RobertL18C wrote:
EASA requires a second source of navigation for compliance under part.nco
Is that not meant as a second GNSS receiver? Just like before GNSS, a second VOR receiver would do it?
I understood it needed to be terrestrial, although arguably INS might comply. In theory being under a radar service is a form of compliance.
RobertL18C wrote:
I understood it needed to be terrestrial,
Hope you don’t mean a VRP 
I am not sure if that requirement refers to aircraft equipment? or route/aerodrome equipment?
ArcticChiller wrote:
Europe has no such plan and I think that’s a mistake
There are no planes in Norway for removing all VORs and localizers for enroute navigation, not until something other non-GPS can take over. GPS is way too easy to jam, and it has happened several times already, by Russian military. There is also this WAM or MLAT or whatever it was, but not sure if that was GPS based or not.
