All very well, but where does it say an IMCR holder cannot fly an RNAV (GPS) approach?
An IMCr instructor is better qualified than me to give an opinion. The form below requires position fixing to be based on a VOR or an ADF, however the notes don't explicitly include or exclude GPS so it could just be down to the preference of the examiner or the training in the schools syllabus, if indeed there is an official IMCr air exercises syllabus, and it can be modified. I guess the average school isn't kitted out with Garmin's or other certified GPS' so the only methods available are the traditional methods. I know where I fly, (because I have asked), doing an IMCr revalidation is not possible either on GPS or without the use of ADF's.
Bear in mind that the (UK) IR skills test (or indeed the TK) does not involve GPS nav or approaches either...
Bear in mind that the (UK) IR skills test (or indeed the TK) does not involve GPS nav or approaches either...
That is not necessarily true.
The nonprecision approach part of the IRT can be a GPS/RNAV approach. In fact I think one could nowadays even use LPV as the precision approach, but the UK has only 1 of those...
You can also use a GPS for enroute navigation and I did in mine. Indeed, if (as they like you to do) you file a route which is partly in "London Control territory" i.e. Class A, you are quite likely to get an RNAV waypoint which cannot be practically flown to in any other way.
The gotcha is that the GPS has to be installed 
not placarded INOP and has to have a current database.
As regards FTO training with GPS, they don't have to train it but then they have to sidestep the issue by not having a current database, so the IR examiner has no option but to ignore it.
It's the same in even the basic PPL. The whole PPL, except some specific exercises, can be trained and examined with GPS being used.
where does it say an IMCR holder cannot fly an RNAV (GPS) approach?
He can fly any approach whatsoever, down to the minima on the plate, subject to 1800m min vis.
In fact I think one could nowadays even use LPV as the precision approach, but the UK has only 1 of those...
I remember a discussion with my IR examiner (ca. 60 years old). I mentioned that in the USA there are precision approaches down to 200ft AGL just using GPS with WAAS. He said that is outright impossible, I got that totally wrong, something like that will never be approved, etc. and I shouldn't be lecturing him on instrument approaches etc.
OK my point was/is that neither IR and IMCR training necesarily covers GPS approaches and yet, as far as I am aware both sets of pilots are perfectly able to use these approaches.....
This may not be sensible though as full knowledge of the particular GPS unit (and the vagaries of GPS/SBAS) is critical....as you may expect Australia requires individual training (and currency) for all types of approaches (including GPS)...which is the other extreme!
True; however isn't that the case with so much in GA?
You can buy a brand new G1000 plane and fly away in it on just a PPL. Well, you can in Europe, anyway.
The logical solution is a type rating for each type.
I've just read a very brief report, apparently emanating from someone known to be close to EASA, that the CBM IR is still on schedule for April 2014.
But NO other details, so no info on how much IFR time / instrument time / etc will be required.
I've just read a very brief report, apparently emanating from someone known to be close to EASA, that the CBM IR is still on schedule for April 2014.
Do you think that means with FTO supporting it and a syllabus / training packages available, or just a decision made?
As always with these things, lots of delays...
Just one month ago, the head of AOPA Germany, who is part of the process, reported late summer 2013...
Just not going to happen... So, for many of us, there's definitely going to be some sort of regulatory "gap"....
Is that Michael Erb?
He is closely involved, I believe.
Do you think that means with FTO supporting it and a syllabus / training packages available, or just a decision made?
I would think just the latter.
FTO support, and online QB creation, is going to be way down the line.
A pretty crap situation really, which is why I have been telling everybody with an FAA IR to do the conversion route now. Given the checkrides will be unchanged, everybody will need ~15hrs to learn/relearn NDB approaches etc, especially if forced to rent an unfamiliar FTO plane, so the only difference is going to be in the written exams, and the existing ones are doable in some weeks of evenings, using the already available online QB. Virtually all of the theory (close to 99%) is garbage, to a pilot who already flies IFR.
The other aspects of the restrictive-practice-loaded JAA/EASA process, e.g. most FTOs not willing to fly in a customer's plane, are not going to change.
