Can I File for RNAV Approach with /U Equipment Code?

[01CelicaGTS]

Can I plan (and file for) an RNAV approach if I put /U as my equipment code on my IFR flight plan? I'm using a DD175, but I'm sure it's the same for FAA.

Edited November 18, 2014 by 01CelicaGTS

[SBuzzkill]

If you are RNAV capable you wont be /U, yes?

Edited November 19, 2014 by SBuzzkill

[Gomer Pylot]

If you have the required equipment and training, you can file and fly the approach. What you put for the equipment code is mostly for ATC's information. But if you have the required equipment and are capable of flying an RNAV approach, why use /U?

[01CelicaGTS]

Well I'm in the UH60 course in flight school at Fort Rucker and apparently all of the aircraft do not have IFR certified GPS and we don't know until we get to the aircraft if it does or not. And we file our flight plan before heading to the aircraft so we just file /U

[avbug]

If you file /U but find that you do have the legal capability to accept and fly a clearance for an RNAV approach, then you're legal to fly the RNAV approach. Yes, you may accept the clearance.

 

The equipment designator suffix is there to tell ATC what your capabilities are, insofar as your equipment goes. If you tell ATC in advance (via your equipment suffix) that your'e not equipped for RNAV, then ATC will plan on assigning a VOR, ILS, or other applicable approach for which you may be equipped.

 

You can always advise ATC that you would prefer a different Procedure.

 

You should be aware of your aircraft capabilities before you make the flight. A basic tenet of the the regulation (FAA Civil regulation) is that a pilot is required to become familiar with all information regarding the flight before making the flight. That will certainly include what equipment and capability your aircraft has. As an example, imagine flight planning your fuel based on long range or external tanks, and finding out that you had a lot less fuel carrying capability upon arrival than you thought. I understand what you're doing here; you're planning for the least-capable option (roughly equivalent to planning for the short range tanks, in this example). In other words, making a conservative guess.

 

We're far better off not guessing.

 

I flew for a large operator that had a combined fleet of aircraft that had all seen previous use elsewhere. Consequently, Every aircraft was configured a little differently. The manufacturer made each aircraft to customer specifications, so in one aircraft all the switches were forward for on or active, where in another aircraft the opposite was true. Panel layout in front of the pilot was fairly standard, but equipment capability was not. The head ground school instructor liked to quip "we had a standard fleet, and then we got our second aircraft." He also liked to say "Climb in, sit down, strap in, look around, see what you've got, and go fly."

 

Bottom line, regardless of what you filed, if the aircraft is equipped and legal, you may accept the clearance. You may be limited in what the controller is prepared to give you, however, based on the expectations that you created when you filed the equipment suffix. The controller may forgo assigning RNAV routing or terminal procedures, based on the understanding that you're not RNAV capable. You do have the option of informing the controller at the time you pick up your clearance, that your suffix should be changed to match your equipment.

Edited November 19, 2014 by avbug

[CharyouTree]

If you put /U on the 175, because you're not sure if you have a Y coded and DAFIF current aircraft, then why would you file for an RNAV approach (still being unsure whether or not you were "legal" to do so, on the Army side)?

 

Suggestion:

 

Plan and file for a /U equipped aircraft. If you get your issue, and after preflight (and, really...runup. there's no other way to KNOW that it has DAFIF and passes all the tests in that environment), make a request with ATC to change it.

[apacheguy]

If you put /U on the 175, because you're not sure if you have a Y coded and DAFIF current aircraft, then why would you file for an RNAV approach (still being unsure whether or not you were "legal" to do so, on the Army side)?

 

Suggestion:

 

Plan and file for a /U equipped aircraft. If you get your issue, and after preflight (and, really...runup. there's no other way to KNOW that it has DAFIF and passes all the tests in that environment), make a request with ATC to change it.

That's correct, always be flexible. ATC frequently knows far less than you do so you need to be assertive in asking for what you need.

 

I filed an IFR flight once in a EC145 (EC45 on the flight plan) and the controllers thought I was in a fixed wing...so they vectored me 20 miles out over the Pacific. They had no idea what EC45 meant so they guessed wrong instead of asking me. I had to inform them I was in a helicopter, probably should've just cancelled IFR and proceeded VFR since the WX was good.

[01CelicaGTS]

If you put /U on the 175, because you're not sure if you have a Y coded and DAFIF current aircraft, then why would you file for an RNAV approach (still being unsure whether or not you were "legal" to do so, on the Army side)?

Haha. Yeah I realize that now. I had just got done with 9 hours at the flightline and 3 hours of planning (on about 5 hours of sleep) when I posted it and my brain wasn't working at 100%.

Edited November 19, 2014 by 01CelicaGTS

[UH60L-IP]

I understand why you are asking this. We instructors are not entirely clear on the subject and we are working on it. Change is slow at Fort Rucker and this particular issue is a "Fort Rucker'ism" and even more pointedly, an "Echo Company-ism" as it affects us more so than the Mike models.

 

When we order aircraft during your instrument phase they are "supposed" to be /G aircraft. That does not always work out based upon aircraft availability, maintenance, etc. As of this moment, there is still a disparity amongst instructors as to whether filing /G is appropriate or not. That is an issue that will be resolved at the Stands level and you don't have to worry about it right now. We will, hopefully shortly, all be on the same page with this at some point.

 

For now, file /U. You are not being graded on a GPS approach so any practice flying it takes away from a precision/non-precision that you might have to do on your checkride. I therefore encourage you to not plan a GPS approach. If you get the opportunity and feel you won't have any issues passing your checkride, therefore not needing the extra practice, see if your IP will request a GPS approach and you can do one for familiarity.

 

In short, it would be wrong to file /U but have a GPS point in your route of flight block. You are in essence asking to do something that you are saying you are not capable of doing. If your aircraft was capable of doing it, you would have to follow the GP (General Planning) and file /G. The first line under that block in the GP actually says explicitly that you should file the maximum capability of your aircraft regardless of the route of flight/approach to be flown. That means, assuming your aircraft is equipped, you should file a /G even if you are not planning to fly GPS. Again, it is a "Rucker-ism" that we file /U for the simple fact that we don't know the capabilities for certain until well after the flight plan is filed.

[d10]

The controller may forgo assigning RNAV routing or terminal procedures, based on the understanding that you're not RNAV capable.

 

In my experience it's the other way around. Whenever I filed /U or /A I could always expect to be given a clearance direct to the airport at some point in the flight. I don't think ATC actually pays much attention to your equipment code.

[helistar]

approach will give you pretty much whatever you've requested since you are pic. atc's function is to simply expidite traffic flow in a safe and orderly manner insuring aircraft seperation... and just for clarifaction and future reference the faa controller is required to know the meaning of your equipment suffix and has a basic understanding of the equipment function/capability.

 

Everyone have a safe and happy thanksgiving...