDE2E3FGHIJ3J5M1RWXYZ/LB2D1

-PBN/A1B1C1D1L1O1S2T1 NAV/RNVD1E2A1 DOF/XXXXXX REG/A6ZZZ SEL/YYYY RMK/NRP HAR TCAS ADSB)

Hello

 

I am not sure if I am correct but I believe

PFPX has this information setup for you such what equipment you have on board.

 

David

PFPX does, however, remember that he's asking related to VATSIM.  For VATSIM, ICAO2012 flight plan information regarding nav performance is veritably useless.  It just gets dumped in the comments section, and the various controller programs have no processing for it.  The only thing they see is the FAA simple code, which is linked, above.

 

Worth a look to get familiar with it, but don't think that it's going to cause issues if you don't provide it (or accurately provide it).  In my case, I usually just delete most of that info out, anyway.

Oh I see, I never got Vatsim going as much as I like too. Thanks Kyle for clearing that up for me. 

 

David

Kyle;

 

It looks like the link for the FAA simple suffixes is old. They've been revised recently with the removable of RNP specific suffixes. So, for example, there is no /Q anymore.

 

Dave

 

 

It looks like the link for the FAA simple suffixes is old. They've been revised recently with the removable of RNP specific suffixes. So, for example, there is no /Q anymore.

 

Helps if you actually follow the link I provided in this thread  :wink: .  Its effective date is two months ago:

http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/fss/AppendixA.htm

 

If you search "MNPS" it brings you directly to the current FAA suffixes.  Not sure what you're referring to.

Ah, maybe I mistook another link for the one you posted. Which ever one I selected lead me to the 2005 one.

 

Dave

 

 

Ah, maybe I mistook another link for the one you posted. Which ever one I selected lead me to the 2005 one.

 

Gotcha - yep, that one's certainly old news by now.

OK I went to the link, read the posts.

So a very simple question

 

 

If I leave off the letters, ATC clearance will indeed ask me - what type of equipment I have. 

 

In Vatsim, under equipment what should I enter exactly for the PMDG777?

.

777/X is that it?  (I remember using H/763/Q for the 767-300)

 

 

777/X is that it?

 

H/77L/X

 

If you don't have it in there, the controller may ask.  Then again, I also got a PM from a guy working approach at my destination (when I was still 2000nm away, oddly enough), asking why I was using /X.  I pointed him to the same link, above.  So, they'll ask why you don't have it, but not all of them are up to speed on the new codes.

 

This was done to bring codes somewhat in line with the ICAO 2012 updated.  It was kinda pushed through quickly, and didn't receive much fanfare.

Hi Kyle,

 

This is really interesting stuff, so thanks all for the info.  I'm always a little slow on the uptake and was curious about what "MNPS approved" actually means.  Is it correct that the acronym stands for Minimum Navigation Performance Specification? I'm having a hard time understanding the definition.  I think I understand it's definition when related to NATs

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/avs/offices/afs/afs400/afs470/media/NAT.pdf

 

But MNPS is not just related to NATS, correct?  

 

Am I over thinking this?  Possibly...

Am I looking for distractions at work on a Friday afternoon when it is beautiful outside?  Yes

 

Chris Knobel

 

 

But MNPS is not just related to NATS, correct?  
 
Am I over thinking this?  Possibly...
Am I looking for distractions at work on a Friday afternoon when it is beautiful outside?  Yes

 

Understandable since it's amazing outside where we are...

 

MNPS really is only relevant for non-radar environments (specifically that of the NATS - the PACOTS don't have that much parallel, successive, and volume traffic to worry about it as much).  It's basically the RNP of the NATS, really, where aircraft are able to more precisely maintain the ability to navigate and report exact position without the aid of ground-based aids, or the watchful eye of air traffic control.

 

As for its use in domestic flight plans, there's a certain amount of assumption that goes on behind the scenes.  As an example, it's assumed that if a pilot files /G, he or she also has some lesser form of navigation in the plane, though this might not be true (particularly for smaller kit planes and the like).  Similarly, in the airline environment, filing /X would imply that the aircraft also has the relevant equipment for MNPS, which, despite only really being relevant for the NATs, also means that it has the equipment to fly most anything in the domestic environment.  As an example, since MNPS requires advanced RNAV to monitor nav performance, the aircraft would also be able to fly an RNAV approach (potentially RNAV RNP, but even if you have the equipment required, the operator/crew still need to be approved), and most likely an ILS.

 

 

 

 

For what it's worth, if anyone is curious here, equipment codes really aren't a huge deal.  They should be filed, but at the same time, it's not like every controller looks at the equipment code.  I don't recall ever seeing a scope depict it (without the controller requesting it somehow), and while it's printed on the flight strip, unless there's a reason to reference the code, it's ignored.

 

The main two reasons I can think of for referencing the code are:

1. If a controller is going to offer a shortcut: at the center level, if the aircraft doesn't use some form of RNAV, I can only give direct to a VOR or some other navaid (no fixes).  Beyond that, I would need to give direct within that navaid's service volume.  Terminal controllers deal with a similar issue (no direct to fixes if the plane isn't RNAV capable), but aircraft are usually in the service volume of any navaid you'd be giving direct to.
2. If a controller is evaluating what approach to assign: if the aircraft doesn't have RNAV equipment, then I can't assign the pilot an RNAV approach.

Aside from those two examples, it really isn't looked at, so don't waste hours trying to figure it out.  What it comes down to is this:

If a controller was looking at the code to determine if I could fly or do [X], what would I want them to know?  Generally, the only time it gets referenced is for approaches, and for the ability to take a new routing (a direct is a new routing, which is why you hear them reclear you: "Airline 123, cleared direct Sea IslE, CAMRN4 arrival," or "Airline 234, cleared direct ROsewooD, rest of route unchanged.")

 Similarly, in the airline environment, filing /X would imply that the aircraft also has the relevant equipment for MNPS, which, despite only really being relevant for the NATs, also means that it has the equipment to fly most anything in the domestic environment.  As an example, since MNPS requires advanced RNAV to monitor nav performance, the aircraft would also be able to fly an RNAV approach (potentially RNAV RNP, but even if you have the equipment required, the operator/crew still need to be approved), and most likely an ILS.

 

 

 

 

 

That is exactly what I was trying to ask but not very clearly. 

 

 Thanks for all the background and information.  It was a great read before I try to sneak out of the office and enjoy the back deck with a cold one and no humidity.  Thanks again.

 

Chris K.

 

 

 Thanks for all the background and information.  It was a great read before I try to sneak out of the office and enjoy the back deck with a cold one and no humidity.  Thanks again.

 

Welcome!  Good luck!  I'll be fighting the wind on my bike...

...then beer.