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.
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?
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:
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?
EASA requires a second source of navigation for compliance under part.nco
How is this achieved with no terrestrial aids.
The USA has a plan on retaining a Minimum Operational Network (MON) of VORs and localizers, so that you’ll always have one within 100nm in case GNSS goes down. Europe has no such plan and I think that’s a mistake.
Info on MON (it’s also in the AIM): https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ato/service_units/techops/navservices/transition_programs/vormon/
What could possibly go wrong….
Enroute NDBs are rare beasts. There’s only a few left in the UK and they are all going, along with many VORs
They have not been required for the test for many years, but you had to “arrange” a test route (and IAPs) which didn’t contain any. This was often a challenge. If there was an NDB in the IAP then you could not refuse to fly it.
In my IRT, I got (at the traditional 6am “this is what we will do” phone briefing from the examiner) EGHI and when I got notams the NDB was INOP
Emir wrote:
Are NDBs stil part of the IR in EASAland?
Yes.